User talk:Deryck Chan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For older comments, please see:

I hang around casually, and edit when something interesting comes up.
The Signpost
18 August 2016
  1. I'll reply here and tag you with {{yo}}, unless you request otherwise.
  2. Please sign all your comments with ~~~~

Start a new topic!


Hi Deryck, I just wanted to let you know that I reprotected Ponnambili. Although your reason for unprotecting was undoubtedly correct, unfortunately the draft space article that was waiting in the wings was created by the same Checkuser confirmed sock the main space article was protected against and has also been deleted. This sockmaster is nothing if not persistent! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The same is true for Chandanamazha.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Sad to know that. Deryck C. 19:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A user is crazy[edit]

The user is User:Lmmnhn. He just revert, revert and revert user edits, and is quite rude and ban new edits, e.g. prevent me from adding different sort key for "Ind & others" on Template:Current composition of District Councils of Hong Kong (see also Template:Hong Kong district councils election, 2015), prevent anonymous user "" from adding "Template:Infobox political party" on Localism in Hong Kong (the article "Localism camp" is not yet created), prevent User:Brianonly from adding camps on Template:Hong Kong political parties, and much more. UU (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There are various reasons why I reverted the above edits:
1. Template:Current composition of District Councils of Hong Kong: The term "Other Beijing" does not make any sense. But if you add "pro-Beijing independent & others" or "pro-democracy others", there will be too long for the width of the box. And there are colours to distinguish if they are pro-Beijing independents or pro-democrats. User:UU's edits were unnecessary.
2. Template:Hong Kong district councils election, 2015: As I explained in the revert, User:UU did not realise that there were changes of allegiance since the election and he or she was using the current data (2016) to edit the data in 2015, which was totally inappropriate. As an editor who has spent most of my efforts in creating and editing Hong Kong election articles, I am well aware of what I am doing.
3. Localism in Hong Kong: As i explained in Talk:Localism in Hong Kong, the article aims at explaining an ideological trend, similar to Conservatism in Hong Kong and Liberalism in Hong Kong, but not a political camp, such as pro-Beijing camp or pan-democracy camp. Therefore, to add a political party infobox (I guess it is what he is trying to say) is unsuitable.
4. Template:Hong Kong political parties: Similar to the above reason, localism is an ideological trend rather than a political camp at the moment. For example, Wong Yuk-man is a self-claimed independent (see and there is in fact no political party represents the localists at the moment. Also there are also debates who are the "true" localists, should we take Neo Democrats and Claudia Mo as localists even though many localist factions would disagree? In Localism in Hong Kong, I tried to use a boarder term to explain different trends in the boarder localist trend. Therefore, I would say it at the moment too loose to make a sort of "localist camp" in the political parties template. For certain that I am open to the future development of a real localist coalition in the legislature or elections. However now I would suggest to take a step back and see how it turns out.
I appreciate the enthusiasm User:UU holds. However unfortunately I am sorry to say he has done many arguable controversies as well as contributions. The first argument we had was when he edited massively on the political parties, adding ex officio members in the chart but did not add the appointed members and did not change the total numbers of the District Councillors. Due to the fact User:UU's reckless edits would give a totally wrong sum of the numbers the parties had as a result, I had to revert all the political party articles he had edited. I guess that is why he started thinking that I have a problem with him, which I don't. Another example is the Category:Hong Kong social democrats, Category:Hong Kong liberalists and Category:Hong Kong conservatists. In fact, there are no such words as "conservatists" or "liberalists" in English language. The worst of all is that he thought that "social democrat" is the synonym for "social activist", so he changed many Hong Kong social activists into Hong Kong social democrats. And I had to revert his a dozen of his edits as a result. I truly think that our edits are for the good of the wikipedia and I do not have any personal against User:UU, neither have I ever complain about someone. And of course I am open to criticism if it is nothing personal and if it is under a healthy and constructive discussion. But the most unfortunate of all is User:UU has been complaining about me with the title of "A user is crazy" on other user pages, which I feel offended. I believe with the experience and good heart User:Deryck Chan possess, I will not be blamed for the wrong reason I have been blamed. I am truly sorry if you may have felt bothered. I will rest my case. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions. Since you have had some involvement with the Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions redirects (i.e. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 5#Re-introductory), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: I was closing admin and don't feel strongly either way about this one. I've been very busy off-wiki recently so I'll pass on this one for now. Deryck C. 20:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a courtesy notice, no worries.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rfd closures[edit]

If you close an Rfd link can you please leave your user talk page. I am now in an argy-bargy with regular contributor at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_26#Youssof not for the merits of the case but whether I properly informed you I was involving you in the discussion, which I have done three times by adding your name into the discussion (for which you should get a notification) and will now do a fourth by putting a message on your talk page as asked. The previous discussion was at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 9#Youssof marked as closed by you, which I clearly linked when nominating this at the current RfD, but I do not dare to link the old one to the new one for fear of having my balls chopped off. Duly notified. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: AAAAAAAAA! My first reaction is to trout slap you both... you two were among the few regular participants at RfD so whatever "procedure" you two can agree on basically becomes "proper" procedure! On tagging, I think WP:Echo only works when you link to someone's userpage and sign with ~~~~ at the same time, so I didn't get a notification to the discussion. I'll respond to the specifics about that redirect and its prior RfD on the fresh RfD. Deryck C. 13:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I am very sorry about that, because I did want your involvement in the discussion and tried my best to get hold of you any way I could. I didn't go round singing "Deryck Chan's a naughty boy"! I am in the middle of doing Neelix nonsense so it is a good time for you to reply. About twenty so far... Si Trew (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Among the regs I would say me, User:Tavix, User:BDD (as a contributor not just an admin), User:Lenticel who is good at East Asian language redirects, User:Ivanvector, User:Champion (was TheChampionMan1943) User:Godsy generally good at various things, I have probably forgotten a few but it is yes a bit of a back-street pub and could seem quite clubby I guess. The intent of all of us, however much we disagree, is to make the encyclopaedia better. I tend to quote the policies because I was told off by another user for not doing so, but he don't contribute any more. Because we know each others' habits so well over the years, we do kinda take it as implicit, a bit. User:Peter James seems to crop up more lately and is usually wise, User:Plantdrew also very good (and not just on plants but general taxonomy questions). Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Psst, Champion was formerly TheChampionMan1234. You're thinking of another RfD regular, Steel1943. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh my Gord, are we the Redirects for Discussion Cabal now? If so, I insist we model ourselves after WP:BRC (see also [1]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: you can if you want, but I look much better without my bathrobedressing gown. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
As long as we steal some snacks from the bacon cabal, I'm content. Smile.gif Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Going on a tangent here. @SimonTrew, Ivanvector, and Tavix: Si Trew talked about Neelix redirects above. Are we close to having brought down the number of unscrutinised redirects by Neelix to a manageable level yet? It's been almost half a year since the injunction was passed so I wonder if it's time to review it... Deryck C. 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We are about halfway there, according to the counter at User:Anomie/Neelix list. I wouldn't recommend removing/reviewing the injunction until that list is cleared. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I have just finished my latest six-month contract today so probably have idle time before the next to go through the Neelix backlog (never a good idea to set up two contracts right next to each other, have a bit of time in between.) Of course anything I have in doubt I shall bring to RfD, even if it seems bleeding obvious to others that it could have gone CSD. I wouldn't say get it to zero – after all, many redirects are valid but are hard to "tag" in any other way than what Neelix already did (I believe but am not sure that any kind of edit to a redirect takes it off the Anomie list, though – e.g. just a null (add a space) edit– but I think also that if it has incoming links it is not on the Neelix list (or rather will not be when AnomieBot updates the list, so that serves just as well if I link it from RfD or from a {{done}} on the list itself: User:Anomie can youn confirm that?
But I agree the concession was for six months so we need to bargain to extend it. I imagine it is the law of diminishing returns or low-hanging fruit (or some kind of half-life) that although about half have been done in six months, we can expect to do about a half of the other half to take less than six months. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there was a time limit on it, just a recommendation to reevaluate periodically. I think I suggested six months at one point, and we already did reevaluate once ([2]) at around two months. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
All that does is stretch the X axis and not the Y axis (or with Neelix redirects they are more in the IQ plane, where Neelix IQ tends to 0). Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: can't blame me for mathematical jokes Stephen Leacock started it, a compatriot of his. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem. Although DeryckC invited us here, we are rather squatting on DC's talk page. Si Trew (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Ahem. On-topic squatting is fine. But the mathematical jokes at the bottom fall into the category of veiled personal attacks against a certain editor and are therefore inappropriate. Deryck C. 07:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Redirects to 1000 (number)" RfD[edit]

Hey Deryck Chan, this is regards to you closing the RFD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 14#Redirects to 1000 (number). When you closed the discussion, you did not remove the {{Rfd}} templates from all the nomimated redirects. After I noticed this in the middle of April, I started fixing some of them and thought of it again today, but I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to get to fixing these redirects at this point. If you feel inclined to resolve this issue, the list of the remaining redirects that need their {{Rfd}} template removed can be found at Category:Redirects for discussion from March 2016. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's easy to take care of via AWB. Let me find my script for removing these templates and I'll have it done soon. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done @Steel1943: the RFD template has been removed and an Old RfD notice has been added to all of those pages. Let me know if either of you need this done again. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: Thanks for fixing it. I should get AWB too. Deryck C. 07:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for deleting the redirect 9-24. It was absurd. --Hordaland (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


This page has been vandalized once per month. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD closing on Columbia University case[edit]

Hey, Deryck. I appreciate the time you put in to the closing of the AfD on Columbia University Rape Controversy. I agree that there probably wasn't a consensus, and I'm not challenging the close. This was my first AfD, and I do think I would like clarification on two issues:

  • 1. It seems like my vote wasn't counted. I initially voted, but another editor told me that my nomination would be counted as a !vote, so I struck it out. Looking at the totals, it doesn't look like my vote was actually counted.
  • 2. One of the users pinged an un-involved editor during the discussion, and that editor then !voted in the AfD. I and another editor both raised objections to the ping, the "pinging" editor said it was normal. Is this normal? And does it matter for the voting?

I gather that closers usually err in favor of "keep" when the votes are close, so would this all have been a moot point? Nblund (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Nblund.
  1. I have counted you among the 7 editors who preferred outright deletion.
  2. Pinging is not a problem on its own, but canvassing may be a concern.
Deletion discussions are meant to gauge opinions and seek to build consensus, but full agreement between everybody is of course infeasible in most situations. Your use of the jargon !vote shows good understanding of the line of thought behind head-counting in deletion discussions. I personally find "!vote" comical because it sarcastically implies of course it's voting. That essay explains the logic of discussion closures fairly well.
You're right to say that closers tend to err towards "keep", or more precisely, towards the plausible outcome that requires minimal interference. This goes along with the philosophy of Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss - things don't change unless there's a significantly stronger urge to change than not. Fortunately, most of the time, there's 1 person in favour and 0 people against Face-smile.svg.
So I don't think two or three more editors coming to the discussion to argue for "delete" would have changed the result. From what I read on that discussion, a very substantial swing of general opinion would have been required. Deryck C. 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Deryck, that helps a lot. Nblund (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Santa Maria presso San Satiro[edit]


Hi Deryck,

Found a 1-min documentary clip about the optical-illusion church in Milan that we talked about at yesterday's meet-up:

cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 11:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Please block user: for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This could be a false alarm. See User_talk:– Fayenatic London 21:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: Yes I know. These two IP editors are in a dispute and the IPv6 editor is clearly forum-shopping. Hence this comment from me. Deryck C. 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC closes[edit]

Hi Deryck. As a frequent AfD participant, I have noticed your AfD closures and am particularly impressed by your detailed closing rationales of complex discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Falinski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University rape controversy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games developed in Belgium.

Would you consider reviewing some of the similarly complex discussions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to help editors resolve disputes? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture nomination[edit]

Hi Deryck,

Many thanks for the Milan tips, which came in useful today!

If I could bother you a second... I submitted my "Tiny Planet" of the Last Supper sculpture in Esino Lario for Featured Picture on the English Wikipedia. If you think it qualifies, could you please support my nomination?

Thanks in advance,
cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 22:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

RfD NAC RfC cmt (TLAs, OMG!)[edit]

You might want to integrate a compressed version of "In a deletion forum with ≤5 admin regulars (such as RfD), we regularly run into a situation where there is a consensus to delete but it stays in the backlog for weeks just because all the admin regulars have taken part in the discussion. NAC-delete gives us an way out without creating additional workload in such situations." directly into your !vote there in the RfC on the use of non-admin closure at WP:RFD. As Opabinia regalis points out, most of the oppose !votes appear to be entirely predicated on the unevidenced supposition that this will somehow increase backlogs and admin workload, and they're not going to believe otherwise until they see admins saying it won't, and why.

It's very unfortunate that this is running about 50/50 for no rational reason, but it could still be turned around. If it fails, a re-RfC in 6 or 12 months should probably be done by an admin who makes this case in the RfC's own wording, so the confusion doesn't arise again.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for the reminder. I haven't followed up because of Tavix's comment after he became admin. His comment made me realised that the probability of the circumstances I described is exceedingly small. It certainly hasn't happened since Tavix and Patar knight became regular RfD admins. The better solution to that problem is to allow "involved" closures where there's a strong consensus (which I've done on one occasion in the past year anyway, where there was unanimous consensus after a few people changed their minds). Or request external admin help for the very rare controversial cases without an uninvolved regular admin. I understand that there's another potential RfD regular's RfA in the works so hopefully that'll ease the problem from source. Deryck C. 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It actually just happened today at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 21#Jeopardisers. All four "regular" RfD admins have participated in that discussion, although statistically speaking it'll happen less now that there's more of us. And yes, that's where WP:ANRFC or prodding RfD regulars to run for admin comes in handy. In this case, both might happen, as Deryck alluded to. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Argh. Well done BDD for creating a counterexample while I was formulating my argument. Deryck C. 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Punjab edit-a-thon[edit]

Hello sir, could you please check this request? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Can you try to write the code and I'll check and post it? I'm on the move so it's hard to do it all myself. Deryck C. 22:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Small world[edit]

It was good to meet you again at the AGM. You mentioned that you're studying civil engineering so here's an interesting connection. You'll have been to the London Wikimeets at Penderel's Oak, right? Well, the passageway beside that pub is called the Great Turnstile. I've been meaning to research its history for some time and got started today. I just found that John Smeaton worked as an instrument maker there, back in 1750. And he went on to be the first man to style himself a "civil engineer" and founded the Society of Civil Engineers in 1771. I wonder how close his workshop was to our usual table...? Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Irish cheese[edit]

Will you restore list of irish cheeses based on the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 9#Lists of cheeses which you closed. I've spoken with the administrator who speedily deleted it, RHaworth, and they've expressed that it would be acceptable to them if another administrator restored it. Best Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: Thanks for asking me about it. I've read the exchange between you and RHaworth. I tend to agree with you that CSD R3 doesn't apply but I'm not sure there's much merit in keeping this redirect, so I think a full discussion will be appropriate. I'm gonna restore the redirect (for the sake of due process) and send it to RfD. Deryck C. 21:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant[edit]

Hi Deryck, thanks for your close at Southern Levant. Unfortunately we are now arguing over the closing summary at Talk:Southern Levant. Would you mind spending a couple of minutes seeing if you could help mediate? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Move over Redirect[edit]


As per the discussion at Redirects for Discussion could you please move article Sporting Toulon Var over the redirect Sporting Club Toulon? I have updated the article to reflect the merger.

There are also redirects to Sporting Toulon Var from Sporting Toulon and SC Toulon. I don't mind dealing with changing the target on these once you give me the nod that the move is done. Or you can do it at the same time, up to you.

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. A bot will come around and update the other redirects automatically. Deryck C. 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, Gricehead (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Major Revamp of Southern Levant[edit]

Deryck, do you still have time to help over at the Southern Levant article? Drsmoo (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I gave it a shot on the talk page. Deryck C. 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's really helpful! Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FREAKAZOiD DRV and protection[edit]

Hello, The DRV you closed on FREAKAZOiD allowed for the draft article to be moved into article space, but is still protected. Could you unprotect it please? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit: Downgraded to semi-salt so you can move a draft on top of it. Deryck C. 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not fussing over the article itself, but I am worried that this close might set a bad precedent. I don't like the idea of editors userfying deleted articles, immediately restoring them to the mainspace with no meaningful changes, protesting the legitimate G4 with a second DRV in the space of a week, and then using that DRV simply to re-argue the original AfD. I especially don't like seeing this behaviour condoned and rewarded without comment- that'll only make this kind of thing established practice. Would you please consider saying a few words at the DRV close to address this concern? Thanks. Reyk YO! 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Reyk: I guess "while endorsing previous closures" was my shorter equivalent of what you wanted. I'm afraid we have a case of the Charles Matthews' "law of triviality for deletion discussions" here: the length of a deletion debate is inversely proportional to the distance of a subject's notability from the inclusion threshold. The locus of AfD marginally delete → DRV NC → DRV allow recreation on new evidence shows we've followed this pattern. The strong majority supporting unsalting seems to show that most Wikipedians think this is a worthwhile use of their time, though I do sympathise with you that it all feels a bit vexacious. Deryck C. 17:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Best RfC closure comment ever[edit]

Really enjoyed your closure comment here. Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Thank you for your appreciation! Deryck C. 12:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Challenging RfC closure on Template: Ethnic slurs[edit]


Your recent closure of the RfC has left a number of editors concerned (including myself, although there are a few other involved editors I contacted who I am still waiting to hear back from), particularly in relation to WP:CONSENSUS. Firstly, the statement on offer implies that you arrived at your decision based on majority vote (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) without due consideration to how the discussion played out, or the counter-arguments and WP:RS that had been provided.

To recap, the dispute itself was about whether or not Jews should be categorized as West Asian/Middle Eastern. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries (primarily the result of displacement via foreign colonialism) and C) genetic admixture with non-Jewish populations. Others argued that, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are a West Asian national group with ethnic ties/collective descent (as determined by countless genetic studies) from Israel, in addition to the anthropological criteria (notably UN criteria/Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), Jews belong under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were contested on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders to varying degrees, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to a particular territory (as this would mean that all colonial groups would eventually become indigenous); per Martinez-Cobo, indigeneity is defined through ethnogenesis, not longstanding presence and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, and Jews are no exception.

None of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. Instead, the discussion petered out after a few weeks, seemingly with a consensus that the template was fine as it is (with Jews and Arabs both having their own categories under the larger West Asian umbrella) with no counter-response or RS beyond A ) a non-RS blog (which had immediately been called out as such, with no response) and B ) repeated assertions of earlier arguments (which, again, had been promptly called out with the same counter-points/sources as before, and again, no response). It also seemed as though many of the responses came from editors without much in the way of prior exposure to this topic, since there were a few editors who appeared to have backtracked on their initial support for the proposal as discussion wore on. I took it off my watchlist until I found that a final decision had been made seemingly based on majority vote (never a good idea when it involves a globally marginalized/persecuted minority group, for obvious reasons).

I would like to hear your reasoning behind this decision in the hopes that a more conclusive agreement can be arrived at, per

ChronoFrog (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I second this concern, especially in that some other editors and I had already come up with consensus a while ago on a related topic that Jews are of West Asian (Semitic) descent:
Todah Rabah, and have a great weekend! Jeffgr9 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Toda raba, ChronoFrog and Jeffgr9 ma shelomha. I enjoyed my week in Israel back in 2011 for Wikimania and still remember random bits of modern Hebrew. I admit that this was a difficult closure and I closed the discussion pretty much expecting a challenge.

Let me expound on several principles of Wikipedia decision-making. Consensus and policy are the fundamentals of decision, and policy is in turn descriptive rather than prescriptive. So when an editor closes a discussion and assesses the strengths of the arguments, the question to ask oneself isn't "what argument convinced me more" - for that would be WP:Supervoting - but "given what I see here, if I brought this debate to wider attention around Wikipedia, which way will the discussion go"? So unless there is an overriding concern arising from an important Wikipedia policy, the closer generally has to obey a significant majority opinion, or rough consensus in Wikipedia parlance. Cynically put, Wikipedia:Of course it's voting.

As for the specifics of the discussion on Template talk:Ethnic slurs, it is clear that there isn't widespread consensus either way. If there was a long-standing stable edition and this was a motion for change, I probably would've closed the discussion as "no consensus, default to do nothing". But that isn't the case here: the template's edit history seemed to be in a constant state of flux, so the discussion's mandate was to find the most plausible outcome. I agree with you above that the "Asian" side has addressed the arguments posed by the "standalone" side, but those holding the "standalone" opinion did not seem convinced. More importantly, I wasn't convinced that either side argued an overwhelming case of why Wikipedia policies necessarily prejudiced this editorial decision one way or another.

So I had to default to the principle of counterfactual: "given what I see here, if I brought this debate to wider attention around Wikipedia, which way will the discussion go"? The overall head count, your observation that "many of the [standalone] responses came from editors without much in the way of prior exposure to this topic", and the fact that Jews had previously been categorised under "White" or "European" for a substantial period of time in the history of this template, persuaded me that inviting broader participation would probably lean the outcome towards "standalone", hence my closure.

I could only close a discussion based on the arguments presented in that discussion. I'm intrigued by the discussion about category trees that Jeffgr9 presented above, though it remains a question if editors who want to categorise a page that way will necessarily want to arrange a template in a similar way.

ChronoFrog said some editors were changing their minds towards the end of the discussion. If you can get them to state clearly that they now support a West Asian / Middle Eastern (we also have to decide which) category indeed, I'm happy to reopen the discussion so everybody can re-state their opinions and we may come to a different conclusion. I'm also open to the idea of escalating the debate to a higher-traffic forum to invite further participation, to test my "wider attention" hypothesis. (It won't be the first time I took myself to an appeals process!) Let me know what you think. Deryck C. 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the category tree issue is separate and something of a red herring in that it's easy enough to put one subcategory under several categories (ie in several category trees). Not so easy in a template. Therefore, a consensus in a completely different area (category rather than template) is not a precedent and certainly doesn't mean there was a consensus in the tempalte discussion. Jews, arguably, are not exclusively "West Asian" or Middle Eastern but fall under several categories due to admixtures and other factors. Therefore, putting Jews as a standalone category makes more sense. Electoralist (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Break: argument about genetics[edit]

Your assertion that Jews have admixed with other populations and therefore should not be included as West Asian is inconsistent because every population on Earth has mixed with foreigners to varying degrees and accepted them into their fold. Furthermore, Jews are primarily Levantine in terms of genetics, as can be seen here in this population overview ("The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E."[EthnicSlur1 1]). These points had been raised ad nauseum (including in my message to Deryk) over the past month and you consistently ignored them. Please address them now, and please stop WP:Stalking me.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was part of the consensus discussion in the RFC and is therefore not new information and not grounds to reopen. Secondly, given that I was involved in the RFC, participating in a discussion with the admin who closed it is not "stalking" by any stretch of the imagination, particularly when you announced on the template's Talk page that you would be bringing up the issue with Deryck - or is it your contention that other participants in the RFC are not permitted to weigh in and that you have a right to exclusivity? If so, why haven't you accused Jeffgr9 of stalking as he's also posted a comment here (above)? Or is it your position that only one side is allowed to participate? Electoralist (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen you on virtually every article I've edited over the past few weeks, often immediately after I make my changes. So yes, I think you are watching me. Please stop.
Nonsense. Looking now at your contriburtions list you have edited the following articles: Asia, Template:Ethnic slurs, Israelites, Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Template:Overseas Asians, European diaspora, Demographics of Asia, Western Asia, History of the Jews in Canada Ethnic groups in Europe, Racism in the United States, God of War III, Threads of Fate, Trigun, Resident Evil 4. Of those 16, I have edited 4 by my count, 4 out of 16 (or 3 out of 15 since I was editing Template: Ethnic slurs before you created your account) is not "virtually every article", quite the opposite. Please explain how 3 out of 15 constitutes "virtually every article". Please stop trying to poison the well by making specious accusations. Electoralist (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, that may have been an exaggeration, although it is due in no small part to the fact that you tend to show up immediately after I edit a new article. That does make me suspicious. I will be keeping my eyes open in the future. Needless to say, I will put an end to it one way or another if you persist.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the threat but keep in mind I have a number of articles related to Judaism as well as racism on my Watchlist so when those articles pop up I may check them. Further, I think of the 3 articles outside of Template:Ethnic slurs that I edited, on only one page did my edits have anything to do with your edits (eg History of the Jews in Canada popped up on my watchlist and that prompted me to revise out of date information related to the Canadian Jewish Congress and Jewish Tribune - edits completely unrelated to your edit) so again, please refrain from specious accusations and threats. Electoralist (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Threat? All I'm saying is that if I have sufficient reason to believe that I am being followed, I will request the appropriate sanctions. That is all.ChronoFrog (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, it was part of the consensus discussion in the RFC and is therefore not new information and not grounds to reopen." I was part of that discussion, and you never offered anything in the way of policy based evidence, consistency, or RS that addressed the above arguments (those weren't the only ones, btw). But it is certainly possible that I have overlooked something, so I would politely request that you restate your initial response to the concerns that I have just outlined.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
And actually, the issue has been addressed. Jewish populations have admixed with others to the degree that there are several distinct Jewish ethnicities - Ashkenazis who have largely admixed with European ethnic groups to the extent that most of us have white skin and "pass" for white (and some would argue are white), Shephardim who have admixed with Spanish and North African populations, Mizrahim who used to also be referred to as Arabic Jews and some would consider ethnically Arab, Ethiopian Jews who admixed with Black East African populations and appear Black, several groups of Indian Jews, some of whom admixed with Indians and appear South Asian, Chinese Jews who appear Chinese etc. To classify Jews as a whole as West Asian is simplistic and ignores the complex nature of Jewish communities. It's for similar reasons that Hispanic people are not classified as European and Inuit people (aka "Eskimos") are not classified as East Asian. The essence of this response was made several times in the RFC. That you do not consider it a rebuttal of your argument is your opinion but it is still part of the RFC mix and part of the consensus argument. Electoralist (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this isn't a rebuttal at all. It is more or less a revised version of your initial argument (i.e. "Jews have mixed so much, they can't be classified as West Asian") which I already addressed. There isn't a single nation or ethnicity in existence that hasn't absorbed foreign admixture (save for those who live on remote islands, I guess), not to mention that the majority of Jews worldwide, regardless of where they live, share a common descent from the Levant and are generally closer to each other (and to other Levantines) than to their host populations, per genetic studies (see my link above). Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews (are you seeing a pattern here?) et al are sub-ethnicities under a larger ethnic/national umbrella: Jews/Israelites. They are not distinct ethnicities unto themselves, because that isn't how ethnography works.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The argument addresses your points and refutes them. Again, you may not personally think so but they are nevertheless part of the RFC and consensus. Electoralist (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't address the fact that every nation on Earth has intermingled with outside populations. It doesn't address the collective genetic ties of the overwhelming majority of Jews to the Levant, irrespective of where they reside. Your responses amount to little more than "but but....ADMIXTURE", which is a claim I had already responded to (hell, I just responded to it again, despite my reluctance to turn Deryk's page into a battleground). Also, Latin Americans do have a collective ethnic identity (despite their enormous diversity): Latino/South American. And that's how they are classified, although as a culturally Spanish/Spanish-identifying people inhabiting South America, they don't fit under Martinez-Cobo (Jews do, though).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's a matter of degree. Yes, there is no such thing as as 'pure' ethnic group or race and all groups have admitures but not all ethnic groups have within them people who appear to be white, Black, South Asian, Chinese, Middle Eastern etc. There are several Jewish ethnic groups as I pointed out above so yes, it's been addressedElectoralist (talk)
The French, English, Germans, Arabs, Swedes, Romani, Latinos, among others all have a wide variety of admixtures, skin tones, appearances, and so on, but nobody would argue that there is no collective English, German, Arab, Swedish, Romani, etc national/ethnic identity tied to a specific region or land. Jewish nationality has been made portable via prolonged displacement, but our identity as Judeans/Israelites/the nation of Israel (i.e. West Asians) has remained intact. There is a reason why Jews outside of Israel are collectively considered diaspora Jews. ChronoFrog (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
All of the groups you've mentioned are Jewish subgroups. That is, they are distinct branches of a larger, West Asian nationality/ethnic group: Jews/Israelites. Jewish subdivisions exist because of our history of displacement, yet we nevertheless share a common gene pool going back to the Levant, per the source I provided (I used that citation alone because it is all encompassing, although I can provide more if need be). Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim, who comprise the bulk of world Jewry, are more closely related to each other, and to other Levantines, than to their neighboring populations. Expounding on this point further, the fact that the Florida Seminoles have tribal members with admixtures of white or black blood (because of European conquest and fleeing African slaves) doesn't change the ethnic identity of the whole. Lastly, Middle Easterners are considered white.ChronoFrog (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"Whiteness" is a social construct and changes over time. For instance, Irish, Italians and Ashkenazi Jews were not generally considered "white" a century ago (cf the book "How the Irish Became White") but would be today (though recently there's been a debate within the Jewish community regarding whether Jews should consider themselves white - regardless, Ashenazi Jews are generally perceived as "white" by non-Jews with the exception of anti-Semites). It's been argued that Christian Arabs are considered white by American and European cultures but Arab Muslims are not (particularly since 9/11). Electoralist (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't exactly address what I said. Either way, do you believe that anyone who perceives Ashkenazi Jews as non-white is an antisemite?ChronoFrog (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say "anyone", I specifically says "non-Jews". Is that an exaggeration? I certainly think it's true that virtually all "white" anti-Semites would say Jews are not white. Nazi ideology wes quite explicit on that point. Electoralist (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Your language sort of suggested that you would consider any non-Jew who doesn't consider Ashkenazim white to be an antisemite. But again, we're getting off topic.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It is certainly true that anti-Semites (at least those of European descent) have attempted to exclude Jews from being considered European for centuries despite genetic evidence to the contrary (eg "Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European" (LiveScience).):
"The origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, who come most recently from Europe, has largely been shrouded in mystery. But a new study suggests that at least their maternal lineage may derive largely from Europe.
Though the finding may seem intuitive, it contradicts the notion that European Jews mostly descend from people who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago. Instead, a substantial proportion of the population originates from local Europeans who converted to Judaism, said study co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in England.
(...)Richards and his colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA, which is contained in the cytoplasm of the egg and passed down only from the mother, from more than 3,500 people throughout the Near East, the Caucusus and Europe, including Ashkenazi Jews.
The team found that four founders were responsible for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.
All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."" Electoralist (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
(...)Richards and his colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA, which is contained in the cytoplasm of the egg and passed down only from the mother, from more than 3,500 people throughout the Near East, the Caucusus and Europe, including Ashkenazi Jews.
The title of that article is highly misleading since the study it cites deals only with mtDNA, which is about half of the equation (and allegedly harder to pin down than Y-DNA). Y-DNA of Ashkenazim is almost entirely Semitic/Levantine. Autosomal studies show them to be about half-half, with the European side being largely Greek/Roman. "The contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish population, as characterised by several recent genetic studies, is approximately 600 to 800 years old and is probably the result of the fusion of ancestral European and Middle-Eastern populations, according to research published this week in Nature Communications. These previous studies have described Ashkenazi Jewish individuals as a genetically distinct population, close to other Jewish populations, as well as to present-day Middle-Eastern and European people. As is common in distinct populations, they demonstrate distinctive genetic characteristics including a high prevalence of genetic diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, and breast and ovarian cancer. The authors also produced a model that indicates that the formation of the contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish population occurred 600 to 800 years ago (close to the time of the population bottleneck) with the fusion of two ancestral populations: ancestral European and ancestral Middle-Eastern. They also find that the ancestral European population went through a founding bottleneck when diverging from ancestral Middle Easterners 20.4 to 22.1 thousand years ago, around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum. The ancestors of both of these populations underwent another bottleneck, probably corresponding to an Out-of-Africa event." (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, this study shows that Ashkenazim and other diaspora groups are closer to Samaritans on the Y-DNA line than Palestinian Arabs.;jsessionid=10F76852AD872606B6B2DA06BF5C221E.f03t02ChronoFrog (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This one is even more direct. According to Behar, the most parsimonious explanation for this shared Middle Eastern ancestry is that it is "consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World". (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
So it's not clearcut but actually quite complex, as I have stated repeatedly, (and we haven't even talked about the genetics of South Asian Desi Jews or Chinese Jews) meaning a standalone status makes more sense than trying to shoehorn Jews as a whole under "West Asian". Electoralist (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
South Asian Jews are a fusion of Israelite and South Asian (primarily through the maternal line). Ethiopian and Chinese Jews also have Israelite descent, but they assimilated to a much greater degree than other Jewish groups (to the point where many Chinese Jews are only now discovering their heritage, since Jewish communities in China had disappeared centuries ago).ChronoFrog (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
References for this subsection

Break: argument about ethnography[edit]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As for Middle Easterners being considered white, they are still classified as such under the Census Bureau. But we're getting off topic here. In fact, I think we should take this elsewhere (if we are to continue this at all) and wait for Deryk to reply. And as you said yourself, Christian Arabs are perceived as white so if Ashkenazim are also perceived as white, it is irrelevant to whether or not they are West Asian.ChronoFrog (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"As for Middle Easterners being considered white, they are still classified as such under the Census Bureau." And the US Census Bureaus is proposing to end that as of the 2020 Census which means it is relevant because it would, under your proposal, imply that Ashkenazi (ie European) Jews are not white.[3] Electoralist (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would (and there are Jewish groups petitioning for the same thing), but that's neither here nor there. This is about whether or not Jews are a West Asian group.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If Ashkenazi Jews are matrilineally descended from Europeans, as genetic studies have found, then we can't say that Ashkenazi Jews are a West Asian group per se (and roughly 74% of all Jews are Ashkenazi). Rather, we are more like Hispanics who are an admixture (predominantly) of Europeans and Indigenous Americans along with some African admixture and are therefore not classified as one or the other but as a distinct group. Electoralist (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Ashkenazi Jews are an Israelite/Jewish (i.e. West Asian) subgroup. You are correct that they're not *exclusively* West Asian in terms of genome (nobody ever said that), but they are West Asian nevertheless. That is what bridges them with other Jews: their Israelite identity.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If they are West Asian they are also European (and other categories). While in a category tree one could list Jews as a subcat of West Asian and European and North African etc that wouldn't make sense in a template so given the complexity it makes more sense to list Jews as a standalone group. This is the argument made in the RFC and you have presented no new arguments to justiy reopening or reconsidering the RFC consensus finding but are simply rehashing things the RFC went over repeatedly. Indeed, I don't see what criteria under Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures justifies a challenge to the RFC closure other than "WP:I don't like it" (which isn't on the list of criteria). Remember "review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself" and all you have done here is re-argue the underlying dispute. Electoralist (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. I challenged the closure because I believed that several key arguments, reliable sources (HTS posted a whole shitload of them, and I posted a few myself; you posted a blog and not much else), and Wiki policies had been overlooked in the decision making process. That, coupled with the fact that I obviously wasn't alone in feeling this way, is sufficient grounds for challenging the decision (read the link more carefully, amigo), and Deryck himself admitted in his opening paragraph that he was expecting this (and is open to bringing this topic to wider scrutiny, or re-opening the RfC if conditions are met). Over the past month or so, you were the only one who consistently engaged in the discussion (whereas most other editors just dropped in to cast their ballots and then left), and you didn't have much to offer then in the way of policy based arguments, consistency, or RS, so I was puzzled by the final decision. Also, in a category tree, people of Jewish descent (to use one example) would fall under people of Middle Eastern and West Asian descent, since it relates to Jews qua Jews. People of Jewish descent would be a parent cat for people of Russian-Jewish descent (who would likewise go under people of Russian descent and people of Jewish descent, which is a subcat of people of Middle Eastern/West Asian descent). Lastly, I don't think you understand how ethnography works. Ashkenazi Jews are a West Asian ethnicity since they are a subgroup (or subcat, if you will) of Jews/Israelites.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, tomorrow is Shabbat so I will have to put this conversation on hold for at least another day. I hope you understand, Deryk. If you respond tomorrow, I will get to it as soon as possible the next day. Shalom! ChronoFrog (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Shabbat started this evening at sunset. Electoralist (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they're called "different time zones". ChronoFrog (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"I don't think you understand how ethnography works." I think you have a simplistic view of ethnography. There is not a single school of ethnography or a unitary ethographic position that Jews are Central Asian and nothing else. Ethnography is not genetics and is not the only discipline that one can cite to determine what is an ethnic group and what ethnic group would fit under which category. It's a study of culture, society, customs and interactions. Please show me a citation from an ethnographic paper that states Ashkenazi Jews are not (in part at least) European and then please show me some evidence that that position is universally accepted by ethnographers. Electoralist (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
WEST Asian, not Central. If you want more sources, I'll be happy to oblige when Shabbat is over (it's about to begin for me).ChronoFrog (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I will comply with Electoralist's request for sources as I believe that Wikipedia's policy of strict adherence to WP:RS went overlooked in the final decision, and that is one of the main reasons I challenged the outcome in the first place. He asked for sources pinpointing Ashkenazi ethnography, but the category focuses on the Jewish people as a collective, not just one segment of it (ethnographically speaking, Jews are already listed as an indigenous people of the Middle East per UN/Martinez-Cobo guidelines). So I went back to the RfC and compiled all of the RS brought forward by User: The Human Trumpet Solo affirming the collective ethnic/national/ethnoreligious character of the Jews, while also adding in a few of my own.
  • Edgar Litt (1961). "Jewish Ethno-Religious Involvement and Political Liberalism". Social Forces. 39 (4): 328–332. doi:10.2307/2573430. JSTOR 2573430.
  • Craig R. Prentiss (1 June 2003). Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity: An Introduction. NYU Press. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-0-8147-6701-6.
  • The Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Eli Lederhendler Stephen S. Wise Professor of American Jewish History and Institutions (30 November 2001). Studies in Contemporary Jewry : Volume XVII: Who Owns Judaism? Public Religion and Private Faith in America and Israel: Volume XVII: Who Owns Judaism? Public Religion and Private Faith in America and Israel. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-0-19-534896-5.
  • Ernest Krausz; Gitta Tulea. Jewish Survival: The Identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century ; [... International Workshop at Bar-Ilan University on the 18th and 19th of March, 1997]. Transaction Publishers. pp. 90–. ISBN 978-1-4128-2689-1.
  • John A. Shoup III (17 October 2011). Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-59884-363-7.
  • Tet-Lim N. Yee (10 March 2005). Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish identity and Ephesians. Cambridge University Press. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-1-139-44411-8.
  • "In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament." Jew at Encyclopedia Britannica
  • "Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews." Hebrew (People) at Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Brandeis, Louis (April 25, 1915). "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It". University of Louisville School of Law. Retrieved 2012-04-02. "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member"
  • Palmer, Edward Henry (October 14, 2002) [First published 1874]. A History of the Jewish Nation: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Gorgias Press. ISBN 978-1-931956-69-7. OCLC 51578088. Retrieved 2012-04-02. Lay summary.
  • Einstein, Albert (June 21, 1921). "How I Became a Zionist" (PDF). Einstein Papers Project. Princeton University Press. Retrieved 2012-04-05. "The Jewish nation is a living fact"
I'll stop there, for now. Earlier on, a JVL article had been cited by Electoralist in the hopes of implementing his desired change, but I've noticed that it uses JewFAQ (an independent, non-RS) as its only citation. Moreover, the entire body of text appears to have been pulled directly from that site.

Lastly Electoralist, I am on the East coast. It was 10 minutes before midnight in my area when I wrote my last response to you, and this is not the appropriate forum for that kind of overzealous cross-examination.ChronoFrog (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, Sabbath starts Friday night at sundown, not at midnight as all Jews know meaning when you had been claiming shabbat was about to begin the US east coast was actually several hours into it and it has already also begun on the west coast. Whether or not one is actually Jewish is not relevant to one's participation in a Jewish related discussion but your slip up is amusing given the number of times you've used essentialist identity based arguments ("we Jews") on the template's talk page and your past attempts to shame me for not being a good enough Jew or implying I was a Reform Jew rather than Conservative or Orthodox and that therefore my views were suspect. Electoralist (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Not in my family. We've always started it on Saturday and ended it on Sunday morning. Do you have a problem with that? Also, thanks for ignoring the RS posted (again).ChronoFrog (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Putting up a list of ISBN's you haven't read and most of which we don't have access to is completely useless. I asked "Please show me a citation from an ethnographic paper that states Ashkenazi Jews are not (in part at least) European and then please show me some evidence that that position is universally accepted by ethnographers" ie give me a quote that supports your position. 19:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The sources all came from here, per User: The Human Trumpet Solo (yes, I checked the page to verify his claims). And frankly, your criteria is ridiculous. Partial non-Jewish ancestry (something I never argued against, by the way) shows nothing. We depend on the preponderance of evidence, and I have provided that (see WP:DUE). Also, we're not just dealing with Ashkenazim; we're discussing Jews as a whole. Further, in terms of ethnography, Ashkenazim (and Jews writ large) meet Martinez-Cobo's checklist (hence why they are listed under South West Asians), which has become standard on Wikipedia because it is the most widely accepted criteria among anthropologists.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Chronofrog. Your demands are silly. If you want to debate ChronoFrog's sources, the burden is on you to produce RS that supports your position. So far, I haven't seen anything beyond your blog post citation and the Usenet article, as I've discussed below.Musashiaharon (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I just don't believe you are who you say you are. But it doesn't matter because that's par for the course on the internet. Electoralist (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Believe what you want, but your opinions about who I "really" am are irrelevant. Stay on topic.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it would better for my mental health at this point to just wait for Deryck to respond, because obviously your mind isn't going to change. Likewise, you've yet to provide anything substantive enough that would convince me to change mine.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Break: argument about Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

Thank you for your reply. I'm a native English speaker so unfortunately, I can't verify your Hebrew. ;P Heheh.

Onto business...

"If there was a long-standing stable edition and this was a motion for change, I probably would've closed the discussion as "no consensus, default to do nothing". But that isn't the case here: the template's edit history seemed to be in a constant state of flux, so the discussion's mandate was to find the most plausible outcome. I agree with you above that the "Asian" side has addressed the arguments posed by the "standalone" side, but those holding the "standalone" opinion did not seem convinced. More importantly, I wasn't convinced that either side argued an overwhelming case of why Wikipedia policies necessarily prejudiced this editorial decision one way or another."

I looked through the template's revision history and found that Jews had been listed under "Asians" for at least the past 3-4 years. The editor who moved us there did so unchallenged, and although a few people reverted it at various points (they were quickly reverted back with an explanation provided, and no further challenge from the other party), it wasn't until last month that anyone seriously contested our presence under Asians (I'll get to that in a moment). So there had been a relatively stable consensus until recently, and this new proposal to remove us from Asians was technically a motion for change. You also mentioned that you weren't convinced that either side had argued an overwhelming case of why Wikipedia policies necessarily prejudiced one side or another, but I must disagree as there was an abundance of WP:RS provided and policy based concerns (including Wikipedia's reliance on Martinez-Cobo in determining ethnic belonging, as seen here; you can also see that Jews are listed as indigenous Southwest Asians in this article) that largely went ignored.

The editor who initiated the RfC originally tried to remove Jews from "Asians" and place us under "Europeans". I immediately reverted him when I saw it, and created a talk page discussion explaining how it was inconsistent with Jewish identity and the way other ethnic groups/nationalities were categorized on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, an edit war ensued (between him and a number of editors who believed Jews should remain under Asians, including myself) and he could not provide any compelling, policy based evidence or RS justifying his proposal. He then created the RfC, the discussion continued, several editors chimed in and then quickly dropped out (without really engaging in the conversation at all beyond their initial ballot casting) while myself and several others argued why the template should remain as it was, with one editor providing a very large list of WP:RS. Meanwhile, the editor who wanted to remove Jews from "Asians" provided no reliable sources and did not adequately (if at all) address the concerns that were raised. It is hard to say if the other editors would have changed their minds (although some of the responses did seem to indicate a slight shift, although I'll let them speak for themselves), but the editor who kicked off the whole shebang seemed very entrenched in his views and became increasingly hostile (one editor's insinuation that negating our Middle Eastern/Israelite identity would constitute antisemitism seemed to really upset him, if I recall correctly) as the discussion wore on, so I doubt his position will change, regardless of policy, argument, or reliable sources. I took it off my watchlist when it became obvious that the discussion was dying down and that no policy based justifications for his proposal were forthcoming.

As for your proposal, I would agree to that. I would also like this issue to be examined further and, if necessary, brought to wider attention, and for previously involved editors to (possibly) reassess their positions.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, tomorrow is Shabbat so I will have to put this conversation on hold for at least another day. I hope you understand, Deryk. If you respond tomorrow, I will get to it as soon as possible the next day. Shalom! ChronoFrog (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deryck, I've read the (very lengthy) conversations here, as well as the RfC and the original discussions on the Talk page. I weighed the merits and demerits of both arguments, and I found one side extremely lacking vis a vis Wikipedia's standards for scholarship. As editors on Wikipedia, we are charged with presenting a balanced viewpoint that reflects reliable expert opinions. It is acknowledged that Wikipedia is not a source of WP:TRUTH. However, whatever we include must be verifiable, and not give WP:UNDUE weight to a lesser source by putting it on the same level as other sources from wiser, peer-edited and better-researched authors.
I didn't mention which is the lacking side yet, because I wanted to expose my process and criteria to you, so that you can be satisfied with their impartiality and neutral point of view. Based on these objective criteria, by now it should be clear that the two sources provided by Electoralist are invalid and insufficient to support his desired claims. His first source, a blogger's evaluation of Mesilas Yesharim, is obviously unedited and unreviewed. I'm copy-pasting his citation here for reference:
Electoralist source 1: Judaism: Race, Religion, or Ethnicity?

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

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

Words like "ethnicity," "religion," or even "race" are completely irrelevant to our obligations in this life. That's not the path to pursue. What is important is each individual's personal relationship with Hashem, and our relationship with Hashem as a People, as well as our relationships with our communities (roughly in that order).
If you will follow the link to investigate, you will find that the author is unnamed, and cites no sources for his opinions, which twist the intention and language Mesilas Yesharim itself to conform to what is clearly his own interpretation. The author even says himself at the start of this exact quote that his is an argument from silence:
The problem is not just RS. The quote is taken out of context, it is based on a fallacy, and it draws conclusions based on what isn't written in the source at all. This forced interpretation goes far afield from the Mesilas Yesharim's original subject (which, in case you are curious, was not ethnicity, but rather how a Jew can improve himself and best serve G-d).
Perhaps Electoralist just made a mistake. We'll give him another chance and look at his last actual source. Here, he cited the Jewish Virtual Library. Although JVL does not usually produce its own content, it's usually better than an anonymous source. The catch is, its reliability depends on where it copy-pasted the article from. Usually, the sources are biographies, government websites, newspapers, and other encyclopedias. However, it also frequently copies content from personal websites like Judaism 101 and from other encyclopedias like, well, Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the source Electoralist picked was not of the RS variety:
Electoralist source 2: Are Jews a Nation or a Religion?

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

If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race.
Again we have problems. If you follow the link and investigate the author, you will find it difficult, because the author is not given. This particular article was copy-pasted from a Usenet archive: soc.culture.jewish FAQ: Jews As A Nation: Are Jews a Nation or a Religion?
I'm sure that Electoralist wanted to use RS, and these were just unlucky mistakes. However, the fact that a simple search cannot easily turn up RS to support his position is telling.
In contrast, on the other side, there is a large list of scholarly works (above, bulleted lists) that consider Jews an ethnicity, and a Middle Eastern one at that, as evident from their very titles. At least in the scholarly community (which is what we ultimately care about on Wikipedia), this is clearly a verifiable consensus. If I may humbly submit, their votes count for much more than any of ours. I hope that as an impartial fellow editor, you will reconsider. Musashiaharon (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Musashiaharon: In your perusal of the "entire" discussion here you seem to have missed this reference to a genetic study despite the fact that I bolded it above. I'm sure that was just an oversight. You can find that scholarly paper that the article refers to here (MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population). See also Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora, Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations, Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population (which refers to Askhnazi Jews as a "genetic isolate"), "Complex interactions of the Eastern and Western Slavic populations with other European groups as revealed by mitochondrial DNA analysis", among other articles. Electoralist (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Break: Let's move the party to AN[edit]

It's clear enough from the length of this discussion that we should continue the party in a more formal setting. I think DRN would be an appropriate forum - and ChronoFrog had already tried to raised the issue there.

Much of the discussion on this page involved re-arguing points already made in the RfC, though some new external citations were given and further analyses of them were made. It would be appropriate - as some of you have suggested - that we open another formal discussion and invite yet wider participation.

So please move over to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:Ethnic slurs. Thank you all for dropping by my talk page over sabbath (whether you observed it on Friday evening, Saturday, or Sunday). Deryck C. 23:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, RfC closure reviews occur at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, which is watched by more editors than Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Link to previous RfC closure reviews: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. Did you choose WP:DRN over WP:AN for a particular reason? The previous WP:DRN discussion was closed for being the wrong venue for reviewing RfC closes. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard: Because I felt that it would be more useful to invite other editors to look at the issue, not at the closure. But well, the DRN crew clearly decided they were the wrong forum. Deryck C. 14:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahh man, it got closed again. Damn.

I'll prepare an AN appeal for tomorrow. I'd rather it not happen while I'm sleeping. XD ChronoFrog (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My bad for going back to the wrong forum. I've filed an AN thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review_of_RfC_on_the_classification_of_Jews_on_Template_talk:Ethnic_slurs. Deryck C. 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours for a RfC[edit]

You recently closed a RfC at Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump less than 24 hours after being opened. Is this normal for a RfC? Do you think WP:SNOW applies here? All editors are not in the same time zones.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Isaidnoway: I went there because there was an WP:ANRFC request to close it and didn't check how long it has been open. I think you made a good point - 22 hours is not long enough. I've undone my closure. Deryck C. 18:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it, after looking at the references provided for the content under question in the RfC, it looks like the material fails verification.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: Well, it's up to you to argue that case on the RfC and convince people to change sides... Deryck C. 22:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Closure follow-up[edit]


At the RFD discussion for Women in Serbia, I listed several other redirects that fit the same mould. Do you think your closure of Women in Serbia should also apply to those redirects or should I start a new discussion about them? -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tavix: I agree with that logical extension because everybody who argued for deletion has made general points that would apply to similar redirects. However, there was significant dissent in that debate so I'd recommend a separate nomination, citing this as a recent precedent. Deryck C. 10:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

All-time Olympic Games medal table[edit]

Hi. I see that the page is protected from editing. I just want to say that during the Rio Games someone has changed the US winter medals. These figures were correct and should be corrected back to: 96 - 102 - 84, total 282. The column totals for the winter games are correct. Thank you! Stavol2 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stavol2: The protection shouldn't affect you as you have autoconfirmed and extended confirmed permissions. Deryck C. 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)