Template talk:Ethnic slurs

Chinese, Japanese, non-Japanese

I removed these qualifiers, as I was confused about what they were referring to. For example, the qualifier "Chinese" just appears once, but there are many articles about ethnic slurs for Chinese people. Also sangokujin is qualified with "non-Japanese", but this would seem to be controversial, as the term itself is used to distance "mainland" Japanese people from those of Japanese ancestry who have settled elsewhere. I wouldn't mind putting the qualifiers back in if we can find a good way to avoid this kind of thing. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed "Celestial" also, as it was brought to my attention that it is not necessarily a derogatory name. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Russians

Russians are not Asians. At least, not more than Poles. --188.93.211.210 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Get a map. --91.10.13.118 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that most of the Russian Federation is located in Asia does not make Russians any more Asian than Poles, who are related to them. Also, bohunk and khokhol are terms for Ukrainians, not Russians. It seems like an ironic joke that a template on ethnic slurs implies that Russians are Asians and Ukrainians are in fact Russians. 80.252.48.236 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One is Asian if their ancestral homeland is located in Asia. For Russians, I understand it is complex. I just went with Asia because most of Russia is located there.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Useless Template Box

I only checked the German entries, and for them this box is almost useless:

• Three entries point to the same article (List of terms used for Germans)
• One points to a different generic article (List of ethnic slurs)
• One points to an article about a historic topic (Nazi), no mention of the slur.
• One points to an article about an Irish band (Squarehead)
• A single one points to Kraut, which is the way it works for any other template box

So useless almost without exception. Worse, I don't see a way how it can be fixed: Should there be an entry for all terms, all pointing to List of terms used for Germans? All pointing to List of ethnic slurs? Both would make this template box completely redundant. Individual articles for all terms? WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I don't see a way that the situation could be different for other ethnicities.

This box should be replaced with a link to List of ethnic slurs (ie. deleted), or at least replaced with a much shorter box pointing to List of terms used for Germans-style articles. --91.10.13.118 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Is it necessary to follow Wikipedia:Templates for discussion procedure?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. Angr (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

I noticed Hispanics were listed under the "Europeans" section of this template. While I'm not educated in anthropology or any other kind of cultural studies, I'm fairly sure "Hispanic" denotes a person of Latin American origin (especially seeing as "Spaniards" is listed as a separate entity on the template). Nevertheless, the terms listed under the Hispanic column are all in reference to Latin Americans. Would it be a good idea to move this to its own section? felt_friend 06:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Jews

I have removed Jews from "White people" (assuming this means "Europeans", because otherwise Arabs would be included here as well) and placed them under "Asian" for the following reasons.

1. Jews are a Middle Eastern diaspora with ethnic/cultural roots in the Levant, not Europe. Their presence in Europe is the result of immigration and/or exile from their original country, whereas the rest of the groups on that list (save for Hispanics, who really don't belong on there either) are all indigenous European nationalities, born and forged within Europe. Obviously, there is no comparison, and all of these arguments about "how long ago" it was are ultimately irrelevant, since Jewish ethnic identity has remained intact to this day.

2. Gypsies spent many centuries in Europe as well, but they are listed under South Asian. The same should be done for Jews, no? For consistency's sake?

3. Last, but not least, not all Jews are Ashkenazi. Many Jews, including my own family, have never set foot in Europe, but all Jews (or at least the overwhelming majority of us) trace our roots to Israel.

Overall, I see no valid reason to place Jews under White People without doing the same for Gypsies and Arabs.2601:84:4502:61EA:547A:83AE:26CC:7052 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In response to the editor who reverted me, most if not all of the anti-Asian slurs on that template were invented by Westerners and Europeans, so that argument falls flat as well. Also, accusations of killing Christ are not endemic to the West, as there are millions all over the world who believe the Jews are responsible for Jesus' death.2601:84:4502:61EA:F4EB:98A1:2590:F045 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews are European (and white), not Asian and most of the slurs are European. If you want to create a separate category, fine, but saying Jews (particularly Ashkenazinm) are all Asian is simply incorrect. Mizrachi Jews are Asian/North African but Ashkenazim are not. Electoralist (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, Hungarians and Finns originally migrated from Cental Asia (see Magyar tribes) so by your argument they should be classified as Asian rather than White. Electoralist (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ashkenazim are Jews, an Asian ethnic group (Jew = Judean; Judea is nowhere near Europe). The fact that they spent the past 1,500+ years in Europe doesn't suddenly erase that. Am I a Native American simply because some of my ancestors lived here for several hundred years? No. Living somewhere is not the same as being indigenous to it.

Hungarians and Finns are not from Central Asia. They were from Western Russia, i.e. the Urals. The Magyars in particular emerged BETWEEN the Volga River (which is even further West) and the Ural Mountains. The majority of Finns are Baltic and Swedish, save for the Sami who originate in the Laplands, which is divided between Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Russia. Moreover, all of these groups forged their national/ethnic identities in Europe (whereas Ashkenazim in general had always identified with the Jews/Israelites of the Levant; Ashkenazi is a regional designation and diaspora subgroup, not an ethnic identity in itself), and descend primarily from indigenous inhabitants of their respective countries (Ashkenazim, by and large, do not). It's not comparable.

Lastly, the category says "Jews", not "Ashkenazim" (not that it would make any difference).2601:84:4502:61EA:F9CC:B932:48BE:625A (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary:

Anyone who actually thinks Jews are white and Arabs are somehow not has no idea what they are talking about - they don't know geography, history, linguistics, and culture.

1) geography: Jewish genetics can be traced to the Levant. Period. Studies have almost entirely shown this. Even ashkenazim came from the Middle East originally.

2)as such, our culture is very distinct.

3) our language, Hebrew, is linguistically similar to Arabic. Even Yiddish, the Ashkenazi language, uses Hebrew letters and some Hebrew words.

4) history and archaeology: evidence of the Jewish attachment to Israel that we've carried with us everywhere we went

We are technically west Asian. We are next door neighbors to the Arabs who are indigenous to the Hejaz peninsula and the cultural similarities show. Any denial of this reflects a very poor understanding of Judaism and Jewish culture, and if you are a Jew it means your upbringing was not as strong as you may think.

I believe that if Arabs are not white, Jews cannot be white either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, if the category is "White people", that would include Arabs as well.2601:84:4502:61EA:F9CC:B932:48BE:625A (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Jews are not "white," they are a Diasporic, Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, etc.), Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious, People of Color. So I am okay for Jews (and Arabs) to be listed under "Black" or "Asian" in the template — depending where you consider the Middle East. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews are certainly as white as all the other groups listed under "white". But if you're talking about all Jews you can't claim Ethiopian Jews and other African Jews are Asian. Electoralist (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

The essential issue here is that Jews as a whole are not an ethnic or cultural group but a religious group so Jews should not be listed under ethnic groups but under religious groups. The template is supposed to include both. Electoralist (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Jews officially self-define as a nation and tribe, not a religious group. A very large number of Jews are secular or atheist, for example. Even Jews who belong to other faiths are considered Jewish under Halakhah (our laws). Moreover, as mentioned above, the overwhelming majority of us are related to each other, and trace our ethnic/ancestral roots to the Levant. A Jew in Poland has more in common with a Jew in Iraq (not that there are any Jews left in Iraq) than he does with an indigenous white Pole. There's a reason we call ourselves "the nation of Israel". 2601:84:4502:61EA:44DA:81B3:CC2E:6B09 (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi Jews are certainly as white as all the other groups listed under "white"."

But they're not. That's the entire point. They're definitely less white/European than Germans, British, Poles, and Italians, and about as white/European as Gypsies and Arabs. African Jews are definitely more mixed than, say....Ashkenazim, but they have Israelite descent just like the rest of us.2601:84:4502:61EA:44DA:81B3:CC2E:6B09 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Officially"? According to whom? Not according to any rabbi. Sorry but an ethnic Swede or sub-Saharan African who has an Orthodox Jewish conversion doesn't suddenly become Asian. Electoralist (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's how we've identified for millennia. It was never exclusively (or even primarily) about religion or faith, at any point in history.

Also, converts have been exceedingly rare for almost 2000 years, and there are many other indigenous tribes (including many Native North American ones) who adopt outsiders all the time. Does this suddenly make the majority of Indians "White European"? Obviously not.2601:84:4502:61EA:952A:D7E8:EB27:811B (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, you can't just keep reverting over and over again when there are at least 3 others who disagree with you. Please stop. Obtain consensus here first.2601:84:4502:61EA:952A:D7E8:EB27:811B (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"That's how we've identified for millennia." That's simply not true. Jews identified as a religion for millenia. Ask a rabbi. In fact, it was the "scientific" racism of the late 19th and early 20th century that invented the concept that Jews are a race or ethnicity rather than a religion and Hitler who popularised that concept. Electoralist (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

See, for example:

“ The Mesilas Yesharim, a seminal work in Jewish philosophy, has a chapter called "The Obligations of the Human in This World." He does not mention race or ethnicity even once in the entire chapter.

The fact is that as Jews, whether one is descended by maternal lineage from those who stood at Mount Sinai and accepted the Torah from Hashem, or whether one is a proper, full convert, or whether one is maternally descended from a proper, full convert, we are required to fulfill the Commandments of the Torah to the best of our abilities, and thus achieve self-actualization, holiness, and closeness to Hashem.

Words like "ethnicity," "religion," or even "race" are completely irrelevant to our obligations in this life. That's not the path to pursue. What is important is each individual's personal relationship with Hashem, and our relationship with Hashem as a People, as well as our relationships with our communities (roughly in that order).

” — http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/race.html

Essentially, it's a matter of contention. Rabbis, for the most part (particularly prior to the mid-20th century), say Judaism is a religion full stop. Secularists may argue differently. Given that, at the very least, whether or not Judaism is an ethnicity is a contested concept, along with which ethnicity (or which several ethnicities), it makes more sense to simply list Jews as a separate category. Electoralist (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is how we've identified for millennia. It is an integral part of Halakhah. We've always been the *nation* of Israel, the twelve tribes, etc. "Ask a rabbi" is a poor response, especially considering most of them (excluding Reform rabbis, but even they have softened their stance over the years; in addition to NK/Satmarim who are fringe extremist groups at best) would agree with me. Moreover, I've never heard of any religion that puts this much emphasis on descent, or considers atheists and practitioners of other faiths as one of their own.

Also, that source seems to be a blog or some other independent website. Not suitable 2601:84:4502:61EA:488D:8712:A339:2597 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, especially re halakha and moreover your only source is your own assertion. No consensus for the recent template change that Jews are Asian. Electoralist (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your only source so far is yourself premised on being Jewish. Well,I'm Jewish too so not sure where that leaves your argument.209.171.88.77 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the categorization of Jews as Middle Eastern/Asian has been discussed many times on other articles. And each time (to my knowledge at least), there was a consensus for our inclusion as a West Asian ethnic group.

I haven't provided sources because my arguments are self-evident. If Jews were a religious group only, non-observant Jews would all be excluded, and the vast majority of us wouldn't be related to each other by common descent (from *drum roll* Western Asia).2601:84:4502:61EA:488D:8712:A339:2597 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"I haven't provided sources because my arguments are self-evident." Sorry, that's not the way Wikipedia works. See WP:Sources. There is neither a consensus to move Jews to the Asian category nor have you produced a single source to support your position. Electoralist (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything I've written is easily verifiable, and usually based on what is already written and sourced on Wikipedia itself. Jose R Martinez Cobo's indigenous status checklist is one such source.

Jews are definitely Asian. If they were white they wouldn't have been killed in the holocaust, they would have been considered white. Their language is similar to other Semitic languages and their culture too is very Semitic. I find it offensive that we are even having this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, there are numerous discussions where consensus was achieved on this. I'll see if I can dig them up.2601:84:4502:61EA:491E:ED16:23CE:D19A (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Should Jews be classified as Asian, European, or in a standalone category?

The following discussion 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.

---

In this template, should Jews be listed under Asians, Europeans, or as a standalone category? Electoralist (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone However I wish there wasn't even this article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone Jews consist of multiple ethnicities including Ethiopian Jews who are ethnically Ethiopian and Black, Bene Israel who are ethnically South Asian, Ashkenazi Jews who are ethnically European etc. To claim Jews belong to a single ethnic group is misleading and also dismissive of the diversity of the Jewish population. In addition, there has been a large degree of conversion to Judaism over the millenia (which is one reason for ethnic diversity among Jews). A Swede or Black person who converts to Judaism is 100% Jewish but does not suddenly become Asian. It makes more sense to treat Jews in the template in the same way as Hispanics and have a distinct category rather than try to shoehorn them under Asian (or European). For several years, Jews were listed as "White" in this template, recently they were moved to "Asian". Neither category is adequate. Electoralist (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Asian Jews have a semitic language that is very close to Arabic linguistically. They were exterminated in Europe precisely because they were not white. If Jews are white then Arabs must be white too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention our proven cultural and ancestral/genetic origins in Israel.ChronoFrog (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone. I came here from the RfC notice. I agree that it does not make sense to try to fit them into another category. And there is also a distinct history of antisemitism behind those slurs. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As a follow-up comment in what looks like a chaotic discussion, it seems to me that the arguments for Asian should really be arguments for moving every entry in the template to African. After all, the scientific evidence is that all humans originated there. It is true that the Jewish people emerged from earlier groups in what is now called the Middle East, but it gets silly to say that someone of completely non-Asian ethnicity should be called Asian based on incomplete anthropology. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The human species originated in Africa, but that's completely different from ethnogenesis, where a people/nation/culture/etc originate. Genetics is only one part of that (although yes, it does reaffirm that the majority of Jews trace most of their lineage to the Levant). Martinez Cobo's Indigenous Status criteria is (to my knowledge) what we usually use to determine where a certain group "belongs", and per that criteria, Jews are squarely West Asian.ChronoFrog (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good reply. It makes me wonder: would it make sense to divide Asian into East Asian and West Asian? (This has also been mentioned by Jeffgr9 below.) After all, there is certainly a difference between Judaism and Shintoism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and it seems as though Jeffgr9 has already implemented this idea.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the template again, and I see that. It works for me. What it really is, is a standalone listing for Jews (along with another for Arabs), within a West Asian listing. That strikes me as the best of both proposals, and as entirely logical. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Asian, Black, or Middle Eastern/Afro-Asiatic As I said above, Jews are a Diasporic, Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, etc.), Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious, People of Color. Jews have many branches, most genetically connected, but all Ethnoculturally or Tribally connected via core Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite (however each branch/sub-Tribe identifies) values (i.e. Torah, Tzedakah, Tikkun Olam, etc.). All Jews originated in Spirit in Middle East (Southwest Asia) and speak a dialect of or related to Hebrew language, which is both Semitic and Afro-Asiatic. So, either make a Middle Eastern/Afro-Asiatic category, or put the Jewish ethnic slurs in either the Asian or Black categories. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Asian Ashkenazi Jews are not ethnically European. Living somewhere for a long time is not the same as being native/indigenous to it. Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews are obviously Middle Eastern as well, and although African, East Asian, and Indian Jews are more mixed, they too have common descent from the Levant. Off hand, recent converts are the only exception I know of, but they are both a very tiny percentage of the global Jewish population and, more importantly, analogous to outsiders who are adopted into Native American tribes. Does this mean Native Americans are no longer an ethnic group? Also, just a quick note, I'm the guy with the really long IP address from above. I made an account just now.ChronoFrog (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Asian Culture, history, and genetics don't lie. Moreover, they meet Jose R. Martinez Cobo's Indigenous Status checklist vis a vis the Levant. That's good enough for me.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Asian The Jewish people originate in the Levant. While in the Diaspora we've become much more genetically diverse, but the cultural origin is Levantine. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically both Asian and European, but Ashkenazim do have substantial genetic connection to other Jewish groups, and DNA studies generally show patrilineal Levantine and matrilineal Southern European ancestry.

While European cultures have contributed to diasporic identity to some extent, it can hardly be said that the European peoples we lived among considered us to be European. (Amos Oz addresses this in A Tale of Love and Darkness: "Out there, in the world, all the walls were covered with graffiti: 'Yids, go back to Palestine,' so we came back to Palestine, and now the worldatlarge [sic] shouts at us: 'Yids, get out of Palestine.'")

We have maintained very substantial links with our native culture throughout exile. To suggest that because we had to flee our native lands that we are now native only to our places of exile - frequently places that were the site of our slaughter - seems unreasonable. Kitty (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Asian. The only land which can be called the land of the Jews is the Land of Israel, in Asia. All the names of the Jewish people point to a region in Asia: Israel, Hebrews (after Abraham, who crossed the Euphrates in flight from Babylon to Canaan), and Jews (which, among other related meanings, indicates Judea). No matter which group of Jews you point to, their prayers are in Hebrew, which is obviously not a European language, and they all pray, facing Jerusalem, to return to Israel, which throughout Jewish writings is called "our land," "the holy land," or even simply "The Land", without further description beyond the definite article.

Occasional converts do not change the culture of the people; in fact, in the case of Judaism, they nullify their own previous status and adopt the identity and culture of the people they join. This is clear from the halachic archetype of Ruth as such a convert and her statement that "Your people is my people" (Ruth 1:16, and Rashi there et al). Unlike comparatively superficial naturalization to a nation, converts become culturally Jewish. This of course includes the religious implications and obligations of Jewish culture, which come from Asia, as mentioned above. The convert's culture can hardly be said to have a culturally transformative effect on the people as a whole.

The religious obligations are not what define the Jew. If a non-Jew were to start keeping the Jewish commandments on his own, that would not make him a Jew. Rather, the obligations are understood as an effect of Jewish heritage. (Converts are thus said to be direct children of Abraham and Sarah in a spiritual sense.) With regard to religious practices, G-d is understood to be saying, "I took the children of Israel out of slavery. If you are of the children of Israel, do this for Me." Hence, Jewish heritage is the core of Jewish identity. This is why a non-religious Jew is still a Jew: his Jewish heritage will stay with him, whatever he himself thinks of it.Musashiaharon (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, here is consensus about Jews' Southwest Asian origins. Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It's much more complex than simply being Asian or European (or African).

"A high degree of mixing of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Italian and Syrian Jews caused them to become more closely related to each other than they were to Middle Eastern, Iraqi and Iranian Jews. This genetic split seemed to have occurred about 2,500 years ago.

The author uses his observations to refute theories that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of converted Khazars, a semi-nomadic people living in medieval Eurasia who welcomed Jews to their midst. He also reports that in addition to southern Europeans, the closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish groups were the Palestinians, Israeli Beduin and Druse. “The genetic clusters formed by each of these non-Jewish Middle Eastern groups reflects their own histories of marrying within the group,” he said." [1]

In fact, there are different ethnic groupings within Judaism, interrelate yes, but to say Jews are "Asian" is a gross oversimplification. In addition, the various comments here suggesting that conversions to Judaism over the millenia are insignificant are not borne out by the fact that there are different Jewish ethnic cleavages. If the number of conversions were truly insignificant than Ashkenazim wouldn't have white skin, Ethiopian Jews wouldn't have black skin, Bene Israel wouldn't have brown skin, and Chinese Jews wouldn't have yellow skin etc. Electoralist (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there are many Ashkenazim who don't have white skin, and many Levantine Arabs, Druze, and Samaritans (whom diaspora Jewry are very closely related to, despite the Samaritan's long history of inbreeding/refusal to accept converts) who do. Second, it seems you're still not getting the point. We are Asian because our collective national/ethnic origins are in the Levant, specifically what is now (and was historically) Israel. It's a given that a people who are dispersed from their homeland, for whatever reason, will pick up new genes along the way, but that does not negate our identity. If blood purity is a requirement for us to belong under a specific category, then none of the groups listed would go anywhere. What makes us a people, what makes us "Jews", is our (proven) collective historical, ancestral, and cultural origins in Judea, in Asia.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm Jewish and I'm not Asian. Electoralist (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

See Are Jews white? Electoralist (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's a blog, one man's personal opinion. Ethnic identity and categorization on here is determined by collective self-definition (we identify as the "nation of Israel" and have done so for millennia), accordance to relevant facts, adherence to WP:RS, particularly the UN's established criteria for indigenous status, and above all, consistency. You may or may not like or accept that Jews are Asian (I personally couldn't care less), but per the above factors, they are.ChronoFrog (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's from a science blog from Discover Magazine by an individual who is a doctoral candidate in genomics and genetics at the University of California, Davis so no, it's somewhat more than "one man's personal opinion" and is somewhat more expert than any of the lay opinions we've seen in our discussion. Electoralist (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Electoralist (talk) have you not read anything I have written? By the way, I am Jewish as well. If not, please read above. You, and all Jews, are at the core of both genetics and culture aboriginally West Asian/Afro-Asiatic/Middle Eastern that does not take away from the identifications of East Asian or South Asian. Jews are indeed Jews—and almost their own "race"—but Jews' ethnogenesis was in Eretz Yisrael. During Jews' various Diasporas (which include the Igbo people as well) they mixed with surrounding "hostland" groups; but their homeland is in West Asia/Middle East. Do you see? Also, the page you cite shows that all Jews intersect with other Middle Eastern genealogy and originate there as well. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone - As per Electoralist; as a second choice, Middle Eastern/Afro-Asiatic, as per Jeffgr9. Jews are an ethnoreligious group with plenty of genetic admixture and intergroup diversity. If I went out, converted, and became Jewish, my ethnicity would not change, period. It makes little sense to shoehorn them into another category, as even an individual may have multiple ethnicities (German-Jewish - Karl Marx, Italian-Jewish - Primo Levi, Russian-Jewish - Vasily Grossman, and so on). There is no single "Jewish culture" - rather, many separate Jewish cultures have developed, influenced by local cultures. These differences arise in cuisine, dress, language, etc. This is clearly a heated discussion (as all ethnicity-related ones are). GAB^gab 00:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This response ignores many of the points raised above. Also, notice that all of your examples have "Jewish" attached to them; the term Jew was coined to denote one "of Judea", a region in historic Israel. What makes us a distinct group is our Jewish background, namely our collective national/ethnic origins in Judah, which is in Western Asia. Suggesting that a German Jew is really just a German and not Judean (thereby ignoring the "Jew" part) is like saying that an Irish American or an Indian Canadian are not really Irish or Indian, and that they have lost a part of who they are simply by virtue of living somewhere else, whatever the circumstances are.

Since when does the dispersion of a people and cultural/ethnic intermixing nullify or erase our identity and origins? I'd like at least one other example of this. And as mentioned previously, many indigenous tribes in North America (and elsewhere) have made a habit of accepting outsiders into their fold. The occasional acceptance of converts or newcomers does not change the ethnic identity of the whole. The vast majority of Jews are not converts.ChronoFrog (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GAB, Jews indeed have admixture and intergroup diversity. But, if you convert, you join the Tribe, that means you do become a different ethnicity—that is what happened with Abayudaya—they are ethnic Jews now as per Torah law. And your statement does not contradict that Jews are one people, but with many and intersecting branches. They all stem from same place/genetics/philosophies/cultural practices/etc.

Jews worldwide are more Ethnoculturally related to Middle Eastern groups than to any other 1 StudyAnother Study . They may adopt/exchange with hostland peoples, but their core identity is Jewish—which also serves as some of the reasons why Jews were persecuted by those in their hostlands, racism literally known as Anti-Semitism. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If you convert you become a different religion and may even adopt a different cultural affinity but your ethnicity per se does not change. A Black African converting to Judaism does not become Asian. Similary, Rachel Dolezal did not change her ethnicity to Black just because she adopted African American culture and would not have even if she converted to an indigenous African religion. Similarly, Europeans who convert to Hinduism do not become ethnically Indian or South Asian. Electoralist (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If you immigrate to France, you become French (at least in part), even if you don't belong to that nation's indigenous ethnic majority. Likewise, if you immigrate to Britain, India, China, or anywhere else in the world, same principles apply. If you become a Jew, you become Judean (at least nominally, in a national sense). Are you seeing the point now? Black Americans are not, and never were, a tribe/nation, but Jews are both.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"If you immigrate to France, you become French" - now you're confusing nationality with ethnicity. Electoralist (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not. This is what most of us have been saying all along. Jews self-define as a nation, and our ethnic majority is Israelite. England is also a nation, whose ethnic majority is Briton or Anglo-Saxon (even though not all Brits belong to either group). Take this and apply it across the board. Now do you understand?ChronoFrog (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing nationality and ethnicity. In particular, you are confusing civic nationalism with ethnicity. Electoralist (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

e.g. a South Asian immigrant to the United Kingdom may become British by nationality (or English if they live in England under a civic nationalist view of nationality) but they do not become ethnically Anglo-Saxon. Electoralist (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Jews are a nation, converts (and once again, most Jews are not converts) become part of that nation, but the ethnic majority is still Judean/Middle Eastern. What are you not understanding about this?ChronoFrog (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"e.g. a South Asian immigrant to the United Kingdom may become British by nationality (or English if they live in England under a civic nationalist view of nationality) but they do not become ethnically Anglo-Saxon." Exactly. He is still South Asian. And Anglo-Saxons remain ethnic Brits. Likewise, ethnic Jews are still Judean, no matter where they live. The occasional acceptance of converts doesn't change our ethnicity.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"most Jews are not converts" Most Jews living today are not converts per se but over the past 2,000 years it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number of people have converted to Judaism (and/or there have been significant admixtures with other populations due to reasons other than conversion) and that therefore a significant number of Jews are descended at least in part from populations that are not "ethnically" Middle Eastern Jews. "The occasional acceptance of converts doesn't change our ethnicity." But a significant admixture does - and indeed the existence of entire Jewish populations such as the Bene Israel of India or Ethiopian Jews who are laragely descended from converts means these populations are not ethnically Middle Eastern (or Arab Jews as the Mizrahim were previously called). If you disagree, please explain why not all Jews look Middle Eastern (indeed, most Jews do not look Middle Eastern). Electoralist (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"And Anglo-Saxons remain ethnic Brits." Again, you are confusing nationality and ethnicity. See British people - arguably there is no British ethnicity per se, it's a multiethnic culture and nationality. Electoralist (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Most Jews today are Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or Mizrahi, and they are all at least partially (most estimates have it at around 40-60 percent) Judean/Middle Eastern. As far as looks go, most people belonging to these diasporic divisions (especially Mizrahim) look Middle Eastern, or have at least some typically Levantine traits. Moreover, you didn't address my earlier point, that many Levantine Arabs, Samaritans, Druze, and so on look very European (no doubt a result of Crusader and Roman conquests, but also the fact that Levantines in ancient times weren't as "dark" as we imagine; the Egyptians depicted us as having blue eyes, and King David is said to have been a redhead). African, East Asian, and Indian Jews make up a much smaller percentage of Jews and (obviously) have assimilated with their host populations to a much greater degree, but they are shown to collectively carry Israelite descent as well. Recent converts are an even smaller minority, and with regards to that, I refer you back to my above comments.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Again, you are confusing nationality and ethnicity." You keep saying this, but have repeatedly failed to articulate how. Nationality and ethnicity can and do often overlap. You know that, right? Also, British nationality is defined by Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, culture, language, laws, etc.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And again, that's besides the larger point; the addition of converts/newcomers/immigrants/etc to a nation or tribe does not change the ethnicity or identity of that nation/ethnic group.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"'Again, you are confusing nationality and ethnicity.' You keep saying this, but have repeatedly failed to articulate how." You suggested that if someone immigrated to France they become ethnically French. This is incorrect, they adopt French nationality but they do not change ethnicity. Hence, you are confusing ethnicity and nationality. "British nationality is defined by Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, culture, language, laws, etc." Actually, it's not. British nationality is defined by the United Kingdom Parliament which, last time I checked, does not exclude someone from becoming an MP on the basis of ethnicity and is not exclusively made up of Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps you are thinking of the South African parliament during apartheid which did exclude certain ethnicities from its membership? "Nationality and ethnicity can and do often overlap" - they are distinct concepts. However, ethnic nationalism is a conflation of the two as opposed to civic nationalism. Electoralist (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"You suggested that if someone immigrated to France they become ethnically French." Obviously, you misinterpreted my comments because I never said this. Immigrants to France become nationally French, but not ethnically. Likewise, converts to Judaism don't adopt our ethnicity, just our nationality. And just as ethnic French people remain ethnic French regardless of immigration, ethnic Jews remain ethnic Jews (that is, Judean/Middle Eastern).ChronoFrog (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Actually, it's not. British nationality is defined by the United Kingdom Parliament which, last time I checked, does not exclude someone from becoming an MP on the basis of ethnicity. Perhaps you are thinking of the South African parliament during apartheid?" No, I'm not. English national identity is historically Anglo-Saxon, and Anglo-Saxons make up the majority of English people to this day (although this can change in the future). This does not mean that non-Anglo Saxons can't become MPs or influential in British culture. I never suggested that. Also, apartheid South Africa was largely Afrikaner (Dutch), not English.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"they are distinct concepts." In a literal sense, yes. But the overlap is there, so they can't be divorced from each other that easily. Especially as it plays such a significant role in Jewish self-identity.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Asian. DNA studies in recent years have confirmed that overall, Jews, regardless of where they lived in the Diaspora, still constituted a distinct genetic identity for the most part that is West Asian - Middle Eastern, similar to genetic profiles in Syria, Eastern Turkey, R. Froikin

Whoever you are, you didn't sign your name. I also edited your post to reflect your vote, if you don't mind.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Electoralist (talk, Rachel Dolezal was not accepted into a Tribe. That is one of the key differences, and is even discussed [here]:

"You can’t become a Jew on your own; conversion rituals must be done in front of three people. Identity entails both an individual choice and a communal response.

As one rabbi told me: 'Your own personal sense of identity and $3.75 will get you a no-foam latte. It’s not enough to say ‘I am who I say I am.’ It’s a two-way process. The community must welcome someone in.' "

This author posits that you can change your "ethnicity" if you are Tribally recognized/accepted. Rachel Dolezal did not do that, she lied. The Abayudaya have passed down many generations of Jews who live very separate lifestyles from other Ugandans; they are thus a part of our Tribe and Ethnoculturally linked to Israel, Southwest Asia, the Middle East, and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic Peoples. Their struggle is our struggle plus whatever individual struggles they have to encounter in their hostland. They have joined the Diaspora in Spirit/sociopolitical affiliation and have laid their lives on the line for that affiliation. To say that they are not Tribally/Ethnoculturally Semitic people insults their commitment, dedication, and sacrifices. Yes, their genetics are, as far as anyone knows without testing and analyzing, not "Semitic," but their Ethnocultural distinction in Ugandan society no longer makes them ethnically Ugandan, they are now a new branch (or sub-Tribe) that sociopolitically, and thus racially in Uganda, intersects with all Jewish People, and essentially with other Diasporic Black People in general.Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone for the reasons stated by Electoralist at the beginning of the discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Did you read the rest of the conversation? If not, I strongly suggest doing so, as there were many valid points/counterpoints raised. If there are any concerns you have, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read the conversation. I don't have any questions, thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone. The term "Jews" refers to a complex mix of ethnicity, religious affiliation, and cultural roots. Even within the ethnic portion, there is considerable diversity and the origins of some groups are unclear. Furthermore, anti-Asian sentiment would be unlikely to imply anti-Jewish sentiment (whereas Semitic would be a valid superset in this sense). HGilbert (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Per Wikipedia itself. "The Jews (/dʒuːz/;[11] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[12] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[13][14] Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation,[15][16][17] while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.

Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE,[10] in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel.[18] The Merneptah Stele appears to confirm the existence of a people of Israel, associated with the god El,[19] somewhere in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE (Late Bronze Age).[20][21] The Israelites, as an outgrowth of the Canaanite population,[22] consolidated their hold with the emergence of the Kingdom of Israel, and the Kingdom of Judah. Some consider that these Canaanite sedentary Israelites melded with incoming nomadic groups known as 'Hebrews'.[23] Though few sources in the Bible mention the exilic periods in detail,[24] the experience of diaspora life, from the Ancient Egyptian rule over the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Seleucid Imperial rule, to the Roman occupation, and the historical relations between Israelites and the homeland, became a major feature of Jewish history, identity and memory.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]

Genetic studies on Jews show that most Jews worldwide bear a common genetic heritage which originates in the Middle East, and that they bear their strongest resemblance to the peoples of the Fertile Crescent.[64][65][66] The genetic composition of different Jewish groups shows that Jews share a common genetic pool dating back 4,000 years, as a marker of their common ancestral origin. Despite their long-term separation, Jews maintained a common culture, tradition, and language.[67]"

Also, and this should go without saying, there is no such thing as a 100 percent genetically contiguous population, so it seems silly from an encyclopedic standpoint to make this a prerequisite for considering a population indigenous to a specific area. It seems especially silly when people (seemingly) make this demand only of Jews.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

From the same article: "Jews are often identified as belonging to one of two major groups: the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. Ashkenazim, or "Germanics" (Ashkenaz meaning "Germany" in Hebrew), are so named denoting their German Jewish cultural and geographical origins, while Sephardim, or "Hispanics" (Sefarad meaning "Spain/Hispania" or "Iberia" in Hebrew), are so named denoting their Spanish/Portuguese Jewish cultural and geographic origins. The more common term in Israel for many of those broadly called Sephardim, is Mizrahim (lit. "Easterners", Mizrach being "East" in Hebrew), that is, in reference to the diverse collection of Middle Eastern and North African Jews who are often, as a group, referred to collectively as Sephardim (together with Sephardim proper) for liturgical reasons, although Mizrahi Jewish groups and Sephardi Jews proper are ethnically distinct.[95] Smaller groups include, but are not restricted to, Indian Jews such as the Bene Israel, Bnei Menashe, Cochin Jews, and Bene Ephraim; the Romaniotes of Greece; the Italian Jews ("Italkim" or "Bené Roma"); the Teimanim from Yemen; various African Jews, including most numerously the Beta Israel of Ethiopia; and Chinese Jews, most notably the Kaifeng Jews, as well as various other distinct but now almost extinct communities."

You're responding to an argument I never made. Yes, Jews absorbed foreign influences in diaspora and mixed with foreign populations to varying degrees, but that's not enough to disqualify Jews qua Jews from the Asian category.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"It seems especially silly when people (seemingly) make this demand only of Jews." That's a ridiculous comment. Hispanics are listed as a standalone group as well because it would be inaccurate to say they are European per se. We would not list Native Americans as Asians even though there's evidence they originated in Asia. Yes, no ethnic group is exclusive, they evolve over time, no one is saying otherwise.

Hispanics refers to Latin Americans, especially those from Spanish speaking countries. Native Americans are not considered Asian because their ethnogenesis did not happen there. The Jewish people originated in Asia, which is where they became a nation and distinct people. Believe it or not, there is a huge difference.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Human Trumpet Solo, one could easily flip your argument and more accurately say a number European ethnic groups actually originated in Central Asia or Western Asia and yet are considered European - but that classification is denied only to the Jews and Roma/Sinti populations, most famously by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Electoralist (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you might want to look at the writings of Kant, Hegel, Proudhon, d'Holbach, Voltaire, et al and see what they thought of the Jews. They all predate Hitler by at least a couple of centuries, and they sure didn't consider Jews "European". Nobody thought Jews were European because it was common knowledge that Jews came from the Israelites. As to your other point, I can't think of any actual European group that originates outside of Europe. I saw your Magyar and Finn examples above, but they are both European in origin.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

They didn't think of Jews as Euroepean because they were anti-Semitic or influenced by anti-Semitic ideas. Electoralist (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. We were not considered European for the same reason Gypsies and black people were not considered European. We were a foreign (non-European) diaspora living in Europe, not an indigenous European nationality or ethnic group. Philosemites did not consider us European either, nor did many (if not most) Jews, so you can't attribute this to antisemitism. Jews living outside of Israel are considered "diaspora Jews" within our community for a reason.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some manner of consensus the way it is right now: No striping because Jews have separate slurs from Arabs, but both go under the umbrella of West Asians, which goes under umbrella of Asians. We have to be consistent with the terms we use to describe Peoples. Jews are more Semitic than not, so there should either be a Middle Eastern/Afro-Asiatic group with Jews, Arabs, etc. as subsections (which it essentially is now), or keep it the way it is with Asians>West Asians>Jews, Samaritans Arabs, etc. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

7 Asian vs 5 standalone is far from a consensus. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

One of those standalone votes (Tryptofish) approved of Jeffgr9's more recent implementations, so now it's 8 Asian vs 4 standalone. Regardless, you can't revert the Template to exclude Jews when there are still 7 people (and now 8 people, apparently) who are opposed to it, especially when there are stronger arguments in favor of inclusion (which is what really counts).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Asian before, but if it were created, I would support putting Jews (and other appropriate groups) under Middle Eastern. This actually seems to be a more specific and useful categorization. How many others here think it is a good idea? Musashiaharon (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews aren't Middle Eastern. Electoralist (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's not discuss the Ethiopian Jews in this particular RfC. The Ethiopian Jews are a controversial topic on many fronts, even within the Jewish community, with secular and halachic opinions on both sides as well as on the fence. Let's just deal with groups where there isn't controversy about whether they are, from the outset, Jewish or not. I myself don't mean to invalidate the Jewishness of the Ethiopian Jews; that is not my place. It's just that that discussion has too many intricacies unique to that group and would be a distraction to the core issue at hand, which is about ethnic slurs, and how slurs against Jews in general should be categorized.

For the sake of clarifying my reasoning, my opinion on the Beta Israel hinges on whether they qualify as Jewish according to Jewish criteria. If so, they are direct inheritors of the Jewish ethnicity from the land of Israel, and would hence be another Middle Eastern ethnicity. If not, then they might not be Middle Eastern, depending on where the traditions came from. In the case of Jews, any departure from the traditional Jewish criteria for Jewishness would represent a definitive break from Jewish traditions and hence possibly another ethnogenesis. Since the Ashkenazic, Mizrahi, Sefardi and other major Jewish communities maintained contact with each other and mutually maintained their collective Jewish identity (especially among the Torah scholars of the communities, who maintained the chain of tradition), they are not in the same unfortunate situation as the Beta Israel. Again, I do not bring this with intent to discuss the Ethiopian Jews in detail; I only mention this to show that my reasoning is not self-contradictory. This is the same reasoning process I am applying to the other groups of Jews, and this is why I consider those groups undoubtedly Middle Eastern and hence Asian in ethnicity.Musashiaharon (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

These slurs mainly refer to Ashkenazim (and to a lesser extent, Sephardim and Mizrahim) anyway, and there is no doubt of their Middle Eastern ethnic origin, revisionist attempts by anti-Israel polemicists notwithstanding.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Beta Israel are Afro-Asiatic/Semitic as well (additionally, Ethiopians' language groups are Semitic) & at the very least, Ethnoculturally/Tribally Jewish.Jeffgr9 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Asian Jews most definitely should be categorized in the same category as Arabs. Whether that means a separate category for Middle East and North Africa, or whether they get grouped under Asian (the Middle East is in Southwest Asia), to classify Jews in a different group than Arabs is nonsense. Culturally and linguistically, Jews are quite distinct from Europeans, and related to Arabs and other semitic peoples. Genetically, the overwhelming majority of Jews show Middle Eastern ancestry. The fact that Judaism allows converts to join does not negate the fact that Jews are Middle Eastern. Those who convert to the Jewish religion are also formally adopted into "Am Yisrael", the Nation of Israel, in much the way that Native American tribes sometimes adopted outsiders into the tribe. Would you stop classifying the Shawnee as American, because they adopted some members of European derivation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA Math Prof (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC) PA Math Prof (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Standalone In the context of 'ethnic slurs', there is no point in getting into discussions about the geographical, linguistic or genetic origins of Jews or any other people. Similar or overlapping slurs often attach to people, for example from southern Europe, from the Indian sub-continent, from the far east. That factor, combined with similar physical or cultural characteristics, tends to define slurs. Jewish slurs are not principally related to where they originated from geographically and are distinct from slurs used against other groups from the 'near east'. The point is to help the reader, not define Jewish geographical origins, in most cases those slurs arose during the diaspora, created by the 'host' societies. Pincrete (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, this makes zero sense. Categorizing groups based on where the slur originated as opposed to what the group IS seems absolutely silly ChronoFrog (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we characterise slurs according to the slur's origin, I don't see how the template could be better organised, but it is obvious that who is being slurred should define, which does not always align with where the slurred came from. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that would just lead to more confusion. National/geographic/ethnic origin is the most solid basis we have that is easily understood by all.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete (talk), so would you agree to a West Asians section divided by individual groups (as was in my most recent edit, or this one by The Human Trumpet Solo https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Ethnic_slurs&oldid=728967093 )? It would seem to satisfy your qualifications for wanting it "standalone." Also, because many such slurs derived from Diaspora, it proves that there was a Ethnocultural/geographical distinction that creates Anti-Semitic (literally, even) sentiments that place Jews historically originating from one place, and "deigning" to exist elsewhere. That is not to say it is Anti-Semitic to say Jews are from Eretz Yisrael/Levant, but to hurt/insult Jews because they are from there is Anti-Semitic and the cause for many racist slurs against Jews. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Europeans who created these slurs did so because they considered Jews to be outsiders and not European. In fact, with names like Christ killer, they positively identified the local diaspora Jews with the people who killed their god in the land of Israel. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is a misnomer, it almost always means irrational dislike of Jews, it is rarely (if ever) used against other 'semitic' peoples. Many slurs against Indians are used equally against Pakistanis etc. We are not discussing where Jews arose from historically, which is indisputable, rather how most usefully to characterise groups of slurs. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That is because Jews were the only Semitic diaspora in Europe when the term was coined. It was designed to differentiate itself from earlier forms of Jew hatred, and was meant to convey an intensely nationalistic, xenophobic hatred of foreigners in general. If there were a substantial Arab population in Europe in the 19th century, one could easily surmise that it would have encompassed them too.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment It would help if we clarified why and how we are defining people geographically. Most Brits (within the recorded historical period) are not 'native' to Britain, but from other European areas, most Turks (I believe) are similarly 'arrivers', most Americans (N+S) are from elsewhere in relatively recent times. How does this square with geographical sorting? The only way I can see is by defining what is being slurred, though that itself is problematic. A complicating factor in relation to Jews, is are they being slurred because of religion/ethnicity or because of distant historical origins? In my opinion an unanswerable question, though a Scot is clearly being slurred because of his 'Scottishness' rather than distant ancestry. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's comparable, to be honest. All of your examples have long-established nation states on the lands they now call their own, even if they aren't necessarily indigenous to those lands. We, on the other hand, did not have that for a long time. Our nation-state was destroyed, and our people were dispersed, but we still remained a nation. Also, we are referred to (both within our community and outside of it) as "diaspora Jews" outside of historic Israel, demonstrating our national/ethnic connection to the Middle East. The Jewish community writ large (excluding anti-Zionists and Reform Jews, who are a byproduct of a time when we were promised full equality only insofar as we forfeited all national characteristics and became "French", "German", and so on; it was a promise that ultimately amounted to nothing, but we'll save that for another time) has identified as the "nation of Israel" since its inception. We still consider African-Americans "African" despite how long they've been away from Africa, and nobody denies the South Asian ethnicity of Gypsies. In that light, I see no reason to argue that Jews are no longer West Asian.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides, the English would fall under "European" regardless, as they migrated from continental Europe, not Asia or Africa.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone, per Tryptofish. This template isn't based on genetic nor geographic profiles. Jews obviously deserve a distinct sociological characterisation in the context of racial slurs. You can't be so blockheaded as to deny this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Then why have European/Asian/African categories at all, if geographic origin is not a factor? Also, Tryptofish conceded his argument days ago, and appears to agree with the way the template is now, with Jews in the West Asian bracket. Lastly, we can do without the insults.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Standalone, per FoCuS and because there are many Jews not living in Asia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See my above response to him. As for this, "because there are many Jews not living in Asia", that is absolutely silly. EVERY group on that list has a diaspora living abroad.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I always thought that a large group of Jews not living in Asia do not consider themselves to be "a diaspora from Asia" nor "a diaspora from Israel" but as "a standalone diaspora". Please notice that I am not an expert on Jewish history.... So I do believe that the proposal here below of getting rid of geographic categorizations altogether by The Human Trumpet Solo should be the way to go. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Having been pinged, I came back and looked again. No, I did not "concede" a thing. What I said at the time was that it was OK to have a subcategory of Jews within the West Asian category, along with similar subcategories for Arabs and other groups whose cultural origins are from that region. But having looked back, I see that someone has subsequently changed the template, and I honestly have to say that the change can indeed be described as block-headed. Are you kidding me? There is now a category that simply calls Jews "West Asians". That is completely insane, even offensive. I just reverted it back. As reverted, that is an appropriate form for Standalone. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to be antagonistic but I'm a little confused here. You originally agreed with Electoralist that Jews should be removed from the West Asian bracket, but later supported putting them back in (e.g. your most recent revert). If that's not a concession, then what is it?ChronoFrog (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw your revert and to be fair to ChronoFrog, that IS essentially an argument in favor of Asian.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. The version I reverted to has a West Asian category, and then subdivides it into Arabs, Jews, and General. The Jews are in a specific group, differentiated from Arabs and others. The version I reverted from also had a West Asian category, but it was undivided, with parenthetical descriptors after most slurs. To me, both versions have the same West Asian category, and I am not saying that that, in itself, is the problem. The question is whether the organization recognizes that Jews are a standalone group within the West Asian category. When I commented earlier, we were discussing a version by Jeffgr9, that was similar to what I restored, and that was what I said seemed to me to be a good solution. In any case, a far better solution is to do away with the geography altogether, as is now proposed below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess maybe there was some confusion since you didn't participate in the last discussion. Originally, Electoralist wanted to put Jews under "Europeans", an effort that was soundly defeated (and rightly so). Your initial comment implied that you agreed with him that we didn't belong in West Asia at all.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Just to be clear, my preference would be to do away with the geography entirely, and certainly not to switch it to Europe. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would like to make a proposal, as it seems increasingly unlikely that we will ever reach any sort of agreement otherwise. I propose getting rid of geographic categorizations altogether (i.e. Europeans, Asians, Africans) and giving each group its own standalone category on this template. This way we can avoid contentious, never ending arguments as to where various groups belong. Beyond that, I'm sticking to my previous stance because I will not countenance anything insinuating that Jews are not "really" Middle Eastern or that we are somehow lying or pretending to be something we're not. Such arguments are not only revisionist, inconsistent, and unencyclopedic (as has been aptly demonstrated in the above debate), they are antisemitic as hell.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better idea, and one that I can fully support. After all, ethnic slurs are directed at groups of people, not at portions of a map. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad we are finally getting somewhere.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I can live with this, although I am firmly of the belief that anyone attempting to negate our ethnic identity (I don't care what their reasons are) needs to be reverted and firmly reprimanded.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

To avoid confusion and endless discussions getting rid of geographic categorizations altogether does seems to be the best option. I am sorry if my ignorance seemed offensive; it was not intended that way. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to your above comment, we've always considered ourselves a Middle Eastern diaspora in that A ) we are called "diaspora Jews" everywhere except Israel and B ) our geographic/ethnic origin is embedded in our very name, with Jew = Judean, in what is now southern Israel.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification ChronoFrog. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I am still firmly in the "leave the template as it is" camp. I think Tryptofish's most recent revert is about as good as we're going to get. My above proposal is really just an alternative solution in case we can't achieve a broad enough consensus. That being said, I apologize if my above post was overly harsh. I suppose I'm just fed up with the constant, fervent delegitimization of Jewish history on Wikipedia, especially since 9 times out of 10 it's motivated either by post-Holocaust fears or a political agenda against Jews/Israel. It is something I find impossible to tolerate, and I will vigorously oppose such efforts wherever I see it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, although I actually prefer your idea over my own edit. I too find that discussions about any religion or irreligion tend to be unpleasant at Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussions about Jews almost invariably attract bigots, and that's why they devolve so quickly. A lot of people, even otherwise intelligent and rational people, can't accept that we are telling the truth when we say we are a Middle Eastern diaspora. Likewise, antisemitism is one of the oldest prejudices in the world, and one of my lodestone commitments is to do whatever is necessary to stymie it, especially on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. That aside, Jews are a nation/ethnoreligious group, very similar (both genetically and in how we self-identify) to the Samaritans and Druze. Those of us who convert away from Judaism or become atheist/agnostic/etc are still recognized as Jewish under our laws.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, Tryptofish, this isn't the first time we've had a long-winded discussion on whether or not Jews are Middle Eastern. We have this debate almost every other month, although the majority of efforts to remove us from the Middle East have (thankfully) been defeated.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. It's always best for editors to edit neutrally, of course. Myself, I make a point of never saying what my religion or anything else is, and I try to edit as if all my personal beliefs are set aside. And of course, these issues become all the more fraught in the context of slurs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:The Human Trumpet Solo (and others) please don't be so arrogant as to presume to speak on behalf of all Jews. There is a religious Jewish argument that strongly rejects the notion that Judaism is an ethnicity per se - see, for example the argument raised here from the perspective of the Torah - and it is frankly offensive to try to dismiss anyone who disagrees with your position as somehow anti-Semitic and you should be ashamed of yourself for making that insinuation. As well, it is disrespectful and profoundly ignorant of a body of Jewish religious scholarship. No anti-Semitic arguments, whatsoever, have been raised in this discussion and you are the first person I can see who has raised delegitimization of Israel or politics. Electoralist (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me, Electoralist. Earlier, you tried to shoehorn Jews into the European category (much to the chagrin of a great number of Jewish editors on this talk page alone), and yet you have the audacity to criticize others for "speaking on behalf of all Jews"? Are you for real? Moreover, Reform Judaism is the only segment of the Jewish community (aside from anti-Zionists) that openly disavows the national characteristics of Jewishness, but that's neither here nor there. I absolutely would say that rewriting or mitigating Jewish ethnogenesis in the Middle East constitutes antisemitism. The vocal disagreement of a (relative) handful of Jews does nothing to sway me from that stance, any more than I imagine Hermann Cain could convince someone in his community that opposition to affirmative action is not racist.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My comment about editors negating Jewish ethnicity for anti-Israel purposes was meant to be a general statement, not an indictment of anyone in here. Nevertheless, it's not exactly a secret that there are many antisemitic editors prowling Jewish articles, introducing their own spin, and gaming the system so that their changes acquire "consensus". Yes, they usually pretend to be "neutral" (because why wouldn't they?), but they don't fool me, or anyone who doesn't want to be fooled. There was a canvassing group called "Wikipedians for Palestine" that was busted a few years ago, and I'm sure it isn't the only one. To my knowledge, none of the editors who were involved in it got banned.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In this discussion you have repeatedly claimed to speak for all Jews (something I've never done despite your claim above) and suggested that views that differ from yours are anti-Semitic. Your behaviour is completely inappropriate in both respects. Electoralist (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

But here's the difference, Electoralist. When I "speak on behalf of all Jews", as you put it, I have 3000+ years of Jewish history backing me up. If I sound overly confident to you about this subject, there's a good reason for that. The Reform movement (let alone the even smaller anti-Zionist fringe movements) is very far removed from traditional Jewish law (hence why it is called "Reform") and does not represent the mainstream Jewish community. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, there was at least one other editor in here who claimed to be Mizrachi, yet you were still very rude to him/her even when it became clear that he/she was offended by what you were trying to do. I think you owe that person an apology.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"something I've never done despite your claim above". But that's exactly what you did in your earlier quest to classify Jews as European, despite some very loud objections from other Jewish editors (at least I'm assuming they're Jewish, correct me if I'm wrong), including myself. Sorry.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Show me a quote. As for having thousands of years behind you, that's your opinion. Again, you are arrogantly claiming yours is the only Jewish opinion. Instead of trying to stoke emotions and bully those who disagree with you by suggesting they are anti-Semitic please stick to facts. Electoralist (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A quote of what? You trying to force Jews into the European category? Because you did do that. There is proof of it all over this page, but I can also scrounge up some diffs of your many, many reverts (it had to have been at least 8 or 9, which is at least 3 times the amount required to temp ban someone) if you want. And your claim that I am trying to "speak for all Jews" is a straw man. All I'm doing is telling you what the consensus was regarding our identity for thousands of years, since our inception as a people. It's a consensus that you passionately disagree with (and there's nothing wrong with that, although it doesn't change reality), but a consensus nevertheless. Until that changes, I'm not budging an inch.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"please stick to facts". That's what I've been doing this entire time. The facts, such as they are, do not support your notion that Jews are only a religious group, and they definitely do not support your revisionist (as well as Ashkenazi-centric, and I say this as an Ashkenazi myself) attempts at classifying Jews as European.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Show me a quote where I ever claimed to speak for all Jews, something which you wrongly claim above in a classic case of deflection.Electoralist (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Trying to categorize us as European despite the presence of numerous others (including at least one Sephardic Jew) who opposed the move is not speaking for all Jews? Really?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So you can't post a quote because, unlike you, I never claimed to be speaking for all Jews. You invented your claim out of pure hyperbole. Well, at least now it's clear that your rhetorical method is to build your claims based on pure emotion without any substance to back them up. Electoralist (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Whenever any of us make an edit on Wikipedia, we are speaking for the collective body of human scholarly knowledge. By categorizing Jews as European, you assumed that mantle of authority, and now you are trying to shirk responsibility for it. Now, it is acceptable to make mistakes. Articles do not have to be perfect. But what you have done is a completely different matter. You are entitled to your opinion. However, opinions without reliable support do not belong in articles, and they certainly do not bear the weight necessary to change the very organizational structure of the encyclopedia itself.

From modern archaeology in Israel, to the Scriptoria of the Church, to the royal correspondence of the Khazar Empire, to the histories of Josephus, to the Talmud and the Bible themselves, the continuity of the Jewish people and the support for describing Jews as Middle Eastern has been tested and verified over and over. The Jews' own reluctance to give up their identity and melt away into other nations, even when faced with severe persecution otherwise, bears no logical explanation other than that identity as Jews was and still remains more precious to them than life itself. If this is not proof of who the Jews are and the tradition they bear, then no other group deserves to be called a people. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether or not Jews should be classified as European but whether or not the fact that Judaism transcends ethnicity and religion means that Jews should be listed as a standalone category. Electoralist (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't post a quote because your behavior speaks for itself. You tried to categorize Jews as European despite vocal objections from numerous Jewish editors; that qualifies as speaking for all Jews, no? As to your other claim, the answer is "no". Jewishness does not transcend either of those things. It is a (Middle Eastern) nation and ethnoreligious group, just like the Druze and the Samaritans.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't post a quote as there was no quote because you were making things up. Now perhaps you can apologize for suggesting that there's anti-Semitism afoot among those who disagree with you when not one anti-Semitic sentiment has been expressed or implied in this discussion. Electoralist (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I must have explained it to you at least 5 times by now, but still you do not get it. This leads me to believe that you either have poor reading comprehension, or you are unwilling to admit responsibility for what you did. Revisionist attacks on Jewish identity are absolutely antisemitic and I have nothing to apologize for, so request denied.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think this discussion has run its course. The same points keep getting rehashed over and over and over and over and over again and I see no point in engaging any further. Needless to say, you have failed to convince me that your proposed changes are warranted, so I'm out of here.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no "attack" on Jewish identity, there is simply a difference of views. For you to label such a disagreement as "anti-Semitic" is reprehensible. Electoralist (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I kind of agree with the others. I can't fathom anyone classifying Jews as an ethnic European group unless they were unusually ignorant or harbored some intense desire to portray us as a non-Middle Eastern, "privileged" group of "white people". From my experience, it's usually the latter that is the case, and yes, I *would* call that anti-Semitic. And while we're on the subject, I wouldn't say I was "offended" by your edits so much as I was extremely irritated by your Ashkenazim Reform-centric point of view. You are entitled to feel however you want of course, but feelings are not a substitute for facts.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Both of you are in serious violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You are making assumptions and then jumping to false conclusions based on those assumptions. It's much like arguing "I can't fathom anyone classifying Ashkenazi Jews as not being white. Hitler and the Nazis did that so yes, I *would* call that anti-Semitic and Nazi." Electoralist (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The Nazis used our Asian origins as a pretext for their slaughter of Europe's Jews. It was part of their broader campaign to "purify" Europe, although they had many other "reasons" for hating us. The point being that our Oriental origins weren't something they just invented or pulled out of their ass, as your comments imply; we've been saying the same thing *about ourselves* for millennia. You'd have to be insane (or at least extremely determined) to deny that. "Hitler believed this, so it MUST be wrong" is a fallacy, plain and simple.

And you should read that link more carefully. AGF expires when there is reason to believe that an interlocutor is not, in fact, acting in good faith. It is clear to me that, based on your editing history (yes, I did look) and the arguments you've posted in this thread that you have an extremely biased view of Jewishness, most likely rooted in Reform Jewish thought. I may be new here, but I know that facts and consistency should always be the order of the day on an encyclopedia.ChronoFrog (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Completely absurd. You've left me no choice but to file a complaint about your behaviour. Your comments about my editing history are particularly ridiculous and completely unsupported by examples. What edits show that I have an "extremely biased view" of Judaism? Light editing of the article on the Yiddish newspaper Vochenblatt? Updating an article on Canadian Jewish Outlook to note the publication's demise? Show me some diffs.Electoralist (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that I am obligated to assume good faith in perpetuity, especially when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Your edits on here, your utter refusal to accept any information that doesn't gel with your point of view, your sheer determination to push your edits through even in the face of considerable opposition from other Jewish editors (which I imagine is the reason why HTS accused you of speaking for all Jews), and your editing history tells me that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. As for your edit history, it does demonstrate that two things. One, you have a proclivity towards edit warring (as did I, although I did not know this was against the rules at the time). And two, you are a Reform Jew, which is perfectly fine of course, but it is nevertheless a radical deviation from traditional Jewish culture and thought, and that is a very important input into the calculus of what constitutes Jewish self-definition. From my understanding, they were the ones who pioneered the idea that Jews are merely a religious faith because they did not want to be seen as "too different" from the indigenous European groups they lived with (this strategy failed spectacularly of course, but they did give it the good old college try). All in all, AGF does not say you are entitled to do whatever you please without having your motives brought into question when it is warranted (and I do believe it is warranted, in this case). I have not done anything wrong.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And I should have called this out earlier, but your claim that Jews were listed as "White" on this template until recently is a lie. I looked through the revision history and Jews had been in the "Asian" category for at least the past few years, although a few people did try to remove them at various points.ChronoFrog (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Another violation of AGF. When I checked a few older versions of this template I found that Jews had been listed as white. See [ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Ethnic_slurs&oldid=437292898 this version from 2011]. There was never any discussion about moving Jews to another category, someone just did it without discussion. Electoralist (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, you do know that 2011 was 5 years ago, right? That's not recent, and it's been under the Asian category ever since. Until now, nobody has seriously challenged it, at least not on this template. But if what others say is true, this discussion has, in fact, happened many times already, and consensus supports classifying Jews as a MENA group. You seem to believe that AGF means "nobody can ever call me out if I am caught lying or telling half-truths", in which case you are sorely mistaken.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please show me where changing the category under which Jews were listed was discussed? You can't because there was never any such discussion, it was simply changed arbitrarily without discussion on the Talk page. Electoralist (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because it wasn't discussed on *this talk page* doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. On the contrary, Jeffgr9 and HTS claim that this discussion has happened on a regular basis for the past few years. Moreover, it is permissible to make an edit without prior discussion insofar as there is no explosive edit warring. And until now, there hasn't been.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You also appear to have a highly sectarian and even bigoted attitude towards Reform Judaism. However, since you bring it up, Reform is the largest stream of Jewish affiliation in North America so regardless of your views about it, it does carry weight and therefore cannot be dismissed simply because you dislike or disagree with it. Please leave your personal prejudices at the door. They have no place in your editing but the fact that a major strain of Jewish theology and philosophy holds that Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity means a) this view should and cannot be dismissed as "anti-Semitic" as has been suggested by you and one or two others b) needs to be recognized as a legitimate viewpoint even if you do not believe it is the correct viewpoint. The vilification you and your partner have been engaging in is simply unacceptable and does not belong on Wikipedia. Electoralist (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

My "partner"? And you complained about *me* failing to "assume good faith"? Your hypocrisy is boundless. I pointed out that Reform Judaism is a significant deviation from mainstream Jewish law, which it is. And Reform Judaism is about 1.5 million members strong, even though the Jewish population in America totals at over 6 million. Furthermore, it is very much a minority sect in Canada, let alone throughout the rest of the world. That's hardly enough to assume a mantle of authority over "what a Jew is", especially when it is in stark opposition to historical facts. Just by looking at the bigger picture, taking the past 3 millennia into account, Jews are by definition a MENA group.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your partner meaning the person who is supporting you in your argument and whose arguments you support. In any case, Reform is the majority stream of Judaism in North America. To dismiss it as "extreme" is simply bizarre. You may be extremely opposed to it but that doesn't make it extreme. Indeed, as the majority branch in North America it is, if anything, mainstream. Again, keep your sectarianism out of your editing. Electoralist (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

1.5 million out of *almost 6 million Jews* is not a majority. And I said it was extreme, just that it was a minority sect (pretty much exclusive to Ashkenazi Jews) and that using Reform perspectives as a crowbar to beat off historical facts is an example of WP:UNDUE.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

According to American Jews "Among those households who belong to a synagogue, 38% are members of Reform synagogues, 33% Conservative, 22% Orthodox, 2% Reconstructionist, and 5% other types" - so while not a majority, Reform Judaism remains the largest branch (denomination, if you will), among American Jews. Electoralist (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. Everyone here wants the same thing: Accurate and sufficient representation for Jews on this template. I suggest we use my edit which gives Jews & Arabs separate subcategories, but they both belong to "West Asians"/Semitic Peoples/Middle Easterners (which should also include Beta Israel "falasha" which has been used as a slur toward them especially in Ethiopia). Also, I believe Chronofrog's reference to "Reform" was the European-based movement that aimed for assimilation, not the Americanized Reform Movement that has in fact brought more Jews closer to their Ethnocultural/Tribal roots. Everyone agrees that Jews should have a category, but because the chart is separated by geographic/national origins, Jews should be located within a West Asian/Semitic/Middle Eastern category and within that should be a "Jews" category in addition to & separated from (no striping) other such groups. Please consider this suggestion. Most of my comments have been ignored and I do not like "wasting" my time, though of course I do not consider any of this a waste of time. Todah Rabah. Thank you very much.Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The European and North American Reform Judaism movements are the same thing though there has been an evolution over the past 150 years and there may be variations. European and North American Reform Judaism certainly see themselves as the same movement. Incidentally, I've never been a member of a Reform synagogue, am not a Reform Jew, and all of my teachers in Jewish studies have been Orthodox so ChronoFrog's assumptions about me in that regard are just another example of his tendency to leap to conclusions based on his own biases and prejudices rather than any actual evidence and then use his shaky conclusions to dismiss an argument he doesn't like and/or malign individuals (though why 1,800,000 people worldwide who are identiied as Reform Jews should be considered suspect is beyond me). I have continued to look through my edits outside of this template and discussion and I see nothing in my actual edits that would support his conclusions. I suspect he's leaping to conclusions because, after reading an article in the Canadian Jewish News about the end of Canadian Jewish Outlook and then looking at their final edition online, I edited the Outlook (Jewish magazine) article, the article on a related magazine Vochenblatt and a few articles about individuals involved with one or both of those publications. My reason for doing those edits was purely topical - Outlook ceased publication and I happened to read an article about that in Canadian Jewish News. The edits themselves are factual (or mere copyediting in most cases) and non-controversial but I suppose if someone has tunnel vision the mere fact that I edited articles relating to a left wing Jewish magazine must mean I espouse those views. Of course, if one looks at my edit history most of my edits have been to Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017, Theresa May and some other related articles so by the same logic, I guess I must be a Conservative. I've also made a number of edits to articles related to the Canadian Senate therefore I must be a Senator. This habit that ChronoFrog et al have displayed of leaping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence in order to not only dismiss, but malign someone who has a different view is highly problematic and counterproductive. But go ahead ChronoFrog, post some diffs of edits to articles outside of this page and the ethnic slurs template that support your wild and bizarre conclusions about me. I see, incidentally, that you originally accused me of "anti-Zionism" and "assimilationism" (see diff) perhaps because you realized that there was absolutely no evidence to support those claims and you were just making them up. Sadly, your revised claims that I have an "extremely biased" view on Judaism and under what you appear to view as the the hypnotic siren song of "Reform Judaism" are also baseless and fabricated - a troubling habit in an editor. Electoralist (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at my response above, because my conclusions weren't based on a cursory glance at your editing history alone. The beliefs you espouse *on here* and your posting habits overall are what aroused my suspicion. As for my "biases", I am a student in Jewish history and antisemitism and have been studying both for the past 3 years, although a considerable amount of that research has been independent. I am also a Mizrahi Jew, so naturally I get more than a little irritated when someone tries to classify me as a "European".ChronoFrog (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So there is nothing in my edit history that supports your outlandish conclusions, is there? You haven't provided a single diff in support of your claims about my edit history. I'll ask you again, what is it in my edit history that you find suspect? Be specific. Show your evidence. Surely, as a student you've been taught that you need to support your claims with evidence and need to cite your sources - something you have consistently failed to do. All you have presented is baseless conjecture and supposition. Electoralist (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I have asked you what claims you wanted sources for, but you refused to answer. And the articles you edited indicated, at least to me, that you were part of the Reform movement and that this is where you drew your perspective from, especially considering the fact that they pioneered the anti-national sensibilities in Jewish culture that you are currently espousing. This is becoming tiresome, to say the least, so I'm gonna make like my "partner" (lol) and find something less stressful to do. It clearly doesn't matter what I say because your mind is already made up.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You stated "It is clear to me that, based on your editing history (yes, I did look) and the arguments you've posted in this thread that you have an extremely biased view of Jewishness, most likely rooted in Reform Jewish thought." Show me your sources. Show me diffs from my edit history that support your claim that a) I have an "extremely biased view of Jewishness" that is b) "based in Reform Jewish thought." Further, in your most recent comments you now unequivocally say of me that "you are a Reform Jew". I'm actually not. That you can make such an unequivocal claim, falsely, without any evidence is quite incredible. Where is your proof? Show me the diffs. Where have I ever stated that I am a Reform Jew? Electoralist (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the "and the arguments you've posted in this thread" part of my statement. Again, what do you want sources for? I'll happily provide those, but I'm not going to post all of the diffs of you editing on Reform Jewish articles.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, you fail to provide a single diff for your claim that I have an "extremely biased view of Jewishness" that is b) "based in Reform Jewish thought" or that I am a Reform Jew despite my repeatedly asking you to back up your assertions. Will you withdraw your claims given that you clearly fabricated them without any basis? Electoralist (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"And the articles you edited indicated, at least to me, that you were part of the Reform movement". Really? Which articles and which edits? Show me the diffs that support this conclusion because, frankly, you are flat out wrong. "pioneered the anti-national sensibilities in Jewish culture" Really? So editing an article on Outlook or Vochenblatt means I support their editorial line? Don't you see the problems with making such assumptions, particularly of Wikipedia editors? I'll put it to you plainly. Just because you edit an article doesn't mean you agree with the person or thing that article is about. To assume othewise, as you do, is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. I edit articles on various political parties and do so objectively and neutrally regardless of whether or not I agree with said party. Same with articles on Vochenblatt or Outlook or other individuals or organizations within the Jewish community. Have you considered that maybe your editing is not neutral but comes out of a particular POV? Electoralist (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It was an assumption coupled with your views and posts in here. In other words, it is primarily based on how you are acting *in here*. The fact that you refuse to give this up despite the lack of consensus for your changes speaks volumes. And no, I don't do POV editing. Your belief that Jews are only a religion simply does not stand up to the light of scrutiny.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You clearly referred to my edit history outside of this discussion and to articles I edited but you have consistently failed to back up your claim with even a single diff or even naming a single article. Now you appear to be backing away from your assertion without so much as an apology for your past claims. Nor have you provided a single piece of evidence for the assertion you made, unequivically, that I am a Reform Jew. Electoralist (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

""That's hardly enough to assume a mantle of authority over "what a Jew is", especially when it is in stark opposition to historical facts." Again, you are displaying inferior reading comprehension skills. I did not say Reform Judaism had a "mantle of authority", I said that its views could not be dismissed as having no weight (and certainly not implied to be "anti-Semitic" or otherwise anti-Jewish) simply because you disagree with them, particularly as they represent a significant number of Jews, especially in North America. Electoralist (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2016

Please do not insult other editors. Thanks. I never said that Reform Judaism has no weight, but it certainly doesn't have enough weight to rewrite more than 3 millennia of Jewish history or negate standard applications of anthropology.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you not insulted me continuously? Electoralist (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal The template states that it is about ethnic and religious slurs. Perhaps the simplest solution, one that avoids making determinations on ethnicity, is to create a religion category within the template and list Jews (and Catholics, Muslims, and other religions) as subcategories? There may be differing views on whether or not Judaism is an ethnicity and how to categorise that ethnicity or ethnicities but certainly everyone can agree that there is a Jewish religion. Electoralist (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the Jewish Virtual Library:

"Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.

If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race."[2] Electoralist (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Race is a sociopolitical/Ethnocultural/Tribal designation and thus has a fluidity that allows for different, subjective, and sometimes contradictory definitions.

Jews, for the most part, are a Diasporic, Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, etc.), Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious, People of Color. Most Jews either have genetic Afro-Asiatic lineage, or have bonded with the Tribe through ritual initiation and their descendants carry a bloodline & heritage that is Afro-Asiatic. So, there should be no debate as to whether or not Jews belong in a Middle Eastern category—they do.

And Reform Movement in the Americas has evolved since any type of start in Europe. Europe has a visceral and racist history that has sustained itself in ways far longer and deeper among various native ethnic-European groups than in the Americas. When Jews escaped to the Americas, the only true Racism, as far as I have heard, continued to be elicited by the Europeans. So, no, the Reform Jews in Europe have dealt with Anti-Semitism/Racism against Jews differently than those in the Americas.

For the above reasons, Jews are a "Race" and Tribe (and Nation) but among other/Intersecting Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) Peoples. I am personally a mix of Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Mizrachi, (as well as Druze, and some more). Yes, they have differences, but they all come from the same root, core values, and physical/genetic/Tribal Diaspora. Please address all my above responses and their details. Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus either within the Jewish community (or among scholars) in regards to Jewish ethnicity as evidenced by the JVL entry I quote above which asserts both that there are people who are ethnically Jews but no longer Jews because of conversion to other religions are that there are those who are not ethnically Jewish but are nonetheless Jewish because of conversion to Judaism. It is simpler, therefore, to not make a conclusive statement about Jewish ethnicity one way or the other, as any statement is contestable, and for the purposes of the template classify Jews under religion. This does not negate your heritage, or anyone else's, it simply does not take a position on the ethnicity of Jews as a whole.Electoralist (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No This is essentially the same proposal from before, but with a slightly different coat of paint. And we've had this same discussion already. You can't just keep prolonging an RFC until you get what you want. My answer remains the same as before....no.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is not the same proposal - see the template - previously it was proposed to have Jews as a standalone category, now it is proposed to classify Jews under the category "religion". As the template has been labelled "ethnic and religious slurs" for at least five years I have created a section of religious slurs. It would be logical to include Jews in that section. Electoralist (talk)

Opposed Jewishness is not exclusively (or even primarily) a religious identity. Ridiculous.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And your response to the JVL entry? Electoralist (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the JVL article, "Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture." And I didn't even need to dig that far to refute your claim.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Jewish Virtual Library even WP:RS? At any rate, these are all reliable sources supporting the ethnic and national categorization of Jews.

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.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. "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 people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament." Jew at Encyclopedia Britannica "Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews." Hebrew (People) at Encyclopedia Britannica Brandeis, Louis (April 25, 1915). "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It". University of Louisville School of Law. Retrieved 2012-04-02. "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" Palmer, Edward Henry (October 14, 2002) [First published 1874]. A History of the Jewish Nation: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Gorgias Press. ISBN 978-1-931956-69-7. OCLC 51578088. Retrieved 2012-04-02. Lay summary. Einstein, Albert (June 21, 1921). "How I Became a Zionist" (PDF). Einstein Papers Project. Princeton University Press. Retrieved 2012-04-05. "The Jewish nation is a living fact"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#cite_note-Jews-are-ethnoreligious-group-12. That's where I took these citations from.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Jewish Virtual Library even WP:RS?" According to our article Jewish Virtual Library: "The Jewish Virtual Library has been cited by CNN,[14] New York Times,[15] BBC,[16] CBS News,[17] Fox News,[18] The Los Angeles Times,[19] USA Today,[20] Bloomberg,[21] among others. It is listed as reference by academic libraries at Pennsylvania State University,[22] Michigan State University,[9] University of Washington,[23] King's College, London,[24] and the University of Delaware." - so I would say yes, it is suitable as an RS. Electoralist (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Negating the existence of a Jewish ethnicity is highly questionable. At the very least, there exist lots of reliable sources that Jews are an ethnicity. In addition, in the context of slurs, characterizing Jews strictly as a religion fails to capture the fact that non-observant Jews are slurred in the same way that observant ones are. In Der Ewige Jude, for example, Nazi propaganda explicitly equated the religious, bearded Jew with the clean-shaven, secular and integrated Jew. Much was written during that era about how to identify Jews who outwardly looked and acted like Germans. Because of this, slurs directed at Jews cannot be classified solely as religious slurs, since a large part of the intent behind the slur was not directed only at the religious Jew. Since "ethnicity" includes all the different intents, it makes more sense here to continue categorizing Jews as an ethnicity, that ethnicity comprising religious, cultural, ancestral, et cetera identities, per the dictionary definition of the term "ethnicity."

Quite independently from how those who hated Jews viewed them, the Jews themselves traditionally viewed their identity as comprising of religion, culture, geography, and ancestry. For example, the common term "b'nei b'rit(echa)" meaning "children of (Your) covenant," indicated those who accepted upon themselves and their progeny the covenant of Abraham. This one phrase includes religious identity (the covenant with G-d), cultural identity (the teachings of Abraham and his practices, including circumcision, passed down generation after generation), and ancestral identity (as children of Abraham). All these are apparent from the terms themselves and from their usage in Jewish liturgy. There, in the daily morning service, the phrase "But we are Your people, the children of Your covenant," is immediately followed with the clarification, "the children of Abraham, who loved You." The liturgy even includes geographic identity in the same breath, as it continues, "whom You swore to on Mount Moria [the Temple Mount]." In addition, during the High Holiday services, the inherited merit of Abraham and his covenant is invoked using this same phrase, when entreating G-d to "inscribe all the children of Your covenant (b'nei britecha) for good life." Here, Jewish identity is affirmed, despite any lack in religious observance, because inherited merit is independent of a Jew's personal observance. (This concept occurs repeatedly in rabbinical writings; research the term "zechut avot" to see what I mean.)

Trying to separate out one of these identities that make up Jewish ethnicity, to the negation of all other identities, could be of temporary use for certain topics, but this is not one of those. In general, we should be wary of isolating these identities, since no single aspect of Jewish ethnicity aptly summarizes the Jewish situation. Hence, I am opposed to categorizing Jewish slurs separately under a "religious" category alone. It makes more sense to keep organizing them by ethnicity. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no negation of Jewish ethnicity (and by your argument, classifiying Jews under ethnicity is a negation of religion, and thus should also be avoided). Classifying anti-Jewish slurs such as Christ-killer, under religion is simply a recognition that there is a religious, even a dominant religious aspect, to Judaism and also solves the issue of Jewish ethnicity being multi-ethnic and including converts who may have no ethnic relationship to "West Asia". Electoralist (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Classifying Jews under religion indicates that observance of Torah is a prerequisite to being considered a Jew, and we both know that this is false. On the other hand, classifying Jews as an ethnicity and/or nationality does not close off the the possibility of converts or newcomers joining the tribe. We all know that migrations and mixing happens, the same is true for any nation, although there are exceptions. Nationality is not as rigid as you seem to think it is.ChronoFrog (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that editors disagree about whether "religion" or "ethnicity" would be more appropriate, I've been trying to think of another way of expressing it. It seems to me that antisemitism targets Jews based upon their identity as Jews. Therefore, would "religious identity" (as opposed to "religion", as in "religious belief" – more like identity as members of a religious group) work better? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There are different types of antisemitism. Religious antisemitism was dominant for most of history. So-called racial antisemitism (or "scientific" (actually pseudoscientific) antisemitism became more pprevalent in the 20th century, particularly with the Nazis. Electoralist (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Um... http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/ ChronoFrog (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're evidently not familiar with the term "racial anti-Semitism" or its history this article may help you follow the conversation as well as this article: "Religious vs. Racial Anti-Semitism". Electoralist (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point indeed. Perhaps "race" might be an option for the broad category. It would include races of people defined by religious background as well as those defined by skin color and perhaps by other identifiers, more so than by their current national location. With "religious identity", I was trying to get at something broader than the religion itself: sort of like being identified by the slur-maker as being a member of a religious group as opposed to personally adhering to a religious belief, and perhaps one could argue that this would include racial antisemitism. I don't think any of the slurs in the template are specific to racial antisemitism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion highlights well that "Jews" is a religious classification, not racial or ethnic. People of the Jewish religion are found among the Chinese, Indians, Ethiopians, Arabs, and Europeans. Hinduism is more constrained to an ethnic people than Jewishness. Israeli law of return favors the religious definition of "Jew", not ethnic, whereby the religious affiliation determines eligibility, and religious apostasy (conversion to Christianity) can be grounds for denial. Hence, the question in this RfC is itself meaningless. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This comment is absurd, for reasons that have been explained at length innumerable times over the course of this discussion. Also, you're wrong about Israeli law. It favors anyone of Jewish descent, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation.ChronoFrog (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm probably going to take this page off my watchlist after posting this, but here is what I end up thinking about the RfC question. The geographic classification should be done away with. The listings for Jews should be in a single (sort of standalone) grouping, with "Jews" as the immediate label. The larger grouping that contains the group for "Jews" should be either "Religion" or "Religious identity" (although I could also go along with "Race" – but not "Asian" or "West Asian"). I get it, I get it, that it really isn't as simple as religion, but we should not overthink it, nor let the perfect become the enemy of the good enough. A book-length header with every nuance and footnote cannot fit into the template. "Religion" is good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not Asian or West Asian? It would be a much better fit, and much more broadly encompassing, than "European" would. Also, you seemed supportive of including Jews under West Asian before. Why the sudden change? "Jew" is not a religious classification - Jews are an ethnoreligious community which includes atheists and even people of other faiths. Additionally, Israeli law directly recognizes this fact in that descendants of Jews on the Father's side can immigrate to Israel, despite it not being consistent with Jewish religious laws.ChronoFrog (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't support this new proposal. An identity isn't "religious" unless they are adherents of that faith. As mentioned above, many Jews are not followers of Judaism. It is nationality, culture, and common descent, not faith, that defines us as a people, and both of these are West Asian. The addition of converts doesn't change that. Leave the template as it is.ChronoFrog (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "sudden change"; it's my best assessment after this amount of endless talk. The purpose of an RfC is to get input from uninvolved editors, not for involved editors to dig in and refuse to budge. To treat Judaism as a geographic region rather than as a religion is illogical. This is not a template about Judaism. The casters of slurs do not care about theological subtleties. They identify Jews as Jews regardless of an individual's observance or nonobservance. It's an identity that they impose. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about "Judaism", which is a national faith. We're talking about Jews, a nation and ethnoreligious group. We have self-defined as "the nation of Israel" for millennia. And Israel is located where? Asia. Not Europe, not Africa, not North America. Asia. The fact that this is still being disputed, despite overwhelming evidence (including RS) in support of everything I just wrote, is incredible. If anyone is being recalcitrant, it certainly isn't me.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"This discussion highlights well that "Jews" is a religious classification, not racial or ethnic".

No it does not.

"People of the Jewish religion are found among the Chinese, Indians, Ethiopians, Arabs, and Europeans. Hinduism is more constrained to an ethnic people than Jewishness".

• Can you be both Chinese and an atheist? Yes.

• Can you be both an Indian and an atheist? Yes.

• Can you be both an Ethiopian and an atheist? Yes.

• Can you be both an Arab and an atheist? Yes.

• Can you be both Jewish and an atheist? Yes.

• Can you be both a Hindu and an atheist? No.

• Can you be both a Muslim and an atheist? No.

• Can you be both a Christian and an atheist? No.

Hundreds of thousands of atheist Jews made aliyah to Israel over the years, including about 1 million (mainly atheist) Russian Jews. And again, because this can't be emphasized enough, we are called "diaspora Jews" everywhere except for one place.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I really am going to take this page off of my watchlist now, because I just don't see any way I can offer anything more to this seemingly intractable discussion. But I want to make a suggestion before I go. If editors end up feeling dissatisfied after this RfC is over, you might find it useful to ask for a mediated discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MIDDLE EASTERN: If the argument that simply residing in a country [nationalism] other than one's heritage is to stand (based on my understanding of the "jews are white" argument) then, how long does this naturalization take? For example, the first black man to reach the shores of North America was Juan Garrido, born in West Africa around 1480. He arrived in North America in 1619. Using the author's argument, surely this man's descendants are now either Native North American or white ... http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/who_was_the_first_african_american_100_amazing_facts_about_the_negro/ Further, this study provides that "Recent reports have reaffirmed that the Ashkenazim Jewish population has a common Middle Eastern origin with other Jewish Diaspora populations" therefore there is a common historically proven genetic link between Ashkenazi Jews regardless of their geographic location in the Diaspora. http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html Jennanne98 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, again—though I am disappointed my points gave not in totality been completely addressed in the Talk convo., I like the Template the way it is now. No striping, and Jews are classified in the appropriate ethnographic section. I support The Human Trumpet Solo & ChronoFrog's most recent responses. Jews are a Diasporic Semitic People & ethnographically we originate in the Afro-Asiatic territory, and the slurs related to Jews relate to that origin. I would also say we would not need this further mediated because it seems we are all wanting the same thing: Jews clearly and accurately represented. Jews face Racial discrimation for being Jews, even among other Semites, but they face Racial discrimination for being Semites & specifically Jews by other/Intersecting Peoples as well. Result: Jews should placed within the West Asians category under Jews. Jews have always been Semitic/Afro-Asiatic/Middle Eastern, and everyone has agreed with that idea until it becomes inconvenient/"threatening" to Oppressive narratives. Sometimes Jews themselves (who may feel it is dangerous to identify as Semitic and may not identify as such so as not to encourage Racism), perpetuate this "whitewashing" and further confuse already-agreed-upon/researched Jewish/Israelite history. Let us keep it as it is with Jews under West Asians, but other groups having separate lists within their own Ethnographic & Ethnocultural groups. Agreed? Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I am against having a mediation because there's really nothing to mediate; we either follow encyclopedic standards or we don't. I seriously doubt this topic would be so hotly contested were it not for the numerous political sensitivities involved, both inside and outside of the Jewish community (although I find the idea that non-Jews should have any say whatsoever in how we identify ourselves to be utterly ridiculous), but here we are. Just to reiterate, we still classify Arabs as West Asian even though millions of them live in North Africa (hell, some Arabs are black, e.g. Sudanese Arabs) and most likely have little to no genetic connection to West Asian Arabs. We still classify Gypsies as South Asian even though they spent many centuries in Europe, just like Ashkenazi Jews did. We still classify the British, French, Italians, Greeks, etc as ethnic groups and nationalities despite the continuous influx of immigrants throughout history. In light of all of this, these arguments I'm hearing about "converts" and "genetic impurity" are simply not good enough. Every RS posted on this talk page directly affirms the ethnoreligious/national identity of Jews. Couple that with the fact that, per the UN's established checklist for indigenous status, Jews are indigenous to Israel and it becomes clear that this dispute should never have happened in the first place.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a consensus and, frankly, I think the accusations that anyone who disagrees with one particular viewpoint is an anti-Semite has chilled the discussion and discouraged neutal editors from weighing in. I think some sort of dispute resolution is required. Electoralist (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As if the fear of being labeled an antisemite (a fear that I'm not particularly sympathetic to; anyone who is legitimately anti-racist would be less concerned with protecting their vanity than with actually listening to the marginalized groups in question) has ever stopped anyone before. Either way, mediation won't change a thing. The fact that you could not obtain the consensus you desired does not mean we need to drag this out even further. Besides that, I am never going to agree to the changes you've proposed thus far because they are inconsistent, unsupported by facts and evidence, and above all, unencyclopedic.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the fear of being smeared with a false accusation of anti-Semitism. Electoralist (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fear I'm even LESS sympathetic to, if only because it demonstrates beyond any doubt that they don't believe we are reliable narrators of our own experiences. It is never ok to dismiss claims of bigotry without first going through the examination process. See also "Playing With Cards: Discrimination Claims and the Charge of Bad Faith". http://www.academia.edu/9374855/Playing_with_Cards_Discrimination_Claims_and_the_Charge_of_Bad_Faith ChronoFrog (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I await your self-examination in response to concerns you are bigoted against Reform Judaism. I expect you'll simply be dismissive, however. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Because I said they were a minority sect whose beliefs deviate significantly from the mainstream Jewish community? I would like to know how that is bigoted.ChronoFrog (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously?.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I have to say that so far I'm liking the improvements Electoralist made to the template today. Good work.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm liking how it looks right now as well. The addition of an "Outsiders" category was inspired. GJ. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:44, 22 July 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.

Bohunk

This seems to be traditionally directed to Czechs, not Hungarians. HGilbert (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Shiksa and Goy

According to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary: "Definition of shiksa 1 often disparaging : a non-Jewish girl or woman 2: a Jewish girl or woman who does not observe Jewish precepts —used especially by Orthodox Jews".[3] The claim that it is not a religious term is Original research. Electoralist (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Especially, not exclusively.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So there is a religious aspect to the term. Electoralist (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition gentile, (the English translation of the Yiddish term goy), is defined thusly by Mirriam-Webster: "Full Definition of gentile 1 often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew 2: heathen, pagan 3 often capitalized : a non-Mormon""[4] Electoralist (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"Especially" is not enough, and those definitions make it clear that it can be, and is, applied in non-religious contexts.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What matters is that there are religious aspects to the terms. Indeed, a non-ethnically Jewish convert to Judaism would not be referred to as a goy or gentile. I've provided sources. Please provide a source for your contention that the term has no religious application. Electoralist (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it has no religious application. I said it doesn't have an exclusively religious application.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Exclusivity is not required. Electoralist (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is if you're trying to categorize these slurs under religion only.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence that the term goy (gentile) or shiksa or its male equivalent are commonly applied to converts to Judaism? Electoralist (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the definitions you posted, they are not exclusively religious slurs.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are not applied on an ethnic basis to converts to the Jewish faith then they are obviously, primarily, religious slurs since the faith element trumps ethnicity. So again, do you have evidence of the terms being used against non-ethnically Jewish converts to Judaism? Electoralist (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly having difficulty making any sense of what you just said. If a slur is not exclusively used in a religious context, it should not be categorized as such. Simple as that.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"I'm honestly having difficulty making any sense of what you just said". Let me simplify. If the term "goy" is not used to describe someone who is not ethnically Jewish but has converted to the Jewish faith then the term is obviously a religious slur, and not an ethnic one. Electoralist (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a "religious slur" is used against someone who is Jewish by ethnicity only, then it's not really a religious slur, is it?ChronoFrog (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the term "goy" or "shiksa" ever being used against anyone who is Jewish either by ethnicity or religion. If you are claiming otherwise please provide a source. Electoralist (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The first part of your statement is an informal fallacy aka argumentum ad ignorantiam. You want a source? Here you go.

• James Orr, ed. (1939). "Goiim". International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. OCLC 819295. Retrieved January 13, 2012.

I see nothing that suggests that either term would be N/A in non-religious contexts.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the ignoratiam comes in with your miscomprehension of the term 'goy' as being "used against someone who is Jewish" when it's actually a term used to describe non-Jews. This may help. Electoralist (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, that is a Youtube video. Moreover, I know what "goy" means. You're not understanding my point. Goy means "anyone who is non-Jewish", and there is nothing that suggests this is a specifically religious term.ChronoFrog (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Blacks

Supposing, for the moment, that there will not be a consensus to change the template from the geographical organization, it seems to me that the geographical organization should be used consistently. At this time, the one outlier is for Blacks, who have a General section containing all the slurs. And there is no section for Africa. I think it might be logical to change Blacks, General, to Africa, Blacks. Has this been discussed before? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I just changed the template to reflect your suggestions.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Down under

(Yeah, I know I said I was going to take this off my watchlist, but...) It occurs to me that there probably are slurs about people from Australia and New Zealand, that should also have a section. However, I don't know what those are. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Arabs and Romani

Seeing as Jews have been removed from West Asian on the basis of their acceptance of converts, it doesn't make much sense to include Arabs under West Asian or Gypsies under South Asian, since millions of Arabs live in North Africa and Gypsies have also accepted outsiders into their fold. I created a separate category for them both as a result.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Electoralist (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I made an error wrt Romani. They don't accept outsiders, so I'm putting them back under South Asians.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While that's true, arguably at this point though Romani have anthropological origins in India (no one is sure where in India specifically), they are as far removed from India as Indigenous people in Americas are from Asia if one accepts the Bering Straits land bridge theory of migration, or certainly as much as white Americans are removed from Europe. Romani culture and language(s) have been shaped in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe for the past 1,000 years or so, so there is certainly an argument for that Romani don't neatly fall under the South Asian header and should be a standalone category. Any thoughts @BengaliHindu:? Electoralist (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Electoralist:I think Romani doesn't fall under South Asia. They are best fit under Europe. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-Addition of West Asians(/North Africans) to Template

I am confused, I thought most people agreed here that both Jews and Arabs could be included (albeit separated) under the West Asians category? What did I miss?

To delete an entire section with clear, relevant connections to both and more groups is radically exclusionary and, frankly, ignorant. I move to recreate the West Asians part of the template and move both Arabs and Jews back to their places with their individual sets of slurs (which may overlap as well, perhaps no general category).

I would also agree to including "North Africans" next to West Asians, as people also refer to the Levant as Northeast Africa, especially with much of Israel located on Africa's tectonic plate.

Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed West Asians and Arabs from their respective locations because in light of the arbitrary criteria (I'll get to that in a second) laid forth, Arabs do not fit neatly under that category either. Also, Middle Easterners are typically considered separate from Asia anyway.

All of that being said, I find this decision very bizarre and I am not satisfied with it at all. Sources were provided, Wikipedia policy was followed to the letter, and there seemed to be something approaching an agreement on this controversy before it died down, as you mentioned. If I recall correctly, WP:CONSENSUS is determined by the strength of arguments and arriving at a mutual agreement (or as close to an agreement as possible), not via majority votes, especially when the majority of editors commenting seemed to have little to no understanding of the subject matter at hand. Needless to say, I fully intend to challenge this decision.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There was never consensus for your position. What there was was two or three editors trying to enforce their position via bulldozing and trying to smear people who disagreed. There was even a proposal for mediation that was arrogantly dismissed. What happened in the end was an experienced uninvolved editor went through the RFC and assessed consensus based not on the volume and persistence of the minority but on policy and arguments. Electoralist (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, there was a consensus for the inclusion of both Jews and Arabs under West Asian. Not only did User:Jeffgr9 provide a link to at least one prior discussion where such consensus was achieved, Jews had been listed under Asian on here for at least a couple of years up until now. Second, read Deryk C's statement. He based his decision on majority votes, not on WP:CONSENSUS which says, quite plainly, that consensus is built on the strength of arguments, not votes.

Agreed with the last comment - the preponderance of the evidence supported the inclusion of Jews (and Arabs) as West Asian, rather than stand-alone categories. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The conclusion of the debate is, by a thin margin of opinion and argument, that Jews should form a standalone category. A significant minority of editors argued for Jews to be included under Asian alongside Arabs, but there is a stronger majority opinion who prefer not to put them under Asian because the Jews' strong African and European affiliation means they don't fit neatly into the categorisation used by this template.

Lastly, I counted more than 2 or 3 editors arguing against your proposal. It had to have been at least 10+ people, about as many as those who were voting against, not including editors whose positions were ameliorated somewhat over the course of our discussion. At this point, maybe mediation would be best because one way or another, I'm going to challenge this decision until an appropriate change is made.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And while I do agree that allegations of antisemitism a violation of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:AGF), I don't think they were entirely unfounded. One could certainly make a case that some of the arguments being made were antisemitic, even if unintentionally.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There was never any antisemitism. Please stop violating WP:UNCIVIL. Electoralist (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I said that one could potentially make a case for it. Angry, defensive assertions to the contrary won't convince me of anything (in fact, it's more likely to cement my position). I will be seeking mediation for this case, or some kind of appeal. Wiki protocol was violated here and I have no intention of letting that slide.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Objectively, there was no antisemitism regardless of what you may or may not think and there's been no violation of protocol and given that you dismissed mediation when it was offered your desire to have it now may appear disingenuous. Electoralist (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't confuse your own personal disagreement with objectivity. The second part of your statement is, per your logic at least, a violation of WP:AGF. I rejected it initially only because I was exhausted and felt that we already had a consensus i.e. that Jews and Arabs would be included as separate ethnicities, but both would be placed under West Asian. The recent decision has led me to believe that something is amiss, and seeing as we still strongly disagree, mediation would be the only way to resolve it. Also, I could make the same argument, that you are now rejecting mediation because you now have what you want.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone other than the subject of discriminatory or racist comments is in a proper position to assess whether they were discriminatory. THere were a number of editors arguing that Jews do not constitute a people, despite the fact that Jews have identified as a people for far longer than most modern peoples have existed. The Torah/Bible refers to "Am Yisrael", and "B'nei Yisrael", the people of Israel and the Children of Israel; Jews do not (or did not, until recently) see ourselves as a religion, specifically. Our religion is simply part of our peoplehood. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A)No one ever said Jews don't constitute a people. The question was whether as a multiethnic-religio-cultural people we fit under a simple ethnic category. What and who is a Jew is a question Jewish scholars have long debated. B) As both my parents suffered during the Holocaust, my father and grandfather both interned in a concentration camp, my mother and her immediate family living in a situation of pogroms and anti-Semitic humiliations and oppressions and her grandmother being gassed at Auschwitz, I find the casual and loose use of the term antisemitism highly objectionable, particularly when it's done in an attempt to delegitimise someone you disagree with. If I see that happening again I will seek disciplinary action. Electoralist (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A) You yourself have said it multiple times. Other editors have made similar comments. This, at the very least, reflects a profound ignorance of the subject matter we are discussing. B) You don't get to shut down other people's (notably other Jews) concerns about antisemitism because you don't agree with it.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of the term anti-Semitism debases the term an threatens to make it meaningless making it easier for genuine antisemitism to reassert itself. It's been said "When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere... we no longer know how to recognize the real thing—the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance." As a Jew and one whose family directly suffered under the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism I have an obligation to speak up when people use the term loosely and irresponsiby. Electoralist (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, you think it was misused. That doesn't mean it was misused. In your opinion, the arguments on offer were not antisemitic, and that's fine, but others clearly disagree, and that's fine too. And frankly, your defensiveness is only pushing me further towards the other camp.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You made numerous (incorrect, from an anthropological/historical/scholarly standpoint) comments about how Ashkenazim are European, not Middle Eastern, how Sephardic Jews are Arabs (which I find personally objectionable), how Iranian Jews are Persians, and so on. How does that not imply that we're not a people?ChronoFrog (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While I don't have time to wade deeply into this issue at the moment, I think that mediation would be highly appropriate on this issue. Wikipedia arguments are supposed to be resolved by evidence and the logic of the arguments, not by majority rule. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I offered mediation as an alternative to seeing the RFC through to conclusion, the offer was rejected and the RFC has concluded so that ship has sailed and so I do not consent to mediation. Electoralist (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy this. I think you're rejecting it because you agree with the way the template is now. And even if mediation isn't accepted, I will issue an appeal to have this decision investigated more closely. ChronoFrog (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"I think you're rejecting it because you agree with the way the template is now." Is that why you rejected mediation when it was offered? Electoralist (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I rejected it because I was exhausted and had no interest in perpetuating a discussion that had clearly run out of steam, and it was obvious (at least to me) that you intended to keep it going until the template was to your liking. Your opposition to mediation now only confirms my suspicion.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The irony of your statement is that it is you who are attempting "to keep it going until the template [is] to your liking". You even said earlier today "I'm going to challenge this decision until an appropriate change is made" Electoralist (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in keeping the discussion going. As far as I'm concerned, it died down weeks ago as it should have. I'm petitioning for a change that more closely adheres to Wiki policy and takes our concerns into account.ChronoFrog (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I'm fairly certain that you only offered mediation because the discussion was dying down and the template still wasn't to your liking.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You repeatedly have made incorrect assumptions (eg that I'm Reform being the biggest howler) and your assumptions have only misled you and caused you problems. In fact, I made no assumption about how the RFC would be closed though I was fairly certain your assumptions that you represented consensus were erroneous. From now on, I suggest the only thing you should assume is good faith, something you have consistently failed to do. Electoralist (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My assumptions about you have not caused me any problems, and I never said that I represented consensus. I only repeated what the current consensus was. There's a difference.

As for me assuming good faith about you, I'm afraid that ship has sailed.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I will bring this issue up in the appropriate venue later on tonight or after Saturday. I have to prepare for Shabbat.ChronoFrog (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion of classifying slurs against Jews in Asian vs. standalone at DRN

Off the back of the very long discussion on my user talk page, I have referred the issue in the RfC above to the dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN). The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:Ethnic slurs

@Electoralist, Elmmapleoakpine, AlexandraMichelleMarkus, Tryptofish, Jeffgr9, The Human Trumpet Solo, Kitty1983, Musashiaharon, GeneralizationsAreBad, BlackcurrantTea, Hgilbert, Pincrete, Yulia Romero, Sfarney, Jennanne98, and Maunus: Notifying all participants of RfC here. Deryck C. 23:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for putting this on my radar - I was not really involved in the debate, though. GAB^gab 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, the discussion was closed by User:Robert McClenon. Could you see his comments there and reopen at the WP:Administrator's Noticeboard? Musashiaharon (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The request to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard after a Request for Comments appears to be an effort to use DRN to reconsider an RFC closure. DRN isn't the forum for that. AN is. If this discussion is unrelated to the previous RFC close, then maybe someone can explain to me what it is about or why User:TransporterMan and I were both mistaken in closing it. However, it looks to me like a request to overturn an RFC closure, and there is a procedure for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Having been pinged, let me add to this that a request for review has been filed at AN and is already receiving responses. Anyone who wishes to contest the closure needs to weigh in there as soon as possible. By providing this information, I am not implying that there is or is not a good reason to contest the closure, but merely making sure that everyone knows about it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.

This question and conversation has a strangely familiar ring when you listen to this interview with David Duke by Steve Inskeep. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/05/488802494/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-says-of-course-trump-voters-are-his-voters. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Kafir

I was surprised to see Kafir categorized as an ethnic slur against Jews, as I have been called that many times, and I am definitely not Jewish. It wasn't used as a slur, but as an objective description, although I do not disbelieve it can be used as a slur. I'd like to see some some RS supporting this usage, as that isn't consistent with my understanding of the Quran. I note that the existing article largely conforms with my understanding, and barely mention Jews—it is decidedly not central.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. I've moved it accordingly. Electoralist (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that was easy :) Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Shalom all, I just added a citation/quote specifically referencing Jews as kafirs: "The Jews and Christians are both kaafirs and mushrikeen. They are kaafirs because they deny the truth and reject it." (Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. "Islam Question and Answer." Published February 13, 2002. Accessed August 9, 2016.) Thank you. I will restore the change that I left. Jeffgr9 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove geographic designations

Per User: The Human Trumpet Solo. It's a suggestion that seemed to be gaining support, so I'm reviving it in the hopes of reaching a reasonable compromise. What does everybody say?ChronoFrog (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I was mulling over a proposal along the same lines; I can see multiple problems with some of the geographic categorizations, and not fully grasping any positive value other than the close to trivial desire for some grouping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary. First of all the ANI discussion is overwhelmingly endorsing the status quo, secondly it is unnecessary to deconstruct the template because a few groups don't easily fit under broader ethnic categories and are standalone and it's unclear to me which additional groups do not fit under a geographic category (perhaps Romani although ChronoFrog asserts otherwise). Given the number of groups listed, removing the geographic categories would make the template more difficult to navigate. Electoralist (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Because this proposal has not yet been fielded to them. The only editor who has seen it (User: Tryptofish) seemed supportive at first. I feel it's worth a try.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Right, so when you said the proposal "seemed to be gaining support" you actually meant "from one editor". Electoralist (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Myself, Human Trumpet Solo, and Tryptofish (and now S Philbrick) are/were open to the idea. If your next response entails some sort of cross-examination of my motives, save it. I really don't care about your paranoid fantasies. In fact, I will probably request an enforced separation between us, since it is obvious that we strongly dislike each other (let's just say you embody everything I despise about certain segments of the Jewish community) and are therefore incapable of working together. The sooner I never see you again, the better.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia is not social media and you do not get to choose who edits articles. You particularly cannot ban people based on their religious or ethnic affiliations, even if you "despise" those communities. If you are unable to work with others (as is becoming evident on ANI) and if you harbour prejudice and/or hatred for certain ethnic or religious communities (as evidenced by your comment above) then you should govern your own conduct accordingly. There is no place on Wikipedia for anti-Semitism and you should refrain making statements that there are things you "despise about certain segments of the Jewish community." Electoralist (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Electoralist, not that you particularly qualify, but I believe ChronoFrog was referring to "self-hating," or "self-destructive" Jews who will try to undermine our National/Tribal identity as B'Nai Y'Israel. By saying that Jews are "white," that Judaism is "just a religion," and/or diminishing the concept of "race"/"ethnicity" to just skin tone, a person falsely narrows down how "race" truly manifests in society. Race, in fact, is more of a sociopolitical and Ethnocultural amalgamation and constitutes more than just one particular attribute that defines individual peoples. I think ChronoFrog is more frustrated than hateful of you/your perspective, as he seems to want to save Jews from erasure, as I do. By labeling Jews "white," it erases their history/experience; by not labeling Jews ethnographically in an ethnographically-divided template, it erases their experience/history; by looking at our Diaspora and not attributing it to one, core Nation that branches out and intersects with others/within itself, it denies our history/experience. Do you see the miscommunication/what I am trying to say? Todah Rabah, Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) First of all, I have no idea whether or not ChronoFrog is actually Jewish. His ignorance of the fact that Sabbath begins on sundown on Friday (rather than midnight)[5], something which even the most secular and non-observant of Jews would know, is puzzling and since on the internet anyone can say they're anything they want to be it's fair to take his claim with a grain of salt. Secondly, to "despise" a group of people is to hate them, by definition, so I don't see the point of trying to sugarcoat his words. Third, to say one despises "certain segments of the Jewish community" is a fairly clear expression of anti-Semitism (particularly if one isn't Jewish). Even if it weren't, it's not acceptable language. Electoralist (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC) It depends on what part of the Jewish community you despise. The types who would happily sell us up the river, compromise our identity, etc out of fear or desire for social acceptance (or whatever reason) are the types I despise. And yes Jeffgr9, that's exactly who I was referring to (and no, hating such people is not antisemitic; if a black person said he/she hated elements of the black community who supported Hermann Cain, would he/she be a racist?). I have no way of proving to you that I'm Jewish, nor do I really care what you think. All I was trying to say is that I am considering a request for mandatory separation between us, because to be frank: I can't stand you.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC) ChronoFrog, when you find yourself in a hole, which is where you are now, you should stop digging. Electoralist (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC) The admins are not gonna ban me because I hurt your feelings, Electoralist. Also, you're wrong about one thing: I *do* have the ability to request a separation. See WP:Interaction ban.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Although to be honest, the way the RfC and the AN noticeboard discussion panned out tells me that Wikipedia has a strong WP:Systemic bias against Jews (at least, those Jews who are nothing like the types I described above), so I will probably end up leaving anyway. I can't participate in a project that actively defies policy, runs on a system of majority vote (because we all know how well that has worked out for us in the past), and deliberately marginalizes the perspectives of certain ethnic minorities. This article alone is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, the antisemitism within would make the KKK proud. ChronoFrog (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Seriously guys, stop arguing—you agree on key parts of this issue, but continue to drag it into needless conflict. Also, Electoralist, please address my points above and in the other sections of the RfC. Your response above only regards how you feel about ChronoFrog... I am not that user. What do you think about the points I made?? Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Additionally, I also agree that there are many problems (clear Anti-Semitic/Anti-Zionist perspectives) with the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement article. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Hurt feelings, no. However, ChronoFrog, your conduct on ANI is perilously close to "trying the patience of the community". A request for an interaction ban is just as likely to result in your being banned from interacting with me something you can just as well enter into on a voluntary basis. Electoralist (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC) You think I care about your "patience"? Thanks to people like you, I'm now 100x as likely to be called a "f**king Khazar" and "fake Semite" on my campus, and they will have THIS SITE to back up their "wisdom". Yet somehow I'm the antisemite? This so-called "community" is a joke, and until it is willing to take an honest look at its institutionalized antisemitism, I want no part of it. I guess now I know why college professors flunk anyone who uses this site as a source.ChronoFrog (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)ChronoFrog (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC) The Khazar thesis has been thoroughly debunked and that's made quite clear in the Wikipedia article Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry so you can use this site to refute that claim. As for Semitic, that's a linguistic term, not an ethnic one. The term anti-Semite is actually a misnomer coined by Jew-hater Heinrich von Treitschke, as detailed in the relevant Wikipedia articles. Electoralist (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping. I'm responding here because of the ping, but I am not keeping this on my watchlist. Yes, I basically do think it would be a good idea to remove at least some of the geographic designations, and to organize the template according to some other primary criterion instead of geography. But it doesn't mean that geography needs to be completely omitted. Instead, I would use geography when the specific group is defined in terms of a present-day nation, defining "nation" for this purpose as having a legally-defined government and basically being what the United Nations would consider a nation. Consequently, it would be fine to continue to group Europeans together, as Albanians, British, Czechs, and so forth, because those countries are part of Europe. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Electoralist, you know exactly what I meant by "Khazar" and "fake Semite". There are many people out there (hundreds of millions, in fact) who honestly believe that we are impostors who have no connection to the Middle East at all, that we're colonial interlopers, converts to the Jewish religion, not really Middle Eastern, and so on. Your attempted erasure/mitigation of said ethnic/historic connections (despite the truckloads of RS provided, and WP:DUE) is helping to validate their bigoted views. My anger against you, and the wider Wikipedia "community" that is sanctioning this revisionism, is 100 percent justified.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be pursuing an ideological agenda to promote a line that implies modern Jews as a whole are descended only from the ancient Israelites and dismiss or negate any admixtures, particularly among Ashkenazim, despite the fact that over 3/4 of the world's Jews are Ashkenazi. While I understand there is a national myth at play here it is not our role at Wikipedia to promote either the view that Jews have a greater claim to Israel/Palestine than Palestinian Arabs (you've used the term "indigenous" elsewhere) or, conversely, to promote the other extreme that holds Jews have no claim whatsoever and that Palestinians hold an exclusive claim. Your position literally negates half the story of the modern Jewish people no less than the claim by some Palestinian ideologues that Israel is settled by people who are wholly European (when, in fact Ashkenazim are partially descended from Middle Easterns and that more than half of the Israeli Jewish population are in fact Shephardic and Mizrahi). Nor is this a place (not that you've argued this) for the ahistorical, unscientific claim that some make that there is no such thing as the Palestinian people, that Palestine was largely empty 150 years ago, and that the Palestinians are merely Arabs from other lands who settled in Palestine in the past century or so (a myth that is contradicted by hematological evidence that not only are Palestinians distinct from other Arabs but are more closely relate to Jews see, for instance this article). In any case, I doubt Wikipedians will have much patience for the ideological agenda you are purusing just as there is little patience for editors who pursue similar nationalist agendas in articles that relate to other nationalist conflicts. If, in fact, you are editing this and other articles with the intent of promoting a paraticular agenda related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#ARBPIA_sanctions. Electoralist (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"You appear to be pursuing an ideological agenda to promote a line that implies modern Jews as a whole are descended only from the ancient Israelites and dismiss or negate any admixtures, particularly among Ashkenazim, despite the fact that over 3/4 of the world's Jews are Ashkenazi." First of all, I rarely edited in this area until I caught wind of your (insane, revisionist, laughable, pick your poison) attempt to categorize Jews as Europeans. Second, I never said Jews descend only from the Israelites. That is a straw man argument. I said that our ethnogenesis occurred in Israel, and that we meet the criteria Wikipedia uses for categorizing ethnic groups as an indigenous Middle Eastern population, and therefore Jews should have remained under West Asians. Third, challenging systemic bias, historic revisionism, and blatant contravention of key Wikipedia policies is not "pursuing an ideological goal". Neither of these three things should be tolerated on any encyclopedia, let alone here. This page exists for a reason.

"While I understand there is a national myth at play" The fact that you consider our descent from the Israelites a "national myth" tells me two things. 1. You are the one with an ideological agenda. 2. You are still ignoring the mountains of RS provided which soundly debunk the idea that our descent from the Israelites is a "myth".

"it is not our role at Wikipedia to promote either the view that Jews have a greater claim to Israel/Palestine than Palestinian Arabs (you've used the term "indigenous" elsewhere) or" It is also not our role to publish blatant misinformation. And I never said that Jews have an exclusive claim to Israel/Palestine, and that is not a political belief I hold. It is possible for more than one people to be indigenous to a particular place, although whether or not Palestinians are indigenous is a topic I do not care about and have no desire to involve myself in. Not my circus, not my monkeys, as they sayChronoFrog (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that you consider our descent from the Israelites a "national myth" tells me two things" - you left out the word "'only'" thus changing the meaning of what I actually said which was that your position "implies modern Jews as a whole are descended only from the ancient Israelites and dismiss or negate any admixtures" (emphasis added). Please don't engage in strawman arguments, I'm not interested. Electoralist (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and as I pointed above, that is a claim I never made. You are the one who made a straw man argument, and I responded to it.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that you consider our descent from the Israelites a "national myth" tells me two things. 1. You are the one with an ideological agenda. 2. You are still ignoring the mountains of RS provided which soundly debunk the idea that our descent from the Israelites is a "myth"." Again, you're leaving out the world "only". Askhenazi are also descended from Europeans, Desi Jews are also descended from South Asians etc. You persist in ignoring or trying to negate those inconvenient facts. And I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but all nations have national myths, particularly about their origins. There was no Romulus and Remus, there is no archeological evidence the ancient Hebrews escaping Egypt through the desert etc. Anyway, you're just rehashing the same arguments over and again and are not actually listening to anyone who disagrees with you but prefer to misrepresent and demonize and engage in absurd hyperbole such as claiming you will be personally persecuted on campus because a template on Wikipeia has Jews as a standalone category instead of "West Asian". Sorry, but since no one else is paying any attention to you or your high school dramatics I won't either. Electoralist (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Again, you're leaving out the world "only"." And again, I never said Jews were only descended from the Israelites. I also never said that Jews did not mix with foreigners. In fact, I was very clear about that from the beginning, going all the way back to the RfC. You either have very poor reading comprehension, or you are deliberately misrepresenting my arguments (at this point, I am 95 percent sure it's the latter). Here is what my argument actually was/is: yes, Jews have mixed to varying degrees after entering diaspora, and even before entering diaspora. The same can be said of any nation. We do not classify ethnic groups based on what admixtures they have. If we did that, Spanish people would go under both North Africans and Europeans, Greeks would go under Middle Easterners, Africans, and Europeans, Hispanics would go under Europeans, Africans, and Americans, and Russians would go under Europeans and East Asians. In other words, it would be a mess. This is why we tend to go with what the base population is (in the Jews case, that would be Middle Eastern/Israelite) and where they became a distinct people. Besides that, nearly all Jews worldwide, regardless of where they live, have Israelite descent.

"hyperbole such as claiming you will be personally persecuted on campus" Except this has actually happened to me. Or are you now denying that antisemitism of the variety I described exists on campuses? Or let me guess, you don't think it's antisemitic at all, do you?

I honestly didn't think I could loathe someone I only know through the internet, but you really proved me wrong. You are the most smarmy, noxious, immature, dishonest, insufferable, and yes, antisemitic person I've encountered in my entire life, online or off.

Rest assured, this is not over. I will create a new RfC in the future, and this time I will insist that people either engage in discussion, or don't comment at all.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You're parsing again. You have not been persecuted on campus as a result of this template (words you left out italicizes) and the suggestion that you will be is patently ridiculous (ie "Thanks to people like you, I'm now 100x as likely to be called a "f**king Khazar" and "fake Semite" on my campus, and they will have THIS SITE to back up their "wisdom".") Also, I don't think you understand how RFCs work. To overturn consensus there would have to be another RFC and you are not permitted to dictate who can and cannot participate. You can't reject interventions because the intervenors ignore your badgering or because you claim them to be "drive by". IE you don't run the RFC, you cannot reject or approve "votes", set the rules of participation or decide what the outcome is. Uninvolved editors may participate by as little as saying "agree" or "disagree" and an uninvolved admin decides the outcome. You are not allowed to game the system or bully people. As for your litany of personal abuse and insults I suggest you examine your behaviour or you are quite likely to face consequences. Electoralist (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were leaving the conversation. Why are you still here?

"You have not been persecuted on campus as a result of this template and the suggestion that you will be is patently ridiculous." Excuse me? What do you know about my experiences? Have you been living my life and I was somehow unaware of it? Doubtful. And that's besides the point: your crusade to erase our heritage (because I highly doubt you're going to stop at this template) may not galvanize antisemitism on its own, but it sure as hell contributes to the problem, and validates their prejudice.

In my future RfC, if someone ignores relevant points (or "badgering", as you put it) and cannot justify their position in the face of counter-argument, then they need to accede and stop being recalcitrant. And yes, this is a request I am allowed to make (I just looked it up), and I fully intend to do just that. This is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

Now you said you were going to leave the conversation. I have every reason to hate you, and no amount of threats will change that.ChronoFrog (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep your advice to yourself. I don't want it. And for your information, I wasn't even involved in this topic until I saw what you were trying to pull. Call me what you will, but I'm not the one who's trying redefine Jewish history, because I actually have reliable sources and facts supporting my so-called "ideological preferences" or "dogmatism". What have you provided? Besides, you know.....nothing. The fact that you use the trigger-words like "dogmatic" and "ideological preferences" against me reeks of deflection.

Now seriously, you have what you came for. Leave me alone.ChronoFrog (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you deleted your comment. I'm leaving mine up anyway.ChronoFrog (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)