User talk:Info Anonym

Welcome!

Hello, Info Anonym, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Place Clichy (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

Hello! May I kindly ask you what is the purpose you are looking with edits such as [1] [2] [3] etc.? You are correct to think that Jews and Judaism originate from the Middle East, which is in Asia, but these categories provide however little use the way you placed them. This has been discussed in very lengthy discussion, e.g. at Category talk:People of Jewish descent.

I'd be very happy to discuss it with you, before you engage in edit warring. However, I'd like to ask you to stop reverting my thoughtful edits before we discuss the matter more. Place Clichy (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am extremely new here so I don't know if there is some messaging system or where people usually discuss, but I guess I am supposed to answer here. Feel free to correct me if that is wrong or not the typical way. Great to hear that you know that Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, but saying that you removed those categories because in your eyes it makes little sense to place them there is not really credible considering how you are actively targeting and erasing those categories everywhere but placing for example Middle Eastern diaspora in Arab diaspora in North America. That is what I call trying to make a point. Also, the fact that Jews are of Middle Eastern descent may be something that you know, but a lot of people still try to erase that identity or don't even know that when that is actually very important in current discussions, too. You are actively contributing to that misinformation giving questionable reasons. Categorising Jews in Middle Eastern descent is not wrong and not withholding or hiding that information is very important considering that it is put into question constantly for the sake of certain narratives and arguments. Why such a passion to remove it?(Info Anonym (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Place Clichy that the fact that Jews are mostly (converts excluded) descendants of Jews who lived approximately 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, is hardly reason to call modern Jews being of Middle Eastern descent. Jews went through a lot of countries, but only a few generations are relevant for most people, and likewise for categorization here on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing a category that is relevant and most of all true! I don’t see how it would bother someone so much to disconnect Jews and the Middle East, knowing there is a connection, to go around and delete the categories unless they have an ulterior motive. Jews descend from the Middle East, DNA tests prove that modern Jews are still overwhelmingly Middle Eastern, Jews rightfully consider themselves and identify as Middle Eastern, Jewish religion and culture originates and is closely tied to the Middle East e.g. religious Jews have always prayed and pray to Jerusalem every day which is and was in the Middle East and now the Jewish state has been reestablished in the Middle East again! Yes, of course, their middle eastern descent is important and valid! And even if you were to take that argument about the last generations into consideration, we can then make the point that by now the majority of Jews have been in the Middle East for generations again + the mizrahi and Sephardi jews who have been there even earlier! This category confirming the connection is also important and relevant considering that people regularly deny it and use that denial of Jewish indigeneity and even just presence in the Middle East before the reestablishment of Israel as argument for its annihilation and illegitimacy. You literally bring no better argument forward than the fact that you personally (!) don’t deem it relevant. If you don’t undo it or leave it when I do or someone else does it, that ultimately only proves how you are just trying to make an argument. Possibly the one I mentioned before. (Info Anonym (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please read WP:TRUTH. Also, I hold that the category is not true.

Also please read WP:NPA. Language such as "I don’t see how it would bother someone so much" or "you personally (!) don’t deem it relevant" are playing on the person, not the argument.

The fact that "people regularly deny it and use that denial of Jewish indigeneity and even just presence in the Middle East before the reestablishment of Israel as argument for its annihilation and illegitimacy" is not a valid argument in this discussion, as it pertains to another issue than the categorization itself.

The statement "by now the majority of Jews have been in the Middle East for generations again" is contested. I don't know precisely if and when Jews in Israel became a majority of the Jewish people in the world, but definitely not "generations" ago. Also, the people in the category are only in part related to Jews who live in Israel during the last few generations, and you just can't generalize. Please get used to it that Israel is important to Jews, but not all Jews are Israelis. :)

In short, this category is contested. For many reasons. Ergo, it can not stay. Both per Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:CONSENSUS and also because categorization should be uncontroversial, see WP:CATV. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, first off, WP:TRUTH says that there should be reliable sources for added material. There are many reliable sources that prove that Jews are of middle eastern descent and very, very few contradicting ones, most disproven by now like the Khazar theory. And as I said, which you however ignored, there is scientific evidence through DNA tests that modern day Jews are still overwhelmingly Middle Eastern and the ones who are not - are not actually ethnically Jewish as "Jews" was literally the name given to the people that fled from and were expelled from Judea (hence their name). Unless you argue that (the ancient Jews) Israelites/Judeans are not even Middle Eastern your argument is not consistent.

Moreover WP:TRUTH says that you shouldn’t delete content just because you believe it to be untrue, either. Which is certainly the case with you considering all evidence speaks against the point you’re making that Jews are not Middle Eastern. And in this category talk most people already agreed on that.

"Jewish religion and culture originates and is closely tied to the Middle East“ and "people regularly deny it and use that denial of Jewish indigeneity and even just presence in the Middle East before the reestablishment of Israel as argument for its annihilation and illegitimacy“ - Your criticism towards those statements was that they don’t prove descent. They don’t because that is not what I made them for as nobody had actually been arguing Jewish Middle Eastern descent before you. Place Clichy was talking about how adding it everywhere is an overkill and serves absolutely no purpose. The discussion was about whether that is relevant or not. And as I and Jeffgr9 and others have shown - it is. It is an integral part of Jewish identity. Genetically AND culturally. It has never been lost. But you basically reduced all the points to „2000 years ago so what?“ without actually disproving any of them.

Also me pointing out that you personally don’t deem it relevant is not a case of WP:NPA but me pointing out that it doesn’t seem like a WP:NPOV.

But to make it simple - we are talking about the category „Middle Eastern diaspora in North America“ right? Look at the Wikipedia article for diaspora. It says: „A diaspora is a scattered population whose origin lies in a separate geographic locale. In particular, diaspora has come to refer to involuntary mass dispersions of a population from its indigenous territories, most notably the expulsion of Jews from the Land of Israel (known as the Jewish diaspora)(…)“. In the article of jewish diaspora it says that it „refers to the dispersion of Israelites or Jews out of their ancestral homeland (the Land of Israel) and their subsequent settlement in other parts of the globe.“. We all know that the Land of Israel, which is described as the ancestral homeland of the Jews, was in the Middle East. Thus, even following the definitions ON WIKIPEDIA, it makes sense to call it a Middle Eastern Diaspora especially considering the goal of categories is to able to navigate through WIKIPEDIA and contradictions within wikipedia are not helpful!

And concerning the last two guidelines you pointed to:

-  WP:CONSENSUS says „In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.“ Which is what it started off as!

- WP:CATV says that a category should GENERALLY be uncontroversial which is very important in the judicial meaning of the word. That means that there are exceptions such as if the category is verifiable and defining. Which it is in this case. If you want to delete that category you need to bring forward evidence that speaks against the category being defining for Jews in North America. Otherwise as WP:CONSENSUS says, we leave it. (Info Anonym (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Since the discussion here is very similar to the one at Category talk:North American Jews, I'll continue it there. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some things

You are a very new editor, and this edit summary shows that you do not understand what is usually meant with a "deletion discussion" on Wikipedia. Please see WP:AFD for article deletion discussions. On Category:North American Jews we are considering the removal of a category from another category page. We are not considering whether to delete Category:North American Jews itself.

And since I am here already, I must warn you that you are engaged in edit warring. Please review WP:WAR for how you should behave when you are having a disagreement with another editor. Repeating your edit without obtaining prior consensus is not how to go about editing on a community build project, and is likely to lead in the short future to restriction of your editing privileges. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to ask you, how did you get involved in the discussion at Category:North American Jews? I see you had no prior edits on Wikipedia before you came there. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if we are talking about removal, take a look at this: WP:DON'T PRESERVE. It describes when it is appropriate to remove content. None of it applies. It is verifiable, verifiable by reliable sources, not original research etc. Concerning the edit warring: I didn’t break the three revert rule (and I am just reverting a revert that was done and repeated without prior consensus either). And I got involved because I saw Place Clichy on a hunt to delete categories that prove Jewish and Middle Eastern connection on literally every single page that had to do with Jews outside of Israel whilst adding middle eastern diaspora to Arabs outside of the Middle East. If that doesn’t prove an ulterior motive and a lack of WP:NPOV, targeting and attempting to erase that relevant, verifiable and defining connection I don’t know what does. But just to clarify: there are objectively no grounds for removing that category, I just told you my personal motivation for why I got involved because you asked for it. (Info Anonym (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please review WP:WAR once more, because one can be engaged in edit warring without violating the 3RR rule, and such edit war can be grounds for admin sanctions.

Your didn't really answer my question, how you ended up on Category:North American Jews. How come a completely new editor suddenly noticed "User:Place Clichy on a hunt to delete categories"? Debresser (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the concerns I voiced above. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Jewish category pages; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are engaged in edit warring and keep editing and reverting categories without awaiting consensus. Me reverting your reverts is just me reverting vandalism. (Info Anonym (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

You are a new editor, and 2 editors have tried to explain that you are wrong. You really seem to be here just to push a point, by any means necessary. Please stop that behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why Place Clichy would warn me about edit warring, when I reverted his edits the very first day I was on Wikipedia. I didn’t know what exactly that was yet. You, in contrast, are wrong. So don’t try to make it seem like your cases are the same. You are trying to push a point and try to do it by intimidating me with (sometimes even nonexistent) policies that mostly don’t even apply to my behavior but to yours. Stop trying to get me blocked just because you have no actual grounds for what you are trying to push and don’t want anybody to object to that. There are a lot of policies you violated the last few weeks as an EXPERIENCED account (I already have a list of some of the things), so if I were you, I would stop the intimidating and keep discussing. You shouldn’t have a problem with that if you genuinely believed you had good arguments against my suggestions of categorization. (Info Anonym (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is not the arguments. The problem is that you continue edit warring. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you because you started reverting again although we had not reached consensus yet and had all stopped editing for a while. Let’s discuss if you have arguments instead of unjustified intimidating. I genuinely want to have that discussion and want to hear what there is to object about my proposition for categorization. Info Anonym (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice, that you re-instated one category, but also added a new one. That is definitely not okay. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? What are you talking about? Also please stop the edit warring and revert yourself until we reach consensus.(Info Anonym (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]