Talk:Beta Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

kashrus misunderstanding

kashrus does not just involve prohibited food animals. It also covers method of slaughter, processing of meat after slaughter, and cooking restrictions. Please study up and rewrite this section because I can guarantee that a glatt kosher food store in Ethiopia will not accept products sold in halal or non-halal stores there. 4.249.3.41 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Jew supposed to be a race?

How come they come in all kinds of skin colors, hair colors, and eye colors? 174.16.108.193 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You're 200 years behind the times. Race is a variety generally based on continent of origin but the continuum of human features is such that you can find people of pure Asian descent who have the same features as somebody of pure African descent. There are five races and no more. You are operating on an old retranslation of the Greek ethnos into race that people in the 1800s used. Second, you are about 3000 years behind the times as to the nature of Judaism. People have been converting to Judaism for that long. You can't convert to a race only to a religion.

4.249.63.90 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ethnicity is identity, not race. If there are no Races, How can Jews be a 'Race'? [1] jews are a ethnoreligious (ethnic - religion) group. Adaolm (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

An ethnicity is a subdivision of a specific race. How can it be a subdivision of both Negroid and Caucasoid? If anything Jew like the word Hispanic implies something more cultural and not genetic. 97.118.33.205 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

you don't understand the jewish people. the ethiopian and ethiopian jews are not 'Negroid' be race like the bantu the are 'black Caucasoid'. “Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans.” [2] 87.68.75.74 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just the fact that you mentioned "black caucasoid" tells me you prescribe to a 19th century, ethnocentric view of race. Truth of the matter is that Jewishness is not a race. The Jews in Europe look like Europeans (fair skin, blue eyes sometimes), the Jews in Iran and Iraq are indistinguishable from other Iranis or Iraqis (in fact some of these Jews complain about being mistaken for Arabs and therefore discriminated against in Israel). Too often Jew is interpreted as "Ashkenazim Jew" (even by other Jews). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddfox321 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

The article has become very big recently with a lot of essential information. I suggest that the whole "Ethiopian Jews in Israel" be forked to a separate article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Italian deportation of Jews to Ethiopia

Since History of the Jews in Ethiopia points here:

In 1938 Mussolini intended:

He would like to solve the Zionist question by transferring the Zionists from Palestine to Ethiopia. Then the Arabs in Palestine would be let alone and international capital would be brought in to develop the Empire.

In 1940:

In England, the Manchester Guardian reported that the Axis powers plan to turn Palestine over to the jurisdiction of the Vatican and transport Palestine's Jewish population to Ethiopia.

Under the plan, said the Guardian, the Pope will care for the holy places in Palestine, let Italy run the country.

Can you find how developed the Italian plans for Jews in Ethiopia were? --Error (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

this is Mussolini plan for jewish state in ethiopia to all the jews [in the falasha Region]. i know some article in hebrew 87.68.75.74 (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Where are the articles in Hebrew? Do you have the links? Jimhoward72 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Blood donations disposing controversy is missing

Can anyone help me add a segment which mentions this event? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just created this section which is based on the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia which covers this topic. This is a very important event in the history of the Beta Israel community in Israel which should definitely be mentioned in this article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. The content of the "Contacts with other Jews" section should be merged into the history section.
2. The content of the "Integration in Israel" section should be merged into the "Absorption in Israel" section.

Any volunteers? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unclear material moved to talk

I've moved the following here because I can't understand what it is saying:

The main research question is who are the Ayhud tribes of Medieval Ethiopia and what is their connection to the ancient Jewish Community of Ethiopia. Modern researchers have separated these two groups for better understanding the relationship between them.

Can anyone explain the intent of these sentences? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Move "are" from after "who" to after "Ethiopia" — the meaning is that the main research questions are the identity of the Ayhud and the relationship between ancient Ethiopian Jewry and the Ayhud. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No permanent tags

Last September User:ליאור added a tag to the DNA evidence section, asserting that it was missing studies. In November he readded the tag, listing studies he felt should be added to the section. He did not, however, add material from those studies. This month I removed the tag, which was subsequently readded by User:אדעולם. Tags are not intended to permanently deface articles. If this editor(s) feels material should be added from other DNA studies that discuss the Beta Israel, then he should add it. If he doesn't care to, then he has no obligation to do so. However, the time for the tag is done, and it will not be returning to that section. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says that tags aren't permanent? I agree that the editor who knows that the article can be updated from other sources, should add the content himself, but until that is actually done a tag that tells the user that the information is not up to date is completely reasonable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags are intended to alert editors to issues; they are not badges of shame. If an editor thinks material is missing, and has actually listed all the sources he thinks belong, then he should add the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for its readers, not for its editors. If a certain section is outdated or factually incorrect, as in this case, it should be either removed or properly tagged until the matter is resolved by a qualified editor. Removing tags certainly makes any faulty article look prettier, but it might mislead our readers into thinking that the article is fine. If you wish to contest the present tagging policy, please do it elsewhere.

Moreover, please refrain from casting doubt over the unique identity of your fellow editors. אדעולם and I are two different persons, with two different active accounts, and have been collaborating over the Beta Israel WikiProject for more than four years. ליאור • Lior (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Alerting readers to issues is about a hundred times more important than alerting editors. If it makes the article look like it has a problem, it's perfectly fine, because the article really has a problem. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am, however, not aware of any problem; apparently only you and ליאור are. Since you both insist there is a problem, and apparently know exactly what the problem is and how you want it fixed, why don't you fix it rather than tagging it for 10 months? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To expand on Jayjg's concern, if the references are known to editors and only need to be added to the article, why hasn't it happened? Especially after almost a full year? With that kind of a time lag in play, either update the section with the intended references, or simply remove the material in question, including the tag. To do less serves no positive purpose for either the article or Wikipedia as a whole. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If the two associated editors who feel there is a problem refuse to try and fix it, and other editors do not believe it is a problem in the first place, then the tag has gone stale long ago and should be removed. — Satori Son 21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence that a page is out of date in order to have that tag: either it needs to be blatantly obvious (e.g. a page that speaks about a past event in the future tense), or you need to produce citations that demonstrate that more recent information is available. Purely the word of an editor, or two editors as is the case here, is insufficient for keeping such a tag: the only way you can know that it's out of date is if you have reliable sources that should be used to expand it. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, he's provided a list of sources that he thinks should be used. However, he apparently refuses to actually use those sources; it's very odd, he seems to know exactly what material he wants added, but he won't add it. I don't know how anyone else is supposed to know exactly what he thinks is missing, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This dicussion has been going on since 2005, with several editors arguing that the genetic section is incorrect and should be removed, and a single editor (namely, Jayjg) arguing that it's credible and resisting its removal. It's all there in the archive: First round (2005), second round (2005), third round (2006), fourth round (2008), and finally my own dispute with Jayjg back in 2009: Grave problems in the "DNA evidence" section. The revision history of this article attests of additional editors who tried to improve this section long before I have flagged it, for instance in 2006, 2007 and 2008. No trace of their contribution is left in the present section, which dates back to 2003.

As said before, this field of research deserves its own coverage in Wikipedia, as part of the racial discourse on the origin of the Jewish people.([3][4],[5],[6]) The findings cited in this article should reflect solid scientific concensus. At present, the 1999-2002 studies that are cited in this section report of preliminary findings later found to be invalid. In response to the update tag, Jayjg has added a 2004 study which he claimed shows that "Beta Israel were likely descended from local Ethiopian populations". However, the only relevant review article to cite this study sums it differently:

"The various Jews communities, although sharing a relative common variability, maintain traces of their historical provenience, as the Ethiopian Jews, characterized by the east African A3b2-M13 haplogroup (Shen et al., 2004), and the Ashkenazy Jews who show high frequencies of the eastern European R1a1-M17 clade (Behar et al., 2003)". They do not claim that Beta Israel are local Ethiopians who converted to Judaism, but that they are the descendants of Levantine Jews who arrived to Ethiopia, with some degree of genetic admixture with the local population, as observed in any other Jewish diaspora. Indeed, recent genome-wide association studies fail to reproduce the findings reported in haplogroup studies back in the 1990s and early 2000s.

To conclude, I suggest that one of the following two measures is taken:

1. Remove this section altogether, as practiced in Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews. Once a relevant review article is published in a peer-reviewed journal, we could cite its conclusions here without worrying about original research and biasd editing.
2. Rewrite this section, as practiced in Ashkenazi Jews. This section will be moved to the bottom of this article, open up with a review of the racial discourse on the origin of Beta Israel, then proceed to relevant findings in contemporary peer-reviewed literature. This will definitely be a more difficult task, and I'm not sure it will be more fruitful, given that the findings of present-day genetic studies are way more preliminary and less robust than one may infer from our genetic section.

Either way, the genetic section cannot be left as is without a tag warning our readers of its incorrect content. ליאור • Lior (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the comments above? Cleanup tags are for editors, not to “warn” readers. And since it seems clear you do not intend to actually make the edits you propose, I've removed the tag. Continuing to re-add this temporary cleanup tag in the face of opposing consensus, and common sense, serves no purpose other than to "shame" label the info you don't like. Again, you should feel free to add a new paragraph that includes the links you believe are relevant and appropriate, but a permanent cleanup tag is definitely not the place for them. — Satori Son 13:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The separation between editors and readers that you assume is artificial. We are interested in as many readers as possible becoming editors, and tags are actually one of the ways that we have to invite readers to become editors (by fixing outstanding problems with the article). About the issue itself, I am not an expert and therefore don't have a strong opinion, but if there is indeed material to be added, and the sources are available, I suggest that Lior and Jayjg collaborate on adding the material instead of arguing about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if you are correct in your assertion that cleanup tags serve a secondary purpose of inviting new readers to edit an article for the first time, that is not at all the same as placing a permanent tag on a section with the sole purpose of "warning our readers of its incorrect content." We simply do not use temporary cleanup tags for that reason. Ever. — Satori Son 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with Lior or anyone else on this, but I don't know what it is Lior insists must be added. Only he knows that, but he refuses to add it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Satori Son, is there a written policy that says that the cleanup tags are temporary? I searched for it and couldn't find it.

Common sense says that cleanup tags are supposed to stay there as long as the article needs to be cleaned up. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you up to a point. If it's actually the case that (1) someone thinks the article needs improvement, then (2) identifies the steps toward improvement, but (3) never takes those steps, then I'd say the article doesn't need to be cleaned up. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Common sense says that if an editor insists a section needs additional material from specific sources, then he would add it, rather than refusing to do so, and instead tagging it for almost a year. I don't know what is allegedly missing from this section; do you? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is no active discussion than the tag should be removed. Tags are not for readers and are not to be used as to shame an article as mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Amire, there is no official, written policy specifically about any aspect of clean-up templates (or, so far as I know, any aspect of any kind of template). The principle, however, is widely supported (making it the community's real policy, even if the WP:Instruction creep has not yet extended to producing a written policy or guideline), and it is expressed in a number of places, such as the lead to WP:NDA and the documentation for Template:POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a pretty strong consensus both here and at the AN/I thread that the tag really isn't appropriate, but based on Lior's statements that he needs a little time to develop his material, I'll leave the tag on until September 1. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The repeated claims about a consensus to remove the tags are completely wrong.

• There are claims that there are sources that say that the current information is out of date.
• There is no policy that says that tags should be removed after a particular time.
• There is no policy that says that tags are "only for editors".

I agree that Edaolam (אדעולם) and Lior (ליאור), who are far more knowledgeable in this topic than i am, should just invest a couple of hours in rewriting the section according to their sources. However, until that happens, the tags must stay. Another option for removing is to prove that the sources that the tag mentions are irrelevant. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) , Nyttend, Satori Son, Gyrofrog , Doc James, WhatamIdoing, Casliber, Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) and I agree that the tags are inappropriate. You and Lior think they should stay. Your loyalty to your friend Lior is admirable, but the consensus is clear. I'll leave the tag on until September 1st, which will give Lior plenty of time to "fix" whatever problem he thinks exists with the section. After that, the tag will go. Please respect the views of your fellow editors. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, regardless of the issue at hand, the condescending attitude isn't helpful. Even if there is consensus to remove the tag, you are in no position to set deadlines.

Lior, if you will be able to fix the section yourself, the existence of the tag or lack thereof until you do so doesn't make any difference. That is assuming that you indeed intent to fix the problem soon and not in another year.

In conclusion, I think there is an agreement that Lior will fix the section as soon as he can, and I remind everyone to assume good faith that he will do this. Therefore, the issue of the tag becomes a moot point, so please stop arguing about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't my intent to be condescending in any way. Anyway, we do have a consensus as indicated, and Lior still has several days to add whatever material he thinks is important, as he has said he will do. I'm confident he will have added it by the 1st, and therefore this will indeed be a moot point. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ynhockey, in practice, WP:3RR makes 2:1 be an enforceable majority on Wikipedia. If Jayjg removes the tag, you restore it, I remove it, you restore it, and we repeat that sequence once, the result will be that you get blocked for 3RR.

When we can't have a true consensus in the sense of every single person fully and voluntarily agreeing, then we have to go with the closest thing we can get. Unanimity is not required. A substantial majority like this (nine opposed to the tag vs two in favor) may be as close as we can come. You may be interested to learn that WP:IAR is labeled as an official policy today because of a discussion some years ago that closed with similar proportion of editors on each side—and that's a high level of support for a policy adoption discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's now September 5. Per above, I've removed the tag, and added references in the article to all the studies Lior has brought up. If Lior wishes to add more material from these studies, of course he is free to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd organization

To me, the most interesting questions are - who are these people? what were their origins. As presently organized, the article first gives way too many derogatory names (must they all be listed?), then has cryptic sections about religious practices, then finally gets to origin and DNA. I think the "Terminology" or Etymology section should be made much shorter, or perhaps better integrated into history - because those aspects are interesting; then Origins and History, then DNA. Put the religious facts later - they're in Israel now. That's my suggestion.Parkwells (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DNA Evidences

Does someone know if Beta Israel has some kind of heredity regards like modern Ashkenazim or Kaifeng? IIf not, given they time they've been there, it wouldn't be weird for Y-chromosomes or mythocondries to have disspeared, so only full DNA tests would be valid in order to make theories.--79.157.1.185 (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not being learned in the secret handshakes that guarantee protection from instant wiki-reversion I won't change the actual article but just note here that the article brought in support for the 2012 genetic study does not say what the wikipedia article currently says that it says. The Wikpedia article says that "the Beta Israel have some distant Jewish ancestry, going back 2,000 years", the Reuters article brought as a source for such a claim does not say that but only politely shrugs its reportorial shoulders if forced to broach the subject.

To be sure, there's some strong likelihood that some Beta Israel (and perhaps a billion other people) have some Jewish ancestry and that in the case of the Beta Israel this ancestry might have had some influence on the direction their Judaized culture took but the Reuters article does not say that the study has brought evidence for this claim. I (Moshe Rudner) discuss the Beta Israel in my own work on Exotic Jewish History (www.exoticjewishhistory.com) and was at an unfortunate loss to find strong evidence for any sort of strong genetic basis for the popular claim that they are predominantly descended from ancient Jews. Of course studies to date may have been going about this the wrong way and, by most metrics that concern people it doesn't matter anyhow (for most practical reasons they are now considered to be Jews by more or less everyone, regardless of whether they descend from ancient Jews or not), but the Wikipedia article ought to be more correct about what many readers of this piece have come here to find out.

I would suggest, Mr. Rudner, that you have a read of the article I cited in the DNA section of this entry on Beta Israel, by Pagani, L., et al., "Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool," The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 91 (July 13, 2012): pp. 83-96. It really does clarify and correct the earlier DNA studies you looked at, and is of fundamental importance. It turns out that the entire Ethiopian people as presently constituted are a highly diverse genetic group, with some 40 to 50% showing genetic similarities to populations in Egypt-Israel-Syria stemming from massive admixtures about 3,000 years ago. So studies showing the closeness of Beta Israel to other Ethiopians do not refute the Beta Israel claims of antiquity and Jewish origins at all. There really may have been an emigration, or series of emigrations as Beta Israel traditions assert, of the tribe of Dan and other Jewish tribes then existing, into Ethiopia between 3,300 to 2,700 years ago (the study authors give a range of 3,000 years ago +/- 300 years).110.22.140.136 (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be added to article on going racial discrimination just like Balitimore

needs to be added to article--Inayity (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Intermarriage with non-Ethiopians

I'm going to make edits to the discussion of intermarriage between Ethiopians and non-Ethiopians in the section "Ethiopian Jews in Israel". Because it would be hard to fit the explanation for my changes in a brief edit summary, I'm putting the explanation here. The last paragraph of that section reads: "Despite progress, Ethiopian Jews have so far largely failed to assimilate into Israeli-Jewish society. They remain, on average, on a lower economic and educational level than average Israelis. Also, while marriages between Jews of different backgrounds are very common in Israel, Ethiopians have largely resisted intermarriage. According to a 2009 study, 90% of Ethiopian-Israelis – 93% of men and 85% of women, avoid marrying non-Ethiopians.[124] A 2011 study showed that only 13% of high school students of Ethiopian origin felt "fully Israeli"." That gives the impression that the rates of intermarriage are low due to Ethiopian opposition to integration and the sentiments/actions of non-Ethiopian Israelis plays no part. When one actually reads the reference, it doesn't really say that. The word "resist" comes from the headline, not the article itself. The statistics on Ethiopian Israelis marrying within their community doesn't explain whether they are reluctant to marry outside their ethnic group or others are reluctant to marry or both (or some other explanation). In fact, the article goes on to note that 57% of Israelis say it is unacceptable for their daughter to marry an Ethiopian and 39% say it would be unacceptable for their son to marry an Ethiopian. The article also quotes Avi Masfin saying there are barriers to intermarriage among both Israeli society generally and the Ethiopian community. The text in our Wikipedia, therefore, gives a one-sided view in attributing low intermarriage rates only to the Ethiopian resistance. I'm making edits to better reflect the source article. --JamesAM (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello @JamesAM: I realize we're years into this article but I'm just finding/editing it. I have a very serious question to you: is your work here academic or do you have 1st hand experience living in Israel? Reason being, there is no "average Israeli". It is by all standards a very segmented and segregated society. On paper the vast majority of Haredi/Hassidim are below the poverty line and do not work. Yet they receive donations/assistance so the men can devote themselves to lifelong study/making children. Also, the Bedu are still semi-nomadic with little income above board (i.e. taxable) and many do not work. I don't take issue with your assessment that the Beta Israel are discriminated against/segregated/still have challenges integrating. But I think saying they remain "on average, on a lower economic and educational level" is misleading. Also, the generation born in Israel are actually higher ranking educationally (I don't have the stats but have seen/heard them several times). Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You're misreading my comment. I didn't add the "average Israeli" sentence. That sentence predated my edit. I was simply quoting the full paragraph to show the full context of the prior version's discussion of intermarriage. Essentially, I felt the prior version misrepresented the article that was the source for inter-marriage statistics. The Wikipedia article tried to attribute low intermarriage rates to attitudes of Ethiopian-Israelis, but the source article itself seems to attribute the intermarriage rates to the larger society as well. I'm not an academic in the field of Israeli culture. Wikipedia is supposed to have citations to support its factual assertions. It's not supposed to be based on original, unpublished research. When I saw that the discussion of intermarriage didn't match the source article, I fixed it and explained my change. I didn't know anything about the accuracy of the economic discussion, so I simply left that part alone. I have no problem with you improving the article to fix whatever is factually wrong with it. --JamesAM (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I was just quoting from your text here on this talk page (not from the article). Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beta Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050820105109/http://www.nacoej.org/history.htm to http://www.nacoej.org/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this will almost certainly result in the removal of the "genetics" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Better images up-front?

Not to sound critical, but the article is frontloaded with photographs of uniformed IDF-members, but is this appropriate? Are Israelis of Ethiopian ancestry disproportionately represented in the Israeli military, or vice versa? I considered boldly switching them around myself, but moving any of the other (themed) images out of their sections would be problematic, and moving either of the first two images would lead to a dearth of image of actual people in the first few sections of this article on a group of people.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen no statistics on what percent of them are in the IDF, but from my WP:OR view, I seem to see a lot of them walking around in comparison to the number there are. The IDF only appears to be mentioned in one sentence in the entire article, which is Over the years there has been significant progress in the integration of young Beta Israels into Israeli society, primarily resulting from serving in the Israeli Defense Forces alongside other Israelis their age. This has led to an increase in opportunities for Ethiopian Jews after they are discharged from the army. Although its important, there is a chayal photographed right next to it. Definitely seems to be disproportionate to me. - Galatz^Talk 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Galatz: I scanned the article and found that sentence myself, and so I was wondering if there really is enough of a significant tradition of Ethiopian Jews serving in the Israeli military to justify the only two images of random Beta Israel members being of uniformed IDF members. If slightly more of the article focused on that point, and if it was mentioned in the lead, then I could understand it, but at present it seems somewhat disproportionate. This appears to be an unintended side-effect of that massive blowout a few months back regarding "galleries" of images in the infobox; I was never a fan of those collages either, but here (and possibly elsewhere) removing it has had the effect of making all the images near the top of the page photographs IDF members. Since this is a problem created by an RFC on the ethnic groups WikiProject fairly recently, you think it would be a good idea to bring it up there? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

how to pronounce masgid

My temptation is to pronounce it like "masjid", but then I wonder why it wasn't spelled that way. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beta Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911102037/http://www.ccb.ucar.edu/ijas/ijasno2/georgis.html to http://www.ccb.ucar.edu/ijas/ijasno2/georgis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126184648/http://www.ethioguide.com:80/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm to http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Important and highly relevant genetic research removed from article, that supports the Beta Israel claims to antiquity

I made a contribution to the "Genetics" section which was removed by Doug Weller, and he posted a threat on my home page that any further contributions would result in my being blocked. He stated that my editing was "disruptive" and constituted "original research," "personal analysis or synthesis." He certainly sounded angry and abrupt. I am genuinely puzzled at this response. But I am open to my errors if they be such being clarified. I do not believe at all that my contribution was "disruptive," nor constituted "original research" or "personal analysis or synthesis," but simply reported what the published source said. Surely that cannot be forbidden? Perhaps I might need to rephrase things, however, to make the contribution more satisfactory, and I would appreciate advice on how to do that, if necessary. As for the contribution itself, I leave it to other editors to judge for themselves, so I reproduce it here for your comments and suggestions. I think the relevance and importance of the cited research speaks for itself. Perhaps Mr. Weller objects to the substance of this research, that it confirms Beta Israel claims to Jewish ancestry? Or perhaps he believes that the final sentences of this paragraph attribute views to the research not held by its authors? If so, he needs to read the actual report. I should add that the paragraph follows on from a previous one already there, which cites a 2012 genetics study which reported finding a Jewish ancestry to the Beta Israel going back some 2,000 years. Mr. Weller evidently also disliked and removed that comment, for some reason.

"Another 2012 study, however, casts an entirely different light on Ethiopian history in general, as well as on Ethiopian Jewish history in particular.[72] (See the long report published in The American Journal of Human Genetics in 2012 (vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 83-96) by Pagani, L., et al., "Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool," www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2812%2900271-6.pdf).) As the press release from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, sponsors of the research, states, the study authors, Pagani et al., "found that the Ethiopian genome is not as ancient as was previously thought and less ancient than the genomes of some Southern African populations. There were also links with other populations" [73] ("Genomics and African Queens," Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, 21 June 2012) http://www.sanger.ac.uk/news/view/2012-06-21-genomics-and-african-queens.) These genetic links were to the inhabitants of the general region of the ancient Biblical Holy Land. They indicated massive mixing between Ethiopians and some Middle Eastern groups approximately 3,000 years ago (plus or minus a few centuries), affecting between 40 to 50% of Ethiopians today. According to Dr. Toomas Kivisild, co-author from the University of Cambridge, "We calculated genetic distances and found that these non-African regions of the genome are closest to populations in Egypt, Israel and Syria, rather than to the neighbouring Yemeni and Arabs." The authors refer to the possible validation of the traditional Christian claims for the visit of the Queen of Sheba to the Kingdom of Judah and King Solomon, but accounts of that visit by a delegation from Ethiopia tell only of the impregnation of the Queen of Sheba by King Solomon, and her return to Ethiopia with a contingent of Jews, but this would hardly be enough to account for the size of the impact on the present Ethiopian genome. This impact would much more strongly support the Beta Israel claims for a migration of a large portion of the Tribe of Dan led by descendants of Moses, between 3,300 to 2,700 years ago, to which were added more large numbers of Jews in two subsequent migrations, possibly from the time of the Assyrian destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel and/or the Babylonian destruction nearly two centuries later of the southern Kingdom of Judah. The authors also refer to the development of the Ethio-Semitic languages as such (Ge'ez, Tigrinya, Tigre, Dahlik, Amharic, Argobba, Hariri, Gurage and a few other minor or extinct tongues), which glottochronological studies have shown emerged some 2,800 years or so ago as well (p. 91 of the Pagani et al. genetic study cited just above). It would take a very ancient, large and dominant Semitic-speaking population to sustain its own society and language long enough to make such an enormous impact on later Ethiopian cultures and even to generate so many later distinct languages. According to the study by Pagani et al., the ancient Jewish origin of and influence on at least some of the Ethiopian tribal groups would account for that. Among other highly significant consequences of this finding is that the very similarity of most Beta Israel DNA to that of many other non-Jewish Ethiopians, which has very often been adduced as evidence for their non-Jewish origins and late historical appearance, actually testifies to the shared deep antiquity and extraordinary impact of the Jewish presence in Ethiopia on the entire Ethiopian people and cultures."

If the last two sentences are the problem, even though they reflect the research article claims themselves, I am willing to modify them. I do grant, on re-reading my paragraph, that I do go beyond the cited article in mentioning the Beta Israel claim to descent from the Tribe of Dan, or Mosaic antecedents, which the authors of the article seem unaware of, so perhaps I should have omitted that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.140.136 (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll get back to you later. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 05:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is hard to follow what came from sources and what didnt since it appears you just copied and pasted, since the refs just show in brackets, although it looks like you might be putting them after, but hard to tell. I suggest if you think something may need to change that you draft a suggested paragraph in fix the issues and we can discuss from there. - Galatz^Talk 13:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Galatz: Apologies, I thought I'd saved my reply to the IP, which might have helped you. Here it is:

I'm confused. That's not what I removed. I removed (on the grounds they don't mention Beta Israel):

In 2012, Pagani et al. inferred a Near Eastern ancestral component in Beta Israel and other Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn region. They suggested that the putative element may have been introduced into the Beta Israel gene pool around 3,000 years ago, as early speakers of the Ethiopian Semitic languages mated with local populations. A later analysis by Dobon et al. (2015) found that the West Eurasian ancestral component extant among Afroasiatic speakers in the Ethiopia vicinity is the defining element in their gene pool, and is instead most closely related to that carried by Egyptian Copts and other Afroasiatic speakers in the Nile Valley. They associate this heritage with older, possibly ancient Egyptian affinities.

Do you have a source that says "This impact would much more strongly support the Beta Israel claims for a migration of a large portion of the Tribe of Dan led by descendants of Moses, between 3,300 to 2,700 years ago, to which were added more large numbers of Jews in two subsequent migrations, possibly from the time of the Assyrian destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel and/or the Babylonian destruction nearly two centuries later of the southern Kingdom of Judah" - not in those exact words, but states that the impact would support the Beta Israel claims? This all seems to be your interpretation and you need to read no original research. I'm sorry if my words seem strong (they aren't actually mine but standard responses to problems) but I've pointed out problems with your editing in the past. A more recent example: you wrote "(He ignores however the often emphasized Beta Israel view that they stem from the Mosaic era and/or the Tribe of Dan.)" We simply cannot state that unless we have a source meeting WP:RS making the statement and even then we'd probably attribute the author of the statement, ie "X states that he ignored...." We simply cannot go beyond what the source actually says. We can't combine two sources to make an argument neither makes. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you both, Galatz and Weller, for your responses. Galatz remarks that my reproduction of my original paragraph on Pagani et al. seems a bit confusing because, as Galatz guesses, I cut and pasted my original footnotes into parentheses inserted into the text so as to retain them for this talk page. I hope this clarifies that matter. As Galatz suggests, I will try to formulate an improved version of my contribution that will hopefully be acceptable. But Galatz's subsequent explanatory remark that he/she removed a text or texts on the grounds that the content did not relate to Beta Israel confused me, in turn. No actual instance of such a text was presented. Clearly, that comment cannot apply to the text(s) I contributed, all of which relate to the Beta Israel. So I am not sure how to understand that comment or apply it to my contribution. However, it does certainly apply to the suggested text in Weller's response to me, which follows rather than precedes Galatz's remarks, and cites an article by Dobon et al. that does not relate specifically or perhaps at all to the Beta Israel (it does not even mention the Beta Israel and apparently analyzes no genetic sample from them, only referring to a general Ethiopian population sample, although as we know from the Pagani et al. analysis this is a genetically non-uniform and highly diverse population), in addition uses just one non-African Arab comparative group (from Qatar) not included in the Pagani et al. comparative samples, amongst some other genetic DNA complexes differing geographically and ethnically from those focussed on by Pagani et al., and, quite simply, is not presented by its authors as being specifically in any way a correction or refutation of the Pagani et al. research report. There is just one footnote citation in this article of the Pagani et al. report that I could find, but not in a critical context. The main text of the article does not mention that report at all nor take issue with it. It focusses on a different spectrum of issues, temporal and genetic. So the article's relevance to this specific topic and the Beta Israel in general is at best unclear, at worst nil. It does not appear per se either to relate to or to modify the Pagani et al. findings. I wonder at its inclusion.

Mr. Weller in his response refers to problems he has pointed out in my "editing in the past." With all due respect, I have no idea what he is talking about: I do not recall any discussion with him in the past. I have very seldom visited this webpage. The last time was years ago. As for the query about my comments on the Beta Israel traditions about an early massive migration of a portion of the Tribe of Dan, and/or a large group led by Moses' sons, added to by subsequent significant Jewish migrations to Ethiopia, that this would produce a more significant impact on the Ethiopian genome, languages and cultures than a travelling party associated with the Queen of Sheba as claimed by Ethiopian Christian traditions, this I thought was an obvious point, drew explicitly upon the actual Beta Israel claims exposed elsewhere in the Wikipedia article so it needed no specific citation, and therefore did not constitute original research but just a cross-reference readily documented within the existing article itself. It was not a matter of my own personal opinion but simply reflected traditional Beta Israel opinion. Interestingly, according to James Bruce's late 18th century report on his travels and inquiries in Ethiopia (cf. his Travels to Discover the Sources of the Nile, Vol. 1, p. 484), even those Beta Israel elders who gave credence to the Queen of Sheba story of the Christians all insisted that Jews were already present in Ethiopia before the Queen of Sheba period, due to earlier migrations as related by the Beta Israel themselves. I might add a more general assessment that elsewhere in this article there seems a clear tendency to dismiss or even not to consider the oral traditions of the Beta Israel themselves about their origins, e.g., in the section "Origins" under the heading "Oral Traditions" only Abbink's classification of these traditions allegedly held by "priests in the community" are offered, which actually do not even mention the Mosaic and Tribe of Dan traditions, replacing them essentially just with varieties of the Kebra Negast versions. This is manifestly a major distortion and omission reflecting an unsympathetic bias. Abbink has to have known about those historical narratives. I made a contribution at that point, removed I note by Mr. Weller, that added reference to the Mosaic and Danite traditions. This, perhaps, Mr. Weller considers just my "personal opinion" and "disruptive"? I would like to suggest however that far better than citing Abbink's manifestly defective and slighting classification would be to cite Steven Kaplan's fuller and more fair-minded and reliable classification in his article "A Brief History of the Beta Israel," in The Jews of Ethiopia: A People in Transition (1986), p. 11. However, as already said, I will try to reformulate the paragraph in the course of this coming week.110.22.140.136 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I asked you not to add text that wasn't in the source to sourced text last May. WP:VERIFIABLE is basic policy, and part of that is WP:BURDEN. "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this." WP:NOR is also basic policy and states "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." It also says " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I hope that clarifies my concern here and at other articles. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

So apparently material discussed at length and documented elsewhere in this same Wikipedia article, whose verifiability is unchallenged and unchallengeable, namely regarding Beta Israel traditions stressing Mosaic and Danite origins, is unsourced "new analysis or synthesis" when pointed out by me? Odd, I would have thought. But OK, I got that. I will rewrite that piece too, giving citations all over again to those Beta Israel traditions, and that should satisfy those criteria. But I have another question which I will just mention here briefly, since there is a lot unconnected with Wikipedia matters that I am busy with just now. I would like to ask Mr. Weller what is wrong with the paragraph he deleted from the article that was just prior to the paragraph I wrote and quoted at the start of this section? It seems to me that it meets all Wikipedia criteria. The author has long since left this webpage, it seems, and is probably not aware that his contribution no longer exists. What would prevent a similar treatment of my own re-edited and acceptable contribution some time in the future, after I left the webpage? The paragraph in question read:

"A 2012 study showed that although the Beta Israel more closely resemble the indigenous populations of Ethiopia, they have some distant Jewish ancestry, going back 2000 years. This has resulted in speculation that the community was founded by a few Jewish itinerant traders who moved to Ethiopia, converted locals to Judaism, and married into the local population. This evidence has been used as an explanation as to why the Beta Israel had no idea about the holiday of Hanukkah until they were resettled in Israel. The holiday commemorates events in the second century BC, long after their ancestors had left Israel.[68]"

The footnote 68 cited "Genetic study offers clues to history of North Africa's Jews". Reuters. 2012-08-06; the deleted paragraph is correct in its assertions, and is in fact a close paraphrase of the final sentences of the Reuters summary itself, for proof of which see http://in.reuters.com/article/us-science-genetics-jews-idINBRE8751EI20120806?mlt_click=Master+Sponsor+Logo%28Active%29_19_More+News_sec-col1-m1_News. That in turn directs us to the actual research report which is Campbell et al. "North African Jewish and non-Jewish populations form distinctive, orthogonal clusters," PNAS, August 21, 2012, Vol. 109, no. 34 at URL PNAS-2012-Campbell-13865-70.pdf So what was wrong with this paragraph that required it to be deleted from the Wikipedia article, Mr. Weller?110.22.140.136 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just about a week has passed since I wrote the above, with no response from you, Mr. Weller. But that will not do. I repeat: Why did you remove the previous paragraph that has no evident Wikipedia editing problems, but which affirmed a deeper antiquity to Beta Israel discovered in DNA research, confirming some part of the Beta Israel traditions? Anyone interested in enhancing and updating this encyclopaedia article on the Beta Israel would have eagerly kept such a significant contribution in, it seems to me. In the absence of any explanation, the deletion suggests NPOV, coming as it does on top of the attempt gratuitously to belittle my reference to the Pagani et al. article by adding a reference to an inferred refutation of it in another research report by Doban et al. that when read is found not even to mention the Beta Israel, does not criticise Pagani et al., and is irrelevant to our topic. And if that NPOV is the case, is there any point to revising my own contributions, if they will in any case meet the same fate no matter how relevant and important their information?110.22.140.136 (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologise. I wear many hats here and sometimes lose track of discussions. And like you I've got a real life. I explained in my edit summary that I read the sources for the paragraph I deleted and they did not mention Beta Israel. Ah, you don't know about edit summaries? See WP:Edit summary. Nothing to do with NPOV but with our sourcing policy. Wikipedia is unusual in its approach to writing articles (not just the fact that anyone can edit and no one gets a guarantee their content will be kept indefinitely. In an ordinary essay, academic paper, academic book, authors research sources and build an argument based on those sources (or should at any case). Here our articles are not meant to be making an argument but presenting what reliable sources (WP:RS have said about the subject of the article (constrained of course by other policies such as NPOV). Do you see this major difference? Doug Weller talk 18:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I can grasp that, Mr. Weller. As a former editor of an academic journal myself, as well as author of many articles (including some on African topics) in standard multi-volume encyclopaedias over the years, I think I can manage to get my mind around that, thank you very much. Of course, one must add that what actually happens in these Wikipedia articles as especially those on Jewish topics show (but by no means only there), is that an unsympathetic editorial NPOV alien to the actual population or culture being described can indeed quite easily bend the description of the topic first of all by blocking sympathetic contributors from the webpage outright through aggressive use of technicalities, by deletion of relevant sources or by slighting selective summarization and banalization of those sources, to suit a very non-neutral agenda.

I will in any case try to revise my contribution to make the relevance of the Pagani et al. research to the Beta Israel clearer. Returning however to my query about the reason for the deleted reference to the Campbell et al. article, which was entered into the "Beta Israel" article by an unknown previous contributor, it seems to me that your explanations do not at all apply. You apparently want to say the source referred to in the contribution did not deal with Beta Israel, so it was irrelevant. Actually, Campbell et al. does refer to them, frequently. Ethiopian Jewish inclusion in the research sample was even stated, twice, on the first page of the article. "Table 1. Summary of populations included in this study" on the next page lists "Ethiopian Jewish" as the fifth of those populations. Etc., right through the article. The summary offered in the deleted paragraph was correct. The justification given for its deletion does not apply. Of course, the assertions in the Campbell et al. article about Ethiopian Jewry have subsequently been shown by the Pagani et al. research to have been seriously insufficient and mistaken, but at least it presents evidence of some Jewish presence in Ethiopia 2,000 years ago.

Some consequences flow from all this. It appears that you are a gate-keeper to this and other related articles in Wikipedia. Unlike ordinary contributors like myself, you do not just make a few entries relevant to your own field of expertise and turn to other things, but you monitor these articles year after year. So now, before I offer any revised version of my own deleted paragraph I want to have from you a written commitment on this talk page, that if necessary I can show to adjudicators at some later date, that you will not delete the eventually acceptable version of the revised paragraph from the Wikipedia article a month or year from now, and indeed to re-insert it if someone else deletes it, because (as even its correction of the Campbell et al. article shows) the Pagani et al. genome analysis effectively revolutionizes our understanding of Ethiopian general and Ethiopian Jewish history and at one stroke renders void or insufficient many of the historical suppositions of earlier scholars on the subject, as described earlier even in this very "Beta Israel" entry. It is a contribution to our understanding which will always have to be reckoned with by later scholars. By the way, its chief findings, including its genome-dating back 3,000 years for a major Semitic influx, have been replicated in a later genome study of Ethiopian groups, which will also have to be mentioned in the "Beta Israel" article. I will include a summary of that as well in my final revised text.110.22.140.136 (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This conversation has taken a major downturn with your lack of good faith which we expect of editors. Like probably every experienced editor, I keep a WP:Watchlist and changes in articles pop up on them when made. I have blocked or reverted hundreds of editors for anti-Semitic edits or comments, so implications of anti-Semitism on my part won't fly. No editor would make or be able to keep the commitment you ask for. We have various discussion boards where you can take your issues. Sources can be discussed at WP:RSN, original research at WP:NOR, NPOV violations at WP:NPOV. And dispute resolution at WP:DRN. If you want me blocked or in some way sanctioned, WP:ANI. Or you can withdraw your comments about me and your request and we could actually have a discussion. I'd prefer that. Although I'd still be happy to have you take your sourcing issues to WP:RSN and ask if they can be used here. That way you might get other opinions, not just mine. I'm not infallible. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this supposed to answer, let alone be relevant to, my question concerning why you deleted the Campbell et al. entry, Mr. Weller? I notice that you simply refuse to address that question in any of your posts subsequent to my raising the issue, despite my repeatedly requesting an answer. And yes, that deletion and the subsequent silent refusal to explain it do raise issues about NPOV and your likely future treatment of anything I post here. These are issues you can easily resolve, however, if it is in you to do so, simply by directly addressing my question. Please do put my concerns about that deletion and its reasons to rest. I would welcome that. Another seeming evidence of NPOV editing is the supposed description of the Pagani et al. research report in the paragraph summary of it you offered right at the start of your comments in this section (given right before the brief notice of the Dobon et al article). It consistently banalizes that report's conclusions, and misreports its findings, omitting crucial matters emphasized in the report itself that are supportive of Beta Israel claims to the antiquity of the Jewish presence in Ethiopia and the major role they have had in Ethiopian history. (Added after writing the above: I see that there is a kind of answer offered in regard to the Campbell et al. article, without any apology, justification of arbitrary deletion, or even any admission of error in the first place, in the next section of this talk page, just below. So it does not actually answer my questions about that deletion nor clarify the motives for it. The basic issues remain. But I am glad that citation of the research report is now allowed back onto the Beta Israel webpage, at least for now.)110.22.140.136 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't bloody delete it. And what you call my "paragraph summary" is what I deleted, not something I wrote. You really need to look at the edit history and not throw around accusations. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, well, over two weeks after I complained about your deletions, and asked you to justify them, with you silent about them and failing to address the issue of the propriety of their deletion at all, while continuing to criticise me -- which presumes your owning those deletions and standing with them -- now you say you did not do them, take on a tone of bystander injured innocence and declare that I should have first looked at the edit history myself, and should apologize. Since your silence indicated assent to the basic proposition of deletion, and the deletions were accompanied by exceptionally threatening posts to my talk page foreshadowing total banning from the website, why would I have doubted your responsibility for them, Mr. Weller? What reason did you give to motivate me to check? Often your statements and their context could have been much clearer even in what was directly expressed, e.g., about the footnotes on Pagani et al. and Dobon et al. They looked like your own composition. Keep in mind, too, that I am not up on all Wikipedia procedures. As for throwing around accusations, take another look at your own communications style. I have found when dealing with students and their stylistic errors that one is a lot more effective if one expresses approval of the substance of their writing or at least encourages their efforts, while helping them phrase it better. You would help improve the Wikipedia articles you surveil if you also took that approach to neophytes at Wikipedia, especially when dealing with potentially substantial and major contributions.110.22.140.136 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

paper "North African Jewish and non-Jewish populations form distinctive, orthogonal clusters,"

This is found here.[7] The abstract states that "this study is compatible with the history of North African Jews—founding during Classical Antiquity with proselytism of local populations, followed by genetic isolation with the rise of Christianity and then Islam, and admixture following the emigration of Sephardic Jews during the Inquisition." Copyright stops me from copying the whole discussion section. It does say "The first evidence for Jews in North Africa is from 312 Before Common Era when King Ptolemy Lagi of Egypt settled Jews in the cities of Cyrenaica in current-day Tunisia." and "The observations for Georgian and Ethiopian Jews met historical expectations—Georgian Jews are an outgrowth from the Iranian and Iraqi Jewish communities, and Ethiopian Jews are an ancient community that had relatively few, if any, Jewish founders from elsewhere and existed in isolation for >2,000 years. Nonetheless, the low FST between Sephardic and Georgian Jews suggests that the latter may have had significant contact with Turkish or Syrian Jews. The observations for the Yemenite Jews are even more surprising. Like the Ethiopian Jews, this population was founded >2,000 y ago and was thought to be comprised mostly of local proselytes, which is reflected in the distinctive clustering of the population away from other Jewish groups and the mostly Middle Eastern ancestry present in this group. However, the observation of comparable FST and IBD sharing with other Jewish communities implies significant common Jewish founders in the absence of more recent genetic flow into the community. Thus, although Jewishness was transmitted by the flow of ideas and genes, both appear to have been under selection for long periods of time." The newspaper reports shouldn't be used, just the peer reviewed study. IP, what do you want to do with this? Doug Weller talk 14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am amazed that you believe that this DNA research report by Campbell et al. is unknown to me, and that you just now discovered it. This has been precisely the research report whose summary by an unknown earlier contributor you deleted at the same time as you deleted most of my own contributions to the Beta Israel article and that I have referred to again and again in my comments above (in the previous section) challenging its deletion, for the past week and a half. And again I put it to you that the description of that research by the earlier contributor to the Beta Israel article should have been left in -- as apparently you have now discovered. There was nothing wrong with it or its wording. It was certainly relevant to the Beta Israel claims of deep antiquity, even if it only argued for a presence some 2,000 years ago. (Obviously, the Pagani et al. article requires major modification of that finding.) So I asked you to justify its deletion. However, if you wish to expand on that contribution instead of obliterating it, fine, as long as it does justice to the article. The original summary, as I wrote, made a loose paraphrase of the Reuter article reporting on it in 2012, but it would be simple just to put in the footnote the Campbell et al. reference instead. Otherwise, it remains accurate.110.22.140.136 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, why would you think I didn't know you knew about it? I certainly didn't just discover it, it's blindingly obviously in the discussions you've posted. I'm just starting a different section and adding the text that seems worth discussing. These walls of text you add aren't helping. I don't know why you are asking me to justify a deletion I didn't make. Besides some stuff on oral history, my only deletion has been to remove the Pagani and Dobon paragraph. Pagani et al says nothing about Jews in the discussion section of their article and Dobon et al doesn't either. Thus they fail our criteria for use. And that was added by User:Soupforone. In fact, I don't seem to have deleted the summary of the Campbell material (although I probably would have, we should rely on the study itself), that was also Soupforone, not me. But you seem to prefer blaming me for it.

What exactly do you want to add to the article relating to the Campbell material I've quoted? A rough draft would help us proceed. An apology would be nice also. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I see we agree on Dobon - that was part of what I removed. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug, Pagani was actually already linked; I just pointed to the direct url. As for Dobon, its sample is of Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians, which presumably would encompass Beta Israel. Anyway, I don't have any particular qualms with your tweak. Soupforone (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So, "Doug" just made the Pagani and Dobon deletions. This works out for me to mean my own Pagani contribution, since I was not aware of any Dobon reference and did not defend its retention when I saw the paragraph -- far from it. Now we learn that Soupforone was the person who deleted the Campbell et al. reference in the article, not "Doug." But Doug did not mention this for over two weeks despite my complaints about it. His silence implied ownership, to any reasonable person. Why didn't he step forward earlier, clarify this and help move this discussion along? I could therefore challenge Soupforone to explain the Campbell deletion. But it would be a waste of time: in any case I think it is now admitted that the deletion of the Campbell paragraph was not justified and the paragraph should be reinstated, just as it was (the paragraph is quoted verbatim in my first post to the previous section). The footnote to that paragraph, however, can easily be changed from citing the Reuters article to citing the actual Campbell source. That should conclude that matter. Soupforone makes a good comment though about the Dobon article that its sample would "presumably" encompass Beta Israel. While the presumption is weak in this case, it is not in the Pagani case. There it is obvious and central to the argument that the Beta Israel are implied and are central to the article, even if not directly named as such, since the article authors explicitly affirm not only a "Levantine Semitic" mass migration to Ethiopia having enormous future genetic impact and spurring the formation of numerous Semitic languages over the following millenia, but also the explicit likelihood of the Queen of Sheba legend being historically vindicated by their findings. That legend after all precisely consists of the account of the influx of Jews into Ethiopia at the time of King Solomon, which means that the research authors maintain that there was a significant presence of Jews from Judea in Ethiopia 3,000 years ago, as affirmed by the Kebra Negast, the Christian account from the 13th century CE, 2,200 years later. That chronicle relates that the Jewish faith remained central for 2,200 years in Ethiopia, right up to the defeat of the Zagwe Dynasty by the Solomonic claimants in the 13th century CE. The Kebra Negast and other later Christian traditions tell of continuing wars with Jewish kingdoms for centuries after this takeover, too. This therefore amounts to a strong affirmation of Jewish (Beta Israel) antiquity, stemming from Judea, mixed of course with other Ethiopian groups over the centuries, ultimately affecting 40 to 50% of Ethiopians generally (all according to Pagani et al.). So the paragraph belongs in an article on the Beta Israel, and relates to them. It should be featured in this article. Right?110.22.140.136 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If the research doesn't discuss Ethiopian Jews or Beta Israel, it shouldn't be used. In an academic paper it would be fine. But ask at WP:RSN for more opinions, that's where we discuss sources. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Again I point out that the Kebra Negast, which the Pagani et al. article emphasizes as being historically supported in its claims of about population shifts to Ethiopia from the land of Israel-Judea at the time of King Solomon, explicitly makes mention of "Jews" and a "Jewish" migration to Ethiopia. So your assertion that the article does not refer to Jews falls flat. Only Jews can be meant. Denying this is like saying that an account of the Exodus from Egypt that only speaks of Moses leading many "slaves" out of Egypt to Mt. Sinai and then to the Promised Land cannot be mentioned in an article about Jewish origins, since the word "Jews" was not used in the account. Even references to "Israelites" or "Hebrews" would not justify such a classification, since these too omit the term "Jews." Or, if the account does speak of "Jews" explicitly, but not of "Israelites" or "Hebrews," then it cannot be mentioned in an article on "Israelites" or "Hebrews." Or, again, let us say there is an article on "Christianity," but since the New Testament does not mention this term it cannot be used as evidence for "Christianity" or its origins. Such claims are quite simply nutty, to put it mildly. I will certainly inquire at the site WP:RSN.110.22.140.136 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not having the time until now to deal with this, but now when I go to the WP:RSN webpage in order to enter an appeal for an advisory opinion, and read the guidelines there on what that webpage's editors define as their task, I am no longer sure that that is the right site for our concerns. RSN relates to the "reliability" of sources, that page states. Pagani et al. is manifestly reliable as a source for genetics research. The real question is whether this source can be appropriately cited on this webpage. I.e., it seems to me it is more a question of whether citing it here constitutes "original research," and/or "undue weight," and/or "neutral point of view." All these categories, each of which have their own dedicated appeal webpages and editorial advisors, can be seen or interpreted as relevant, judging from Doug Weller's past criticisms. So I would appreciate some advice from Mr. Weller on which appeal website in his opinion will most efficiently, adequately and quickly adjudicate this issue. Thanks.110.22.140.136 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::Thinking about it, although RSN is also a place to ask if a reliable source can be used to back a particular statement, WP:NORN is probably the best place for this. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting to the discussion about Campbell et al. (specific topic of this section of the Talk Page), and how it should read when re-entered into the "Beta Israel" article, I have already made a suggestion on this, which I find when looking at the article has manifestly not been acted on even now, weeks afterwards. So again I address Mr. Weller, and request that he put the following paragraph back into the article:

"A 2012 study showed that although the Beta Israel more closely resemble the indigenous populations of Ethiopia, they have some distant Jewish ancestry, going back 2000 years. This has resulted in speculation that the community was founded by a few Jewish itinerant traders who moved to Ethiopia, converted locals to Judaism, and married into the local population. This evidence has been used as an explanation as to why the Beta Israel had no idea about the holiday of Hanukkah until they were resettled in Israel. The holiday commemorates events in the second century BC, long after their ancestors had left Israel.[68]" I would recommend that the footnote (carrying whatever number the page assigns to it) should read: "Campbell et al. "North African Jewish and non-Jewish populations form distinctive, orthogonal clusters," PNAS, August 21, 2012, Vol. 109, no. 34 at URL PNAS-2012-Campbell-13865-70.pdf" 110.22.140.136 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I'm stepping out now and was only replying to your first question when you posted this. I'll need to look at it again when I'm back. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I can certainly find in the discussion at the end of the paper "The observations for Georgian and Ethiopian Jews met historical expectations—Georgian Jews are an outgrowth from the Iranian and Iraqi Jewish communities, and Ethiopian Jews are an ancient community that had relatively few, if any, Jewish founders from elsewhere and existed in isolation for >2,000 years." But nothing about Hanukkah. That appears to be "original research". Also, "These observations are consonant with the history of Jews in North Africa, which stretch back to the earliest recorded history of the region (1–4, 20). Israelite traders may have been among the earliest Phoenician traders who colonized the African coast and established Carthage." But that's not what your text says about traders. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the Hannukah and "itinerent traders" references, although they reproduce claims in the Reuters article the original contribution cited and are not "original research." So we are left with perhaps just one sentence, as follows: "A 2012 study showed that a few Jewish founders in Ethiopia 2,000 years ago may have converted locals to Judaism and married into the local population, but genetic data strongly indicates that most of the population apparently consisted of local proselytes." The Campbell et al. reference can then be put in the footnote.110.22.140.136 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Missed this, will look at it in a few hours. Doug Weller talk 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead, I'm not going to get into a big fuss about this now, but where does 'proselytes' come from? My problem with the Reuters article is that Harry Ostrer's comments can't be found in the article itself. He does have his own pov on the subject. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beta Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304033830/http://www.beteisrael.co.il/index.asp to http://www.beteisrael.co.il/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304173243/http://www.yopi.co.il/ to http://www.yopi.co.il/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615095459/http://www.iaej.co.il/newsite/ to http://www.iaej.co.il/newsite/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The status of Ethiopian Jewish monasticism

This is one of the more unusual practices of this branch of Judaism: that the Beta Israel did practice monasticism at one point; when I first read about it, I thought it was a hoax. However, 19th-century visitors to Ethiopia reported that there were Jewish monks in Ethiopia. Some scholars believe this practice was adopted from the local Christian community: both religions, being isolated from the rest of their practitioners, heavily influenced each other. And ISTR reading that most, if not all, of the Jewish monasteries were extinguished due to the Great Famine of 1888-1892; I haven't encountered any mention of this practice since then. Can anyone provide more information about this practice? -- llywrch (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beta Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721135015/http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/reshuma.asp?key=1100704 to http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/reshuma.asp?key=1100704
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721134944/http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/reshuma.asp?key=1000104 to http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/reshuma.asp?key=1000104
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118141423/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/11/14/2741728/8000-falash-mura-to-come-to-israel to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/11/14/2741728/8000-falash-mura-to-come-to-israel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040628055103/http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html to http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beta Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/9021/1/ASC-1242160-033.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishexponent.com/culture/2016/11/but-first-strong-black-coffee
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004070715/http://www.bh.org.il/database-articles.aspx?49536 to http://www.bh.org.il/database-articles.aspx?49536
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128132352/http://tauac.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6169 to http://tauac.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6169

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about the section specifically about the Ethiopian Jews in Israel. I think not only the numbers of people they comprise but the percentage they represent in the population should be added, and they make up about a little more than one percent of the population. Also, while Operation Moses and Operation Solomon are discussed the new wave of immigration since the mid 1990s has occurred of Christian converts which they call Falas Mura.

Additionally, when talking about the hardships Ethiopian jews have faced it should be added that the rate of Ethiopian out who has dropped out of school has increased dramatically as well as the rate of juvenile delinquency. There are also high incidences of suicide and depression among this community. 

This information was all from the article Ethiopian Emerging Adult Immigrants in Israel Walsh, Sophie D., and Rivka Tuval-Mashiach. “Ethiopian Emerging Adult Immigrants in Israel.” Youth & Society, vol. 44, no. 1, 2011, pp. 49–75., doi:10.1177/0044118x10393484. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahanra (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• NEW IMMIGRANTS FROM ETHIOPIA JUST AFTER ARRIVAL AT BEN GURION AIRPORT.D206-029.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Genetics section unclear

I find the current Genetics section to be muddled with (IMHO unnecessary) genealogical details, to the detriment of any informational explanation of the findings. This is a subsection of Origins, meant to be explaining various theories/evidence on where the Beta Israel people came from, with a special emphasis on how they relate to the larger Jewish and African populations. I find it exceedingly difficult to gain any understanding of that topic from the tortuous recitation of haplogroups, clades, varieties, branches, lineages... (e.g. I have no idea what to make of "haplogroup A is the most common paternal lineage" ... "the A branches carried by Ethiopians Jews are principally of the A-Y23865 variety" ... "18% of Ethiopian Jews are bearers of E-P2 (xM35, xM2)" ... etc.). While after close examination I admit that there may be 1 summary sentence buried in each subsection of Genetics (last sentence in the third paragraph, and the penultimate standalone sentence), even those only obliquely address the Origin topic's central questions.

In contrast, I find the explanation in this section as of 5 years ago (e.g. id 647570591, this section then titled "DNA evidence") to be consistently on point, citing and explaining multiple views on the topic (e.g. "the Beta Israel people descended from ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia and not the Levant" and "the Beta Israel have some distant Jewish ancestry"). I have no idea of the accuracy of its statements as compared to the current version's litany of arcana or even how the two versions' contents relate to each other, but as a reader the 5-year-old version fits the article, answers the obvious questions and is decipherable by an average person while the current version does none of these.

I'd be tempted to just paste the 5-year-old contents of "DNA evidence" over the current "Genetics" section, but it seems improper to just revert 5 years' worth of edits unilaterally, especially when I have no other knowledge of the topic beyond what I read in the 5-year-old copy. Can anyone familiar with the subject matter please weigh in? Thanks. — 93.173.154.166 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Terminology fragment

"Originally ["Beta Israel"] did not have any negative connotations."
Does this mean it has negative connotations now? If so, this is never mentioned. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the meaning is: “As opposed to another term in Ethiopian (Ayhud) that DID have negative connotations”. It’s clear if you keep reading the terminology section.

192.38.137.158 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ethiopian jews

how wikipedia can be reliable when the black jews of ethiopia under attack by chabbad cult? did you notice that the semien kingdom is missing from the "jewish military history"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.177.116 (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)