→Editing other users comments: Reply to 62.255.118.6. |
62.255.118.6 (talk) |
||
Line 414: | Line 414: | ||
::::: I can live with that in case of such comments. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 14:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
::::: I can live with that in case of such comments. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 14:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Wikipedia is not about what you can live with or without. One man's "nonsense" is another man's religion, for example. I don't recall deleting any comments prescribing to the notion a person's sacrosanct genetic history can be magically exchanged for another through the power of belief. But then I'm not rattled by different opinions, even when I don't understand them. So please refrain from censoring Wikipedia to suit your tastes as you may find such instances of bad faith lead to an outcome you can't actually live with. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/62.255.118.6|62.255.118.6]] ([[User talk:62.255.118.6|talk]]) 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:14, 3 March 2017
| ||||
What's up? | ||||
Can you help identify these favicons?
I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.
I collect favicons. I have over 8,000 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.
I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.
Thanks! Debresser (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you tried using Google Images' search by image function. benzband (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply
- Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I now have over 10,000 favicons, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Special characters
{{Help me}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There was no village in Israel by this name? I am trying to locate lands. Twillisjr (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Apart from a village from the Talmudic era, which is not relevant to WP:ISRAEL, not that I know of. I searched for it on the Hebrew Wikipedia and on Google, but nothing turned up. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good news friend, I located something online that explained that it was located in "Edom" which is now Jordan. The term "Watercress" is also used (for food), but historical information is also included. I will try to shorten the link for you: [1]. Perhaps it can be added to the Edom page, but I will leave that up to you (if you choose). Twillisjr (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Arians
There seems to be a serious misunderstanding in the article about Sephardi Jews.
At that time, Christians were divided between the "Nicene" or "Trinitarian" position (Jesus is of the same nature as God) and the "Arian" position (Jesus is subordinate to God). The Nicene position basically won, and was held by the Romans and Byzantines, and by most Christians today, apart from the Unitarians. That is what the article means by "orthodox Christians" and "Catholics". The Arian position was held by the Visigoths, until a later Visigothic king of Spain was converted to Catholicism. For as long as the Visigoths were Arians, they were reasonably tolerant of Jews. Once they became Catholic (i.e. Nicene) things became a lot tougher.
That is what the article was trying to say. As edited by you, it sounds as if "Arians" and "orthodox Christians" mean the same thing. Please read it again, both before and after your edit, and you will see that I am right. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know that you are right. That is indeed what I had in mind. Since I seem to have the fact mixed up, please feel free to fix it (again) as needed. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I saw your edit. Very good. Thanks for clarifying this to me and the article. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1RR
What about 1RR do you think is optional? nableezy - 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I already explain in the edit summary that I consider my edit to have consensus. I just now had another look at WP:NOT3RR, and see that "my edit has consensus" is not one of them. I actually think it should be, but however that may be, my good faith edit was already reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is how Huldra could revert my edit with the lousy excuse that the citations are not understandable? I provided extensive quotes from all three sources, after looking them up in the university library, as well as their English translation. You might want to have a word with her about that... Debresser (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- What you consider has consensus and what actually has consensus may be two different things. I dont understand the citations, and have requested additional information at the talk page. Thank you. nableezy - 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- That is also true. I am also on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- What you consider has consensus and what actually has consensus may be two different things. I dont understand the citations, and have requested additional information at the talk page. Thank you. nableezy - 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by Huldra and its edit summary "rm rubbish" are not indicative of her positive attitude. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think it promotes a positive attitude when you break 1RR, then precede the threaten me (who has not broken the 1RR) with WP:ARBPIA violation???? Seriously. Get real. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I already explained it was a good faith mistake, while your edit was plain disruptive, so yes, I do think there is a good case against you, and I will keep this record for future use, should the need arise. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, in the future I will just ask you to self-revert, then wait for you not to do so, and then just report you, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I already explained it was a good faith mistake, while your edit was plain disruptive, so yes, I do think there is a good case against you, and I will keep this record for future use, should the need arise. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
People's
Here is some discussion of the topic [2].
I assume you are trying to say that the use of an IUD is a decision of both people in the relationship and thus it should be plural (more than one person) rather than singular? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the previous version was "person's" and that is better in this case. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Debresser. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Already voted. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did you vote oppose for many, as I did? I think this year was the first time I had so few support votes. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, I voted neutral for all except the few I know. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did you vote oppose for many, as I did? I think this year was the first time I had so few support votes. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi Debresser. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
God
Not being critical just curious, why the emphasis on existence over nature ie
There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.
There is no clear consensus on the existence or even the nature of God.
Shouldn't both have equal weight ? Unibond (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because there is no relevance to a thing's nature if it doesn't exist. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not curse on my talk page
Please do not use expletives on my talk page. Peace. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be an ass, and I won't call you one. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again, please refrain from using such language. I am not being an "a**" as you say it. Please also refer to WP:NPA. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think the term I used was within limits for my talkpage. I refer you to Wikipedia:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Haredi Judaism
You're now at the limit of 3RR. You're invited to discuss the photo. I'll help. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I already reminded you on your talkpage of WP:BRD. That means that you made a bold edit and were reverted, and should now discuss and obtain consensus before repeating your edit even once! I promise that I will join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Have a free meal for starting the AN/I thread. Their remark was offensive so I've handed them a warning not to refer to you as a misogynist and I've given them links to DRN and RfC. I don't fully get the meat of that discussion, but, if you can get your hands on some good quality images of Haredi women, then that may be more useful to you than edit-warring over it. Oh yes, slmost forgot, please avoid editwarring except to remove attacking, vandalizing, copyrighted, or other illegal materials. This trout is merely for fair representation. It's the equal outcomes approach ;). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Going to the limit of 3RR, I see... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'll have to template you too. Please note, that I am careful not to pass the limit. Debresser (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thank you for improving the article about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.I noticed you did a good job in preventing unhelpful edits from being introduced into the article. Eliko007 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
- Thank you. That was an old issue, that comes up once in a while. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Schneerson and Crown Height riots
- Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. If you noticed, I did propose a solution, which you implemented, but was rejected by other editors. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I notice you have tried to officially threaten me on my web page. Again, please show me how I have used name-calling and the sort. But again, my prime recommendation to you is to address with substance the problems with the Schneerson article with reasonable sources. I have no fear that my sources back up what I have stated, and I have no doubt also that this article is marked by recurrent, ill advised biased editing. I have set up a complaint about the neutrality board, as you know from prior discussions, this is not a new problem for this article.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, I notice you have used the vandalism template on my webpage twice. Well whoopee-doo. Is this like a magic trick, which if you say it three times it becomes true? My recommendation is that you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars before you template me, but better yet, I tend to view this as a sign that you are not having luck with finding reliable sources that prove your point on the Schneerson article. It must take a lot of energy to harass other people, when you could focus on the contents of the article. Oh by the way, I deleted your template again, please tell me when does the 3RR rule kick in for your vandalism templates on my talk page?Rococo1700 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please be aware that warnings regarding the consequences of violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not considered threats. Same is true in law, by the way. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Jerusalem
is covered by the 1RR. And your edit violates the MOS. nableezy - 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't even look which page it is. It is a completely technical edit, and it is bad, so I reverted it. I propose we don't make an issue of this, although, unfortunately, I know you are not below trying to use this as an excuse to report me for this "grave" violation of 1RR.
- It was actually the other edit which I reverted, that violated the WP:MOS, as I explained in the edit summary. Not to mention that the editor who edited before me ignored WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I propose that if you wish to show you have the competence required to edit this encyclopedia that abide by simple rules like you are only allowed 1 revert every 24 hours. nableezy - 20:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't want to show that, nor is my competence an issue, You are being childish again (tu quoque). Debresser (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am quite aware that you do not show you have the competence required, I had not however realized that you do not want to. Live and learn. And for the record, I was being petty, not childish. nableezy - 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't want to show that, nor is my competence an issue, You are being childish again (tu quoque). Debresser (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I propose that if you wish to show you have the competence required to edit this encyclopedia that abide by simple rules like you are only allowed 1 revert every 24 hours. nableezy - 20:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
All the best for 2017!
- Thank you. And same to you. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Gave my opinion on one of the two proposals. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
- Thanks, my dear. Same to you. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Please consider chiming in...
Greetings...not sure how much we may have interacted in the past, but regardless, I hope you're having a very happy holiday season!
I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to review this ANI filing and consider weighing in. There hasn't been much participation thus far, and while the editor I reported hasn't made any edits for the past couple of days, they also have historically declined to discuss their edits, and I see no indication that that pattern will change if nothing is done. Pinging you as I saw that you warned the editor previously.
Thank you for your consideration, and again, I hope you have a very happy holidays! DonIago (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, this situation has resolved itself. Thanks for chiming in there, and I hope you're having a great week! DonIago (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Very good. Glad to hear. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 80px
- Thank you. However, I am Jewish. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding wording
Hello, I wanted to ask you for your thoughts and also give you some background on the reason for my edit which was reverted here. My concerns are that the word "hack", or to "to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows", is a verb being used in a negative connotation towards the Crusaders, of which have a controversial history within this area to begin with. I thought my change to "opened" did not lose any important factual information to this article but did refrain from any verbiage which may offer a connotation other than the fact that it is believed that the opening was created by the Crusaders. To prevent multiple revisions I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if there is another word you might find suitable that more directly correlates to what is known about the opening. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I started a discussion on the talkpage. Please comment there. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Jewish descent rfc
Not sure if you saw that someone closed it as a keep.🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just now noticed it. Can't believe it. I will appeal that. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was just going to post, I appealed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Yitzchak Ginsburgh
Need your help: I'm new at Wikipedia but I noticed that the links to Martin Wagner's articles on Rabbi Ginsburgh's page are all broken. I am loathe to begin my Wikipedia career by getting into trouble removing them on such a page. I don't even know if it's the correct thing to do. It certainly seems to be what is necessary according to this, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." What do you think? Can you do something about it? Thanks!238-Gdn (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just tagged it as a dead link. Without prejudice. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- To editor 238-Gdn: I can only see one link to Wagner's work. Can you see more? Regarding the correct course of action, a dead link is not a reason to delete a source since there is no rule that sources have to be on the internet. A newspaper name and date is perfectly adequate without a url. But in any case the best thing to do with a dead link is to replace it by a working link. I just put the title into google and a direct link to the newspaper article was the first hit. Zerotalk 01:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. However, there are similar references to such articles on another (other) page(s). e.g. Yitzchak Shapira 238-Gdn (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Undid revision of mine
Debresser, you have undid a revision of mine on 'Biblical archaeology' where I removed the Shroud of Turin from "disproved" Biblical artifacts. Your explanation was "Unexplained removal. Also made a plethora of minor technical edits." -- I would undo your edit, however your minor edits are helpful to the page and so I did not simply undo it. I in fact DID explain my removal of the Shroud of Turin in the Talk Page, and I still COMPLETELY disapprove of your re-addition of it. As I have shown in the Talk Page, the Shroud of Turin CERTAINLY isn't disproven. Simply because there is debate in it does NOT allow anyone to put it under the list of disproven Biblical artifacts -- so I am requesting that you remove your addition of the Shroud of Turin under the section if disproved Biblical artifacts otherwise I will have to do it myself as I did indeed bring this to the Talk Page. Thanks.Korvex (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a bit of input. The Smithsonian says... many experts believe the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,
- The Vatican disagrees but the bottom line is that many experts believe the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,
- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/arts-culture/why-the-vatican-believes-in-the-shroud-of-turin/#5PUvmFvGkbXIygBK.99
- Peter K Burian (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Never doubted it. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Eliezer Berland.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
- I reverted a set of edits, of which yours was just one. No need to post such a long message on my talkpage for that. I think these posts are invasive. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't read the end. I'll quote it for you again:
If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add
Anomie⚔ 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC){{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.- I did. I understand why the explanation, but on the other hand, editors are no fools, and this message is overdone. IMHO. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't read the end. I'll quote it for you again:
Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page
Please read my reasons for the lead image in the talk page. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I did. I actually asked you a question there. But please, stop pushing your edits, rather obtain consensus first. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Stop frivolously editing User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer exists to allow non-administrators to stop AnomieBOT if it is making edits that are damaging the encyclopedia. You have been abusing that ability by posting to that page when the only thing "wrong" the bot has done is post a single message to your talk page informing you that a revert you made was inappropriate (note the linked revert is not this other entirely appropriate and correct revert). Please stop. Anomie⚔ 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- You know, I don't like your tone. You call my edit "whining" and "abuse". Well, I think you are abusing your edit privileges by using such words in violation of WP:CIVIL and now also WP:AGF. Per WP:BOTCOMM, that is not the standard of behavior expected from an editor running a bot. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
CSS styling in templates
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 15 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Why did you revert me?
All I did was add the categories that were already on the main article's page. I don't like the obvious double standard you are trying to apply to Jews vis a vis other groups in the Middle East, and apparent discomfort with calling us a Middle Eastern group at all (even though that is what we are, by any conceivable definition). I find that deeply worrying. There is enough revisionism of Jewish identity out there as it is. We don't need it on Wikipedia too.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Because a Jew from the US is not from Asia. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, an African American cannot claim African descent, a Japanese American cannot claim Japanese descent, etc. An African American is still of African descent, even if his or her ancestors moved first from Africa to the Caribbean, before moving to the US. Yet, you seem to be arguing that since a Jew's ancestors lived in diaspora in Europe, or elsewhere, before moving to the US, that he or she can no longer trace their ancestry back to its origin. PA Math Prof (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- if an African-American converts to Judaism, is that person magically from Asia? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Also, my "I don't think you're new" radar is going off. Have you ever edited Wikipedia before? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, neither is a Chinese person from the US. And I have an account, but I no longer use it. I do not like being WP:STALKed.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- you are now edit warring and socking.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's not socking if my account (i.e. ChronoFrog) isn't banned and is simply no longer in use out of a desire to avoid being harassed by antisemitic editors. You are the one violating WP:BIAS by pushing antisemitic denial/double standards/revisionism on Wikipedia. So yeah, someone needs to stop you from doing it.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Now you're pushing to CIVIL and NPA territory. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly don't even care anymore. Considering everything I've seen you and your tag-team partner on here do, you don't deserve civility. And you are certainly in no place to accuse others of WP:NPA. You need to check yourself. Seriously.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Lucky enough, I am in contact with a number of journalists and bloggers. People will know what's going on here. Enjoy it while you can.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, where did I violate CIVIL? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Lucky enough, I am in contact with a number of journalists and bloggers. People will know what's going on here. Enjoy it while you can.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly don't even care anymore. Considering everything I've seen you and your tag-team partner on here do, you don't deserve civility. And you are certainly in no place to accuse others of WP:NPA. You need to check yourself. Seriously.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Now you're pushing to CIVIL and NPA territory. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's not socking if my account (i.e. ChronoFrog) isn't banned and is simply no longer in use out of a desire to avoid being harassed by antisemitic editors. You are the one violating WP:BIAS by pushing antisemitic denial/double standards/revisionism on Wikipedia. So yeah, someone needs to stop you from doing it.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- you are now edit warring and socking.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, neither is a Chinese person from the US. And I have an account, but I no longer use it. I do not like being WP:STALKed.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, an African American cannot claim African descent, a Japanese American cannot claim Japanese descent, etc. An African American is still of African descent, even if his or her ancestors moved first from Africa to the Caribbean, before moving to the US. Yet, you seem to be arguing that since a Jew's ancestors lived in diaspora in Europe, or elsewhere, before moving to the US, that he or she can no longer trace their ancestry back to its origin. PA Math Prof (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- You don't have to like it, but this issue has been extensively discussed, and your manifold edits are like an elephant walking in the china shop. In any case, you are edit warring, and you're obviously a sock. You have been reported on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL
[3]--Shrike (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- :) So I am an ultra-right wing Israeli “settler”? Never felt like one. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- And anti-semitic, plus paid by Saudi Arabia. I wish! :) Debresser (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- [FBDB]You're obviously an ultra–right-wing anti-semitic Israeli settler paid by Saudi Arabia. Textbook case. EEng 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- He beat me then, I'm just a plain old regular anti-semite. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, at least your not as publicized as much as the biggest anti-semitic in the world, [4].—JJBers 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- [FBDB]You're obviously an ultra–right-wing anti-semitic Israeli settler paid by Saudi Arabia. Textbook case. EEng 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Closing CFD discussions
Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_9#Category:Jewish_agricultural_colonies_in_the_Russian_Empire. It's generally best not to close discussions in which one had participated and expressed an opinion, but as this one was withdrawn by the nominator, I am not here to make an objection about that. However, you forgot to sign your close. Also, I have done a couple of follow-up actions which are required after closing: to remove the CFD template from the nominated category, and to add a link to the discussion on the talk page. For future reference, these are listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions (WP:CFDAI). If you have the time and inclination to help again at CFD, that would be very welcome. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I used to be very active there once, but in order to really help one needs to be an admin. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI noticeboard
The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I replied there and referred editors to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Category:Jews section above, where you are now reported as well. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello I've reverted your restoration of the information on the Jussie Smollett per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE please do not restore the information without first establishing a consensus. Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi I just saw you reverted me again. Please read the policy I've linked to. Per the WP:BLP Policy the information can NOT be restored. Until consensus is reached to keep it. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. The guideline you quote is about unsourced information, or information which otherwise doesn't comply with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. This information is sourced. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed this again as it concerns a BLP and has been challenged. As Cameron pointed out, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus before restoration of material challenged on BLP grounds. "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Feel free to discuss on talk. Note that I'm making no judgements on the content dispute and am just acting in an administrative role. Thank you. (edit conflict) BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies broadly to material challenged on BLP grounds. In particular, it appears Cameron has challenged the reliability of the source, and on the face of it, that's not an unreasonable challenge. ~ Rob13Talk 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahavas Yisroel
Hi Debresser, I know we've been writing recently as opponents, but I was wondering if we could bridge some differences as fellow Lubavitchers with Torah. I know that I've been writing on WP mostly based on secular sources, because that is what WP tends to favor. However, my actual belief is that the truth is as things are in Torah. I think we are in agreement there, and that our differences might come mostly as a result of different understandings of Torah. So I would like to learn more about your understanding of Am Yisroel and Eretz HaKodesh.
To begin, Wikipedia is currently unfriendly to religious definitions, so I felt I had to act more as Yaakov, rather than as Yisroel. In other words, in order to realize the maila of ohr (Torah) min ha-choshech davka (WP), we have to present the Torah in terms that the choshech can swallow, dressing it up in hairy skins like Yaakov. Unfortunately, since the choshech only swallows secular sources, that's what we have to give it. But here, we don't need the hairy goatskins and we can talk straight. :-D
The underlying goal of my recent edits was to have WP recognize, or at least mention, the deep connection of every Yisroel with Eretz Yisroel. As it currently stands, the Yishmaelim are listed in the region, but not Jews. This implied heipech ho-emes, that Jews do not belong there. So the situation needs to be fixed.
When I saw from your user page that you were also a Lubavitcher, I asked some local shluchim what they thought, and their initial opinion indeed followed yours, especially when I mentioned the secular arguments I had been using. After all, Torah iz Emes, and any other definition is not. But those were just the goatskins.
When I mentioned the implications for us in Eretz Hakodesh, though, the shluchim quickly came to agree that Jews should certainly be listed similarly to the Yishmaelim. The senior shliach even said that this is the taineh of the goyim that Rashi mentions in Bereishis bara, as the Rebbe explains: The goyim say that since we are a spiritual people, what need do we have of a gashmiyusdikeh land? Gashmiyus is the domain of Eisav, and we're doing hasagas g'vul. That's their problem with us. Talmud loimar, Hashem created the world, and in order that the Yidden fulfill their—yes—spiritual mission, we need a land b'gashmiyus, and Hashem designated Eretz Hakodesh davka for that purpose. That is why we had to come from there to be an ohr lagoyim, and we daven to return there to do all of our mitzvos and fulfill our mission to make a dira b'tachtoinim—mamash with a physical world.
What do you think? Shavua tov, chodesh tov! Musashiaharon (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Musashiaharon. Welcome to my talkpage, and a good and happy month of Adar for you too!
- As long as there are no personal attacks, I have no issue with editors who disagree with me.
- I stand behind my point of view, and oppose any and all political influence on Wikipedia. That includes that I think there is a difference between Arabs and Jews, in that Jews have been dispersed over the whole world for two millennia. And yes, that means that the Jewish claim to Israel is weaker than it would have been if all Jews had always lived there. That doesn't mean Jews don't have a right to live in Israel though. However that may be, that is not the issue in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was dismayed to see that you betrayed my assumption of good faith and used this to attack me personally. I regret that we won't be getting along on this, but it does not affect my concern for you, whatever else happens. Chodesh tov. Musashiaharon (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I did not attack you personally. I respect your POV. However, letting a POV influence ones editing knowingly, is not good for this projects, and I asked admins to comment on that issue. Please notice that I never expressed my own POV on the political issue, and don't plan to do so. It simply is irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was dismayed to see that you betrayed my assumption of good faith and used this to attack me personally. I regret that we won't be getting along on this, but it does not affect my concern for you, whatever else happens. Chodesh tov. Musashiaharon (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Debresser, Jews' connection to Israel absolutely remains a great part of this discussion. And Jews having always called to return to Yerushalyim (via Pesach) is a strong part of the connection that not only contributed to Jews' racial/Tribal persecution in European and Arab lands, but also allowed Jews, including yourself, to make the efforts to finally return. People who deny Jews' regional/Ethnocultural labels (e.g. Semitic, Southwest Asian/West Asian, "Middle Eastern," North-Northeast African, etc.) risk not affirming Jews' Indigenous rights to the land/region and potentially encourage others to deny Jews' connection to Eretz Y'Israel at all. Do you understand that perspective? Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. Still, that is not a valid concern in this discussion, or on any Wikipedia discussion, for that matter. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jews' connection to Israel is a valid concern in these discussions, especially as it relates to Jewish racial/Ethnocultural/Tribal identity and subsequent categorizations, and thus similar-minded editors' perspectives. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—we have a WP:Category called Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. If a person was born in the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If a person's mother and/or father was born in the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If other ancestors derive from the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If none of these conditions apply, but that person spent formative years in the Middle East, it can be argued that they are of Middle Eastern descent. But you are saying something different. You say for instance "...Jews' connection to Israel absolutely remains a great part of this discussion. And Jews having always called to return to Yerushalyim (via Pesach) is a strong part of the connection..."[5] Nope—that is not what Middle Eastern descent means. The Middle East is a geographic location. The connection must be a geographic connection. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, there are geographic remnants through genetics and culture; thus, any Jew can either be of Middle Eastern descent (through genetics/sustained cultural identification), and/or obtain and pass down a Middle Eastern identity (through tribal initiation/"conversion"), as I referenced in the first ANI discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—the Middle East is a geographic area. It is a "region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey."[6] The Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a Category for people who derive from the Middle East. What does "derive from" mean? Obviously if a person was born in the Middle East we can say that they derive from the Middle East, or we could say that they are "of Middle Eastern decent", and they belong in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Similarly if their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents derive from the Middle East, we can Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent. A geographical area is under consideration here. But of course converts in most cases don't derive from the Middle East. Therefore we can't just plunk all Jews in a Category for those of Middle Eastern descent—because it just is not so. You can't bend facts. This is an encyclopedia. All Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent. Many are, but a sufficient number are not, that it would be tantamount to tampering with the facts to make the misassumption that you would like to make. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, you continue to ignore sources I provide to you. The majority of Jews either have genetic linkages to the Middle East (See here) and/or derive their Tribal lineage/heritage from Eretz Y'Israel via their initiation into the Tribe (See here). Stop denying essential parts to the totality of Jewish identity; I would say that most Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, whether by genetic or Ethnocultural/Tribal heritages or both. Jeffgr9 (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—you say that I should "[s]top denying essential parts to the totality of Jewish identity", but in fact I am not "denying" anything. I am facing reality squarely. "Jewish identity" is what it is. But we are not discussing "Jewish identity" at all. Under discussion here is geographic lineage, not "Jewish identity". That may be your personal concern, but it doesn't happen to be at all relevant to the question at hand. You have provided a source which says "75 percent of today's Jews have Middle Eastern origins, says DNA pioneer". Note the distinction between 75% and 100%. This is not rocket science. Even my feeble grasp of mathematics leads me to believe that 25% "of today's Jews" do not "have Middle Eastern origins". Please tell me what, in your opinion, I am failing to understand about this, the genetic approach to geographic lineage. There has been admixture of genetic material from people throughout the generations. Those people in many instances had no connection to the Middle East. They were converts whose geographic lineage connects to the many areas of the world other than the Middle East. You cannot bend facts. This is an encyclopedia. You also cite "Tribal lineage/heritage from Eretz Y'Israel via their initiation into the Tribe". What would this have to do with geographic lineage? Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a Category for geographic descent, specifically Middle Eastern geographic descent. The title of that Category need not say "Middle Eastern geographic descent" because the Middle East is a region. What is a region? It is a geographic locale. I have to define every word. That is the only way to conduct this conversation. The Middle East is a "region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey."[7] Do you not notice that the region comprises many geographic locales? Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Those who identify as "Jewish" sociopolitically identify as members of a primarily and predominantly Middle Eastern Tribe. A Jew in Europe will face Anti-Semitism (or, Racism against Jews; literally meaning "Racism against those of Semitic descent," as Jews were the first Semitic group to deeply interact with European societies) whether or not they are genetically or just culturally Middle Eastern. A genetically Middle Eastern Jew need not even identify as a Jew to suffer Anti-Semitism; whereas, a "Jew by choice" chooses to assume the risks that come with being a part of a Middle Eastern Tribe. Point being, the Middle Eastern Tribal designation follows Jews (the majority of whom are of traceable genetic Middle Eastern descent), ergo so does the geographic designation of what it means to be a part of a Middle Eastern Tribe. A Native/Indigenous American with no traceable genetic Native/Indigenous American heritage will be considered Indigenous to the Americas (the geographic locale), just as a Jew will be considered Indigenous to Israel (the geographic locale). Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—just a minor point. I can't respond to everything due to time constraints. You say that Jews are "culturally Middle Eastern". Aren't you aware that the Category:People of Middle Eastern descent concerns itself with a geographic location? The Category:People of Middle Eastern descent has nothing to do with culture. Bus stop (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, are you aware that Middle Eastern cultures and Tribes derive from the Middle East? That all members of the Tribe consider themselves descendants of Ancient Israelites—whether genetically, Ethnoculturally/Tribally, or both? And thus, all Jews are geographically connected and Indigenous to Eretz Y'Israel? Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—when people convert to Judaism they don't magically become "People of Middle Eastern descent" (as in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent). Bus stop (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this last point. Moreover, neither does Jewish culture qualify as Middle Eastern. Unless you'd mean Eastern Europe (for Ashkenazim). Debresser (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, I have said it to you before—"conversion" or joining the Tribe does not have to do with "magic" (except in a spiritual sense), but adding to/changing one's sociopolitical identity from what it was previously to a Middle Eastern identity. And Debresser, Jewish culture absolutely qualifies as Middle Eastern. Why else would you want to live in Eretz Y'Israel? Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jewish Culture is not Middle Eastern. It's wherever they are. I've been to Israel and please don't say that Jewish culture is the same throughout the world. It's not. It's actually a huge culture shock when American Jews make Aliyah. (Although one Israeli I spoke with has said that Israel has become more "Americanized" with their culture due to the constant stream of Americans.) There is no one uniform Jewish culture. European Jews like gefilte fish and yerushalmi kugel, Sephardim like kibbeh and lachmajin. As to why Debresser wants to live in Israel, I imagine one reason is because it's a mitzvah to do so. What does living in Israel have to do with culture and as a proof that Jewish culture is Middle Eastern? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—inclusion in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is based on feet on the ground, not on "tribal factors" or "ethnocultural factors" or "sociopolitical factors". For inclusion in this Category the person should either be born in the region or the person should have spent formative years in the region or their parents, grandparents etc. should be documented as having had feet on the ground in the region. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think that is uselessly stringent. Generally, if say a person grew up among the Roma, participated in their culture and traditions, married another Roma, and were accepted by other Roma, etc., one would assume that they are indeed Roma. In fact it would take documentation to dissociate them from the Roma and prove that they aren't of Roma descent, since this is contrary to normal expectation! I just think the same standard should apply to Jews, viz. unless specific documentation exists to the contrary for that individual (for example, that both parents are converts or that the individual is a convert), someone who was born and raised among Jews is assumed to be of Jewish descent. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—inclusion in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is based on feet on the ground, not on "tribal factors" or "ethnocultural factors" or "sociopolitical factors". For inclusion in this Category the person should either be born in the region or the person should have spent formative years in the region or their parents, grandparents etc. should be documented as having had feet on the ground in the region. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jewish Culture is not Middle Eastern. It's wherever they are. I've been to Israel and please don't say that Jewish culture is the same throughout the world. It's not. It's actually a huge culture shock when American Jews make Aliyah. (Although one Israeli I spoke with has said that Israel has become more "Americanized" with their culture due to the constant stream of Americans.) There is no one uniform Jewish culture. European Jews like gefilte fish and yerushalmi kugel, Sephardim like kibbeh and lachmajin. As to why Debresser wants to live in Israel, I imagine one reason is because it's a mitzvah to do so. What does living in Israel have to do with culture and as a proof that Jewish culture is Middle Eastern? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, I have said it to you before—"conversion" or joining the Tribe does not have to do with "magic" (except in a spiritual sense), but adding to/changing one's sociopolitical identity from what it was previously to a Middle Eastern identity. And Debresser, Jewish culture absolutely qualifies as Middle Eastern. Why else would you want to live in Eretz Y'Israel? Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this last point. Moreover, neither does Jewish culture qualify as Middle Eastern. Unless you'd mean Eastern Europe (for Ashkenazim). Debresser (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—when people convert to Judaism they don't magically become "People of Middle Eastern descent" (as in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent). Bus stop (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, are you aware that Middle Eastern cultures and Tribes derive from the Middle East? That all members of the Tribe consider themselves descendants of Ancient Israelites—whether genetically, Ethnoculturally/Tribally, or both? And thus, all Jews are geographically connected and Indigenous to Eretz Y'Israel? Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—just a minor point. I can't respond to everything due to time constraints. You say that Jews are "culturally Middle Eastern". Aren't you aware that the Category:People of Middle Eastern descent concerns itself with a geographic location? The Category:People of Middle Eastern descent has nothing to do with culture. Bus stop (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Those who identify as "Jewish" sociopolitically identify as members of a primarily and predominantly Middle Eastern Tribe. A Jew in Europe will face Anti-Semitism (or, Racism against Jews; literally meaning "Racism against those of Semitic descent," as Jews were the first Semitic group to deeply interact with European societies) whether or not they are genetically or just culturally Middle Eastern. A genetically Middle Eastern Jew need not even identify as a Jew to suffer Anti-Semitism; whereas, a "Jew by choice" chooses to assume the risks that come with being a part of a Middle Eastern Tribe. Point being, the Middle Eastern Tribal designation follows Jews (the majority of whom are of traceable genetic Middle Eastern descent), ergo so does the geographic designation of what it means to be a part of a Middle Eastern Tribe. A Native/Indigenous American with no traceable genetic Native/Indigenous American heritage will be considered Indigenous to the Americas (the geographic locale), just as a Jew will be considered Indigenous to Israel (the geographic locale). Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—you say that I should "[s]top denying essential parts to the totality of Jewish identity", but in fact I am not "denying" anything. I am facing reality squarely. "Jewish identity" is what it is. But we are not discussing "Jewish identity" at all. Under discussion here is geographic lineage, not "Jewish identity". That may be your personal concern, but it doesn't happen to be at all relevant to the question at hand. You have provided a source which says "75 percent of today's Jews have Middle Eastern origins, says DNA pioneer". Note the distinction between 75% and 100%. This is not rocket science. Even my feeble grasp of mathematics leads me to believe that 25% "of today's Jews" do not "have Middle Eastern origins". Please tell me what, in your opinion, I am failing to understand about this, the genetic approach to geographic lineage. There has been admixture of genetic material from people throughout the generations. Those people in many instances had no connection to the Middle East. They were converts whose geographic lineage connects to the many areas of the world other than the Middle East. You cannot bend facts. This is an encyclopedia. You also cite "Tribal lineage/heritage from Eretz Y'Israel via their initiation into the Tribe". What would this have to do with geographic lineage? Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a Category for geographic descent, specifically Middle Eastern geographic descent. The title of that Category need not say "Middle Eastern geographic descent" because the Middle East is a region. What is a region? It is a geographic locale. I have to define every word. That is the only way to conduct this conversation. The Middle East is a "region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey."[7] Do you not notice that the region comprises many geographic locales? Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, you continue to ignore sources I provide to you. The majority of Jews either have genetic linkages to the Middle East (See here) and/or derive their Tribal lineage/heritage from Eretz Y'Israel via their initiation into the Tribe (See here). Stop denying essential parts to the totality of Jewish identity; I would say that most Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, whether by genetic or Ethnocultural/Tribal heritages or both. Jeffgr9 (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—the Middle East is a geographic area. It is a "region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey."[6] The Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a Category for people who derive from the Middle East. What does "derive from" mean? Obviously if a person was born in the Middle East we can say that they derive from the Middle East, or we could say that they are "of Middle Eastern decent", and they belong in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Similarly if their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents derive from the Middle East, we can Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent. A geographical area is under consideration here. But of course converts in most cases don't derive from the Middle East. Therefore we can't just plunk all Jews in a Category for those of Middle Eastern descent—because it just is not so. You can't bend facts. This is an encyclopedia. All Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent. Many are, but a sufficient number are not, that it would be tantamount to tampering with the facts to make the misassumption that you would like to make. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, there are geographic remnants through genetics and culture; thus, any Jew can either be of Middle Eastern descent (through genetics/sustained cultural identification), and/or obtain and pass down a Middle Eastern identity (through tribal initiation/"conversion"), as I referenced in the first ANI discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jeffgr9—we have a WP:Category called Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. If a person was born in the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If a person's mother and/or father was born in the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If other ancestors derive from the Middle East, they are of Middle Eastern descent. If none of these conditions apply, but that person spent formative years in the Middle East, it can be argued that they are of Middle Eastern descent. But you are saying something different. You say for instance "...Jews' connection to Israel absolutely remains a great part of this discussion. And Jews having always called to return to Yerushalyim (via Pesach) is a strong part of the connection..."[5] Nope—that is not what Middle Eastern descent means. The Middle East is a geographic location. The connection must be a geographic connection. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jews' connection to Israel is a valid concern in these discussions, especially as it relates to Jewish racial/Ethnocultural/Tribal identity and subsequent categorizations, and thus similar-minded editors' perspectives. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. Still, that is not a valid concern in this discussion, or on any Wikipedia discussion, for that matter. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Debresser, Jews' connection to Israel absolutely remains a great part of this discussion. And Jews having always called to return to Yerushalyim (via Pesach) is a strong part of the connection that not only contributed to Jews' racial/Tribal persecution in European and Arab lands, but also allowed Jews, including yourself, to make the efforts to finally return. People who deny Jews' regional/Ethnocultural labels (e.g. Semitic, Southwest Asian/West Asian, "Middle Eastern," North-Northeast African, etc.) risk not affirming Jews' Indigenous rights to the land/region and potentially encourage others to deny Jews' connection to Eretz Y'Israel at all. Do you understand that perspective? Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying they're not of Jewish descent. The issue is that you can't say that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Request for RfC notification
Please let me know if/when the Jewish/ME descent RfC is re-opened. I do not follow the topic area but I am interested in the RfC. Thank you. Jbh Talk 13:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- the rfc has been reclosed as no consensus.so those categories should be removed. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, Sir Joseph, the RfC has been not overturned, which means no changes until another RfC can be properly proposed. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley Sure, will do. I personally will not be reopening it. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Editing other users comments
Please refrain from editing the comments of other users in communal spaces. If you disagree with the argument, respond to it in a rational manner. Do not delete comments, however difficult it is for you to find a coherent counter argument. Thanks 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please remind me what edit of mine you are referring to?
- Your insinuation, as though I would remove a comment because I would find it hard to counter, is simply a bad faith assumption, and not worthy of comment. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's not bad faith, it's fact and in the diffs. Rather than pretend otherwise, just be aware that deleting and editing other users comments isn't very wiki, however challenging you find the content 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- That was a nonsense edit, in no way related to the serious discussion that preceded it. Any editor can and should remove such posts on sight. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that my comment was irrelevant. You are of course welcome to that opinion. But it wasn't irrelevant and you should not delete it. It's assuming bad faith to do so. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can live with that in case of such comments. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about what you can live with or without. One man's "nonsense" is another man's religion, for example. I don't recall deleting any comments prescribing to the notion a person's sacrosanct genetic history can be magically exchanged for another through the power of belief. But then I'm not rattled by different opinions, even when I don't understand them. So please refrain from censoring Wikipedia to suit your tastes as you may find such instances of bad faith lead to an outcome you can't actually live with. Thanks. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)