This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not here to spread fairy tales on who "could have had Jewish ancestry". If they are explicitly Jewish by official biographical evidence or by self-attestment...fine. But if the people on here would be surprised to see their name on the list - it becomes Wikipedia:NOR. 70.146.75.227 07:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported that a reputable source said that Cervantes might be Jewish. I said nothing about the other people.--Newport 11:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i

The source of this scholarly information is an academic paper which presents nothing but an analysis of the Jewish symbolism in Don Quixote. It says immediately in the header there is no presentable evidence on whether Cervantes mother was really descended from Iberian Jews. It only puts forth the notion that perhaps Cervantes had Jewish ancestry, much like similar academic papers state its possible Columbus was a converso. Please stop violating Wikipedia:NOR by putting Cervantes on this list. 70.146.75.230 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are welcome to examine the source and see what it says. Wikipedia should do no more than quote sources; editors should never delete well-sourced material just because they don't like the conclusions. There are indeed reputable sources such as the Encyclopedia Judaica that say that Columbus might have been Jewish. Shall I add him? Let's not obscure the issue by bringing in Ferdinand and Isabella. --Newport 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all I think the title of this discussion was sarcastic. Secondly, the issue here seems to be that claiming Columbus and Cervantes were descended from jews is an academia matter and not pertinent to their entries here on wikipedia, which I seem to agree with. Whether Columbus or Cervantes had some "jewish" roots really shouldn't matter, and it certainly doesn't make them "Iberian Jews" on the same level as people like Abraham ibn Daud. The truth is, Newport, there are equally as "reputable" sources that say Adolf Hilter had a Jewish ancestry. Yet for some reason I don't think you nor anyone else on here would be apt to adding him to List of Austrian Jews. Whether Cervantes or Columbus were descended from Iberian Jews is a matter of academia and should stay in academia. It is original research to claim someones academic article on the Jewishness of certain non-Jewish-practioneers is fact. Besides, it shouldn't really matter anyway. Neither Cervantes nor Columbus seemed to care much (nor even know) if they had Jewish ancestors, so it hardly qualifies as making a significant impact on their life and work. LaGrange 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaGrange is in good company: 'For him (Juan Goytisolo), the Spanish canon has been "brutally savaged" by persistent taboos, such as refusing to admit that Cervantes might have been a "new Christian" - a Jewish convert during the Inquisition.'

The Guardian (Manchester); Aug 12, 2000; Maya Jaggi; p. 6

The issue is very simple. We have good sources saying that both of these distinguished gentlemen may have been Jewish. We are reporting what these sources say. To refuse to do so on the grounds that you don't like what they say is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. --20.138.246.89 11:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been reiterated at least four or five times before, but you don't get it. Reporting anything that is "original research" on Wikipedia is ...in itself...original research. The "reputable" sources you provide for Cervantes all state that there is no instrinsic proof of Cervantes' Jewish descent. All they state is that Cervantes "could have been" Jewish because of Jewish symbolism in Don Quixote. That would be the equivalent to me writing a nicely made article on how William Shakespeare could have been Jewish and then using that source to add him to List of British Jews. Alright, lets take a deep look at your provided link for Cervantes. Flipping through the article the only mention I've seen of Cervantes and Judaism is here:

"Grossman can list Jewish authors published in Spanish who have yet to be introduced to the English-speaking world, such as Marcelo Birmajer. She also can inveigh on different theories about Cervantes's Jewish connection. (Some scholars believe he is descended from a family of conversos; Grossman explained that "many writers from 16th-century Spain came from converso families.")"

There's identical "scholarly" speculation involving Jewish ancestry of Richard Wagner, Adolf Hitler, etc...

I highly doubt you'd agree to add Adolf Hitler to List of German Jews for the same reason. Or you might, just to prove me wrong. In any case, I can hardly see how your "reputable" source is in any way convincing enough to not qualify as Original Research. But, you seem to think you "own" all Jewish lists so this edit war will inevitably continue into oblivion. LaGrange 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reporting anything that is "original research" on Wikipedia is ...in itself...original research." How? All research is ultimately original, so by that argument Wikipedia would be pretty small. WP:NOR prohibits publishing research on Wikipedia that has not previously been published in a reputable source. Are you denying that the Encyclopaedia Judaica is a reputable source?--20.138.246.89 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm denying its a wholistically neutral and reliable source for this type of information, yes. LaGrange 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"this type" meaning "people of sorta-kinda-maybe Jewish ancestry" LaGrange 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part is true - if a reliable source made this argument, it's irrelevant if any Wikipedia editors think that it was original research on the reliable source's part. If there is reason to doubt their argument, we must say "Source X made this argument". As for the inclusion of these people on this list.... I'm afraid it's true that you have to have a source that says "X was Jewish", not had Jewish ancestry, possibly, etc. Mad Jack 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except some scholar's pet theory on Jewish symbolism in Don Quixote is no more reputable than someone's interpretation of a movie. LaGrange 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that beyond doubt Cervantes or Columbus was Jewish. Editors are reporting what reliable sources say. Anything else would leave readers less informed than they have the right to expect.--20.138.246.89 09:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're all about keeping readers less informed here at Wikipedia. :) Mad Jack 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few people would care if Cervantes and Columbus had a dabble of converso ancestry as it adds absolutely nothing of interest to their lives or work. Nonetheless, wikipedia is not here as a vehicle for boostering some pet theories. Like said, you can find so-called "reputable" sources for Wagner, Hitler, hell...I'm sure there's even a theory Shakespeare was a Jew; I wouldn't put it past people. We're already using a very very open definition for who can count as Jewish and who can't. This is just pushing the boundaries though. Half Jewish..that was acceptable. Jewish by practice..obviously, acceptable. "possibly Jewish" is where the line should be drawn. Otherwise it gets way too silly and people start distrusting these articles, as I am starting to now. By the way, The Christopher Columbus article said that he could have been Basque, so why don't you maintain you beliefs on this type of thing and add him to List of Basques with "possibly Basque ancestry"? LaGrange 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus was sourced to this reference work, and I have now found that Cervantes can be too. This is a standard reference, found in many libraries. Unless LaGrange can find evidence that it is unreliable, the "dubious" tags should be removed. The Columbus article is by the well-respected historian Cecil Roth.--Brownlee 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone say that there is no evidence for these claims when the evidence is given in a standard reference work? It may be that some editors will not be convinced by the evidence, but Wikipedia is not censored. Readers are entitled to know that the evidence exists, and those who are interested can look up the evidence themselves.--Brownlee 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've done some research online and found some references that help out this dilemma. A Discovery Channel special, entitled "Christopher Columbus: Secrets From The Grave" in 2004 collected scientists and Columbus experts and, using DNA testing, proved that Columbus did not have Jewish ancestry. Interestingly, they chartered his ancestry to Catalan ancestors. You can find the page for the television show here: [1] and article on it here: [2]. So basically we can scrap Columbus from this list for good.

As for Cervantes, well unfortunately theres no research or genetics tests conducted on him (probably because theres way less of a dispute on his origins). Since the Encyclopedia Judaica is not online, it would be helpful if you cant quote exactly what is said about Cervantes in it. Unless it explicitly says he's Jewish, its guesswork is pretty much irrelevant. LaGrange 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that we can take a random link quoting controversial research and use it to refute a standard reference work. How can DNA testing disprove Jewish ancestry?--Newport 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you "really doubting" is your personal opinion. And its not just a link, its a Discovery Channel special aired nationally. Since you're not adding Columbus based on his religious belief (its undisputed he practiced Christianity), you're only adding him because he could have ethnic Sephardic ancestry. Ethnicity is based on genetics. Genetics in turn are built on DNA, as everyone knows. A DNA test can thus prove ethnic Sephardic ancestry by tracing certain markers. We can go on and on. And neutrality tag? who? what? Are you deliberately trying to confuse me to death because there's nothing left you can pull out to keep these names on here? It's not a personal feud, its a simple NPOV case. You can add whoever you want on here, and it wouldn't be bad as long as you have a source that says the person is 1) Spanish or Portuguese and 2) undoubtedly Jewish in religion or significant ancestry. LaGrange 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaGrange is losing track of his own edits. His version of 14:07 on 26 July had an NPOV tag even after removing Cervantes and Columbus. The point is, and LaGrange has not refuted it, that some scholars believe that Columbus had Jewish ancestry. That remains the case, even after the Discovery programme [3]. Even the expert on the Discovery program agrees that "It's quite possible that his ancestors were from elsewhere and may have had a different religion."[4]. Unless and until there is a consensus among experts that he was not Jewish, it would be misleading to delete him. If LaGrange insists, we'll keep the NPOV tag and let people read the talk page and decisde for themselves. --Brownlee 09:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you arguing that "we're just stating what reliable sources say." But when a reliable source (a massive televised research project) provides evidence that Columbus was NOT of Jewish ancestry, you disregard it and claim "Oh we're just saying that ONCE he was thought to be Jewish." Give me a break. Its clear you of no intention of removing these names regardless of what evidence conflicts with Encyclopedia Judaica's "we guess Columbus he may have been Jewish" claim. For one thing, you didn't quote the expert fully. If I may:

"What I think can be said with a fair degree of certainty is that he was not Italian, and that he was a Catalan Christian. It's quite possible that his ancestors were from elsewhere and may have had a different religion."

Um..who's ancestors WEREN'T from elsewhere? All Europeans descend from pagan tribes and many of us probably from Middle Eastern Jews as well.

And

"To tell you the truth, I don't really understand how the DNA tests work. Apparently, though, something in the testable chromosome reveals features that are common to ethnic Jews, and apparently the tests revealed that Columbus didn't have them. No scientific tests can tell anything about religion, of course. But there has long been a theory that Columbus was from one of the many families in Spain whose ancestors had converted to Catholicism, and if he had been, and the ancestors had Jewish genes, that should have been revealed by the tests. Thanks for your note."

You say that unless experts form a consensus that Columbus was not Jewish, he remains on this list. The entire point of the special was to gather a panel of experts and form a consensus on who Columbus was. There will always be detractors, that's not the point. We can't add Columbus because "some people still might think he might have had Jewish descendents". That could apply to an un-enumerable amount of people.

Cervantes is another story. We don't know anything about his mother. Here's a quote Cervantes was born in Alcalá de Henares in 1547 and died in Madrid in 1616. His father Rodrigo de Cervantes was a doctor of few means. Nothing is known of his mother Leonor de Cortinas. [5]. Sure, some people SPECULATE his mother may have been Jewish, but as everyone agree there is no evidence. Thus, we can't have him on here. I quote the Jorge Borges article:

Borges responded in "Yo Judío" ("I, a Jew"), where he indicated he would be proud to be a Jew, but presented his actual Christian genealogy (along with a backhanded reminder that any "pure Castilian" just might have a Jew in their ancestry a millennium back).

I don't think you plan to merge List of Spaniards with List of Jews. Though, technically, with the standard you use here, it would work. Immediately at the beginning of the source used to suggest Cervantes had Jewish ancestry via his mother, it states "There will probably be no way to prove Cervantes was a [converso] but the circumstantial evidence is convincing." It is completely acceptable to make some reference in the Cervantes article that some people wonder whether he was converso because of the "Jewish overtone" in his work. And yet, there's a "Catholic overtone" in his work as well. Notabily, The self-inflicted lashings of Cervantes's poem are Catholic and we should not forget Philip II's final acts of charity from the midst of the awful stench ... and just to add to that the fact that he is listed in Catholic Encyclopedia too. If we had a List of Iberian Catholics, we could equally add him there with the same amount of evidence. Since we don't, we're not purporting one religious descent over another. The same rules apply to Crypto-Jew.

We're wasting time arguing over these two names. There's a good amount of undoubtedly Jewish philosophers missing from the pre-expulsion list. LaGrange 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't understand how LaGrange is missing the point. Let me try restating it again. The article states that some authorities believe that Cervantes and Columbus had Jewish ancestry. This is as well-established as almost anything on Wikipedia, especially for Columbus, where it is even in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article does not state that everyone says so. LaGrange brings a reference from 2004 where someone says that Columbus was not Jewish; this does not contradict the article. What he needs to do to prove his point is demonstrate that in the light of recent discoveries, there are no longer any credible authorities who still believe that Columbus had Jewish ancestry. This he has failed to do, and I have produced a recent source that still asserts it. I am not arguing; I am merely asserting WP:V and WP:NPOV. If LaGrange wishes to add more names of undoubtedly Jewish philosophers, I agree that it would be a better use of his time. Good to know that we are in agreement.--Brownlee 10:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point pretty clearly. I only see it as fallacious. To go over a few elements of it:

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're stating that until there's a unanimous consensus that Columbus isn't Jewish, he should remain on this list. Well, you're basically setting up the permanent notion that no matter what, Columbus could "maybe always sorta kinda" be Jewish because a unanimous consensus on everything is an impossibility. There are still people who don't regard the theory of relativity as fact. What you're expecting is implausible. Since you're merely asserting WP:NPOV, why don't you expand the horizons to including Adolf Hitler on List of German Jews for the same reason as Columbus is listed here. Some scholars think he was of Jewish ancestry - what is the difference?

Secondly, your response to the above argument might be that since ONCE scholars thought Columbus may have been Jewish, he should remain on this list. Well then equivalently Frida Kahlo should stay on list of Mexican Jews because people once thought she was Jewish. Again, this isn't sensible.

Now back to where you said my source does not "contradict" your source..you're right, it doesn't, because in order for sources to contradict eachother they have to state opposing conclusions. The source I gave concludes Columbus wasn't Jewish. The sources you gave speculates he could have had Jewish ancestry. In order for someone to be an Iberian Jew, which is what this list is for, we need evidence that they were Jewish (genetically or religiously) not that they could have been according to some avid researchers on the subject. I have a clear cut source that concludes he wasn't, and thus, unless you can find one that says he was in order to contradict mine, their entry on here doesn't work. Now that I think about it, the definition of the list on Crypto-Jews talks about people "suspected" of having converso origins so, you're right, Cervantes and Columbus would work on there (except it doesn't mention how distant the ancestry was. Millions of Spaniards today have converso ancestry). I've made a few adjustments to reflect that. LaGrange 12:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is distorting my position. I have produced very credible sources that say these men may have been Jewish, even the Encyclopaedia Britannica for Columbus. I'm not talking about the sort of silly sources that say that Hitler might have been Jewish. The article says that there are these credible sources. Wikipedia is not censored; it reports what credible sources say. What the article says would only be falsified if it could be demonstrated that there are no longer any such credible sources, because of new evidence. However, despite the 2004 source adduced, there are still such sources. The Frida Kahlo analogy proves my point; I have found no recent sources that still say she was Jewish.--Brownlee 12:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'm not purposely distorting your perspective. I can't help if it comes out that way. The sources on Hitler being Jewish aren't that silly though. They chart his geneology and purport that a certain someone in his ancestry is likely to have professed Judaism. And it's not just Hitler. There are suspicions of the anti-semitic Wagner too. A lot of information on the internet tries to shock and surprise like this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was something on Mel Gibson's dad either (). Again, there's no proof as in the case of Columbus and Cervantes for Hitler, or Wagner, etc. But essentially, there's really no difference. What do you mean by "recent" sources? As far as I know, there isn't any recent researches into the claim that Columbus was Jewish. And there certainly wasn't a such a massive researh project done like in the Discovery Special. The sources which claim Columbus could have been Jewish will never disappear off the face of the internet forever. For that matter, neither will Frida Kahlo information: [6], [7]. LaGrange 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are still serious, credible sources post-2004 who say that Columbus may have been Jewish. I am not saying that they have done further research to rebut the work quoted in the 2004 source. Maybe they are not convinced. But it's original research to speculate on their reasons. - Brownlee 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to state for the record that neither NNDB nor Adherents are reputable sources. NNDB is an info gathering site just like Wikipedia, and makes plenty of errors. Adherents.com is reliable only when it sites a reliable source like a book, etc. Mad Jack 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as for how to settle this it is pretty simple. What does the source say? Does it say "May have been Jewish"? Or "May have had Jewish ancestry"? If may have been Jewish, we can maybe have a special section on this page "Possibly Jewish" or something like that. But if it just says may have had Jewish ancestry, that's a whole different thing and not really relevant, a lot of people may have had Jewish ancestry. Princess Diana may have had Jewish ancestry (See her entry) through the direct maternal line, I doubt you would put her as "Jewish" anywhere Mad Jack 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article quotes sources, and says what the sources say. Wikipedia is not censored; it does not omit information just because people don't like it. It should omit irrelevant information. However, the sources indeedreport that some scholars believe that Cervantes' and Columbus' antecedents influenced their thought and work, so it is relevant to their lives.--Newport 11:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of my comments above, it is censorship to delete perfectly valid and sourced information. It is also unencyclopaedic to mangle the name of Levi ben Gershom so that the link to his article ceases to work. I have therefore reverted both of these changes. --Newport 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on stating "Wikipedia is not censored." You're right. Wikipedia ISN'T censored. That's exactly why we have this information on the Christopher Columbus and Miguel de Cervantes articles. And please don't try to change the argument around by asserting some sort of vandalism on part with the Levi ben Gershom entry. It's clearly a blind revert and if you had brought it to my attention earlier, I would have changed it. LaGrange 16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well and good, so there's no reason not to have the information on Wikipedia. Why then not have it here, where it's relevant. And this isn't the first time you've messed up Levi ben Gershom; look at the history "18:18, 24 July 2006 Newport (Talk | contribs) (readers have the right to see the evidence and make up their own minds; and why mess up the entry for Levi ben Gershom?)"--20.138.246.89 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is pretty much over. Unless you can provide a source that says Columbus was Jewish and one stating Cervantes was Jewish, in contradiction to the researches of the Discovery Channel, we don't add people to lists based on speculations of their ancestry. LaGrange 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is indeed over. The sources provide abundant justification for what the article says. No claim is made that they were undoubtedly Jewish.--20.138.246.89 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put people on lists based on speculations that they could be this or that. We need evidence to prove that they are this or that. You provided some references where people "speculate" if Columbus was Jewish and then backed it up by Columbus' entry in Encyclopedia Judaica (isn't Shakespeare and Dickens on Encyclopedia Judaica too?). I provided information concerning scientific research into the question of Columbus' background whereas DNA tests proved he did not have significant detectable Jewish ancestors. This is "might be Jewish" put up against "isn't Jewish." The outcome is obvious. Secondly, we have some scholars "guessing" that Cervantes may have been Jewish because of "Jewish overtone" in his writings, and yet we have absolutley nothing nada that can tell us whether Cervantes was, in fact, of Jewish ancestry, as we know absolutely nothing about his mother. We do know that he was a practicing Roman Catholic, which is all that can be confirmed. This is a list of Iberian Jews, not people who someone speculates could be of Jewish ancestry. LaGrange 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand any of this. Nobody is saying that Columbus and Cervantes were beyond doubt Jewish. Reputable sources say that some people believe they were, wholly or partly, and that this is relevant because it affected their life and work; Wikipedia has a duty to report that. "isn't (sic) Shakespeare and Dickens on Encyclopedia Judaica too?" No, I find no suggestion in Encyclopaedia Judaica that Shakespeare or Dickens were Jewish. Some people believe they were; finding one source that does not agree does not rebut that. Only a statement that in the light of new evidence, there are no longer any reputable sources that say this would rebut the existing sources. This is not the case, as a new source has been quoted that says Columbus may have been Jewish. However, to avoid any excuses for further attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, I have made a compromise.--Newport 11:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please note that we can't put equal weight on sources saying they "could have been" Jewish as sources saying they aren't, if one is more of a minority view, especially on a list. I can't see anything wrong with a separate article as you have done, though you should probably expand on it. LaGrange 18:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People! Let us not add person to the list just because that person may or may not have some Jewish ancestry. Everybody (person) is descendent of everyone (ethnic groups) - see Most recent common ancestor! I believe a valid criteria is if the person considers himself or herself Jewish or is generally considered as such by almost everyone else. This issue has risen due to the posting of Jorge Sampaio as a Jew (post-expulsion!!!), just because he had a Jewish grandmother. He considers himself a Portuguese with a Jewish grandmother and is considered by the rest of the Portuguese as a Portuguese with a Jewish grandmother or just as a Portuguese! He may be proud of his Jewish ancestry, but he does not considerer himself a Jew! Trust me! I personally know the man! The Ogre 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that he is Jewish in Jewish law; Jews therefore regard him as Jewish. The fact that he is Portuguese in Portuguese law is irrelevant - of course you can be Portuguese and Jewish. Please provide an explicit source where he says "I am not Jewish".--20.138.246.89 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend... First of all let me tell you that it is a bit anoying to be talking to someone who is just an anonimous user. Why don't you became a registered user, as you seem to have good contributions to give to Wikipedia (I always assume good faith!). Second, and regarding the Sampaio "affair", I must remind you that it is Wikipedia's offial policy to have a Neutral point of view perspective on the articles. As such It is not irrelevant to say that by Portuguese criteria Jorge Sampaio is not Jewish! You see, Wikipedia is from everyone for everyone - not just Jews. Notice that I have nothing against the Jews, quite the contrary. I'm not going to revert you, but I'm adding info on him that clearly states the disputed Jewish identity of Sampaio. You wanted sources, well check your own source! In the reference made [8], that refers to an interview Sampaio gave to the Jerusalem Post on the 7th of November, 2003, it is blumtly stated:

Jerusalem Post: I understand that you have Jewish ancestry in your family. What is your personal connection to the Jewish people? Do you consider yourself to be a Jew?.

Jorge Sampaio: My grandmother belonged to a Jewish family that came from Morocco in the beginning of the 19th century. She married a non-Jewish naval officer who later was Foreign Affairs minister. I am naturally very proud of this ancestry and of all those that I call my "favorite Jewish cousins," one of whom is the president of the Lisbon Jewish Community, as I am proud of the ancestry on my non-Jewish father's side. Personally, I am agnostic, and I do not consider myself a Jew; but I am proud, as I said, of my ancestors.

Notice that he only refers to Judaism as a relgion, because ethnically he considers himself as Portuguese. Do you see my reasoning? I hope so. The Ogre 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your courtesy. I am very happy with your solution, though I repeat that there is no contradiction in being Portuguese and Jewish, as his cousins undoubtedly are. I would make the point that I am no more anonymous than you - would I be less anonymous if I created an account called "The Goblin" or something?--20.138.246.89 10:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 20.138.246.89! Of course there is no contradiction between being Portuguese and Jew (just yesterday on the Portuguese public television there was an interview with the photographer Daniel Blaufunks - all his grandparents are German-Polish Jews, and he described himself as "core" Portuguese and a Jew!), as Sampaio's cousins undoubtedly are. I agree. Pity there isn't more of them... The tragedies of Portuguese Jewish history are well known (did you know that during the period of the Inquisition, acess to public and religious offices was often dependent of a cerificate declaring the person not to be "tainted by blood of impure nation"?). Regarding anonymity, the question is slightly different from the one you pose - you see the question is that an IP adress can be used by many different people. When I implied I was not anonymous, I was saying that my wiki-identity is "The Ogre", and when you see that user name, that's always me. Just looking at you IP adress, I don't know if you are the you I have talked before! Well... registered or not, see you around! The Ogre 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you (your IP...) have been around since 10:26, 22 August 2005, with a total of 1576 edits, almost all relating to Jewish issues, so I suppose you are always the same entity (eh! eh!). Came on! Register! You can choose a cool name!! Just kidding. Shalom!(?)! The Ogre 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article and other too broad lists involving HUGE numbers of Jews (List of Ashkenazi Jews, List of Sephardic Jews, etc.) were started, worked on for a little while, and then abandoned. Obviously this list will never come close to even being 50% complete, so I ask: what is the point of even having this list when we already have more specific Jew lists to cover most or all of these people? --WassermannNYC 13:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this too broad? It covers two countries. Which more specifil lists cover Spain and Portugal? --Runcorn 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant List of Ashkenazi Jews and List of Sephardic Jews are needlessly broad. Which is true. Obviously this list itself isn't broad at all. Mehmeda 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think this dispute can be ended quickly with just a few questions answered. After that it becomes obvious what to do.

To Newport and whoever else wishes to give their input:

• Do you think, and can you back up, that the theories on the converso origins of Columbus and Cervantes are majority views? And just for clarification purposes, a majority view would be one that is generally held as the mainstream truth, even if there are viewpoints opposing it.

• Does having converso ancestors denote that the person in question is worthy of being called Sephardic Jewish (also read: Iberian Jewish, for the purpose of this list)? I ask this because even if you take the converso origin theories to hold water, it would only pertain to Columbus' mother's father's family, and Cervante's mother's family. What expands "family" we'd have to look up.

• Is there reason to believe the references on Columbus having Jewish ancestors are stronger than those that write he was Italian, Basque, and Catalan? If so, where could we find this?

So, hopefully if these questions are answered in the way I expect them to be, the point I've tried but failed to make becomes clearer. The point, is, in part, that.. "..to give undue weight to a significant-minority view..might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute"... and that although this is a perfectly legitimate minority view, as a minority view you can only write about it in articles pertaining to minority views on the subject. Or in other words, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them... But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth..." In which case, all these good references that we dug up in the process of talking about this can be used to embellish and improve the already lacking Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, and create the completely missing Miguel de Cervantes#Origin Theories. So lastly, does anyone have a big problem with moving it to the articles based on the theories and if so why? Mehmeda 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not invent language. A majority view is one held by the majority of experts, not necessarily an overwhelming majority. To describe a majority as a "significant-minority" makes no sense. Judaism is often an ethnic category. Nobody would suggest that you have to demonstrate that someone was a practising Jew to put him in this list, only that he had Jewish ancestry. We report what reliable sources say - if there are such sources saying that he had Jewish ancestry, we say so. Anything else is either original research or forcing a point of view. And this is a placve to report such facts, which is not to suggest that they should not go elsewhere.--Newport 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about with your "Please let's not invent language" point. Maybe you read it wrong. Anyway, you're pussyfooting the questions and not answering them. You didn't say if you believe the theories are majority views or mainstream, nor have you proved that they are. And if they're not, you're not giving a justification for why you're allowed to breach WP:NPOV#Undue Weight and WP:Fringe theories policies and guidelines for how to deal with non-mainstream viewpoints. You also didn't answer the third or fourth questions at all. You write "And this is a placve to report such facts" suggesting that now Cervantes and Columbus having Sephardic backgrounds are facts. Since when was that established? Wikipedians do report what reliable sources say, and in this case the reliable sources say a common minority view is that Columbus and Cervantes have Sephardic ancestors. On the other hand, you're reporting that Columbus and Cervantes DO have converso backgrounds and, in turn, ARE Sephardic Jews. Do you not see the difference? You also write "Anything else is either original research or forcing a point of view." What is "anything else"? You're not being clear. And how is assuming the theory of Columbus' Jewish origins are more legitimate than others not forcing a point of view on your part? If you're not going to directly address the problem and instead act like there isn't one then Mediation is a complete waste of time and this will never be resolved. The last question is also important for understanding where you're coming from at all. You haven't mentioned once why in WP:NPOV the policy for dealing with non-mainstream viewpoints can be completely ignored. Mehmeda 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like spanish i am there's a lot of people in this list that never had saw anywhere neither talking about it. I think there's a little magnificied the relevancy of some of these persons in the list. PD: Excuse my english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.58.250 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following diff had a lot of links deleted from the page. Many of them could be easily sourced with the links available in their respective articles. Diego (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit that removed most of the list

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Iberian Jews. 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/20151117034514/http://www.elpueblodeceuta.es/201003/20100301/201003016101.html to http://www.elpueblodeceuta.es/201003/20100301/201003016101.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]