Template talk:Ethnic slurs/Archive 2

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) (Not watching this page)

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)[1], 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)

White slurs?

I was looking at the template today, and I'm not of the opinion that Good ol' boy or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant are quite slurs. They definitely can have negative connotations, but as the articles themselves point out, they are often used either in a positive tone, or with WASP, as a humourous term by the people themselves. When you compare it to terms such as Gringo or Cracker (pejorative), they really aren't even in the same ballpark. I'm posting here and on those talk pages for discussion, but I think that we should remove them from the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WASP is a slur based on ethnicity (anglo-saxon) & religion (Protestant) 1) see title Unkind words: ethnic labeling from Redskin to WASP by Irving L. Allen - 1990 2) "the one indispensable ethnic slur: WASP" [Ricks T.S. Eliot and Prejudice (1988) - Page 57]; 3) "stereotype one can freely use as a slur is WASP" [The Evangelical Tradition in America Leonard I. Sweet - 1997 p 304]. 4) "Yankee magazine complained that the term WASP cut just as harmfully as other ethnic epithets" [Rebellious Laughter: People's Humor in American Culture Joseph Boskin - 1997 - Page 149] etc. Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the term is equally used by the group in a joking manner to describe themselves. I don't have time to pour over the sources currently, but I have a distinct memory of the term being used in sociology texts as a neutral term for the upper class groups it describes. I'll do some additional querying today, but there should be some way of noting the huge difference between terms like WASP and "nigger" or "wetback" or even "cracker." TonyBallioni (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No "equally" is false. it is occasionally used by them, just as people in the south sometimes call themselves White trash humorously or in 2016 election, " deplorables". Rjensen (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, but it is used in The Week, The Guardian, Salon, a Wall Street Journal essay that has WASP in the title, and in the title of a NYT op-ed. That's the gambit of the ideological spectrum from mainstream organizations. You also find it in academic reliable sources as a neutral term [2]. Even if all of these used it in a negative context, which is far from clear, there is a huge false equivalence by listing the word along with some of the most vile racial slurs on Wikipedia. It gives undue weight to a use of the term that is not the most common, and is not considered to be objectionable by journalistic and academic publications. At best it is a disputed slur, and while I am fine having a discussion about that in the article, I do not think it should be listed in the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is faily hilarious to see the person who claimede there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US arguing that "WASP" is a slur.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Both terms are so mild that it's hard to see them as slurs. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)