Talk:Arab Jews/Archive 2

It would strike me that the subject matter of this page has a fairly large overlap with ARBPIA. Sir Joseph is questioning this. My take is that the correctness of the IPs edits are not a reason to exempt a page from sanctions. Please discuss away below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Where do you see ARBPIA issues on the article page? It's an article about Jews and has nothing to do (albeit maybe one or two mentions) with the conflict. The issue with you locking it was locking it because of a content dispute and one side had it locked to win. The claim that Arab Jews is only for more modern events is not true, and it's not backed up by the article itself. It is ludicrous and really insulting that every article with the word Jew in it has to be politicized and become subject to ARBPIA. This was a terrible lock which also goes against policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, Cas Liber, this subject has nothing to do with the ARBPIA area. That specifically has to do with the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. This is simply about the cultural identity and identification of Jews with roots in Arab lands. I do not understand at all how you could see this as part of ARBPIA. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is a little bit outside my usual editing area, but I came here to comment because of Sir Joseph's comment at WT:JUDAISM. "Arab Jew" is a phrase that means "Jew from an Arab land", and considering that Jews have been in what is now Iraq for more than 2500 years—since before there were Arabs in Iraq, and much much earlier than the establishment of the modern state of Israel—I can't imagine how this article about a millennia-old people could fall entirely under the umbrella of "Arab–Israeli conflict". Perhaps a portion of this article dealing only with the period from the mid-20th century onward, but the entire history of Jews in Arab lands part of the Arab–Israeli conflict? What next, will United Kingdom be added under the umbrella? (After all, the League of Nations gave the U.K. a mandate for Palestine.) Really, one has to draw sensible lines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, look, I'll leave this open for a few more comments and if the consensus is that it lies outside the area I will unprotect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree this article is related to ARBPIA, because one of the hot potatoes is the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab countries, called expulsion/emigration as either side will have it, which is often brought to juxtapose the exodus of Palestinians from Israel during and after the 1948 war of independence/catastrophe. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Except this article is not about that. It's about Jews from Arab lands, ie Jews from the 600's and onwards. It is silly to apply ARBPIA sanctions to this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree about ARBPIA. Look I am willing to compromise. Before this goes further can everyone read the following sources. This topic is most closely related to post Zionism.

haaretz^[1]

and Beyond Post-Zionism p 99 ^[2]

Jonney2000 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That means one section or paragraph is ARBPIA. We don't put whole articles under sanctions for that. Should we put American Jews under ARBPIA as well? What about the USA? Since the US is involved in the conflict, should we put that under sanctions? You were just using page protection as a means to win a dispute which goes against policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I enquired about extended protection, not User:Jonney2000. Furthermore other article including but possibly not limited to as Ibn Saud, Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, are either under ECP (the initial two examples) or 1RR (the ultimate example). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because other articles have ECP is no reason to include it here. This article has no issues, why add restrictions on IP editors? We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Are we now going to add ECP to any article with a tiny connection to any conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a bit different because many Mizrahim, outside of a small far left group, have rightly or wrongly come to view being called an “Arab Jews” as an insult. This is because “Arab” is viewed by many including historians and sociologist as being something more than a national identity. Considering that “Arab” identity easily crosses national border and has pre-national roots it’s hard to say they are wrong.

So yes how Mizrahim view themselves is related to the conflict

The edits in question are also just plain unsourced garbage edits as well and that is a separate issue.Jonney2000 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with ARBPIA here: with the best will in the world, so much that happened / may have happened / did not happen is fundamental to the conflict today that omitting this from the body of sanction is just asking for trouble, frankly. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Except that no vandalism has occurred in this article. The RFPP was placed to win a content dispute. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The question is, should this article be covered by ARBPIA. This covers eventualities. It is not whether disruption has occured here, just whether is similar enough to articles in which it does. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

that's incorrect. Policy is not to apply stricter protection unless it's necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So you have a problem with the protection in general and not that it is ECP? From what I can gather those are two distinct but still overlapping matters. Additionally the one who requested protection asked for full protection, as in they could not edit the article either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

in general I don't have a problem with protection, it's the ecp level of protection I have a problem with.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It would strike me that the subject matter of this page has a fairly large overlap with ARBPIA. Sir Joseph is questioning this. My take is that the correctness of the IPs edits are not a reason to exempt a page from sanctions. Please discuss away below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Where do you see ARBPIA issues on the article page? It's an article about Jews and has nothing to do (albeit maybe one or two mentions) with the conflict. The issue with you locking it was locking it because of a content dispute and one side had it locked to win. The claim that Arab Jews is only for more modern events is not true, and it's not backed up by the article itself. It is ludicrous and really insulting that every article with the word Jew in it has to be politicized and become subject to ARBPIA. This was a terrible lock which also goes against policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, Cas Liber, this subject has nothing to do with the ARBPIA area. That specifically has to do with the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. This is simply about the cultural identity and identification of Jews with roots in Arab lands. I do not understand at all how you could see this as part of ARBPIA. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is a little bit outside my usual editing area, but I came here to comment because of Sir Joseph's comment at WT:JUDAISM. "Arab Jew" is a phrase that means "Jew from an Arab land", and considering that Jews have been in what is now Iraq for more than 2500 years—since before there were Arabs in Iraq, and much much earlier than the establishment of the modern state of Israel—I can't imagine how this article about a millennia-old people could fall entirely under the umbrella of "Arab–Israeli conflict". Perhaps a portion of this article dealing only with the period from the mid-20th century onward, but the entire history of Jews in Arab lands part of the Arab–Israeli conflict? What next, will United Kingdom be added under the umbrella? (After all, the League of Nations gave the U.K. a mandate for Palestine.) Really, one has to draw sensible lines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, look, I'll leave this open for a few more comments and if the consensus is that it lies outside the area I will unprotect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree this article is related to ARBPIA, because one of the hot potatoes is the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab countries, called expulsion/emigration as either side will have it, which is often brought to juxtapose the exodus of Palestinians from Israel during and after the 1948 war of independence/catastrophe. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Except this article is not about that. It's about Jews from Arab lands, ie Jews from the 600's and onwards. It is silly to apply ARBPIA sanctions to this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree about ARBPIA. Look I am willing to compromise. Before this goes further can everyone read the following sources. This topic is most closely related to post Zionism.

haaretz^[1]

and Beyond Post-Zionism p 99 ^[2]

Jonney2000 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That means one section or paragraph is ARBPIA. We don't put whole articles under sanctions for that. Should we put American Jews under ARBPIA as well? What about the USA? Since the US is involved in the conflict, should we put that under sanctions? You were just using page protection as a means to win a dispute which goes against policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I enquired about extended protection, not User:Jonney2000. Furthermore other article including but possibly not limited to as Ibn Saud, Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, are either under ECP (the initial two examples) or 1RR (the ultimate example). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because other articles have ECP is no reason to include it here. This article has no issues, why add restrictions on IP editors? We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Are we now going to add ECP to any article with a tiny connection to any conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a bit different because many Mizrahim, outside of a small far left group, have rightly or wrongly come to view being called an “Arab Jews” as an insult. This is because “Arab” is viewed by many including historians and sociologist as being something more than a national identity. Considering that “Arab” identity easily crosses national border and has pre-national roots it’s hard to say they are wrong.

So yes how Mizrahim view themselves is related to the conflict

The edits in question are also just plain unsourced garbage edits as well and that is a separate issue.Jonney2000 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with ARBPIA here: with the best will in the world, so much that happened / may have happened / did not happen is fundamental to the conflict today that omitting this from the body of sanction is just asking for trouble, frankly. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Except that no vandalism has occurred in this article. The RFPP was placed to win a content dispute. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The question is, should this article be covered by ARBPIA. This covers eventualities. It is not whether disruption has occured here, just whether is similar enough to articles in which it does. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

that's incorrect. Policy is not to apply stricter protection unless it's necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So you have a problem with the protection in general and not that it is ECP? From what I can gather those are two distinct but still overlapping matters. Additionally the one who requested protection asked for full protection, as in they could not edit the article either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

in general I don't have a problem with protection, it's the ecp level of protection I have a problem with.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm not going to defend the minutiae of this edit. I know it was clumsy, and if no one else cleans it up for me I might do a bit myself later. Technically, that amount of detailed, non-BLUE information should not have been in the lead if it wasn't also in the body, and in the lead it was kind of clustered and difficult to read at points (notably with clauses separated by commas making it look like the King of Morocco, rather than his adviser, self-identified as an Arab Jew).

Note also that I was aware of the problem brought up by User:Sir Joseph in his previous edit, but I didn't think it would matter since it was clear from the context that we were talking about the current king and since, for all intents and purposes, he is advisor to the kings of Morocco (he apparently advised the current king's father, who acceded to the throne when Azoulay was 19, and there's no reason to assume that if he is still alive he won't continue to do so for the next king).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

firstly, since this article is now under sanctions, you violated it by your edit. In addition, you duplicated an entire paragraph. They one you added is exact duplicate from one in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't violate any sanctions, and the article has not been placed under any new sanctions recently. I am editing in an area that is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I am aware of that; if that is what you meant by saying I "violated" sanctions then your notification is appreciated. If you meant the extended-confirmed restriction that we were talking about over at WT:JEW, the fact that I was able to make my edit at all shows that it was not a violation.

If, on the other hand, you mean the IP1RR restriction, then I have no reason to worry about that specifically as I am already subject to 1RR on all articles. Anyway, I did not revert your edit (I made a compromise between mine and yours), and my previous edit was not a revert to begin with, so at most I made the one revert I am allowed to make per day. (Note that being subject to two separate 1RR restrictions does not mean I am subject to a 0RR restriction, unless I am mistaken.)

And yes, I know I duplicated an entire paragraph. That's why I left a note here for someone else (or me) to clean it up so the two paragraphs don't read exactly the same. You must understand that maintaining that paragraph in the lead without having the same content (though not necessarily the same words) was a violation of WP:LEAD.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You violated sanctions by reinstating an edit that was reverted without gaining consensus to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be nice if you linked to the sanction you were referring to. I was not aware until now that the IP 1RR is differently worded than the standard 1RR I am used to. That said, since the text was added in violation of the General Prohibition, altering it could be covered under reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. It isn't entirely clear whether a non-revert that restor[ed] a reverted edit is covered under the following sentence that exempts enforcement of the General Prohibition. Also (and I admit this is kind of pedantic) I didn't actually restore my reverted edit, as can be seen if you compare the versions; the difference between them also addressed the concern you mentioned in your edit summary as it no longer linked to List of rulers of Morocco.

If you really wanted to get me blocked, you could take this to AE (note however that since I stated that I wasn't aware of the amended wording of the sanction beforehand, few admins would be willing to block me as it would not be a preventative measure). Or we could take this to ARCA and ask if my original edit and subsequent "statutory revert" (for want of a better term) were covered under the exemption. Or (and this would be my preferred option) we could discuss on this page whether my second edit was good or not on its merits and should be amended, or just taken out.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're missing timelines, I reverted you. It's irrelevant who put it there originally. Once I revert, you can't put it back until there's a consensus. And the claim that you don't know about sanctions can be disregarded because you were commenting rather confidentially about it. I'm not going to take you to AE, I was just pointing out how silly it is. After all, your edit had nothing to do with the IP conflict, so why should it be covered under sanctions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Once I revert, you can't put it back until there's a consensus. That depends what you mean by "it". I didn't put back the exact text you reverted, and the change I introduced specifically addressed both of your concerns. If I had known at the time that ARBPIA articles include a 1RR restriction that differs significantly from the standard 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have made the edit, but that doesn't mean that it would have been covered under the restriction anyway because (1) the text I reinserted was different and (2) the text you reverted to was in violation of the General Prohibition, so even if I had directly reverted you my edit may not have been covered under ARBPIA 1RR.

I was just pointing out how silly it is. After all, your edit had nothing to do with the IP conflict, so why should it be covered under sanctions? I know it is silly, but them's the rules when editing in a topic area that has ArbCom restrictions, and like it or not this article is part of that topic area. It was already covered under the sanctions before Casliber put extended-confirmed protection on it, so if you really wanted to you could have reported me for my edit even if protection were not formally in place.

Frankly, I think the silliest thing is that it isn't clear whether the General Prohibition exemption applies to restoring reverted edits without talk page consensus. I mean, in this case I altered text that I wasn't aware at the time had been made in violation of the GP, but what if an IP had removed text, the page was protected, I re-added the text, you reverted me, and then I re-reverted? It's not at all clear whether my action would be exempt from 1RR because of the GP clause. This would be a problem whether or not this particular article is covered under the ARBPIA restrictions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying this article was under sanctions before Casliber put an ECP lock on it, but that is not true. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

All articles that could be reasonably believed to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are subject to ArbCom sanctions. That is a fact, and you know it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonney2000 does not agree with that. Please see for example, about the history of the Jews of Iraq, the book of Nissim Rejwan, The Jews of Iraq: 3000 Years of History and Culture ; the beginnig of the summary : "An overview of the long tenure of the Jewish community in Iraq, this fascinating history details the comfortable, centuries-long coexistence between Jews and Muslims under an Islamic majority government. Opening with the Babylonian captivity in 731 BC, this account chronicles a time when the Jews were pushed out of Israel and Judea and deported to Babylon".

About the migrations of Sephardi Jews, you can see the map "Migrations and Settlements of the Spanish Jews", in the article Sephardi Jews and the migrations toward the Arab lands.--86.249.200.114 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Again this article is not about Jews from Arab lands (Mizrahim or Sephardim). Your sources do not use the term Arab Jew. Ella Shohat does not live in Israel etc.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I gave this source because you refused the previous one, the link "Jewish Library" ; you were contesting that Arab Jews are "the descendants of native habitants of Arab lands". See Arabs : " Currently "Arab" refers to a large number of people whose native regions form the Arab world. [...] The Arabs have their own customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society". Of course, Jews living in the Arab countries became Arabs in this meaning.

Ella Shohat lived in Israel, today she is living in United States, stop being polemical please.--46.218.206.54 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring adding garbage sources like the Jewish Library with are not reliable and you are not listening to anything I say.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I added another source, Nissim Rejwan, his book about the history of Jews of Iraq. See my answer above, the section "How did first Arab Jews, i.e. Jews of Arabia, define themselves ? How were they defined by others ?" : you seem very ignorant about these matters, your "Judeo-Arabic people" is a fiction !

Look, Jonney2000, I am Jew, I left my Arabic country, but I still have my Identity Card, I can come back in this country, and I am an Arab Jew. You don't know what you are talking about, that's all.--86.249.200.174 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying there is a Judeo-Arabic people. Just that you cannot generalize in the way you are doing.

I don’t want to argue about your personal or my personal opinions. The term “Arab Jew” since the 1990s has taken on a post Zionist meaning. This is source-able to a high degree do you disagree?Jonney2000 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

1. About "Judeo-Arabic people", yes, this is what you said in the section nabove : "How did first Arab Jews, i.e. Jews of Arabia, define themselves ? How were they defined by others ?". I was talking about a jewish poet of Arabia (VIIth century), Al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq, and you answered : "You are confusing Judeo-Arabic with the modern anti-Zionist or post Zionist term “Arab Jew” which has only become popular near the end of the 20th century. Most of the sources uses Jews from Arab lands not Arab Jews.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)". Al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq (VIIth century) WROTE IN ARABIC, HE WAS AN ARAB POET, like many others : Samaw'al ibn 'Adiya (Samuel, he was Jew), Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf (Jew also), in the VIIth century. Arab Jew is not at all a modern term. It is a fact, a historical fact. And you can not say about a person : he is Judeo-Arabic. This world is used only for language, not for people. So I'm not confusing at all !

2.I don't argue about a personal opinion, neither. I argue about a personal experience. As I told you, I have an ID of an Arab country, so I am from this country, I am an Arab Jew, it is possible.--86.249.66.137 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"We revisit the term ‘Arab Jews’, which has been widely used in the past to depict Jews living in Arab countries, but was extirpated from the political lexicon upon their arrival in Israel in the 1950s and 1960s. ", Yehouda Shenhava* and Hannan Heverb http://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/yshenhav/files/2013/05/Shenhav-and-Hever-Arab-Jews-after-structuralism.pdf

The Jews of Arabia have few lines, whereas all the specialists use the term "Arab Jews" to talk about them. See Gordon D. Newby in History of Jewish-Muslim Relations, page 44 : "One could be a Jew while being an Arab", https://books.google.fr/books?id=Wbg1AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=gordon+newby+history+of+jewish+muslim&source=bl&ots=QCY3gZa-t_&sig=Q10KMryjLCQH78bEa-3uGcK7u54&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEw5u4r_DTAhUFbBoKHRpRCEUQ6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&q=gordon%20newby%20history%20of%20jewish%20muslim&f=false. In Cultures of the Jews (dir. David Biale), Reuven Firestone about Arabian Jews says : "they were culturally and ethnically Arabs" etc. See also Montgomery Watt, Muhammd at Mecca, p.192-193 about Arab tribes who converted to judaism, and marriages between Jewish and polytheists Arabs (a famous example : Ka'b ibn al Ashraf) ; according to Watt, there was no difference between Arabs and Jews.

I don't understand. What is your point, please? Debresser (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What is my point ? I think it is obvious. The article says : "the term is proposed by cultural studies scholar Ella Shohat to refer to populations commonly termed Mizrahim or Sephardim". It is not true, "it has been widely used in the past", see Yehouda Shenhava and Hannan Heverb. "Jews living in Arab lands, being part of a greater distinctive ethnic and national] group, are not considered as Arabs", it is a POV pushing. See the sources above etc. etc. The "notable Arab Jews" : 6 people only, all of them alive  ! it's a joke ! "Jews of Arabia before islam" : 2 lines !! you should quote all the specialists who talk of intermarriages with Arab polytheists, conversions etc., and who say that even ethnically (not only culturally), there was no difference between Jews and Arabs. Many assertions are completely wrong ; others "lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies" (this is what I agree with, absolutely, in this article). --90.35.95.57 (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what "POV pushing" is. The number of sources that support a distinctive and unique Jewish ethnic, national, cultural or religious identity is numerous and make your sources insufficient (and irrelevant) for undermining the current wording. Two of the sources support the mentioned assertions in the article and make your "POV pushing" allegations to nothing but nonsense (did you even bother to read them?). here, for instance, Mizrahim and Sephardim are treated as a "sub-ethnic identity within the broader framework of Jewish ethnic identity". Anyway, do you have an actual phrasing you want to suggest? Arabian Jews (a geographic term) are not Arab Jews, and converts (beside assimilating into he Jewish people and lose the Arab identity) do not imply the identity of the rest of the Jewish population. Infantom (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". I am not saying that there are no sources supporting a "distinctive and unique Jewish ethnical, national;... identity". I said that the article omits all the sources supporting another definition. This is exactly what is POV pushing.

About the case of Jews of Arabia : according to the specialists I quote above, Arabian Jews are also Arab Jews, ethnically and culturally Arab Jews. Did you even bother to read them ?--37.97.93.142 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see wp:fringe. You are trying to push a minor view (and irrelevant, again, Jews of Arabia were a minor portion of Jews living in the Arab world, this is not an article just about them) while there is an overwhelming consensus on the distinctive identity of Arabic-speaking Jews. You are talking about a very specific minor population more than 1400 years ago. I did read your sources and addressed them, the one you mentioned has no link or specified pages and i wasn't referring to it, try to be more productive next time.

Anyway, since Yehuda shenhav is already mentioned in the overview section, the only place where there may be some sort of improvement using your sources is the 'Jews of Arabia before Islam' section. Again, do you have any particular suggestion? Infantom (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see wp:fringe and WP:CPUSH. I am "productive" : I gave a citation of Y. Shenhav, but you don't want to read it. "The term ‘Arab Jews’, which has been widely used in the past" (see the reference above), before Ella Shohat, before Yehouda Shenhav, before post-Zionism. It means the term "Arab Jews", originally, had nothing to do with Post-Zionism. The article lends undue weight to modern criticism of the term. "Yehuda Shenhav is already mentioned in the overview section" : the article says that Shehav is a post-Zionist, and you really think it is enough ? it means it is not necessary to add anything else ?

I have never said that the Jews of Arabia are not a minor portion in the Arab world. The section "Jews of Arabia", your ridiculous section of 2 lines, is an example among others of POV pushing. I gave at least 3 historians who say explicitly that Arabian Jews were Arab Jews : Gordon Newby, Reuven Firestone, Montgomery Watt. These historians ruin the thesis you want to push, that Jews are ethnically distinct from Arabs. This is why the section has 2 lines. Here is the reference, with a specified page and a link, to Reuven Firestone : Cultures of the Jews, A New History (dir. David Biale), p.269 : "The Jews of the 6th an 7th century Arabia appear so highly integrated economically, ethnically and geographically that they must be considered culturally or ethnically Arab".https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&id=UUUZ1fVWdvQC&q=arab+jews#v=onepage&q=ethnically&f=false. Now, would you say that Reuven Firestone writes this because he is a Post-Zionist ? Many historians, dealing with the past, use this term, "Arab Jews", it has nothing to do with Post-Zionism. This shows that the article is wrong, one-sided, and not neutral.--86.249.199.35 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea that this is the very first sentence of the lede is off the fucking charts insane, as the term is virtually always used in the Israeli context (in English, Hebrew and Arabic) to denote Jews who, or whose forebears, made aliyah from Arabic countries where they were well integrated and in no way considered "un-Arabic". A textbook example of WP:UNDUE, the only supporting source is an editorial by Alpher about his own interaction with al-Faisal, and the fallout of the latter's flippant and unrealistic comment once it was made public. This is not journalism. Hell, it's not even a secondary source! It's basically a kvetching contest. What the f___?

This erasure can only be construed as an extension of the broader de-Arabization program unfolding in the State of Israel, which is obviously intended to wipe out anything that might bolster the claim of other Arabs to the land. Oy vey. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:8130:2E11:FA39:9235 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The entire article is a mess and is in dire need of a re-write. The article for Arab Christians is actually an article about the culture and history of Arab Christians. This article is basically just a cobbled together string of arguments over the terminology. Very little that is actually about Arab-Jewish culture, history, language, religion, etc. The overemphasis on controversy is transparently ideological. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"After arriving in Israel the Jews from Arab lands found that use of Judeo-Arabic was discouraged and its usage fell into disrepair. The population of Jews in Arab countries would decreased dramatically."

I can't edit this article, but the "would" should be eliminated, and "its usage fell into disrepair" would be better expressed as "fell into disuse". Thus:

"After arriving in Israel the Jews from Arab lands found that use of Judeo-Arabic was discouraged; thus it fell into disuse. The population of Jews in Arab countries decreased dramatically." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhurwicz (talk • contribs)

The current lead kind of got edit warred. I will not change it for now but here is how I would write it. I would also make two separated sections in the body, with more sources, about Arab nationalism and post-Zionism.

Judaism has deep roots in the Near East. Many classic Jewish texts where originally written in Judeo-Arabic. The Arab world was home to many different Jewish communities including Persian Jews, Berber Jews, Yemenite Jews and others including descends of Sephardim who fled from Spain. While no one doubts the close cultural ties between Arabs and the local Jews. The validity of categorizing the Jews of the Arab world broadly as an Arab subgroup is disputed.

The term Arab Jew found some usage in the Arab national movement. Recently the term has become part of the language of post-Zionism.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is not a good proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, you are trying to politicize a neutral term. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok but you do realize that this article has been scrubbed of post-Zionist thought. Which is strange because like half the sources are from post-Zionist and many of the rest are their opponents and no one will even realize that! Can I at least add something about that?

I still object to the recent additions which try to tilt the article away from the sources.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonney2000 is contributing on this article without having sufficient knowledge about "Arab Jews" : see above the sections "How did first Arab Jews, i.e. Jews of Arabia, define themselves ?", and "Some of theme are the descendants of native habitants of Arab lands, others are descended from Sephardim", were he talks about "Judeo-Arabic people", a term wich doesn't even exist (there is a Judeo-Arabic language, used by Arab Jews, which is the right term). The problem is that you may not found sources in English, but in Arabic only, because Arab Jews wrote in Arabic, and the other Arabs (Muslims for instance) named them in Arabic. Al-Yahou al-arab in Arabic is a very ancient term. Jonney2000 thinks it has been used at the 20th century only, it is just very funny.Jonney200, you should stop.--86.249.205.123 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Re this. I'm having trouble accessing the source at the moment (GDocs isn't agreeing with my iPad's slow connection, it seems) and was making tweaks based on what was in our article already. If the source doesn't support the text Zionism-critic, does it support criticizes aspects of Zionism? Because that text is still in the article. I can see how someone might criticize "aspects" of an ideology and still not want to be described as "a critic" of said ideology itself, which is why I don't want to remove it myself based on how I'm reading your edit summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ella Shohat is generally described as a post-Zionist. Sometimes an anti-Zionist she was close to Edward Said. I am working on a section about post-Zionism. She was the first to really use the termJonney2000 (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You are making the article extremely undue. While everyone has a bias, you need to edit in a neutral manner. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonney2000, how can you say that "Ella Shohat was the first to really use the term" ? Do you think history begins at the 20th century ? You did not answer my question in the section above : "How did fist Arab Jews, Jews of Arabia define themselves ?" . You don't have an answer, and you are not even interested. I gave above a reference to a WP article about a jewish poet of Arabia (VIIth century), Al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq : "He is cited among the Arabic Jewish poets by Moses ibn Ezra in his Kitab al-Muhadharah ". I gave in the section "What about Jewish Viziers ?" a list of Jews who were commanding to Arabs : do you think these Jews were not considered as Arabs ???? How could they have these high positions ???? And you still repeat that the term and the idea did not exist before the 20th century ? It is crazy ! This is not history, this is propaganda. Stop please.--86.249.205.123 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@86.249.205.123: It's pretty obvious he was talking about the term "post-Zionism", and I can't imagine anyone used that term before 1900. Aside from your failure to actually read the comment to which you are replying, the talk page etiquette demonstrated in your response is atrocious. You should be more considerate of these points. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The opposite, why would we assume that a distinctive ethnic sub-group would be defined as another one to begin with? You are the one who should provide the sources that Jews were referred as Arabs in the past (by reading the writings of Maimonides and Yehuda Halevi, for instance, we can understand the opposite). Infantom (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jews living in Arab lands, being part of a greater distinctive ethnic^[1] and national^[2] group, are not considered as Arabs.

Not considered by whom? And 'greater distinctive ethnic (group)' is a glaring example of ethnic one-upmanship: 'greater' implies 'greater' than the Arab ethnic group, even if the editor perhaps intended something else. Klein clearly shows that, in Palestine, for one example, traditional Sephardic Jews were considered by their (Arab) compatriots as 'Arab Jews', a term inscribed in their language.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In your first question you ask because you want to know, or because you want a source? If you just want a source, please tag the statement. If you are interested in the answer, it is: by nobody. Nobody considers Jews as Arabs just because they live in predominantly Arab countries.

You misunderstood the intention of the phrase. The intention is, obviously, that "Jews" is the greater distinctive ethnicity of "Arab Jews" (and of "American Jews", etc.

The example you bring from Sephardic Jews proves the opposite of what you seem to claim. It proves that Sephardic Jews were considered "Arab Jews" = Jews, not "Jewish Arabs" = Arabs. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The whole lead is trash not least because Judeo-Arabic is a dead language.

No doubt that a few who used the term for political purposes pre-48. Much like Jews use the term Israeli-Arab now, even if most think of themselves as Palestinian and definitely not as Israeli.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the both of you I examined the sources. The statement (a) '(Jews living in Arab lands) being part of a greater distinctive ethnic' is not in the source, hence this is source-falsification and must be removed. (b) 'nation' per Dowty, is in the source, but not as defining 'Jews living in Arab lands'. (c) (Jews) 'are not considered as Arabs' (no source).

So in the sentence:

Jews living in Arab lands, being part of a greater distinctive ethnic and national group, are not considered as Arabs.'

We have no source backing the generalization.

(d) The sentence is, aside from this WP:OR/WP:SYNTH pastiche, stupid, because the present tense is used, cutting out therefore the sense of the lead and the definition of 'Jewish Arabs' as a historical reality. After the mass emigration or aliyah, an extremely exiguous number of Jews remain in Arab countries, and the generalization refers to them not to the antecedent reality when Jewish populations in Arab countries were substantial, the object of this article.

(e) This moronic statement was reinserted by Debresser in his blind revert, without showing any awareness of the problem but worse still, since I questioned it, and opened a thread here. Debresser refused to add the tag required. Reinstating it, he simply dismissed my removal and said if I want the statement sourced, I should tag it, not he.

What in the fuck is going on? The sentence does not mean what it purports to mean, per above, and one of two sources failed scrutiny, and the whole sentence has therefore no adequate sourcing, being patched up synthetically. Debresser. English is my first language, and as a non-native speaker, if you wish to contest my plain construal of the obvious meaning, your authority counts for nothing. It implies what I said it implies and is not in the source, which you didn't even examine. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jonney. True, Judeo-Arabic dialects are dead, but that was not the point of my editing. Arab Jew in Palestine. In stating '::No doubt that a few who used the term for political purposes pre-48'. No they didn't.

Arab–Jew was a living reality in Palestine, a local identity of belonging to people and place beyond residence location. This identity survived the collapse of the Ottoman Empire but not the 1948 war. Until then, Arab Palestinians defined their compatriot Jews as natives [Abna al-Balad] and Arab-born Jews [Yahud Awlad Arab].' Menachem Klein, 'Arab Jew in Palestine,' Israel Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Fall 2014), pp. 134-153, p.

Several sources state that Zionist historiography has militantly rendered any links between Arabs and Jews in an Arab-Jewish identity inconceivable ( Shenhav p.xi), a fact which if true, would throw some light on why an editor here has reverted my work, as incompatible with the standard state ideology (which has no place on Wikipedia).Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I said lead is a mess what is your problem?

I don't have a problem, save that whenever I touch a page regarding Jewish history, the odds are I will be contested or reverted. Several people suddenly show up, and quarrel, or revert my work, which is never done without reading several sources. In particular, I noted this falsehood:

This term is proposed by cultural studies scholar Ella Shohat to refer to populations commonly termed Mizrahim or Sephardim

That obvious error struck me and I fixed it, and was reverted by someone who apparently had neither read the new source I added to correct the error, and in doing so, restored the falsehood attributing this usage to Ella Shohat. Can you see that, or is Debresser's editing not an issue?Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes post-Zionist make this claim which is not accepted outside of this intellectual school of thought. Note that even among post-Zionist there is widespread dispute as to what constitutes A “Arab Jew” sometime it is made conditionally other less so. It is kind of like later day Canaanism.Jonney2000 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd read, among several other sources, Reuven Snir's ‘We Are Arabs Before We Are Jews’: The Emergence and Demise of Arab-Jewish Culture in Modern Times,” EJOS ― Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies VIII.9 (2005), January 2005 pp. 1-47. Have you? Have you never considered the 'Arabian Jews' (Arab converts to Judaism) of the Himyarite Kingdom whose world is discussed in G.W. Bowersock's, The Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on the Eve of Islam, Oxford University press, 2013? Have you ever read Aziza Khazzoom, The Great Chain of Orientalism: Jewish Identity, Stigma Management, and Ethnic Exclusion in Israel, American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Aug., 2003), pp. 481-510, which discusses, among much else, French attempts to 'westernize Arab jews' p.497, not in rthe last decades, but in the 1860s? , etc.etc.etc. Had you, you would have perhaps appreciated that the term as defined by the page limits its scope to a recent 'post-Zionist' meme, despite the fact that historically the topic of Arab Jews has in the literature far more historical depth than the page, with Zionist rigour, allows.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani These sound like good sources, but I can't see them. Did you add them? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Some efforts to do so were wiped out by reverts. It was impossible to add that material because at the time, the page was dominated by a numbers majority that was, in my view, utterly indifferent to historical sources, and would revert at sight anything which contradicted what anyone who reads knows to be a recent Zionist meme: Jews cannot be Arabs, and vice versa. Some people who guarded this page adopt that doctrine and stoutly militate against anything that might undermine it. It's to be expected. It's true that now a Mizrachi Israeli majority finds the term opprobrious, but for two reasons: Zionism is in part ideologically committed to an idea of ethnic purity and cannot countenance heterogeneity. Since Arabs, particularly Palestinians, are held in contempt, to be tarred with the brush of being an 'Arab Jew' would amount to exclusion. So one disowns the epithet. Shenhav's family history is a good example: his forefathers were profoundly 'Arab' and he, raised within Zionism, rebelled against what he felt to be an offense to his dignity as an Israeli Jew. In any case, the only way this article can be fixed from its dopey mishmash, is slow long term work on details: nothing like an ambitious overnight rewrite. You in particular will be almost inevitably teased into frustration. You should know that, and learn to edit slowly and with detachment. Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani We are encouraged to paraphrase sources, so the fact that a certain sentence isn't verbatim in the source, only means somebody did a good job. I am afraid all your assertions here are as unfounded an untrue as the statement that only you had a look at the sources to the exclusion of other editors. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked for a source for that statement. It is sitting there. If a source is available, add it. I've tried to find one for a half an hour, without results. If the sentence therefore cannot be sourced within a week (I'm generous), and contains, as shown an egregious WP:Synth problem, I'll remove it.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence "Jews living in Arab lands, being part of a greater distinctive ethnic[3] and national[4] group, are not considered as Arabs." is not in either source, and even the second source, which at least touches upon the relevant terms, no more than somewhat alludes to it. Although it is true, I have no problem with it going, unless some better source could be found for it. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• {1) The sentence is terribly written. My first edit fixed this, changing it to:

"Jews living in Arab lands, being part of a distinctive ethnic group, as well as a national group, are not considered to be Arabs."

(2) Although sub-clauses of the sentence may or may not be properly sourced, the meaning of the sentence as a whole is not sourced. Therefore I have removed it on these grounds. If you want to say in Wikipedia's voice that Jewish people living in Arab lands are not considered to be Arabs, find a neutral and reliable source that says that Jewish people living in Arab lands are not considered to be Arabs. At this point, you haven't got that, so the sentence cannot be in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to ignore the obvious antisemitism that influenced some of the editors of this article (see talk section "Arab Jews is a controversial term...")

Arab Jews is, as the page states, not the default term used to describe Jews from the Arab world. It is highly controversial (there's an entire section devoted to "criticism") and nearly always ideological. This page should open in a similar style to queer or Yankee.

I know that technically this doesn't matter on this site, but seeing this, as someone with a Baghdadi family, is insulting and ridiculous. A term used by Arab nationalists to refer to their countries' Jews, and not used at all by 99% of those Jews themselves, should not be described as a a neutral term.Eladabudi (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)