Talk:Yemenite Jews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Images

User:PacificWarrior101, User:Davidbena, about Dana International, Yigal Amir, "silversmith", etc.:

1. Discuss things about the article on the article's talk page and not on user talk pages.
2. Don't engage in edit warring. Reminder: WP:3RR.
3. Don't engage in personal attacks.
4. Don't make assumptions about anybody's morality or sensitivity. For example, don't say that all Yemenite Jews would be offended by anything at least until you actually asked all Yemenite Jews about this. And even if you did ask them, that still won't be the only relevant consideration for writing a Wikipedia article.

Such lists are always contentious. The people are not supposed to be positive - they are supposed to be notable. Both Dana International and Yigal Amir are notable. The "silversmith" is a generic person who shouldn't be in the infobox.

As far as my own opinion goes, both Dana International and Yigal Amir can be here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I will take your advice about where to debate the current issue. As for Igal Amir and Dana International, their photos on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page. Or, let's say, Israeli troops shooting at an Arab, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not.Davidbena (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:PacificWarrior101, I have agreed to remove the generic photo of a Yemenite silversmith, in accordance with the advice given to me. My hope, my friend, is that we, too, can reach a compromise before this issue is referred to a party entrusted with resolving disputes. I am only interested in not being offensive, as much as that sounds reasonable and is logical.Davidbena (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what is the thing that makes Mauda and Skaat notable? Participation in the Eurovision song contest, by any coincidence? Isn't a Eurovision song contest winner even more notable by the same measure? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Amire80, why did you "undo" my photo replacement after suggesting to me that we should not use a generic photo? Isn't Yigael Bashan a popular Yemenite singer worthy of consideration, and one who will not evoke feelings of shame?Davidbena (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See below. Your argument about "feelings of shame" is weak, and Bashan's notability is not comparable in this context to International's. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Flouting an Ethnic Group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User:PacificWarrior101, had posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page that treats on ethnicity, and to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page. Or, let's say, Israeli troops shooting at an Arab, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo in question can be replaced by a more non-controversial image, and one that does not tend to flout the dignity of a particular ethnic group.Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the whole idea of "representative" images of notable people on top of articles about social groups is rather artificial and contentious to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, these images could be removed from this article and from all other articles about social groups.

But if we are talking about the people in question, then if this page includes images of two other singers from this group who participated in the Eurovision song contest, it doesn't make any sense to exclude a person who won the same contest. The same person incorporates Yemenite culture in some of the songs that she performs and in her clothing style, so she is not just nominally Yemenite.

A claim that "most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo" is nothing but a baseless and transphobic Argumentum ad populum. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is not about inclusion of popular Israeli singers who appeared on a popular TV show, Eurovision, but rather about flouting an ethnic group. The bare and banal truth is that this one photograph evokes a sense of shame to the vast majority of Yemenite Jews. The photo should be replaced by another, since the article treats in general terms about ethnicity and history.Davidbena (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is irrelevant. Please read the article Argumentum ad populum before you repeat it again. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, our argument is not irrelevant. Your article overlooks the simple fact that one just doesn't post a photo that flouts an entire ethnic group, such as (by way of example) posting an image of an Israeli soldier shooting at an Arab child when the main article treats on Israelis. It is the same here. You are using demagoguery in subtle and concealed terms. The photo must be replaced.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's use this opportunity to learn what demagoguery is. A demagogue is somebody who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power (Merriam-Webster). I'd say that saying that something evokes a sense of shame to the vast majority of, well, no matter whom is precisely this: making use of popular prejudices. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Amir E. Aharoni, are you wishing to push this photo down the throats of the people who read this article, in hopes that they will become more receptive to transgenders? If so, your empathy for TGs makes you somewhat inconsiderate and cruel towards others who may actually be offended by such a photo, as myself and many others indeed are. Our dispute involves a photo displayed on the main page of an article and which evokes feelings of shame, as if the person who put-up the image wishes to flout the dignity and good character of an entire ethnic group. Most Yemenite Jews are ashamed of the person shown in the image. I am asking that the photo be replaced by a different image. Can you not accommodate such a request for the sake of decency and civility?Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I cannot accommodate a request to censor Wikipedia because you think that something is indecent. In fact, there is a specific content policy about this: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." (WP:NOTCENSORED).

There could be other reasons to remove that image, but this is certainly not a good one. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment I have no strong opinion. I will ask that no changes be made until this discussion ends. I would have used RfC myself. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that "Wikipedia is not censored," and that "some readers and editors may find that they come across images that invoke squeamishness, are in bad taste, or are offensive," this is only true in cases where the photos are being used in articles which treat on human anatomy (e.g. nudity), and/or in articles where there is a direct relation between the subject matter and the image. In our case, this is not so. Rather, the laws of good society dictate to us that we should not wantonly offer affronts or offense to people who may feel "disturbed" by associating a photograph with a certain ethnic group. To stress my point, can you imagine what the backlash would be if you posted a photo of the "Son of Sam" serial killer (David Berkowitz) on the main article Jews? Such a thing would be totally uncalled for, as it is here. Such a photo in such an article would be offensive, just as it is by showing a Transgender (Dana International) in an article which treats purely on ethnicity and history. It is far better to put her photo in a place (article) which treats specifically on Transgenders, so as not to imply that this is the "norm," or that the person's behavior is accepted by the vast majority of good and decent Yemenites; most importantly, so as not to offend.Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep the image — Per the Image Use Policy "images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." If there were no discussion in the text of this article about these folks other than their history, I might fall the other way (while at the same time noting that if material about the modern and current status and activities and achievements were to be subsequently added that my opinion might well change to what it is now), but Ms. International is specifically mentioned in the text of the article and including her picture clearly falls within the threshold requirement for image inclusion. The purposes of the gallery in the {{Infobox ethnic group}} are not defined in the infobox documentation and, therefore, fall back to the principles announced in the general image use policy. While such a gallery probably ought to, on common logic, contain a group of representative individuals, what is representative must for encyclopedic purposes represent fact, not fantasy driven by pride, fear of embarrassment, or moral prejudice. While the primary community of these folks may wish for one or more of those reasons that individuals such as Ms. International did not exist or, if they do, would keep their ethnicity to themselves so as not to embarrass the community, the fact is the current, modern population which makes up that ethnic group not only includes Ms. International but Ms. International's history and ethnicity are well-established in a manner which makes them notable. On the other hand, as noted in the Muhammad images case, strong objections by a population to images due to religious or moral objections are not to be merely dismissed with a wave of the NOTCENSORED wand. However, I would note, first, Davidbena has not offered any particular evidence to support those claims in this case but is making them from his own personal experience and — without expressing any doubt whatsoever that David believes what he is saying — it may well be that those objections are not, in fact, either so widespread, uniform, or strongly felt among this community as he claims (or as is generally presumed or discussed among the community). And, second, I would remind everyone that once the RFC on the Muhammad images case was held that the principles announced in the Arbcom case were not equally adopted by the community as a whole (especially the Principle of Least Astonishment, which Arbcom at least mentioned but which the community largely failed to implement or endorse). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you wouldn't say such things had they posted a photo of the "Son of Sam" serial killer (David Berkowitz) on the main article Jews? You see, there is something inherently wrong about posting images that conjure up wrong impressions about people as a whole.Davidbena (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan thanks for the thoughtful response and the references to policy.

David indeed doesn't offer any evidence that there is something especially wrong about having a transgender person as one of the people who represent Yemenite Jews except his own statements. Negative sentiment against transsexuality exists in many societies and I have no reason to think that Yemenite Jews are special in this regard, so I cannot see any potential special astonishment.

Dana International represents several other things except being a transgender person - she is an internationally successful pop singer, and she incorporates Yemenite cultural motives into her performances. Music is an important part of Jewish Yemenite culture; indeed, all the Israeli Eurovision winners happen to be Yemenites (the other two are Yizhar Cohen and Gali Atari). I would argue that at this point in time Dana International happens to be the most internationally notable of the three, although I don't have solid proof for that - it's just my impression.

In any case, removing Dana International is a crystal clear case of discrimination that is based on nothing but sexual identity. I'm not even saying this to protect trans people; it simply goes completely against notability principles. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena: But you're wrong. I very well might say such things if Berkowitz was deemed to be important enough to be dealt with in that article. Moreover, I note that you failed to respond to the following argument raised by PacificWarrior101 at his/her talk page:

Look at the article about Georgians and it shows Joseph Stalin on their infobox and look at the Austrians article it shows a picture of Adolf Hitler and there are obviously people probably complaining about how ruthless they were, because they were.

Would you care to do so? (One response is that every Wikipedia article stands on its own and what's done in one article doesn't mean that it need be done in another. While that's true, we're talking about general principles here, not "you must do this here because it's done there.") Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wait, the photograph is being objected to solely because the subject is transgender? That's disgusting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The photo is being objected to because it, needlessly, offends many, besides having very little to do with the article's topic. In short, it does more damage than good. Transgender issues should be discussed in its proper place, viz. "Transgenders." A picture should not be used to flout the decency of an entire ethnic group.Davidbena (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"...flout the decency of an entire ethnic group." Do you even hear yourself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have another article you may be interested in. Ghetto. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)

NeilN The collage is supposed to give a representation of a the Yemenite people. I think that people like Eyal Golan, who recently was accused of sleeping with a minor and this International person, should be removed because they are controversial. Note that on the discussion pages of other collages this principle has been used before, and controversial people were removed or simply not added. By the way, the collage is 3x4, which is rather large, and could easily be 3x3. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As with Harel Skaat, who is gay, there's nothing in International's article to indicate she is controversial. So why the double standard? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

For a removal reason that's actually rooted in content, International's article has her saying, "I don’t believe in any religion, so I’m here as an Israeli, not as a Jew." You could argue this makes her a less than ideal representative of the group. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the very common confusion of Jews as a religion as opposed to ethnicity :)

She may be not a religious Jew in her lifestyle, but she did perform a classic Jewish religious song, and called herself "Yemenite" in interviews (easy to google up in Hebrew, "דנה אינטרנשיונל תימנייה"). --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Amire80:, yes, I'm aware of the ethnoreligious aspect but at least it's a better reason than, "She's transgender!". And thanks for the pointer to Yemenite references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In answer to User:PacificWarrior101, actually, there is nothing uncouth about showing a photo of Adolf Hitler in an article which speaks about WWII; or of Joseph Stalin during and after the Bolshevik revolution. These are all pertinent. However, where an article is primarily concerned with ethnicity, and one shows the "bad side of society" - whether sexual deviation or murderers or notorious thieves, it is all one and the same, namely, it tends to show disrespect to the ethnic group in question. The controversy here lies in what is considered disrespectful, in my humble opinion.Davidbena (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But the articles in which they are included are about their ethnicities: Hitler in Austrians and Stalin in Ukrainians and they're there despite the fact that most people associate Hitler with Germany and Stalin with the Soviet Union. You've still not addressed that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Transgenders are equivalent to murderers or notorious thieves? Stop, just stop. You obviously have no idea how to discuss these issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here, if I might clarify myself with your permission, I had only made a correlation between them because they are seen as not "keeping" with the laws of good society. By the way, I have nothing personal against people born with a gender identity problem. In fact, I have - like a father - given counsel to people like this in the past (such as "Jazz," the famous American transgender youth and how to cope with his sexuality). What I am concerned with here is the portrayal or image that that one photo evokes in my mind (and in others like me) who see this picture on a page that is generally meant to discuss ethnicity and history. Neil, do I not make any sense to you?Davidbena (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In one word, I guess you can say that the nature of this dispute involves "misrepresentation."Davidbena (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Image use policy, "images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." With this view in mind, if a collage is meant to be a representation of the whole, then the picture of Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") is out of place. The insertion of that one photo does not aid in helping the reader's understanding of the subject.--Davidbena (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How does the image of Gali Atari help the reader understand the subject? And Shahar Tzuberi? And Yisrael Yeshayahu? How does any of them help the reader understand it more than Dana International?

Oh, and as far as I know, her name is Sharon. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gali Atari is normative and, therefore, her photo can be used as a representation of the whole when conjoined with the others. Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") is not normative and, therefore, his photo should not be used in conjunction with the others as a representation of the whole. While they add to the reader's understanding of the topic, Dana International's photo distracts from the reader's understanding. Again, by "normative" I simply mean those who abide by the laws of good society.--Davidbena (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

David B-A, you canvassed me. I think your bigoted comments were shameful, not Dana International's sexuality. I'm glad you modified them. It seems that one politician after another has changed their views after learning of what you call "sexual deviation" in their own families. I hope your views change, not just your comments. As you learn what is appropriate and inappropriate here, you may find that they conflict with what you see as the 'laws of good society'. Face facts: Lots of behaviors that were considered good in biblical times are widely considered disgusting, deviant and/or illegal today. You've been warned regarding how to discuss transgender individuals. I suspect that writing "Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") ... his ..." falls afoul of the guidance you were warned to follow or face discretionary sanctions.

Dana International seems to be notable, Yemenite, and culturally, but not religiously, Jewish. I think Amir's edit should stand.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with the other editors who find good cause to include Dana International's photo in the infobox gallery. Obviously, discriminatory appeals to concepts like 'laws of good society' have no place in this discussion. If photo galleries in ethnic group infoboxes have a significant function (and there are certainly editors who have questioned that), it is to provide a visual demonstration of the range and diversity of the group's membership. So, if Dana is not like everyone else in the gallery, so much the better. From what I can see, Dana's Yemenite heritage has been well discussed in reliable sources, and a Eurovision winner is sufficiently distinctive and notable to earn a place.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I object on grounds that there is clear-cut insensitivity toward the feelings of the Yemenite people who peruse this article and who are disturbed by seeing Dana's photo as a "representative" of the Yemenite Jewish community. The insistence of retaining a "provocative" photograph is profoundly disturbing, especially when it comes from so-called "seasoned" editors, and especially when retaining Dana's photo has very little significance to the article, and is definitely not indicative of the Yemenite ethnic group as a whole. Of course, it should have been expected that choosing this forum for discussing this dispute and inviting people from all walks of life to comment (although by no means settling the dispute) would naturally also attract a few of the "wayward sort" who do not conform to society's conventions, and who scorn at reason. Why is it so hard to understand the shame evoked by a photograph when the article treats primarily on a mostly good and religious people who have a proud heritage, but who feel ashamed by being represented, or thought of, in the context of "someone" who has done what almost no one else would do, and against the laws of nature and society? No words to the contrary will take away the feeling of repugnancy held by the vast majority of Jews who have considered this subject.Davidbena (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely room to consider other representatives. For example, I'm not sure Bo'az Ma'uda has a considerable body of work behind him, unlike many other available choices. I also think there are too many singers. Yemanites have contributed to Israeli history more than just good voices. (journalist, politician, Renouned Rabi and poet). As for Ms. International, while I am not averse to finding other good representatives in her place, she has done no crime and has a reasonable body of work behind her. While some people are averse to sex change, I haven't seen the widespread rejection you describe (if you can find relevant sources, I will reconsider). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, User:MarciulionisHOF, is there no place for the following argument? According to WP:Image use policy, "images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." With this view in mind, if a collage is meant to be a representation of the whole, then the picture of Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") is out of place. The insertion of that one photo does not aid in helping the reader's understanding of the subject, especially in light of the fact that he/she is a controversial figure and arouses certain associations in people, and tends more to "discredit" an ethnic group than to do them good (dissimilar to, but still similar in other ways, to putting up a photograph of the "Son of Sam" on the WP article Jews. We'd all agree that that would be improper, because it discredits a people). Can we not reach a compromise and have Dana's photo placed deeper down in the article, rather than at the very top in the collage?Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Stop repeating the same arguments over and over again. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Amir, you are only one voice in the equation. We will seek for a compromise by way of consensus. Since I am for the compromise and you are against it, we are still at a stalemate. The matter can go either way.Davidbena (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "compromise" is, effectively, an offer of separate but (in)equal treatment for Dana International. In the context of this discussion, that would be wholly inappropriate. At this point, Dana's removal from the gallery couldn't be perceived as anything other than a capitulation to intolerance. There is no bigot's veto on Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sharon (legal name) doesn't appear to have made in her body of work a substantial contribution based on her Yemenite heritage. This valid argument is countered by people knowing her as a Yemenite (no one heard of her Romanian ancestry) due to Israeli association of Yemenites with singing. In general, I'd like to see wider representation. Scientists, Politicians, Perhaps another athlete, Historical figures and other notables outside of singers. If we find some Yemanite scientists, mayors, people who do more than just sing -- she could be replaced ahead of figures such as 'Shoshana Damari' and 'Ofra Haza' which have done ethnic music with Yemanite roots. As a prominent pop-icon, she stays ahead of hardly known figures like Bo'az Ma'uda. As an "offensive character", I'd put Amnon Yitzhak ahead of her. As he has been openly criticized for extremely rare views. His claim to notability is not very high compared to some other alternatives. To summarize: I'd like to see more alternatives. If there's a poor selection, Ms. International should stay due to high level of notability. As a compromise I suggest (a) that a better list be compiled and a post to the Jewish collaboration thing be made to take a vote), and (b) that the current 12 images be reduced to 8 for now. I nominate for removal: Boaz Mauda (doesn't have a considerable body of work), Amnon Yitzhak (use less controversial community leader), Gali Atari (too many singers - from the same era, Ofra Haza is already listed), Eyal Golan (Very notable, but not as a Yemenite. Convicted of tax evasion and implicated in highly controversial case relating to sexual relations). For now, while there are no replacements of value, controversial singers Sharon Cohen and Ahinoam Nini may stay. I'm not averse to replacing both (and a third choice) with the above mentioned journalist, politician, and Renouned Rabi and poet. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The so-called allegations about my being "intolerant" are unfounded. I have reached out, perhaps more than anyone else here, to a transgender by the name of Jazz in trying to help him deal with his sexuality. I can provide Arxiloxos with transcripts of my correspondence if he's truly interested in seeing what I wrote to Jazz. As for my objections about Dana's photo, it is purely based on the bad associations the photo causes to 99.9% (my guess) of Yemenite Jews who see him/her as a representation of Yemenite Jewish culture. I live in Israel where the majority of Yemenite Jews live, and I know their sense of shame. I agree with MarciulionisHOF's assessment that the photo gallery should be made smaller and perhaps people with greater achievements to their name represented there.Davidbena (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What you claim to do off-wiki has no bearing on-wiki where your edits regarding this subject are close to being sanctionable. Articles are not written to make the subject or fans (to use a generic term) of a subject happy or comfortable or proud. And yet again, you put forth claims without any evidence. Bluntly speaking, we don't care what you think or guess. If you state International is controversial, provide proof. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right about my "off-wiki" business, but my disputant's no-"Assume Good Faith" stance and wrongly judging me should, likewise, not have any bearing on his "on-wiki" business. As for evidence, there is plenty. And, besides, no one needs to present evidence that the general Jewish public will feel ashamed at seeing the "Son of Sam" represented in a gallery on the WP article Jews. The analogy here is the same, although perhaps different in its scope and severity.Davidbena (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the criterion for deleting a controversial image, according to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Per nominator, is to “provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.” Since the purpose of any deletion is to make the encyclopedia conform to its standards, the image of "Dana" in the gallery ought to be deleted.--Davidbena (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In yet another WP policy, WP:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images, we read: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. For example, photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy."--Davidbena (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As several people told you already, you need to provide proof that it causes unnecessary astonishment. You said yourself that your claim about "99.9%" is just your own guess, and this is not a proof. Nor is it "simple good sense". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In Davidbena's defense, Orthodox Jews have made an argument against Sharon's inclusion in the Eurovision as Israel's representative. However, the argument of "offensiveness" doesn't have clear mainstream support (if you wish to show otherwise, you have to source it). Best I have seen, she's been embraced by mainstream Israel despite the offense of the above mentioned (which include a fraction of Yemenites as well). Sharon's lack of promotion of Yemenite culture (other than being a notable singer) is the only source-substantiated argument in this case. However, I'm not aware the journalist I mentioned or the Olympic medalist made any notable contributions based on Yemenite culture either. Davidbena, you have to provide real, mainstream sources with the 'offensive' argument. Otherwise it comes off badly and people will jump to conclusions about you. Heck, people are jumping on my case as well, for daring to say Palestinians in Gaza are under the rule of an antisemitic organization -- hence I "must have the intention" (not a direct quote) to portray all of them as antisemitic (I'm here one month and this has happened twice already). Take it easy, ask for other opinions but try to listen as well. If people ask for sources to your statement (a valid request when dealing with an encyclopedia) -- try to find a couple. Anyway, I believe focusing on this issue should be side stepped by moving along with step (a) of making a better list and adding voices from the Israel-knowledgeable editors (Found it here--Davidbena, are you ok with this suggestino?). Davidbena has made an exceptional contribution adding the Mawza Exile article but I'm not sure of his wider understanding of Israeli pop-culture (no offense intended) or the fact that English Wikipedia requires sources when a statement has a chance to be contested. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I think it will stand under the scrutiny of any Wikipedian who looks at this policy with a critical demeanor, is that there is no need to bring down, both, source material and rational arguments when objecting to a photo. According to WP policy guidelines, all that is necessary is to “provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions" (ibid.). There is no doubt in my mind that the general Yemenite Jewish public here in Israel is averse to having a photo of a Transgender displayed on a page that treats on their history and ethnicity in general. Please take note of the criterion here for choosing images: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." This one criterion does not apply in our case, since the photo's exclusion will in no way make the article less informative, relevant or accurate. Furthermore, WP guidelines specifically call out for the following: "we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible."

In seeking a resolution of this dispute, I call your attention also to Wikipedia's policy, expressly stated in WP: Offensive material: “Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.” With that stated, there is no doubt that we, as editors, have multiple options to choose from which are far less offensive.---Davidbena (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You say: There is no doubt in my mind that the general Yemenite Jewish public here in Israel is averse to having a photo of a Transgender displayed on a page that treats on their history and ethnicity in general.

There is such a doubt in my mind. Please speak for yourself. Don't speak for hundreds of thousands of people. At the very least show me an opinion poll. Until you do, it will be "most offensive" only to you. (Have you read the article Argumentum ad populum already?)

The article will be less informative without this image, because this is one of the most internationally notable Yemenite Jews. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why deny the truth of offensiveness? Go out and ask the ordinary Yemenite in Israel if he or she is proud to see their ethnic group represented by a photo of Dana International! It seems that some people live in denial, while some are not at all bothered by the fact that they insult an entire ethnic group. I will remind you that the article's main objective is NOT to portray "notoriety", which if that were its objective, you would be right, and Dana's photo should not be excluded from the gallery. Notoriety, mind you, can be achieved in many ways - both good and bad. Since our topic is not about notoriety, the exclusion of Dana's photo doesn't make the article less informative.Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the picture. This is a deeply offensive RFC, and I would caution anyone from making further comparisons between transgender people and serial killers. No valid, policy-based reasoning has been provided, and the subject seems to qualify for the criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete the picture. There is nothing more offensive than forcing something down other people's throats in total disregard for other people’s feelings, those who sense shame by such a representation. I’m speaking specifically about those who belong to this particular ethnic group. Doesn't shame mean anything to you?

By the way, when I say "delete it," and you say "keep it," these words mean very little, since this is not an actual "headcount," but merely a venue for discussing a problematic issue related to the article and trying, by way of consensus (although not limited to that) to reach a just conclusion based on WP policies. For your information: One of the policies of Wikipedia states that "Admins should not perform a 'headcount' when closing a debate, but should give appropriate weight to comments that provide the most convincing arguments based on policy." See: Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument#Weighting arguments--Davidbena (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People who should be in the photos

MarciulionisHOF suggested reconsidering the people who are in the photos, not just because of potential offensiveness, but because of relevance and notability.

I agree with his suggestion in general and with some of the people that he brings up, but I can see very few ways in which we could actually do that.

• Shalom Shabazi and Ben-Dror Yemini would be excellent, but we don't have a Free image.
• Boaz Mauda is the least notable of the singers that are currently represented, and bringing people of other professions is a good idea. The one I could find most easily is Gila Gamliel, whose photo already appears further in the article. It can move to the top and replace Mauda.
• Eyal Golan is controversial, but very popular. I'd argue that Zohar Argov is historically far more important than Eyal Golan is, so it would be great to have his photo at the top, but the photo of Argov that we have in the article is not Free, and this should be avoided.
• Dana International should remain. She is very notable internationally and does exhibit Yemenite identity; sources are easy to google.
• Amnon Yitzhak should remain. He's very controversial, and certainly not representative of all Yemenite Jews, but he's very popular.
• Some more notable names I could add are Galit Giat, Esther Gamlielit, Rachel Nadav, Bracha Tzfira and Yisrael Kessar, although I could only find an English Wikipedia article about the last person in this list (his image can be copied from the Hebrew Wikipedia).

So the only possibly actionable item I can thing of now is replacing Boaz Mauda with Gila Gamliel.

And I'll repeat yet again, that I don't find photo collections that represent ethnic very important in the first place. Writing articles about Esther Gamlielit and Bracha Tzfira is far more important than having these arguments. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Thank you for starting a list and adding a couple names of worthy consideration (e.g. Gila Gamliel, Rachel Nadav, Israel Kessar). I disagree with a few of your preferences and I think it a good idea to separate opinions and discussion from the list itself. Would help reduce confusion to available options -- I believe the best way to get long lasting agreement on the final list is to open a list for discussion and possibly a vote through the Israel wikiproject page. Are you in agreement about this suggestion? It would certainly be more long lasting the the consensus achieved by 2-3 editors. Might help to bring more names of great importance to light. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a vote of course, but feel free to raise this in any relevant discussion forum. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of diverting our topic to a "side-issue," without first resolving the main issue, namely, the inclusion or exclusion of Dana International's photo in a gallery on a page that speaks in general terms on history and ethnicity. Based on WP policy (WP:Offensive material), the photo that causes offense to some ought to be replaced by one that doesn't cause offense, especially given the fact that the exclusion of Dana's photo in that gallery doesn't make the article any less informative, relevant, or accurate: “Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to 'show off' possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.” Wikipedia policy is clear here and ought to be upheld. See also WP:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images.

Insistence that Dana’s photo remain in the gallery because of his/her sexual identity runs parallel to, or is clandestinely akin to, WP:NOTADVOCATE, where one of the first rules is to avoid “the promotion of a subject.”--Davidbena (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This article's main objective is NOT about portraying "notoriety," which if that were its objective, you would be right, and Dana's photo should not be excluded from the gallery. Notoriety, mind you, can be achieved in many ways - both good and bad. Since our topic is not about notoriety, the exclusion of Dana's photo doesn't make the article less informative.--Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Image use policy, "images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." With this view in mind, if a collage is meant to be a representation of the whole, then the picture of Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") is out of place. The insertion of that one photo does not aid in helping the reader's understanding of the subject, especially in light of the fact that it is controversial and arouses certain associations, and tends more to "discredit" an ethnic group. The image of Dana is not relevant to the article, other than the fact that “Dana” is a Yemenite. It is not, however, a photo needed in response to the article’s subject-matter of history and general ethnicity. Note this. Moreover, in WP:Conflict of interest we are duly informed about Wikipedia policy that “advocacy of any sort within articles is prohibited by our policies on WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and what Wikipedia is not.” So far, those contesting that Dana’s photo should remain in the gallery do so merely on grounds that we should all be tolerant towards Transgenders. This view, in itself, negates Wikipedia’s policy on advocacy.--Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You realize that your grasping at straws makes it even more unlikely that anyone will listen to your tripe, right? Conflict of interest, indeed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Neil, I am hoping that there are some people of reason here who will uphold Wikipedia policies and not permit one photo to cause our Yemenite Jewish readership a general sense of unease, if I might humbly say so. As for me, from the very start, I have been loathe to argue these points in an open-debate - precisely because of the harsh words that would be thrown back and forth. Still, I think that it is in the best interest of all concerned that we, as editors, make a point of being considerate of other people's feelings.--Davidbena (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy against permitting a photo to cause our readers "a general sense of unease". If there were, we couldn't have any representations of Muhammad, photos of genitalia, paintings of nudes, or even pictures of mixed-race couples or children (because racists are readers too, right?). Since you didn't get this the first time, I'll repeat it: Articles are not written to make the subject or fans (to use a generic term) of a subject happy or comfortable or proud. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is understood as far as non-censorship is concerned (e.g. whenever the image is directly related to the page's content and "its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate"). Here, in our case, it is different. WP guidelines in WP:Offensive material are unequivocal: "...Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." So if this photo is not preferred over a non-offensive image, let us choose one that is non-offensive.--Davidbena (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena, this image is not offensive. You are the only one who claims that it is. Please stop repeating that. It doesn't get you anywhere and it wastes our time. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose to someone who was born in Moscow or in Washington, D.C. of European Jewish ancestry it would not be so offensive, Amir. But to someone who is related to the Yemenites (as I am), and to those Yemenite Jews who are most likely to visit this page, the photo of "Dana" in the gallery tends to flout the good character and decency of the vast majority of Yemenite Jews.--Davidbena (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena while everybody recognizes that you have strong feelings about this, the stance you are advocating here is a violation of the Wikipedia policy, WP:NOTCENSORED. That is absolutely clear. David I am sorry but you need to stop. And if you try to delete the image, you will be reverted, and if you keep trying to delete, you will eventually be blocked for WP:EDITWARRING and may eventually be banned altogether. There is no way forward for you on this issue. So let it go. I suggest that others stop responding to David's arguments so that they just die off. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, First, let me allay your fears. I will not delete the bad photo, but will leave this to the discretion of an administrator or steward. Secondly, you stand to be corrected. While there is a policy of WP:NOTCENSORED, this only applies to where the material or image, if removed, will make the article less informative, relevant or accurate. This does not apply to the image that we are discussing here. However, WP policies are also meant to be taken together as a whole - rather than in part. Another WP policy (see: WP:Offensive material) states explicitly: "...Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." --Davidbena (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your position is not correct. I will not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As editors, we ought to be inclined to uphold the position of Wikipedia, and nothing more.--Davidbena (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC: I've removed the RFC tag from this discussion because the RFC request was malformed. David, please feel free to restart it but first please read and follow the instructions here carefully. (Also, David, please also realize that administrators and stewards have no special right to add or delete text or images from an article.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: There's already an open RFC above on much the same topic. The opening statement definitely does not conform to the instructions (statement should be neutral and brief). If another RFC is opened, that one should be closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Yep, you're right, duh. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will not yet start a new RFC, although I may do so in the future, in which case I will close the former one. Or, perhaps, I'll just add a neutral statement at the top of this discussion, and close the former one. Meanwhile, let's see how this progresses.-Davidbena (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea for you to close an RFC you started or to turn an already existing discussion into a RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your advice is taken and will be heeded by me. I'm still learning, I guess you can say. Thanks.--Davidbena (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena I want to warn you that the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons ("BLP"), says: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts." Dana International is a living person, and in my view, much of what you write about her and her image is a violation of BLP. I warn you to avoid making negative, unsourced statements about her or her image, which is a simple headshot that on the face of it, with no knowledge of who is portrayed, is indistinguishable from any other headshot of a man or a woman; your comments about the image are therefore actually about her. If you continue as you have been, you are very likely to be blocked or banned. I will actually see to that myself. Here, within Wikipedia, your pursuit to remove her image is completely incorrect and so are your arguments. Stop. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Without any personal offense, I think that you've taken WP:BLP out of context. Can you please cite specific references to what you are saying? The Yemenite Jews article speaks only in general terms about Yemenite Jewish ethnicity & history, and does not specifically make a point of speaking about biographies of living persons, although as an incidental side-story in the main text of the article - if such a story is deemed relevant or important - they are free to do so. Obviously, photos in a gallery are not meant to be BLP's, since some of them are already deceased. The purpose of a gallery is to give the general public an idea as to the community's general make-up, or representation. In choosing such pictures, we should be sensitive to the feelings of the ethnic group whom the photo-collection wishes to portray. Keep in mind, also, that Wikipedia guidelines and/or policies were never meant to collide with each other, e.g. WP:Offensive material and WP:BLP.-Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am addressing your remarks characterizing Dana International, a living person (an actual human being) here on the Talk page. I think you will find it is impossible to make your argument without making denigrating statements or claims about her. Saying that her headshot is "offensive material" is denigrating. The next time you denigrate her, I am bringing administrative action against you. THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING. STOP. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Arbcom Manning case, which Davidbena has been pointed to, also has a relevant remedy: "All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a saying in Judaism: Decorum (good manners) came before the giving of the Law = דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה (Midrash Rabba, Vayikra Rabba 9:3). It is true also in our case here. (smile) - Davidbena (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

David, if you apply that saying to the way you are treating Dana International, a real human being, you would be showing some wisdom. :) As well as saving your wikipedia editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, "assuming good faith" is one of the well-known maxims often repeated here, on Wikipedia. Of course "Dana" is a real human-being, albeit a controversial one. My sole objective is to improve this article, so that it will not come across - in any way, shape or form - as being "offensive" to the Yemenites whom it speaks about. If the Yemenites feel ashamed about being represented with "Dana's" photo, there is a provision in Wikipedia's policy to have the photo replaced by a less offensive one.-Davidbena (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Our edits pretty much crossed, so I will treat this in parallel with my warning of a few minutes ago. Again I say to you, calling a simple headshot of Dana International "offensive" is denigrating. Do not do it again; do not denigrate her any way. This too is a LAST WARNING. STOP. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

When people come together to discuss whether or not a photo is appropriate or that its posting on WP might infringe upon another policy belonging to Wikipedia, we do not turn around and use the argument, "Wait! You can't speak negatively about that image since that would be tantamount to abrogating WP policies outlined in WP:BLP!" The logic here is wrong, my friend.-Davidbena (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not replying. This is done. We do not have conversations in which we violate policy. That is neither rational nor collegial nor civil; it is just wrong. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to all parties: Can we bring down the intensity here? I've asked an administrator, Writ Keeper, who I know to be calm and level-headed, to take a dispassionate look at this. I believe all parties can rely on him to take a fair approach and make a fair assessment. I'm going to ask all the existing parties to just hold in place and hold off on further edits or discussion here for 24 hours (until 21:00 UTC on 3 Oct, let's say) to give him a chance to weigh in. If he's not done so by then, we can agree on some other sysop or go to AN and request someone else, but that's an escalation I'd prefer to avoid. (If new editors comment in the interim, let's just let them have their say but refrain from response for the time being.) Everyone here is a good editor and we don't need to bring out the knives if we don't have to do so. If you agree no response is needed; just don't edit. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena's behavior is completely out of line with regard to BLP and Arbcom and it is not ambiguous. (the urging to violate WP:NOTCENSORED is bad, the WP:IDHT is bad, but I don't think either are actionable; the violations of BLP and the Arbcom ruling here on this Talk page definitely are.) The admin can do as he or she sees fit; now that I have warned davidbena, I will bring action against him if he violates BLP and the Arbcom ruling one more time. He will not have a leg to stand on. I can't believe you all let this ugliness go on so long. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I went through and pulled out a bunch of difs. See here

Davidbena received notice of the arbcom discretionary sanctions [1] back on Sept 29 and plowed ahead anyway for 3 more days. This is finished. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

“ I think it's time for us to recognize the differences we sometimes fear to show. ” — Rush, "Entre Nous"

I have closed the above RfC early; keeping it open was almost certainly going to cause harm, and there was almost no possibility of change arising from it.

@Davidbena: This is an official warning from me with my admin hat on. Some of your comments here are violating BLP and you absolutely must not continue saying them. Most notably, you absolutely cannot continue comparing transgender people to serial killers. I understand the rhetorical point you are trying to make (that Yemenite Jews don't want to be represented by a transgender person any more than anyone else would want to be represented by a serial killer), but you made that point long ago; do not repeat it. I hope and trust that I do not have to explain why it is an invalid and deeply problematic comparison; if nothing else, consider the fact that, while the offensiveness of transgender people may vary between cultures, there is no such variation in the detestation of serial killers. The two aren't even remotely comparable, so do not compare them any more. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it if you were to go back and strike all of those comparisons. I'm not going to force you to do so, but I think it would be a really good idea, and if you refuse, I would not be opposed to another editor going through and doing it for you; either way, I am prepared to back it through revision deletion. Make no mistake: continuing to use these comparisons will result in a block. I don't think that you should be disallowed from having this discussion altogether, but you desperately need to find another way to express yourself.

Other editors: It seems to me that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Yes, some of the things Davidbena is saying are deeply offensive. But not everything is; tolerance is a two-way street, and I for one don't believe that anyone who expresses their opinion that they, or even a group to which they belong, find transgender people distasteful is violating BLP. They are entitled to their outlook on the world, and as long as we don't let these outlooks unduly influence the mainspace articles, we should not be so quick to condemn them. Davidbena, though we think he is misguided, is discussing things on the talk page. The BLP stuff absolutely needs to be cut out of it, but the fact that there is a discussion at all here means that the system is at least somewhat working. So cool your proverbial jets, please. I totally understand why people are getting this heated about it, and I'm not blaming anyone for that, but I really do think that cooler heads are not prevailing as much as they should be here.

The RfC: The consensus is clear. I understand Davidbena's central thesis, but it is built on a flawed foundation. His argument is that, since these images are meant to represent the "average" Yemenite Jew, it is offensive to imply that many Yemenite Jews are transgender (since Dana International is representative of them). Now, whether some of the assumptions about who will take offense to what are true or not, this argument is flawed, because the premise that these images are meant to represent the Yemenite Jewish population as a whole is not true. It is not intended to be a representative sample of the Yemenite Jewish population. And we can see this in the examples of Stalin on the Georgian page and Hitler in the Austrian page. Those two are examples of something that probably almost everyone would be offended at--which, please note, is NOT true of transgender people!--if they were said to be representative of their ethnicity. (Well, at least Hitler, for the most part; I hear that Stalin still has his supporters.) But it doesn't matter, because that's not what these boxes are for. These image boxes simply display a selection of notable people of that ethnicity. They're not representative. In this respect, an image of Dana International serves quite well; she is notable, has her own article, and is mentioned in this article. An image of her in the box is as appropriate as one of anyone else in the article. People may or may not be offended by this, but even if that is so, WP:NOTCENSORED actually does cover us quite well. Quite simply: we do not exclude people based on their gender identities here, and that is as it should be. If someone wants to have a discussion about replacing her image with that of someone they feel is better suited, they can do so--in a new thread, please, and with sources and evidence to back their opinions. But the answer to the question of "should we remove this person because they are transgender?" is a simple, correct, and resounding "no".

I don't even know if this makes sense anymore, but I'm tired of looking at it, so it's what y'all are gonna get. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for wading through all the ugliness. that is not fun. wrt to my behavior and analysis. i am very very aware of the two way street. if davidbena had restricted himself to saying "i am uncomfortable with an image of this person being in the gallery" or even "having an image of this the person in the gallery is offensive to me" -- that would have been OK with me - those are statements of his feelings, and he is owning them and being direct (and it makes it super clear that the answer we all have given him is the only answer we can give - not censored, with sensitive acknowledgement that we are sorry he is offended. that is how i responded to him User_talk:Jytdog#Request_for_Intervention on my talk page when he asked me the question.) as you noted, davidbena has only the narrowest path he can tread and in almost every comment he strayed from it. On the extreme end of the bad behavior, of course I agree with you. In the range of statements that you see as ambiguous, statements that "the image is offensive" are wrong on three levels - 1) there is nothing offensive about the image, which is very simple -- the issue is the person represented; pulling away the metonymy, we are left with the flat statement that "she is offensive". 2) the statement is a factual statement in the indicative voice - "the image is offensive". 3) no source was provided. this is a clear violation of BLP and the arbcom ruling. similarly, the claims that "the image is offensive to the community of yemenite jews" have the same three problems and are also violations. that's how i read it. behavior-wise, in my view having this discussion go on 3 days, in that way, is a stain on wikipedia, and that needed to stop. full stop. i acknowledge i took strong action but he had ignored all suggestions and gentle nudges and even warnings without teeth. So he got a warning with teeth. and so far he has respected that. My warning still stands. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

People in top-right of article: Relevancy vs. quantity

In less than two months the number of people pictured has doubled, currently at a dozen. There's no problem with a dozen pictures (although the way it's going it would seem appropriate that there be a reasonable limit), but more pointedly, although some of the people presented are Yemenites who have Yemenite blood, many are not noted (per their respective Wikipedia articles) for any noteworthy or non-noteworthy contribution of a Yemenite nature; in fact, some are Mizrahi singers. Not that non-Yemenite contributions aren't of value, but they don't appear to be of such relevancy that they be showcased at the top of an article focusing on Yemenite contributions, especially when there are several people besides them pictured. Just because someone may be classified as a Yemenite Jew (see Category:Yemenite Jews) doesn't by extension make them particularly relevant to this article. If so, we could include even more people such as Ben-Dror Yemini and more. At least if the people in question were born in Yemen (e.g., Zecharia Glosca) it could be argued that it is fitting to mention them (even put their picture at the top?), but when they appear to never have had a "Yemenite" upbringing to begin with, their relevancy to this article seems less than negligible (as well as, I would argue, putting an undue focus on blood). Again, this is not to minimize their contributions, but to recognize that their place is not at the top of this article.

• Accordingly, I will delete the following, as they are not relevant to this article, notwithstanding their Yemenite birth. If blood were the criteria we could include many more pictures. Quantity vs. relevancy.
  • The Boaz Mauda article has the word Yemenite appearing only once ("He is of Yemenite Jewish descent") and notes that he sang Mizrahi songs, among other non-Yemenite contributions.
  • Same for Gali Atari: Only one mention of the word Yemen ("Her parents immigrated to Israel from Yemen"). She has a variegated singing history including participation "in the Hassidic Song Festival" but no note of contributions of a Yemenite nature.
  • Eyal Golan: Only mention of the word Yemenite being "singer of Yemenite and Moroccan Jewish origins." Moreover, he is noted to be a Mizrahi singer.
  • Likewise, Harel Skaat is half Yemenite and doesn't appear to have made contributions of a Yemenite nature.
  • Dana International was "born in Tel Aviv to a Jewish family of Yemenite and Romanian descent" but is not noted for contributions of a Yemenite nature.
• I propose that the following be deleted, but - so as to avoid possible contention - I would like to ask for prior consent. More than the above-mentioned individuals, the Wikipedia articles for the following either make mention (albeit scant) of Yemenite contributions or don't appear to indicate that the individual had a preference for non-Yemenite traditions (e.g., Mizrahi singing).
  • Achinoam Nini's article makes perfunctory note of a sole Yemenite contribution in the sentence "Noa has recorded songs in Arabic, English, French, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Spanish, Thai and Yemenite." Although this is noteworthy, it doesn't seem so outstanding as to merit her image framed at the top of this article.
  • Shahar Tzuberi is of Yemeni descent, but aside from blood there seems to be no particular relevancy to this article.

So as to maintain neutrality, I will sort the images by date of birth. Any other suggestions are welcome. Contributor613 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

we just went though a very long and ugly discussion of the pictures. see the archives. Strongly suggest you leave the pictures alone for a while. a very long while. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jytdog. This should be left as it was. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided a detailed justification above. Instead of writing "NO. very bad idea" a response relevant to the current proposal (as opposed to referring me to a discussion involving discrimination which has nothing to do with the current proposal) would be appreciated and appropriate. Contributor613 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

my edit also said "see Talk". See above. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of that and noted the talk involving discrimination and that it has nothing to do with my proposals, for which I provided clear justifications which you seem to be ignoring. Contributor613 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I really mean this. Davidbena made a nuclear wasteland out of this issue. it is toxic. leave it alone. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not responding to the points that I proposed. Davidbena wrongly made an issue with discrimination, whereas the issue which you are asking me to "leave it alone" has nothing to do with discrimination, as I cogently presented above. For which of the points I made, if any, do you have a cogent and relevant objection to? This is not the first time I am editing the pictures; on 26 August 2014 I added Bracha Qafih. I would appreciate it if you would show the neutrality necessary to respond to different issues objectively; can you do this? To word it differently, imagining that the nonsense that Davidbena went ahead with never occurred, would you also block this edit? Because as everyone can see the edits I proposed are not connected to Davidbena's discrimination in any way, shape, or form. Contributor613 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Gee that would be a great world, where we could just imagine that terrible acts of bias and degradation just never happened. What else shall we just forget? It is not happening now. The conversation is over. Let it lie for a while. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Most importantly you are going to need consensus to make a change to the pictures, and you are not going to get it. So just on a sheer political level (beyond the tastelessness of what you are doing), it is a lead balloon. Let it go. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that my proposal improved the article, as I originally explained. As I don't have the time or inclination to deal with edit wars by Jytdog, this is to note that Jytdog refused to address the topic at hand. Additionally, no one has presented a single objection to the points I originally brought up. I hope this will be revisited after Jytdog's cloudy judgment subsides and not, as Jytdog suggested, a very long while. I am disappointed that Jytdog does not share my view of Wikipedia being a "great world" where he can exercise the neutrality necessary to respond to each issue objectively. Contributor613 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

yes per that link there are no deadlines and you have demonstrated a complete lack of taste and sense in rushing to revisit the picture issue, that I too find disappointing. thank you for dropping this. that, i appreciate very much! Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above I did not "rush to revisit the picture issue" as you're making me out to have done (stating that "I demonstrated a complete lack of taste and sense in rushing to revisit the picture issue"), but I did so independent of the talk involving discrimination which you referred to (which I had not originally followed and was never a participant to); my edit was simply a logical and somewhat comprehensive continuation of my above-mentioned edit from about two months ago where I added a relevant picture. Had you shown objectivity, not confusing different people with each other, you wouldn't be making such tasteless accusations against me. As I originally explained, it is logical that pictures on the top of the "Yemenite Jews" page specifically be characters who people can click on and thereupon learn more about the topic at hand (Yemenite Jews). I felt I had to write a response so people wouldn't get a wrong impression from your mis-characterization of me on a personal level; as I said, I am disappointed that Jytdog does not share my view of Wikipedia being a "great world" where he can exercise the neutrality necessary to respond to each issue objectively. Jytdog, you're welcome "for dropping this."

Note to archiver, for the purposes of fostering objectivity and impartiality this section needs to be revisited after some time, so please don't archive this from the talk page just because 21 days or a few months have passed. Contributor613 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

archiving is automated and based on dates alone; the bot will not notice your request. I am very aware that you are not davidbena and haven't confused you with him or anyone. Above you wrote "I was aware of that" discussion. However you frame the new one, you were aware of the former one.Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As anyone can see above, I wrote "I was aware of that" after you stated "my edit also said 'see Talk'. See above." in reference to an earlier "see the archives" message of yours. I can't believe you continue to take things out of context. Actually, considering the negative spin you're putting on things, I await archival of this back and forth. Contributor613 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Need a section on Yemenites in modern Jewish culture

I think this article needs a section on the influence that Yemenite Jewery has had on modern Israeli and Jewish culture. Any ideas on what could be added for this?--EhavEliyahu 17:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio problems

I removed the "Operation Magic Carpet" section. Aside from neutrality and accuracy problems, the section was taken from this web site [2].

Looking throught the article's history, I noticed the same user who added "Operation Magic Carpet" section also added most or maybe all of the other content. Therefore, the entire article may be consisting (or partly consisting) of plagiarized content. Perhaps there needs to be a complete rewrite of the article to best ensure that there are no copyvio problems?? --Inahet 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I am the one you are referring to. I added that information a while back, but didn't have the time to do some edits, but for the most part I linked the areas where some of the information came from. In terms of the Magic carpet information, there was someone who mentioned they were going to re-write the information based on what they know of the situation. I have more time now so I can do some re-writes of the information.

In terms of additional sources, what information exactly do you feel is not sourced?--EhavEliyahu 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot take the work of others and place them in a Wikipedia article. Even attributing the information by adding a link to the source is not going to make it okay. You can paraphrase or even take direct quotations but you must attribute it to the source directly. If you use the web site as a reference/source to write the section in your own words, then there is no need to attribute it directly, just place a link under Sources or References. If your intent was to use this information as a reference for which you plan to write on the subject, create a sub page of your user page and paste the information there. When you're done, you can add your material to this article.

"In terms of additional sources, what information exactly do you feel is not sourced?" I was hoping you would tell me what was copied. At this point I think you should remove all the information taken from other web sites. Needless to say, you can use them as sources but you cannot copy the work directly. --Inahet 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken out the two sections that were copied. I am now going in and added the sources for the other informaiton in the article. I will finish added the sources tomorrow and will work on a revised version of the Operation Magic Carpet--EhavEliyahu 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Asia in topic

Can this article be moved to History of the Jews in Yemen like all the other similar articles? This way it also fits the template. NYC2TLV 10:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is still valid the way it is. There are articles similar to it like Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Beta Israel, etc.--EhavEliyahu 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adenite Jews

Firstly let me say how well this article has been written and maintained.

I don't know any details about this but I am 100% certain that there are relegious differences between Jews from Aden and Jews from other parts of Yemen (Yemenite Jews). I have been told this by several Adenite Jews. I am sorry that I don't have any details but I just thought that saying something is better than not saying anything about the matter. Hopefully someone reading this will know more than me about the subject and create a new artical about this group of Jews, their history, and religious practices. -- 22:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of similar differences as well from the Jewish community here. Keep in mind that the two communities literally existed in two different countries for some time, and the highland culture of Yemen can be contrasted to the valley culture of the Hadhramaut. Shlomo Mizrahi 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead Links

The table at the bottom, History of the Jews in Asia, contains overwhelmingly dead links to non-articles. Should this be deleted? Shlomo Mizrahi 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

• The following sentence, at the end of the "History of the Community" section, is controversial and significant, and requires appropriate citation if it is to be kept: "They would later be accused of taking the children away from their parents, inoculating the children with secular philosophy, and forcing them to abandon their 2,000+ years traditions of maintaining long peyot and other Orthodox Jewish religious customs." Newacct 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it.--EhavEliyahu 03:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

their present state

i honestly thing their welfare in israel should be included in this article, how they were not easily assimilated to israeli-ashkenazi society and the stories of Yemenite children being stolen during operation magic carpet, as well as their genetic-ethnic relations to yemenite gentiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.33.101 (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I think we should add the "genetic-ethnic relations" information to all the other articles pertaining to other Jewish communities as well. Let's begin with the article on the Jewish community of greatest population: Ashkenazim. They have a section linking their genetic roots to the Middle East, but how about some info. pertaining to their genetic-ethnic relations to European non-Jews?

Yosef [a blonde-hair blue-eyed Jew] ;) Omedyashar 12:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What you can do is go to the Kohen-Levi web-site and they have a lot of information about Ashkenazim and their connection to other Jewish communities. The information I added for this, the Yemenite article, I found on the internet. So there are a number of sources that can be added to the Ashkenazi article.--EhavEliyahu 16:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Satmar affiliated organisation mentioned in the main article is Mifal Chasodim Tovim Ezer L'yehudi Teimon ,46 Main Street Suit 234, Monsey,NY 10952 Tel: (845)629-1882 Fax:(845)774-8653 Rabbi Yitzchok Berel Hershkowitz, Administrator

To donate money for the needy jews in Yemen send to Hatzolas Pleitey Taimon c/o Rabbi Shimshon Hatucka, PO BOX 595, Monsey NY 10952

sanaite?

Whosoever wrote this article introduces the term Sanaite Jews without once explaining what that means.

It means jews who come from Sanaa in Yemen. Jidan 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still in progress so there are a number of things that can be explored in more detail.--EhavEliyahu 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be an excellent addition to add source information pertaining to where details of the legend of the Sanaaite Jews may be obtained. Certainly it is recorded somewhere within their historical writings, correct? LGAcheson 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Remaining Jews in Yemen?

שלום אחיי - I suppose the answer to this question will probably be 'no' (although I hope it won't), but: are there any remaining Jews in Yemen? What conditions do they live and worship in? It'd be good if we can include some information on this in the article! Thx&greetings from foggy Manchester, FreshBreeze 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The information about the Jews who remain in Yemen is sparse. People with travel to Israel or with Israeli passports are not allowed to visit the Jews there. The only Jews allowed in are ones who are anti-Zionist. So there is not going to be a dearth of information about the few Jews who are still there.--EhavEliyahu 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The original ethnic Jews look like these Yemenite Jews (black hair and olive skin), together with the traditional costumes they're wearing. The ones you often see today with ligther complexion with the black suit piece and broad-brimmed hat are the Ashkenazi or Shepardi (European) Jews (e.g. Adam Sandler, Paul Newman, Bitty Schram and Jemima Khan) - as there have been common intermarriage ever since the Jews set foot in Europe. --Fantastic4boy 09:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In answear to your question:As of March 2020 the Jewish Cemetery in Aden was destroyed; as of April 2020 the fate of the last 50 Jews in Yemen was reported to be UnknownOn July 13, 2020 it is reported that the Houthi Milita is capturing the last 100 Jews of Yemen of the Kharif District.On July 13, 2020 it is reported that the Houthi Milita is capturing the last 100 Jews of Yemen of the Kharif District.On July 16, 2020 5 Jews were allowed to leave Yemen by the Houthi leaving 33 Jews in the CountryOn their Website Mona Relief reports that as of July 19,2020 there are only a "handful" of Jews in Sana'a.

GA Status Fail

I note that, though some of the work, required to achieve GA Status, was done, most was not. I regard the outstanding work as being material. I, therefore, have no alternative but to declare that the article has now been assessed as a FAIL.

Tovojolo (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

to continue improving on this, go here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Solution to Arabia vs Saudi Arabia vs Arabian Peninsula

Please see the following articles that should now solve the problems we have been discussing:

• The History of the Jews in Arabia page is now the History of the Jews in Arabia (disambiguation) page (see it to understand the comprehensive nature of the solution and why it is necessary.
• A new main article is now History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula that summarizes the Jewish histories within and connected to the areas of all the present countries in the Arabian Peninsula.
• The History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia is now part of a set of nine articles that relate to the nine countries in the present day Arabian Peninsula, as follows:
  • History of the Jews in Iraq
  • History of the Jews in Jordan
  • History of the Jews in Bahrain
  • History of the Jews in Kuwait
  • History of the Jews in Oman
  • History of the Jews in Qatar
  • History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia
  • History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates
  • Yemenite Jews

• The main category for all the above is now the new Category:History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula which is itself a sub-category of: Category:History of the Arabian peninsula, Category:Jewish history by region, Category:Jews and Judaism in Southwest Asia, Category:Judeo-Islamic topics

This took me a while to write, research and organize, but it was well worth the time and efforts I put into it to create clarity and avoid confusion from now on. Thank you very much, IZAK (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice. I'm thinking we should consider making two separate articles from the Yemenite Jews article: 'History of the Jews in Yemen' which will be linked into the History article list and 'Yemenite Jews' which will have a small history section with a wiki-link to the main History article, and will focus more on culture and features, and also perhaps on the Yemenite Jews who came to Israel. Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Status

The article has passed Sections 5) and 6). Work is needed on Sections 1), 2), 3) and 4).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.

#done segments <-> #needs to be done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

done segments

Y Done segments (click "[show]" to see text)

1) Style Rise of Islam in Yemen section Remove the "to" in "he had to the option" - done Religious traditions section Comma after "observance" - did this instead: [3] Replace "continued to practice" with "continued to practise" - changed to 's' in the subsection where fitting: [4] Add "themselves" after "prostrate" - done Replace "among" with "amongst" - done Dor Daim and Iqshim dispute section Add "the" before "army" - done Replace "had exposed" with "had been exposed" - done DNA Testing section Replace "contrast" with "differ" - done First wave of emigration: 1881 to 1914 section Remove the "as" that appears after "these changes" - done 19th-century Yemenite messianic movements section Joseph Abdallah is a non-existent link. - done JaakobouChalk Talk 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Early history section

• Added sources and corrected older sources for legends. - done --EhavEliyahu (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

needs to be done

2) Accuracy

Early History section

• Entire section needs referencing. You cannot refer to "traditions" or "legends" References must be provided. Where do these legends and traditions come from ? You must have got them from somewhere ? Ensure that the entire section is correctly referenced as per WP:CITET]. Article will fail otherwise.

Yemenite Jews and Maimonides section

• The sentence starting "The average Jewish population,,,,,," does not make sense. How could it have possibly been only 3,000 particularly since the Early History section talks of the Jews actually ruling the country ? Rewrite and re-reference.
• Expand the sentence "When Saladin became sultan,,,,," Why did the trials of the Jews begin if Saladin was in conflict with Shi'ites ? It needs to be explained.
• Give a reference for the claim that the condition of the Jews was "miserable".
• Give a reference for the claim "they were said to have numbered 30,000"

Religious traditions section

• Sad'a is a non-existent link.
• Explain "Ma'lamed"

Form of Hebrew section

• Add a reference for the claim "which he rules is correct"
• Add a reference for the claim *misunderstanding of Saadia Gaon's words"

Writings section

• Expain "after the Spanish school"

DNA Testing section

• Wiki-link "haplotype"

References

• All books listed must have ISBN numbers.

3) Coverage

Write a new section "Yemenite Jews today" divided into two-sub-sections, Yemenite Jews still living in Yemen and Yemenite Jews in Israel. What has happened to them ? Do they face discrimination in Israel and Yemen ? How is the community organised in Israel and Yemen ?

4) Neutrality

References must be found for the "legends" and "traditions" mentioned in the article. If you cannot find the references then delete all mention of "legends" and "traditions". Wikipedia must be fact based.

5) Stability

Article is stable without major edit wars.

6) Photos

Free public domain phtos are used. Good use of photos. No Fair Use photos.

The corrections, as specified above, must be done by 18 December 2007. Contact me when they have been and I shall re-assess.

Tovojolo (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

- first wave done by Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

- breaking into two main segments done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)