Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Merge Proposal

There is currently a discussion to merge Ashkenazi intelligence into this article. Please discuss the matter on Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence, where I have created a section, outlining all of the current issues raised. ScienceApe (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Why propose this a second time? The last time [1], only two editors from this page voiced an opinion (Debresser and Avi), and they were against the proposal. Unless there is a new, clear consensus in favor of a move, then I hope that you won't bring this up every few months. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion, except to note that this article already violates WP:SIZE. What would you recommend cutting to make room for the material from Ashkenazi intelligence? David.Kane (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10)."

The assertion:

"Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10)."

at the end of the first paragraph has no basis in fact; and it should be deleted from the article.

Merging Ashkenazi intelligence back into the article

Since being forked from this page[2], the article Ashkenazi intelligence seems to have fallen by the wayside. Specifically, the discussion about whether or not to merge the article back into this one has stagnated. Additionally, the tag at the top of this article seems to have been removed from this article, but left dangling on the other. I've added it back in hopes that this can be resolved sooner than later. Here is the previous discussion [3]. A.Prock 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the more specific article discussion page. The tag is dangling there now because you put it back and the only resolve you seem to accept is merging; cf. appropriate discussion page; sincerely, 217.236.231.90 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, most editors thought merging made sense. At that point, the process stalled. Once the decision has been made to do the marge, what's the next step in the process? A.Prock 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 217.236.231.90 that the specific article's talk page is the place to discuss this. It is also disingenuous to say the tag has been left dangling at the other article - you keep re-inserting it yourself. My view is that the other article is about an absolutely distinct subject matter: a theory, no matter how nutty, with appropriate references to that theory. The issue that the two subjects deal with the Ashkenazim isn't enough to warrant a merge. If anything, a merge gives some credibility to the theory itself. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to mere the content back here, this article is a perfectly fine place to discuss how to do that. The guidelines for merging [4], indicate this page is the appropriate place for the discussion. Given that most editors thought the subject did not merit it's own, the best thing to do is to figure out how to merge it back into this article from whence it came. It may be that opinion about the merge has changed, but I suspect it hasn't. On the other hand, editors in this article may want to discuss the issue before we merge it back here. A.Prock 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Or you could make your case and then sit back and allow other editors to discuss. If there aren't sufficient editors backing your cause, then there is no merge. However, this isn't the appropriate venue for the discussion - the actual article's talk page is. A Sniper (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Help:Merging. This is the correct talk page. The case is pretty clear in the previous discussion. If need be, I'll summarize it later when I have time. A.Prock 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the appropriate time has gone by, I'll remove both tags - unless some floodgate is opened and the masses start discussing this dead horse issue ;) A Sniper (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I suppose then would be a good time to do the merge. A.Prock 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason why a nice small article with many sources and external links should be merged into something else. I hope it is linked from there? Debresser (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary reasons for the merging are:

1. non notability WP:NOTABILITY
2. fringe WP:FRINGE
3. summary of one academic article WP:NOT
4. the article it summarizes is a soapbox WP:SOAP

While the information in the article is well referenced, there isn't enough meat for it to stand alone. I think merging back to the article is a viable strategy for the content. A.Prock 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - now we know your position. Thanks. Now let's wait for the masses to discuss.  ;) A Sniper (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@A.Prock - Did you swear an oath to get rid of this article, or something? ;) The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived two deletion propositions. If there were not "enough meat to stand alone", people would not have prevented the proposed deletion twice. This is a very specific issue with its own resources and external links. If all of this (moderately) coherent content was put into the Ashkenazi Jews article you can expect it to be diminished over time, links sorted out etc.

If on the other had your main motivation is, that you deem the article not to be neutral or include all significant viewpoints, well go ahead and fix it. Surfers will be glad if it gets more "meat", more resources, better balance etc.

Sincerely, 217.236.216.238 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do me the favor of assuming good faith. If you have links to previous discussions, by all means share them. I'd be happy to review them. I agree that more "meat" would be welcome, but as it is, the article is fairly meatless. Hence, the move to return it to this article. A.Prock 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, an entire day has gone by and the only discussion here hasn't seemed to go your way... ;) A Sniper (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in any rush. There is no WP:deadline. A.Prock 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article is developed enough to be on its own, in my opinion, and I see no reason to merge. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the four reasons for merging given above:

1. WP:NOTABILITY: The hypothesis described on Ashkenazi intelligence has been discussed widely, including the New York Times. The Harpending paper currently has 71 citations.

2. WP:FRINGE: The citations are respected scientific journals. Mainstream science is taking the hypothesis seriously, arguing for and against different parts, and proposing alternative hypotheses.

3. WP:NOT: Ashkenazi intelligence cites a number of scientific articles, not just one. It's a hypothesis under wide discussion, not a summary of an article.

4. WP:SOAP: It's just not true to claim that the Harpending article is a soapbox. Like most scientific journal articles, it argues for a certain conclusion, but it does so without the kinds of tactics described at WP:SOAP. Even an article that used such tactics could be a worthy topic for an encyclopedia, because what we are describing here is the hypothesis and discussion surrounding it.

The reasons given to merge are really reasons to delete the content entirely. Anyway, I hope the above addresses the reasons satisfactorily. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I Jewish?

Okay, I read this and I'm confused. My ancestors have some people in their family that were Jewish (Ashkenazi). Does that make me of Jewish descent? Please respond.

(David101jam) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.189.150 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If your mother was Jewish, you are Jewish.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

gilbarnd - this is a religious definition. in reality it's more problematic because of the notion that being jewish is a religion on top of all. making some people claim that jews are not a real nation for certain political intersts. on another note how do you know if you are irish? or russian? in my opinion and probably in many schools of thoughts you just have to pass a certain threshold of certain conditions to be considered one or the other. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a religious definition. This is the official definition of the State of Israel for Jewish "leum" - meaning nationality in the modern meaning of ethnicity. This is also the definition agreed upon by most Jews in the world whatever some people may think. Benjil (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a religious definition. BTW what the State of Israel defines has no relevance beyond her borders. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous Jews

What about Karl Marx in the famous Jews section? --95.89.49.90 (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

good question.. where's marx? יניבפור (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure Marx was really a Jew regarding his mother. Anyway he did not self-identify as a Jew so he may not be the best option as an example of an Ashkenazi Jew. Benjil (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"not sure marx was jew"? ha ha, are you jewish? and what about his mother? she was jewish! the family converted after his birth. judaism is also ethnicity. he shouldnt self identified as a jew. most of the jews (80%+) are secular and most of the converted jews did it (were compelled to do it) becouse of the anti-Semitism limited the jews in every aspect of life at that time (numerus clausus, pogroms, The Pale of Settlement, and simple hatred etc.) it's ridiculous. his father BTW was born "Herschel Mordechai, to Levy Mordechai (1743–1804) and Eva Lwow (1753–1823), a jewish *rabbinical family* of Prussian descent, but converted to Lutheranism in order to be permitted to practice law. His conversion did not prevent him from marrying a Jewish woman." (wiki)

if someone can put his photo here it will be nice.. יניבפור (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not know his mother was Jewish. But I disagree - he did not see himself as a Jew and was even an antisemite so there is no reason to put him here. Benjil (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Einstein included in the pictures? He did not adhere to Judaism. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what he believed or not but Einstein was a Jew, there is no discussion about that. Benjil (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, there is no discussion about that. Someone not adhering to that religion is not a Jew. And save us the religio-racist argument about Judaism forming a "people". Please don't abuse Einstein to somehow cast a sympathetic light on Judaism. ≡ CUSH ≡ 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism may be a religion but the Jews are a people. You don't decide who are a people or not. Please refrain from trying to impose your own POV and ignorance. Thank you. Benjil (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I second this. While Judaism is a religion, a Jew is not just one who practices Judaism, it is also one who belongs to the Jewish ethnicity. Case specific, Einstein is also Jewish by conservative religious definitions, as his mother was Jewish. Rami R 15:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but a group's definition about itself is not necessarily an accurate, rational, or accepted one. Einstein and his work have nothing to do with Judaism or "Jewishness" (which is in fact solely derived from Judaism). Jews are not a "people", no matter how much some Jews may claim that. Having very distant ancestors in the Levant does not constitute a people. Albert Einstein was a German atheist/pantheist. Period. ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence—these are features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my lucky stars that I belong to it." —Albert Einstein. More info is here: "Einstein's Jewish Identity". Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting quotation by Einstein himself (a handwritten document in the library of the ETH Zurich) regarding Jewish identity. In 1920 Einstein wrote:

"Die Juden sind heute mehr eine Volks-Gemeinschaft als eine Religionsgemeinschaft. Die Festhaltung des Typus - so schwierig sie ist - kommt deshalb einem lebhaften Wunsche entgegen. Wir wollen lebendig erfassen, was wir meinen und fühlen, wenn wir 'wir' sagen. Möge dem Künstler sein schwieriges Unternehmen gelingen." (source)

My translation:

"Today the Jews are rather a Volks-Gemeinschaft (people’s community) than a religious community. The preservation of the type - as hard as it is - therefore complies with a strong wishing. We want to lively capture what we mean and feel, when we say 'we'. May the artist succeed in his difficult task."

Sincerely, 217.236.162.152 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A group definition about itself is the only legitimate definition. French people are defined by French law, Americans by American law, Muslims by Islamic law, Barcelona's supporters by themselves and so on. Why on Earth should only the Jews be subjected to such a level of demands. And Jews are a people because Jews say they are a people even if they had no common ancestors. Because that's how it works - people are people because they say they are. Benjil (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. A group is what others recognize it as. The definition of something relies on factuality and common consensus.

And as for Einstein: if he had converted to Hinduism he would have ceased being a Jew. Jewishness depends on the adherence to Judaism, be it directly or indirectly. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you are wrong on both accounts. Benjil (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cush please stop this bickering about the definition of Ethnicities with Regards to Religion is counter productive work at wikipedia. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cush, the definition of "Jewish" isn't that cut-and-dried (though it certainly would be convenient if it were). For example, a common phrase is "a non-practicing Jew". Regarding recognition by others, the Nazis executed people who had converted from Judaism to Christianity ("baptized Jews"), or whose parents or grandparents had, because they were "Jewish" by blood. The Jewish people are sort of defined by religion, sort of defined by ethnicity. I guess you could say it's a connected graph of people, where some of the edges are religious practice, some are ancestry, and perhaps some are still other sorts of connection. A typical thorough explanation of Jewishness is here. Regardless of all that, for the topic that the Cochran et al. paper talks about, Ashkenazi Jews are defined by ethnicity. Unlike Judaism, you can't join them by adopting a religion, nor can you give up that ancestry by abandoning a religion.

Were you swayed by the above? If not, would you be so kind as to find some sources to enlighten the rest of us about whether an Ashkenazi Jew who doesn't practice the religion is a simple contradiction in terms? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cush, please review WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

that's NOT personal opinion!

יניבפור (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

When you add a sentence saying "you do the math" it becomes a personal opinion (אתה מכניס דעה אישית). There is no need for such personal description, the facts will do and you can add them in the "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence" section. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

מה בדיוק הבעיה שלך? אני לא מבין. הציטוט המובא הוא חלקי ויוצר רושם מוטעה ואפילו שקרי. אם ה"you do the math" הוא הבעיה, אז אין שום בעיה, נוותר על המשפט הזה, ולא תהיה דעה אישית. יניבפור (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

תוקן, עכשיו אין דעה אישית. יש עוד המון בעיות בערך הזה. בעיקר הקישור המופרך שעושים ל"מסחר" בהישגים, ומדיף ריח רע של אנטישמיות. הנתונים גם הם לא נכונים, היהודים האמריקאים זכו ב-40% מפרסי נובל במדעים. ופרס טיורינג הוא פרס בינלאומי, 25% מכלל הזוכים הם יהודים, אבל מכלל האמריקאים האחוז גבוה יותר 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Freind you might want to consider using english as it assists us on the english wiki to ensure clear communication, i am sure my attempt to use google translate has throughly botched the meaning of what you have written Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

i said, i removed the "you do the math" and now there's no "personal opinion". the citation before was partial and therefore untrue. anyway, all the achivements paragraph is problematic. the data is incorrect (40% nobel prizes, not 25%) and the refuted linkage to commerse smells a bit from anti-Semitism and false. יניבפור (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was also a little shocked when I saw "You do the math" in the diff, but it's part of the quotation from Charles Murray; it doesn't appear in the body of the article. However, that part of the quotation isn't necessary to support the claim that Jews have a noted history of achievement and have won a large number of Nobel prizes. That part of the quotation might be more appropriate to cite on Ashkenazi intelligence. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks more appropriate now. The problem is when you put such a citation within plain text or citation, which inlcudes a clear personal opinion. Regardless, i think too that the entire citation should go to Ashkenazi intelligence section, here we can put just the data. Let's leave it this way for now. Greyshark09 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AMAZING!!! No mention of the Rothschilds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.197.58 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is that "AMAZING!!!"? Which individual Jews does the article mention? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox images (Karl Marx)

Regarding images in the infobox, please review the lengthy discussions in archives 3 and 4 (Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 3, Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 4), where the current balance of figures was worked out, ending the constant random changes that occurred in the past. Aside from the fact that it would be inappropriate to insert someone whose parents converted to Christianity, and who was baptised at age 6, we need significant consensus on this box before anyone is added or deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We were writing a comment here at the same time, and you saved yours first. Here was mine:

I added Marx to the portrait list, which was promptly removed, supposedly because the "lengthy" discussion here had already resolved the issue. As far as I could tell, the arguments against it had had been refuted while the original proposal was forgotten. Anyway, there were two arguments against: 1) Marx was not religiously Jewish. That's not the only way one can be "Jewish", and there are others up there that were also nonreligious (Freud, for instance). 2) Marx was an antisemite. This is simply a falsehood, a purposeful misreading of texts like On the Jewish Question, that's been championed recently by those who wish to condemn the anti-Israel left by association. --MQDuck (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The lengthy arguments happened a couple of months ago; see the links to the archives for more information. The issues regarding the insertion of Marx have been better articulated in my comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And in response to your comment:

Marx has always been regarded as a Jew. Nobody disputes this, except apparently some Wikipedia editors. To exclude Marx from that list is arbitrary. But since it's also rather unimportant, I'm not going to fight it anymore. The Wikipedia process can truly lead to some bizarre results sometimes, but I've made my point. --MQDuck (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No-one is disputing he was a Jew, including me. However, there is only so much room in the infobox for pictures, and there are tens of thousands of candidates that could be included. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be biased in favor of Marx, as a glance at my user page will verify, but I do believe it's objective to state that Marx was one of the most influential people in history, on the level of others there (such as Freud, to continue the comparison). Besides, adding another portrait evened the whole thing out. --MQDuck (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

He was an important historical figure, but Jews are blessed with many of those. Whether he is the best choice for representing Ashkenazi Jews is a different question. Regarding the infobox, it's actually too big; I'm going to propose removing some faces, below. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image (Rashi)

The infobox is too large (17 images), and should probably be cut down (most ethnic infoboxes I've seen have only 6-12 images). I propose removing Rashi from the infobox. While he was an extremely important figure in Jewish history, the picture itself is a woodcut from a 16th century book that is unlikely to have any relationship to how he actually looked (Rashi lived in the 12th century), and therefore doesn't really enhance the images there. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for removing one more infobox image?

As stated above, the infobox in this article has an unusually large number of images in it - larger than almost any I've seen, and twice as large as most. I propose removing one more image from the infobox, to bring the number down to 15, and to make it rectangular/even on the bottom. Suggestions? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Golda Meir, since she can be classified as Russian Jew / American Jew / Israeli Jew. Hence her relation to Ashkenazi (German) Jewery is of course historically relevant but not dominant.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification Request (Further Sourcing?)

The numbers in the following statements seem to defy logic:

Of the estimated 8.8 million Jews living in Europe at the beginning of World War II, the majority of whom were Ashkenazi, about 6 million — more than two-thirds — were systematically murdered in the Holocaust...As the large majority of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, their percentage dropped from nearly 92% of world Jewry in 1931 to nearly 80% of world Jewry today.

How does a group representing 92% of a population lose two-thirds its number and still remain an 80% supermajority?
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In round figures, there were 18 million Jews in 1931, of whom an estimated 16.6 million (92%) were Ashkenazi. 80 years later, 65 years after the end of the Holocaust, there are around 14 million Jews in the world, of whom an estimated 11.2 million (80%) are Ashkenazi. From 1931 to 2010 the Ashkenazi population dropped by 5.4 million, while the non-Ashkenazi population doubled from 1.4 million to 2.8 million. What defies logic about that? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. "More than two-thirds" means "more than two-thirds of the 8.8 million Jews living in Europe". The subject of the sentence is the "8.8 million Jews living in Europe". Jews living in places like North America were not killed in the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I see: Because the Ashkenazi are so clearly established as being the European Jewry, I was just tying the whole of the lineage to being in Europe at the outset of the war and, for some reason, reading the numbers in that statement as representative of cumulative world totals (completely disregarding the fact that the brunt of Jews in N. America are likely Ashkenazi). I think a specification like '...more than two thirds of the Jewish population in Europe' would have gone a long way in preventing my misinterpretation, but it would be tough to incorporate as the mention of Europe is sort of integral at the statement's outset. Of course, I'm probably the only person whose ever read it to be so confuddled, so I doubt it's that big a deal.
Regardless, thanks for breaking it down for me, Jay.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mayushi, 16 August 2010

{{tlf|editsemiprotected} I request that the article about the Jewish diaspora be modified in the following manner: in this article, there is an abrupt shift from calling the Jewish-inhabited territory of modern-day Israel "Israel" to calling it "Palestine". This is the first instance: "From this time on, in spite of unimportant movements under Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Severus, the Jews of Palestine..."

Two lines before that, the article states: "These efforts, resolute but unwise, were suppressed by Trajan (115-117), and under Hadrian the same fate befell the attempt of the Jews of Israel to regain their independence (133-135)."

This is either a historical inaccuracy (since there was never a country named "Palestine" in the ancient world, in which case, the appearances of the word "Palestine" should be changed to "Israel"), or details of the official change were omitted (how did "Israel", "Judea" and "Syria" become "Palestina"? As far as I know, Hadrian renamed the region from "Provinkia Judea" to "Provinkia Palestina" to dissociate it from the Jews, but this requires verification).

Either way, please correct this oversight. Mayushi (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed before 136CE any notion to the territory should be as Judea, or Iuadea Province. The term Syria-Palaestina was introduced by Hadrian, while the term Palestine alone was first used in late Byzantian period. The country was sometimes referred as Falastin during the early arab rule, but the term has been largely abandoned until 19th-20th century.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now:
It sounds like the editors who posted above about this issue already have the knowledge and references to accomplish the requested change. I'd also like to mention that any WIkipedia editor who has more than ten edits and has been active for more than four days is able to edit semi-protected articles since they're auto-confirmed editors. If you'd rather not do the edits yourself, then the specific edits + their sources need to accompany any future semi-protected edit request. As text within the template states... "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it".

Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish origins

I wonder if it's really a stretch to say Ashkenazi Jewry is indigenous to Germany, given that it started several centuries ago in the Rhineland. (Of course, most Jewish people would probably protest that assertion and claim that Eretz Israel is the Jewish people's native land, whether Jews are Ashkenazi or Sefardi or something else. Also, of course, certain detractors (including some anti-Semites) would rather give that honor to Khazaria. But if origins are centuries deep, why not say much of Jewry is "aboriginal" to the Europe and Mediterranean area (including the Rhineland!), and not just Eretz Israel?) — Rickyrab | Talk 02:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To which sentences in particular are you objecting? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Knaan

The article mentions Knaan as the appellation for Jews living in the Elbe region and east of it. In the early Middle Ages these lands were mostly populated by Slavs. The hyperlink Knaan in the article links to a Somali rapper living in Canada named K'naan. This is clearly not the correct link. The correct or best hyperlink is to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knaanic_language

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.64.95 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knaanic_language as opposed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan  ? The link occurs in an area of the article talking about the geographical location of Knaan, and the sentence in which the link occurs reads "Ashkenaz and the Ashkenazi contrast to the land of Knaan...", as was pointed out two sections above.
Thanks for your time and effort. :) 99.254.190.128 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Statistic

Surprised nobody's mentioned this yet but the statistic "Ashkenazi Jews represented approximately 3% of the population" under the Achievement section is actually completely misleading and incorrect. The census reports that put the Jewish statistic at 3% do not report Jewish ethnicity but Jewish religion. The vast majority of Nobel Prize winners are atheists and would never list their religion as Jewish on a census. Unless somebody can get a statistic on the amount of people who report as "of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage" in the United States, I'd say this sentence should be changed somehow to reflect a realistic number. Zendy23 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

On what reliable sources do you base your statements? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing article structure

Avaya, you are aggressively re-editing the article structurally, without any real consultation with other editors. Since this is not a new article, but actually a mature one, you are kindly advised to first publish your suggestions on discussion board and only later insert them into the article itself. This would prevent possible edit wars and bring better article content and structure.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wndybartlett, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Ashkenazi Jews didn't come from The sons of Japheth, so they aren't Japhethic. They came from the son's on Gomer. Genesis 10

1. Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
3. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

Wndybartlett (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

These biblical names have nothing to do with Ashkenazi Jews, except that medieval Jews called Germany "Ashkenaz". Please review WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Jayig; I'm untranscluding. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction

I don't have an account therefore cannot edit this article, but I noticed that under "High and Late Middle Ages Migrations" -> "Usage of the Name", it reads "Ashkenaz and the Ashkenazi contrast to the land of Knaan...". I'm certainly no expert on variations of how the word is spelled, but Knaan definitely links to the singer K'naan rather than the land of Canaan.
Thank'ee for your time.

I have one too! Under: High and Late Middle Ages migrations

At the end, it should be noted, as this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, the reason as to why they were not assimilated. The polish/ lithuania duchy invited all peoples of different beliefs to come and settle in their lands, free of persecution. This is a fact as we all know how many Jews ended up in the P/L commonwealth. I believe it was Vytautas the great who invited everyone. Also, poland and lithuania were the last country who were pagan, being as they held out so long it also provided the jew's the time to not be assimilated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.216.234 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was Casimir III of Poland who invited to Poland.

Poland was not very late in christianisation, Lithuania was. СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Niggle

{{Edit semi-protected}} In the first sentence of the third graf, the word for which we're going is "composed", not "comprised" (see, e.g., Wiktionary). 76.199.148.21 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction

Under the heading 'Medieval References' the surname of the man in the story should be 'Dalberg' rather than 'Dolberger'.

see link:

http://www.jewish-history.com/palestine/period3.html

"at each marriage or funeral procession among the Jews, two servants of the noble house of Dalberg should march before the same with silver-headed staffs in their hands, as a mark of honour and respect. This custom was observed several centuries in Worms."

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.44.88 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lmjoseph7, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In section 2.1 of this article, "History of Jews in Europe before the Ashkenazim", it is written that "although the historical record is very limited, there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East." Could you please provide citations with reputable sources for this consensus because many sources imply that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated from proselytes of the Khazarian Empire? Thank you.

Lmjoseph7 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a {{cn}} tag to it. Stickee (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry has been thoroughly discredited by history and DNA research. See Khazars#Theory of Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

It seems this section draws some incredulous and unfounded conclusions from the scientific study it claims to use as a reference. I would urge an editor to review this because the study simply demonstrates a North vs. South genetic distinction among Europeans, not any sort of exclusivity among German Jews. 05:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not find what you are talking about. Probably already removed. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Genetic admixture.

Changed

The proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with "relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim," and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%."

to

The proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, the total admixture estimate being "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%.", with "relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim".

to show that it is not 0.5%x80=40%, but "very similar to 12.5%", because the per generation is not 0.5%, it is "LESS than 0.5%". In fact, it looks that MUCH less... СЛУЖБА (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a geneticist, but wouldn't the admixture over generations be exponential and not multiplicative? So we would want 1-(.995^80), which is about 66%. To have a rate of around 12.5%, the generational component would be (1-.125)^(1/80) which is about 0.1667%, which is less than .5%, but not the .0000125 implied by the multiplicative assumption. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Me being not a mathematician, probably you are right. Forget my formula. СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's actually more complex than that, because descendants of these "intermarriages" inevitably have offspring together themselves - cousins marry cousins etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Kashrus

The Sefardi Kashrus in not at all more strict than Ashkenazi and in fact it is the other way around, it is well know that Beis Yosef is a much lower standard than Ashkenazi one (ex: Landau, Eida Hareidis, Chabad etc.). Also ashkenazi's do not FREELY mix fish and milk products at all. At most some permit fish and CREAM CHEESE, not milk and not other milk products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.136.67 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to those with editing privileges

This is "not in citation given" for the 80% figure, and this citation should be moved to the end of the sentence w/all the other percentages:

"Although in the 11th century, they composed only 3 percent of the world's Jewish population, at their peak in 1931, Ashkenazi Jews accounted for 92 percent of the world's Jews. Today they make up approximately 80 percent of Jews worldwide.[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.23.75 (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The literacy advantage of Early Jews over Gentiles Early in Europe.

In accordance with WP:NOCITE I removed from the article (Section: History of Jews in Europe before the Ashkenazim) the following, as it was not sourced and it was harmful to the "Gentile societies":

"This emphasis on literacy and learning a second language would eventually be of great benefit to the Jews, allowing them to take on commercial and financial roles within Gentile societies where literacy was often quite low."

I did some searching on Google Books but I couldn't find a source for it.--Atethnekos (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source, not for those exact words, but for the general idea that literacy during the Roman empire opened up economic advantage in the Middle Ages:

Maristella Botticini & Zvi Eckstein, "From Farmers to Merchants: A Human Capital Interpretation of Jewish Economic History", Discussion Paper No. 3718. Centre for Economic Policy Research (2003).

Do you think it's credible? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems very credible. I found the PDF at http://www.econ.barnard.columbia.edu/~econhist/papers/Botticini_Eckstein_HumCap.pdf . I'll change the claim to what I think Botticini and Eckstein are saying.--Atethnekos (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Study by Gil Atzmon

The Atzmon study cited in the current form of the article is out of place. It also appears to be a minority opinion. I request that someone more familiar with this particular article try and fix this. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Which Atzmon study, why is it "out of place", and why is it "a minority opinion"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Ashkenazic) "Jewish genius"

Lists of (supposed) Jews among Nobel prize winners and the like do go around. Such lists are being used here, in that they are ultimately the basis for some of the claims in the section "Notable Ashkenazim" - in particular, "Ashkenazi Jews represented approximately 3% of the population, but won 27% of the US Nobel Prizes in science, and 25% of the ACM Turing Awards...". If such percentages are to be used here at all, they have to be contextualized.

a) It is at best unclear whether Wikipedia - or anybody else - should be using such lists and percentages.

a1) Ethical issue: these lists and statistics classify individuals by ancestry, without their consent - often for purposes they may not agree with.

a2) Reliability: these lists, and by extension the statistics that are based on them, are often compiled in ways that are arguably questionable. They may not define their terms, or use them in the broadest way possible. Their purpose is often not scholarship, but ethnic boosterism: this comes through clearly in, say, [[[www.jinfo.org]]] (a site that has been sometimes used in Wikipedia, even if not here directly).

b) The percentage of individuals with presumed Jewish ancestry among Nobel prize winners is being compared with the percentage of Jews (however defined) in the general population. The first percentage is based on lists that often include everybody who has at least one grandfather presumed to be from a family descended from Jews (Aage Bohr appears in several lists I have seen); the second percentage most likely reflects what percentage of Americans have Judaism as their religion. The percentage of Americans who would be counted as Jews if they won Nobel Prizes is presumably much higher - probably by a factor of at least two, if not more.

c) The percentage of people from Jewish households in the general US population was higher in the past. (Note: to go by Wikipedia (American Jews) itself, 3% is actually an overestimate at the present; thus this may balance out.) Most Nobel Prize winners are long dead. Those alive are largely in their late middle age or old age at the present. (This latter statement may also hold for Turing prizes, with which I am less familiar.)

d) The relevant statistic here is arguably not the percentage of Jews in the general population, but in the urban (and white) middle and upper classes. These are the classes that have traditionally had access to higher education, in America as elsewhere. This is only reinforced by (c): America was more rural in the past, and immigrants with Jewish last names were overwhelmingly urban and remained urban.

We have to write - and use sources - critically and responsibly. At the most basic level, this means paying attention to comparing like with like, and minding the implications of our categories. Feketekave (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the above statements, why randomly hold Jews back. 99% of the time censorship of Jewish contributions have succeeded. let the jealous shuttup once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.182.229 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The section title here is the title Charles Murray's article, by the way - a non-scholarly source from a controversial author. Feketekave (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing changing text in this article, or discussing a different article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing the section ==Notable Akshkenazim==. Feketekave (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Really long

This article is REALLY long. Could we please put the "this article may need to be shortened" template at the top of the article? I would do it but I do not know what the template is. Mchcopl (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)!

Khazar possibility

KHAZARS, ALONG THE SILK ROAD WOULD HAVE PERSIAN CULTURE UNLESS THEY JOINED THE ASHKENAZI'S MANY CENTURIES LATER WHICH IS THE ONLY POSSIBILITY. ASHKENAZI JEWS HAD THE LEAST TENDENCY FOR EXPLORATION OF ALL HUMANS LET ALONE JEWS, YOU PEOPLE ARE TRULY GOING TO HAVE BEEN BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE WITH THIS NONESENSE.

"The theory that the majority of Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists and antisemitic sources in the late-19th and 20th centuries, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe.[33][34][35] Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[1] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support,[36] this belief is still popular among antisemites.[37][38]"

I do not see why this entire theory should be labelled as antisemitic because it has been abused by some antisemites. The Khazars are historically known to have existed and to have been of the Jewish faith. I do not see any reason why their existence should be overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.59 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE.--Galassi (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

THE MAJOR ISSUE WITH THE KHAZAR ISSUE IS THAT ALL THE JEWS ALONG THE SILK ROAD HAVE PERSIAN JEWISH CUSTOMS AND HERITAGE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THE KHAZARS HAVE NOTHING TO WITH ASHKENAZIC JEWS AT ALL. ASHKENAZI JEWS ARE THE WRONG CANDIDATE LOOK AT SEPHARDIC JEWS WHO WROTE ABOUT KHAZARS AND TENDED TO TRAVEL. ALSO SEPHARDIC JEWS HAVE MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO PERSIAN RITUALS AND LESS GERMAN CULTURE THAN THE ASHKENAZIS.

The Khazar Empire connection to Ashkenazi Jews will be among the extra long lists of false accusations, blatant lies, and hypocrosie, in the framework of weird antsemitic affirmative action that the world allows, for no actual logical reason. Again Caucus Jews have Persian customs from the Silk Road period. Ashkenazi Jews have distinct features, and culture from the Caucus Jews, most notably they did in medeival times not just now. They are far more similar to Sepharadi and Persian Jews in every respect, in every description we have of the Khazars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.182.229 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, everything from how (remember before reformed Judaism, religion was everything) they roll the phylactaries, build them, size and nature of the prayer shawl all come from medeival western europe (rituals are everything to the original German Jews) and we still have the books (which is amazing noting the fact the Jews of western europe were wiped out by the clergy in the earliest middle ages, which is a testament to just how special the Jews are) Rabbeinu Tam lived on the Mainz in Saxony, he is the author of the phylacterie customs. In fact the only reason for the schism between the European Jews of the West and those of the Med, are the different customs!!!! Which in correspondence they argued about endlessly and among themselves. Thankfully it never lead to a war because neither had any actual army, and were at best second class citizens, in the same boat as witches as heretics obviously. Now I know the Khazars existed, and maybe they mingled with the original Germanic and Jews from Saxony as far as todays britain, who were nearly wiped out 2 dozen times, and left 4 dozen, it would have been a meeting of very dissimilar Jews is my point.

Also.. I had a book written by a German non-Jew during the weimar period which claimed something amazing to me, it said the reason the anti-semite party was formed was because archeology had found evidence of Jews in prehistoric Germany, which enraged the majority of Catholics that were angry already (the author was part of the righteous Catholic decent minority himself). These artifacts were either burned or sent somewhere else, more appropriate for Jews to have been, to be 'found'. The idea that Jews were in Germany so early is something we will likely not rediscover until we build time machines. Were Jews helping the anti-Roman hordes? of course not, Jews couldn't hate the Roman occupation that much. Could king Herod and his household including his Hasmonean wife and in-laws, and other Jewish aristocrats, be sent to Gall as Josephus claimed, where in Gall would be a fitting punishment? of course not. Why in 70 AD did Rome move almost all their battalions to Judea, away from every other front , and in fact use 100 times more soldiers against Judea than they needed to wipe out Carthage (I use Carthage as an example because it is also on the eastern plank, and Aramaic speaking) if they did not see the Jews as a very very very special threat? the original Latin history corroborates this (remember anything that makes the jews look good from any angle has long been censored by the clergy, and you will have to search in a round about way)? Trust me on this they are not done censoring!!!!!! And with the help of Nome Komsky and other 'Jews' they will get to call it free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.182.229 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yiddish writers not considered notable Ashkenazi Jews?

Why are there no famous Yiddish authors' pictures on the page? Most of the pictures are from famous assimilated German or English speaking Jews (Freud, Einstein). Where are pictures of Jews like Mendele Moykher-Sforim, I.L. Peretz, Sholem Aleichem, other other Yiddish writers, or Yiddish writers that later became famous Israeli writers?Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

In the last past paragraph of the section History of Jews in Europe before the Ashkenazim, it is said “These Jews carried with them, the Haplogroup G2c (Y-DNA) which now accounts for the largest haplogroup within the Ashkenazi population.” This is incorrect, as will be seen in the article Genetic studies on Jews which contains a table which shows that haplogroup G2c is very much a minor constituent. I suggest the sentence is left out. Lower down under Genome-wide association and linkage studies, discussing a 2010 study on Jewish ancestry by Atzmon-Ostrer et al, it is said that using their DNA analysis the authors traced the ancestors of all Jews to Persia and Babylon. This is incorrect. What the authors say is “Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi) Jews date from communities that were formed in the Babylon and Persian Empires in the fourth to sixth centuries BCE.” and later “The Middle Eastern populations were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires who are thought to have remained geographically continuous in those locales. In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times.” I suggest the sentence is left out. --Occasional (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Occasional (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

In relation to my above request Mdann52 says "please be more specific about what needs to be changed.". My suggestion is that each of the two sentences in the article which I refer to should be deleted. Occasional (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed the first sentence, but the sourcing of the other 2 stands up, therefore I can't remove it. Mdann52 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

Mdann52 says in reponse to my edit request on 15 June 2012 “I removed the first sentence, but the sourcing of the other 2 stands up, therefore I can't remove it.” Thank you for removing the first sentence, but I suggest again that the second sentence I referred to should also be removed. The Wikipedia article says that the authors using their DNA analysis traced the ancestors of all Jews to Persia and Babylon, areas that now form part of Iran and Iraq. In fact the authors, Atzmon et al, wrote “Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi) Jews date from communities that were formed in the Babylon and Persian Empires in the fourth to sixth centuries BCE” and “The Middle Eastern populations were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires who are thought to have remained geographically continuous in those locales. In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times”. This does not mean that the authors traced the ancestors of all Jews to Persia and Babylon. The authority given for the statement in the Wikipedia article is not the article by Atzmon itself but an article about it in New Scientist, which misinterprets it in this respect. I suggest that you delete the sentence and its reference [53]. If you wish to check on the point, the article is Atzmon, G. et al (2010) "Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry", American Journal of Human Genetics 86 (6): 850–859, which is available online. (This article is referred to in the Wikipedia article Genetic studies on Jews)

Occasional (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for making that clear, Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

Please change the external link for Ashkenaz Heritage from http://www.moreshetashkenaz.com to http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org as the web site's address has changed. I am the manager of that web site.

Msteiglitz (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Dru of Id (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dru of Id (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There were two changes in the URL, from "com" to "org" (which was done) and from "moreshet" to "moreshes" which hadn't been done. Msteiglitz (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Monty₈₄₅ 00:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Related category nominated at CFD

__meco (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

vengence

User Galassi does not like my edits elsewhere, so is erasing/reverting my edits out of revenge. I was attempting to help the article by giving two non-Jewish references to Ashkenaz as Germany. Also added Central to Eastern as Czech/Poland/Lithuania etc. actually had as many Jews as Eastern Europe. Maryester (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bizarro page

This is one backwards page; first there are no standards on this page for the Khazar Ashkenaz from Genesis Eugenic theorists, and Jewish ultra-nationalist theorists. (THIS PAGE IS ONLY THE KKK VERSION OF ASHKENAZI JEWS, and does not have a majority of real scholarly work on it). Non-Jews and uneducated Jews who have no clue, get drawn in and believe the fancy words that are used on this juvenile page. Unethical words are used throughout the article.

The whole lead is based on the most dubious book ever written, by revisionist Jits van Straten and his 'sources', most of which he himself has no clue about. If you read the book carefully Van-Straten is purposely falsifying data throughout. Even purposely misquoting R a s h ' ' i. He makes the random claims that all Ashkenazi Jews are Ukrainian. His work is filled with just pure and absolute, unscientific speculation. He is using the Noah's Ark story as a scientific source. He is an anti-semite who is salivating to put the Jews back into gas chambers, every page of the book screams that.

Then in the second paragraph, it seems consensus (insane) when someone writes 'in the rabbinic literature' as if the rabbinic literature is monolithic. The person who wrote that should be banned from this page for vandalism, because they have never honestly read one contextual word of rabbinic literature. The source is a modern Hebrew small article of semi-eugenics that is noted nowhere except Tarbiz magazine, written by Samuel Kraus. All of the sources are from Jits van Straten (and the source is his). When people have tried to put real sources in they are angrily erased. Why is this small article by Kraus given so much weight? The article itself from the Jewish quarterly states that he is using speculation and conjecture, rather than intending to write a source for the entire lead of a major Encyclopedia. Further, Kraus uses the term Samaritan not Scythian often, and states successor to the Samaritans, (Ashkenaz equals Samaritan). He states that that neither is inherited, nor actual, but rather ad-hoc done by Jewish refugees of the time (READ THE ARTICLE ITSELF IF YOU KNOW HEBREW, or it is discussed on the truly terrible book by Jits van Straten on page 182). I mean if you are going to use the revisionist book and its reference section for the whole lead at least get the lies right, it says Samaritan and Scythian and successor not the actual Scythians, and Kraus is a reformed Jew hardly 'the rabbinical literature'. And this Scythian connection has spread like wildfire in the brains of the jumpy Khazar theorists.

The rabbinic literature says Ashkenaz is connected to a Greek city, (a non-standard view, but more realistic, based on the phonetic sound of the citie's name). More importantly the real rabbinic literature predates all of the modern Eugenic 'theories'. Eugenics touched both rich secular German Jews (like Kraus), nazis and even American Presidents like W. Wilson and IS ACTUALLY THE MORE MODERN VIEW. Your bizarro "consesus" has it backwards, and is spreading misinformation.

Actual Talmud (rabbinic literature), also I am not pulling this out of my hat. This is a mainline text not obscure to any actual student of rabbinic literature. Not, from a part of the Talmud rarely studied, a text which has in fact been quoted throughout the ages of Judaism, and extremely often, as the main quote regarding identifying other peoples. (As apposed to plucked text used to prove a point, which the level of this article does not even attempt it is such a POV propaganda piece).

"We all already know God has mixed up the descent of all the nations, as it says, 'I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as a mighty one their inhabitants.' And whatever strays [from a group] is assumed to have become one of the larger section of the group, then becomes part of the dominant section." (Brachot 28a)

This is used by all sources from the rabbinic texts including Maimonodes. It is used in Shulchan Orech to make laws about non-Jews, i.e. no one is cursed anymore. Most importantly to state beyond any doubt, the Jewish view, NONE of the Biblical peoples other than the Jews can be recognized. For example Maimonides' mishnah Torah 12:18 which is accepted as law by all Jews, clearly states WE (THE JEWS) DO NOT KNOW any of the Biblical people's identities from "Ashkenaz" to those who are cursed such as the Philistines. Again the Eugenics and racial theories about non-Jews do not exist until relatively recently in the record, and therefore had no concern to Jews 1000 years ago!

Why not put the real quote from the rabbinic literature regarding Chronicles and Genesis lineages, instead of a lie?

In other words my complaint about using Van Straten as a source at all is that he lies often in his book. (For example claiming there is no Semitic basis at all in the Genetics of Ashkenazi Jews, then falsifies a study i.e. LIES. The study and again he is falsifying it, is itself outdated, outmoded and never proves his claims.)But the whole revisionist text is up against the consensus of thousands of books. (Kraus himself starts the article by stating he, nor do any Jews, have any rhyme or reason for Ashkenaz, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE). Jews were simple and not using 'advanced' scientific methods, based on modern Eugenics of the Noah's Ark story. Jews just randomly chose the name Ashkenaz for Germany, too bad, it happened in other cases and it will happen again. The only real Encyclopedia references on the page were provided yesterday, (there are a lot of anti-semites who have an obsession with this issue, and fanatics). And was un-ceremonially erased, by again people who should be banned, from the page. Those are from Maryester yesterday when I saw them: TO REMOVE THESE IS ABSOLUTELY VANDALISM. One footnote associates Ashkenaz and Germany from the copyright 1911 Britannica, the other uses the 1899 Encyclopedia Biblica, again recognizing the standard rabbinic consensus as a Germanic tribe... (what is wikipedia again? The two sources come from actual encyclopedias).

Then as usual with the Khazar bunch they falsify another study. They claim this study[5] proves the Jews are all Khazars. First the study says the Judeans themselves mixed with the Khazars, before mixing with the 'purely' Judean German Jews (according to the Khazar anti-semites Jews are either Khazars or pure Jews). Then it must be deduced Ashkenazi's are NOT all Khazars as at least 2 dozen studies have already shown. The emerging science which in the end will never be in doubt, IS THAT ASHKENAZI JEWS MIXED WITH A LOT OF PEOPLES as all ancient peoples have. "The bottleneck" theory and all that other ultra-nationalist Jewish stuff is also showing itself to be as false as the Khazar nonsense. (Jews are unique, a unique mixture). As the study which supposedly proves the Khazar theory right actually concludes, a quote: "The European Jewish genome is a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries" and only proves the Khazar theory right insomuch as showing Jews have a mixed, rather than homogeneous heritage. In the dozens of studies MORE AND MORE experts are realizing the bottleneck hypothesis is outdated and outmoded and Jews mixed quite a bit, this great blog discusses it at length[6] BY AN ACTUALLY WELL RESEARCHED INDIVIDUAL!!

This 'consensus' view is both un-sourced and even unethical, and its main thesis is to bring disunity among people.Shimonrosenthal (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with a great deal of this. The studies quoted, to oversimplify grossly, show at most that (say) 99% of Ashkenazi Jews are (say) 1% Turkic by blood: big deal. That does not mean that "Ashkenazim are Khazars". Just as a great many English people have some Celtic descent, but that does not mean that "the English are a Celtic people". Nor, from the religious point of view, does it actually matter a row of beans.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the question "Who is the Biblical Ashkenaz", and I don't think the current draft of the article depends on it. Clearly at one point the identification Ashkenaz=Germany was accepted, and thereafter it became a literary convention to use "Ashkenaz" to mean Germany, in a purely geographical sense: thus "Ashkenazi Jews" came to mean "Jews connected with Germany or using the German Jewish rite". The interpretation of texts which use that convention does not depend on accepting that Germans (either German Jews or German non-Jews) are actually descended from the Biblical Ashkenaz. In the same way, I am perfectly certain that neither Spaniards nor Spanish Jews are actually connected with the Biblical "Sepharad", but it is simply a fact that in medieval and later Hebrew "Sepharad" is used to mean Spain and must be interpreted accordingly. Another such literary convention is the use of "Edom" to mean Romans or Christians: it would be absurd to argue that, because WE don't accept the identification, therefore when Maimonides (for example) speaks of "the cities of Edom" he is actually referring to the ancient Idumaeans and not the Christians at all. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Kraus was probably referring to Sarmatians, not Samaritans. Sarmatians were a Central Asian people like the Scythians. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012

I have issues with the following sentences: "Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths, while some Jews have also adopted children from other ethnic groups or parts of the world and raised them as Jews. Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years, has become more common.[citation needed]" Since the 20th century intermarriage with other peoples has dramatically increased comapared to before, but it still happened before and was not as uncommon as people believe. "Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years" this is also completely false as is the case with the semi-Mongoloid Khazars about 1000 years ago converting to Judaism as documented in Wikipedia, as well as the Edomites also converting to Judaism as covered in Wikpedia - although the Edomites converted shortly before the time of Christ. The paragraph says citation needed - another reason to remove the conversion section and dramatically alter the preceding intermarriage section as per my comments above. The article also says: "Many Ashkenazi Jews later migrated, largely eastward, forming communities in non German-speaking areas" without any citation. It is more likely that the majority of them migrated from the Pale of Settlements in Poland westward and became more Germanized and not the opposite way around.

 Not done. This may need consensus not a simple edit request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Blonde and red hair

The genetic section claims that the Ashkenazi have mostly Arabic and Mediterranean ancestry. Then, why do they have European features like hair color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.200.140 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends whether you're talking matrilines or patrilines. A Jew is defined as having a Jewish mother, and most of the Ashkenazim's matrilineal ancestry (and a fair proportion of the patrilineal) does indeed go back to the Middle East. But there were just enough rapes during pogroms that a significant proportion of patrilines are European. In the same way, if you analyse the genetic origins of Black Americans, quite a high proportion of patrilines are White European, from owners using their slaves as concubines. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This explanation does not seem to be consistent with what the article states under "Genetic origins". Apparently, both Y-chromosomes (which come on the paternal line) and mitochondrial DNA (which comes on the maternal line) show quite a bit of intermixing with the local population. In fact, there would seem to be quite a bit more of the latter than of the former: compare the sections on paternal and maternal descent, and also see this: "A 2010 study by Bray et al, using SNP microarray techniques and linkage analysis, estimated that 35 to 55 percent of the modern Ashkenazi genome may be of European origin, and that European "admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates by studies that used the Y chromosome"."

The insistence on "Cossack rapes" as the main or only source of intermixing seems extremely stereotypical, as well as unsupported by what the current version of the article seems to say. Feketekave (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(Quite incidentally, I am a bit surprised that the article mentions Koestler but not Renan. There's a new edition of Renan's late works on the matter; it is a very interesting early attempt to counter a traditional narrative of origins by a highly complex and tentative account based on the scientific knowledge available at the time. Koestler simply substitutes one facile narrative for another.) Feketekave (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. There were probably cases like the storyline of Isaac Bashevis Singer's The Slave, where a Jewish man married a Polish girl from a remote region and smuggled her into his community as Jewish, with or without some form of conversion taking place. This would have had to be highly hush-hush, given that for a Christian to convert to Judaism was generally a severely punishable form of heresy. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012

I have issues with the following sentences: "Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths, while some Jews have also adopted children from other ethnic groups or parts of the world and raised them as Jews. Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years, has become more common.[citation needed]" Since the 20th century intermarriage with other peoples has dramatically increased comapared to before, but it still happened before and was not as uncommon as people believe. "Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years" this is also completely false as is the case with the semi-Mongoloid Khazars about 1000 years ago converting to Judaism as documented in Wikipedia, as well as the Edomites also converting to Judaism as covered in Wikpedia - although the Edomites converted shortly before the time of Christ. The paragraph says citation needed - another reason to remove the conversion section and dramatically alter the preceding intermarriage section as per my comments above. The article also says: "Many Ashkenazi Jews later migrated, largely eastward, forming communities in non German-speaking areas" without any citation. It is more likely that the majority of them migrated from the Pale of Settlements in Poland westward and became more Germanized and not the opposite way around.

 Not done. This may need consensus not a simple edit request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Blonde and red hair

The genetic section claims that the Ashkenazi have mostly Arabic and Mediterranean ancestry. Then, why do they have European features like hair color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.200.140 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends whether you're talking matrilines or patrilines. A Jew is defined as having a Jewish mother, and most of the Ashkenazim's matrilineal ancestry (and a fair proportion of the patrilineal) does indeed go back to the Middle East. But there were just enough rapes during pogroms that a significant proportion of patrilines are European. In the same way, if you analyse the genetic origins of Black Americans, quite a high proportion of patrilines are White European, from owners using their slaves as concubines. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This explanation does not seem to be consistent with what the article states under "Genetic origins". Apparently, both Y-chromosomes (which come on the paternal line) and mitochondrial DNA (which comes on the maternal line) show quite a bit of intermixing with the local population. In fact, there would seem to be quite a bit more of the latter than of the former: compare the sections on paternal and maternal descent, and also see this: "A 2010 study by Bray et al, using SNP microarray techniques and linkage analysis, estimated that 35 to 55 percent of the modern Ashkenazi genome may be of European origin, and that European "admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates by studies that used the Y chromosome"."

The insistence on "Cossack rapes" as the main or only source of intermixing seems extremely stereotypical, as well as unsupported by what the current version of the article seems to say. Feketekave (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(Quite incidentally, I am a bit surprised that the article mentions Koestler but not Renan. There's a new edition of Renan's late works on the matter; it is a very interesting early attempt to counter a traditional narrative of origins by a highly complex and tentative account based on the scientific knowledge available at the time. Koestler simply substitutes one facile narrative for another.) Feketekave (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. There were probably cases like the storyline of Isaac Bashevis Singer's The Slave, where a Jewish man married a Polish girl from a remote region and smuggled her into his community as Jewish, with or without some form of conversion taking place. This would have had to be highly hush-hush, given that for a Christian to convert to Judaism was generally a severely punishable form of heresy. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Khazar study

I feel that this is a good addendum to the paragraph on the recent genetic study that found Khazar influence in Ashkenazi Jews. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/ashkenazi-jews-are-probably-not-descended-from-the-khazars/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.98.23 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does the page claim the Khazar heritage is only advocated by racists and antisemites, while in the next paragraph there is a study that is in support of the same theory? I hope you are not implying that arXiv.org are antisemites. 178.191.46.89 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again it's a matter of degree. It is one thing to claim that many Ashkenazim have SOME Khazar descent. It's another to claim that the Ashkenazim ARE Khazars, i.e. have no Israelite descent at all. None of the studies supports the latter. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it usually does come from antisemitic (or maybe just anti-Ashkenazi, for whatever reason) sources who want to claim that they are "fake" Jews and thus have no real blood ties to Israel. More often than not, it's used as a political weapon. 69.248.98.23 (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187

Untitled

The reference is in: Jennifer Senior (October 24, 2005). ""Are Jews Smarter?" (cover story). New York Magazine.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nectarflowed (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 October 2005‎ (UTC)

Scholarly consensus. query

Although the historical record is very limited, there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.(ref name="Atzmon2010")

Yet, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin "The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms" at Biology Direct 6 October, 2010, writes:-

(1)The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. The reasons for the discrepancy between the biparental markers and the uniparental markers are discussed.(Abtract)

(2)EEJ are the largest and most investigated Jewish community,yet their history as Franco-German Jewry is known to us only since their appearance in the 9th century,and their subsequent migration a few hundred years later to Eastern Europe [4,5]. Where did these Jews come from? It seems that they came to Germany and France from Italy [5-8]. It is also possible that some Jews migrated northward from the Italian colonies on the northern shore of the Black Sea [9]. All these Jews are likely the descendents of proselytes. Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society [10-13].p.1

(3)The autosomal genetic distances (table 1) do not show any particular resemblance between the Jewish populations. EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations.p.2

(4)X-chromosomal haplogroups demonstrate the same relatedness of EEJ to Italians and other Europeans (table2, figure 3). In contrast, according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean p.

(5)In order to compare two competing theories regarding the origin of EEJ, their geographic

distances were computed as if they originated from Italy or Israel, i.e. the great circle distances for EEJ were calculated not between Warsaw and other capitals, but between Rome or Jerusalem and other capitals. The correlation

between the autosomal genetic distance matrix and geography was slightly higher, 0.804, for Rome but dropped to 0.694 for Jerusalem.p.4

(6)The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin. The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population.p.4

(7)Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]analysis [1], and the genetic distance analysis of Livshits et al. [32], which includes a single European Mediterranean population, Spain. Despite this when a genetic distance analysis was performed, the greater similarity of EEJ to Russians and to a lesser extent to Germans more than to Non-European Jews was evident [32]. In fact Russians were more similar to EEJ than to any Non-Jewish European population in that analysis.p.8

(8)It is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don’t know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel. When one compares the autosomal distances of EEJ (current study) or Ashkenazi

Jews (in Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54]) from the Jewish populations that were investigated in the current

study, Iraqi, Iranian, Moroccan, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews, one finds perfect agreement. EEJ or Ashkenazi Jews are much closer to non-Jewish Europeans than to these Jewish populations in all three studies.p.11

(9) EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations andexamine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool.p.11 --Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a consensus? I am interested in this from the oddity of saying linguistic evidence can show geographic origins of an ethnic group. Paul Wexler, in his latest work writes:-

'the history and structure of some Jewish languages strongly suggest that the creators of some Jewish languages (an example is Yiddish) were not native Jews but rather non-Jews who had joined Jewish communities in Europe, Asia, and North Africa either through formal conversion to Judaism or through informal association with the community (e.g. through marriage with Jews)'. Paul Wexler, Jewish and Non-Jewish Creators of "Jewish" Languages, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006 p.xvi.

I don't espouse these views, of course. I just note that several important scholars to my knowledge challenge the assertion in this section of the page. I'd appreciate some review of this.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Zoossmann-Diskin study findings are not supported by any of dozens of Y DNA, mtDNA, autosomal DNA findings regarding the origin of Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups, many of whom are not mentioned here. To name some of them: Hammer at al, Gerard Lucotte et al, Kopelman et al 2009, Moorjani et al 2011, Behar et al(2004,2006,2010) Dr. Harry Ostrer studies, Need et al, L. Hao et al, Bray at al, Bauchet et al, Seldin et al, Nebel et al(2004,2006) Karl Skorecki studies, Thomas at al, Shen et al and more recently Christopher L. Campbella and al. There is almost unanimous consensus among genetic scientists regarding the shared Middle Eastern origin of all Jewish population groups,(excluding Indian and Ethiopian Jewish population) including Ashkenazi Jews.

There can not be consensus for inclusion of unbalanced claims which are not considered mainstream opinion and are in many cases taken out of context in order to allude to something with political and not scientific meaning.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide me with the exact passage in Atzmon and co's paper where this generalization is derived from.--Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering Atzmon, you have it here:[7] "Previous genetic studies of blood group and serum markers suggested that Jewish groups had Middle Eastern origin with greater genetic similarity between paired Jewish populations...Here, genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture." I suggest also Dr Hary Ostrer "Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People" It gives great summarizing of all genetic studies in Jewish population carried out in last 20 years.--Tritomex (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, on what specific passage in Atzmon is the sentence:'Although the historical record is very limited, there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.(ref name="Atzmon2010")'?

If you cannot find support for this formulation from Atzmon with a passage that shows it is a close paraphrase of the cited source, which is quoted for making these three combined claims, then it is inevitable to conclude that the claim is WP:OR. Nothing in what you cited above corresponds to that sentence.--Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not claimed that Prof Atzmon spoke about this issue, (I was not the editor of that section)although he indeed did. From the same source

"Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE and have maintained continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions since that time, despite a series of Diasporas" I think that the wording of this sentence was intended to avoid WP:COPY --Tritomex (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Source.

Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE and have maintained continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions since that time (Atzmon2010)

Wikipedia.

Although the historical record is very limited, there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.(ref name="Atzmon2010")

The bolded words are not in the source. Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Atzmon et al.deny that there is a scholarly consensus:'Recent studies of Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes have pointed to founder effects of both Middle Eastern and local origin, yet the issue of how to characterize Jewish people as mere coreligionists or as genetic isolates that may be closely or loosely related remains unresolved.
• Their paper providences evidence for one argument about all Jews in 2010. A few months later, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, taking in their paper, advanced a different conclusion specifically about Ashkenazi Jews. In your initial remarks you cited numerous papers predating both Atzmon and Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin's recent work, in order to assert that the latter's conclusions are not supported by geneticists who never read Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin's paper. That also is WP:OR.

The wiki phrasing is, frankly, stupid. One does not write of 'a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence for the simple reason that evidence does not have a consensus, as the sentence implies. Evidence provides the material basis for which, eventually, a consensus may be formed by the scholars who analyse it. It is the scholars who form the consensus, not the evidence.

Unless someone can justify the use here of 'scholarly consensus' from Atzmon's article, the thesis it maintains must be balanced by the thesis proposed by Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, as per WP:NPOV. We must not take sides in what it a lively scholarly debate, but simply report the various positions. --Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the passage is egregiously WP:OR, I'll provide a fix that reflects actual sources, and shows the range of theories. There is a problem in this section, which almost exclusively deals with Rabbinical developments in Babylonia, and hardly at all with the Ashkenazi world. That also needs fixing.--Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have said and showed above there are dozens of studies all confirming the shared and common Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews and there is scholarly consensus regarding this issue. I can add all 21 genetic studies as references. Zoossmann-Diskin single study can not balance 21 opposite genetic studies carried out by world leading institutions and all showing the same result In fact with your proposal we would have a clear POV if something totally out of mainstream consensus would be presented as equal "fact" to the mainstream consensus. Prof Atzmon participated in many recent studies like the studies of Dr. Harry Ostrrer and he has reaffirmed his well known findings, so your assumption is wrong. Atzmon clearly referee in his findings to Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews, as the study which was used here relates to Ashkenazi Jews and clearly shows their Middle Eastern genetic origin.--Tritomex (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent POV edits Nishidani represents vandalization. You can not edit genetic studies in the place where they do not belong and you can not create POV by inserting one study which is totlay out of mainstream and present it as equal. I will always remove vandalization attempts from this site and I will report you if you continue to do this without consensus.--Tritomex (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the elementary protocols of wikipedia. What you say does not interest me. What sources say is what we write. You are making an assessment about one of several theses. It is indeed a very serious charge to characterize corrective work of an error on an article, after no adequate justification for the anomaly could be provided, as vandalism, and is reportable as uncooperative edit-warring to restore what you have failed to justify.

• (a) you are engaged in a conspicuous violation of WP:OR by citing 21 genetic studies, the majority of which were published before Zoossman-Diskin and Bray's study, both of which deny your personal conclusions. Bray et al even state that from 35-55% of the Jewish Ashkenazi has a local, non-middle eastern, european "admixture".
• (b) I have included Atzmon et al's position, which like Oestrer's, represents a scholarly point of view, in a rapidly developing field so complex there is still no "consensus".
• (c) if you actually read Zoossman-Diskin, he responds to Atzmon's work, appraises it, incorporates some of its results but uses different techniques to tweak some of their data and obtaining different results.
• (d) since you have failed for over a day to provide any textual justification for the statement in the article I challenged, it has failed WP:V and therefore must be regarded as WP:OR. By your irrational revert, whose edit summary is purely, wildly subjective, you are defending against policy what appears to be an incorrect, illogical and solecistic generalization without source-support here.

So could you please provide WP:RS justification for the words scholarly consensus regarding the ME origin of the Ashkenazi, and (b) please inform us what sources you rely on for holding that Zoossman-Diskin's study and results are unique. They are not. They are supported by Bray, as I noted. You elided both, and therefore are pushing one POV among several on the basis, apparently, of personal beliefs. The sensible thing would be to revert. I do not require your consent to improve a conspicuous error on a page. --Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To begin with and to finish with: There is a section devoted to Genetic study in this article and you can not edit whatever you want, wherever you want. Bray et al is mentioned in this article in proper section.--Tritomex (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No. That is, frankly, dictatorial and erratically irrational. The section deals with the origins of the Ashkenazi, and a claim was made that was false. Origins require (a) historical documentation and (b) genetic evidence. The reference I questioned is a paper on genetics, in this section, and your accusation that Atzmon's genetic evidence can be sourced, but genetic evidence contradicting it should go to 'the proper section' is absurd. Please calm down, and think the original problem through rationally and in terms of policy.--Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The section deals with historic origin. You have separate section for genetic studies. I have nothing against edition of Zoossman-Diskin study in proper section. In fact this recent edits in non correct places were identical with vandalizatons carried out by Historylover4 I will add the findings of different studies which were not included here in proper genetic section later.

Historic facts-goes to historic section, genetic facts goes to genetic section.--Tritomex (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To repeat. You were asked to justify a generalization that fails WP:V. You refuse to tell me where Atzmon et al's paper states the view attributed to him. Secondly, you accept Atzmon's paper, which is on genetics, in the history section, but you refuse Zoossman-Diskin's paper there, which arrives at a different conclusion from Atzmon about a putative historical fact . Your argument is utterly irrational. Were it logical, it would require Atzmon's removal from the history section. The 'fact', thirdly, happens not to be an historical fact but an hypothesis.

So could you please tell me where in Atzmon is there a reference to 'scholarly consensus'. Had you read the paper, you would have realized that he says exactly what Bray and Zoossman-Diskin say, i.e. 'Ashkenazi Jews have European admixture ranging from 30%~60%.'--Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim is a WP:REDFLAG and requires more then one paper to establish it.It goes against recent scholarship for example [8],[9],[10] all those studies say that Jews have same middle-eastern heritage.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG waving has to be justified, Shrike, and frankly your use of it is nonsensical and counterintuitive. Your interpretation is patently nonsensical because, were it true, no wiki science editor could ever add new evidence to a page from a tenured scholar, unless that work got confirmed, which would mean articles would lie behind research for years.

Atzmon, Bray and Zoossman-Diskin all concur that Ashkenazi are an admixture of founders of Middle Eastern descent and an admixture varying from 30-60% of European, non Middle Eastern people. Unless you fellows are willing to actually read those sources you should not be quoting them against each other. You simply cannot defend a false statement, since nowhere in the source (Atzmon) is there any reference to a scholarly consensus on this issue. Unless you can come up with a recent authoritative specialist text that provides this kind of judgement it remains WP:OR. Both you and Tritomex are refusing to face the problem, that the text I queried fails WP:V --Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not if the research is groundbreaking or confirms results or is new research in the field, it can all be properly stated in a neutral way as research he/she conducted and the results he/she got. But when you have one "study," and it goes against all the other mainstream views and studies up to date, it is clearly WP:REDFLAG. There are controversial books by historians as there are controversial books by scholars. Being the work of a historian or a scholar does not make it mainstream or reputable. --Jethro B 18:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are making a judgement about a source, which as editors neither you nor Tritomex have a right to make. Where is your sourc justification for stating that Zoossmann-Diskin's paper is 'one "study," and it goes against all the other mainstream views and studies up to date.'? That is Tritomex's assertion, and you repeat it. If you want to use it as an argument give me a link to a third party review which states that Z-D et al(a dozen geneticists have collaborated on several of his papers where results like this emerge) are making an extraordinary claim.--Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere there is a figure of 60% European admixture among Ashhkenazi Jews. This is your personal invention+ WP:OR. No one denies the European admixture among Ashkenazi Jews Its considered at 30% by Atzmon and between 35-55% by Bray, much less by Behar, Molutsky Nebel and Hammer or Lucotte. Ashkenazi Jews are not a "race" to have "pure genetic origin" However what you failed to notice all of this studies are confirming the consensus regarding Middle Eastern genetic origin of Ashkenazi Jews and I am afraid that this comes in your case because you have political agenda here. Considering Atzmon, he clearly says Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE and have maintained continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions since that time, despite a series of Diasporas" and provides a secondary source regarding historic origin from a "A History of the Jewish People" by Ben-Sasson. Regarding different sections in this article-there is a historic section which deals with historic details and genetic section deals with genetic details. --Tritomex (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed all parts of the sentence which can be contested per source.--Tritomex (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I.e. an egregious case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Stop repeating your personal views. I asked where in Atzmon is there any mention of a scholarly consensus concerning the origin of the Ashkenazi. You keep quoting: Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE and have maintained continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions since that time. That says nothing about a scholarly consensus, and your personal review of your impressions of the literature has nothing to do with "scholarly consensus." So please answer my original query, without throwing sand continually in my eyes. If you cannot construe a simple English question, please desist from commenting, and wait until someone who can grasp the issue comments instead.--Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Balter, in the magazine Science, had this to say about such studies:

Such notions, however, clash with several recent studies suggesting that Jewishness, including the Ashkenazi version, has deep genetic roots. In what its authors claim is the most comprehensive study thus far, a team led by geneticist Harry Ostrer of the New York University School of Medicine concludes today that all three Jewish groups—Middle Eastern, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi—share genomewide genetic markers that distinguish them from other worldwide populations.

--Jethro B 18:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of cheese, Jethro. I am asking for a generalization sourced to Atzmon to be verified. I am not interested in discussing the peripheral issues. You know how to read English. Please do me the courtesy of checking Atzmon, as I requested, to see where he says what the text attributes him with stating. If you cannot find the statement about 'scholarly consensus' in Atzmon ,WP:V has been violated by WP:OR. It's that simple.--Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add in the quote I added as an additional ref as scholarly consensus, shown by several recent studies. Or we can just make a list of references that goes on and on that would show such a consensus, and show that what you're proposing is one fringe view (Also, as far as I know, the saying is "what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?") --Jethro B 19:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dodging the question and etremely disingenuous. The citation regards Ashkenazi Jews. Atzmon is cited for them. The generalization regards them, not Jews. That is the article title. Please do not continue Tritomex's confusions by pretending that Zoossmann-Diskin's paper is denying genetic elements characteristically related to Middle Eastern populations exist in Ashkenazi Jews. That would only show unfamiliarity with the many sources he cites in support. And a scholarly paper, peer-reviewed, written by a front-ranking scholar with tenure in Israeli and Australia should not be dismissed by wiki editors as WP:fringe. nota bene also that your proferred book in a new science was published a full year before the several research papers being cited here were published.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not very nice, to accuse someone of dodging questions and being "extremely disingenus" (not just disingenuous, but "extremely!"). See WP:AGF. But more importantly, note the bolded text in what I provided above. Betalo, Ashkenazi version (bolded) is referring to, not surprisingly, Ashkenazi Jews. --Jethro B 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The "scholarly consensus" thing has already been removed from the article, apropos disingenuousness.

The sentence Atzmon uses, "Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE and have maintained continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions since that time, despite a series of Diasporas" (reworded to avoid COPYVIO) can certainly be used in the article, since AFAIK it is uncontested by experts in the relevant fields. Anyone have a source that says otherwise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As per Jayjg's frequent advice, on these points. This is a page on Ashkenazi Jews', and evidence regarding them must come from sources dealing with them, a subset of Jews. The generalization in question refers to all Jews (Iranian Jews and Ashkenazi if you read Atzmon have notable genetic differences but they are all 'Jews', what they share in common, and the context is defining what is distinctive about one branch, the Ashkenazi). Secondly, the statement is stupid. 'Genetic traditions'? Oh really? (On my birthday dad handed me down some jeans) The statement happens to be useless. Atzmon says the split coincided with roughly 2,500 years ago. The idea that there is a cultural and religious continuity for all Jews maintained since the Babylonian exile ignores everything we know about the formation of Rabbinical Judaism. Uh, but then, it's pointless. . . I can count. --Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Jethro B 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasted a whole day with someone whose inability to understand anything was conjoined to the exercise of a right to revert what he had no understanding of. You drop drop in, and alter it, but to save appearances. No apologies are needed from you.

The result is an obfuscation. Bray, Atzmon, and Zoossmann-Diskin all accept a Middle East component (the 'founder' gene), but differ in their historical views, depending on the weight they give to the founder gene evidence. Zoossmann-Diskin, summing up the evidence on p.4 specifically says there are (at least) two theories concerning Ashkenazi origins (neither excluding ME founding elements). By Tritomax's elision of my edit, which gave three theories (ignoring the Khazar hypothesis), we are privileging one slant from one theory, and that still violates WP:NPOV. We are obliged to give all serious hypotheses an airing, L &G, and this, today, has been denied.

(2) Since one of the foremost authorities on Yiddish, Wexler, developed 20 years ago his Sorbian hypothesis, the text re Yiddish, which I fixed, is now back to its POV state.

So, the revert fucked up a fair suggestion which gave the state of the art references for three hypotheses; cancelled the alternative theory for the origin of Yiddish; and the emended statement is dopey, because stating that Jews are a people with roots in the Middle East is like saying the English, wherever they migrated, have roots in Great Britain, or that people of Irish descent hail from Ireland. It's obvious and says nothing. It denies the fact that many Jews, genetically, have genetic profiles that also contain non-Middle eastern elements from antiquity. "Admixture" from European genetic contexts which all the studies cited here admit for Ashkenazi is being systematically, contra sources, denied its proper place. And the fixation with a fictitious purity of roots has no place on this or any other encyclopedia.

There is still no valid argument given as to why a respectable scholarly paper by a geneticist published contemporaneously with Atzmon, citing other scholars who share a similar view (Bray, Cochran) about the European genetic component, should not be allowed here. Nor why the Yiddish theory cannot be corrected to represent the views of one of the foremost scholar of that topic in Israel. --Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't alter it. Tritomex did. No apologies are needed from you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't direct that remark to you, but to Jethro. No apologies needed.--Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Were you tired when you wrote that? Or were you serious about everything? If it's the latter, kindly identify to me where in the article history I dropped in and altered anything, followed by a complaint that some revert (presumably a revert I made) "fucked" up an item that is not a human being (if you had said I "fucked" up a human being, it would make more sense, but I haven't touched this article). Also note that 27 hours elapsed on this talk page since you made a post until I "dropped" in, so you hardly "wasted" an entire day with me. --Jethro B 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I honestly do feel terrible that you "wasted" an entire day to get views into an article, views which you've said "I don't espouse these views, of course." Such dedication for views that you don't espouse is really something (and no, I'm not being sarcastic here). --Jethro B 21:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not wholly wasted. I read 11 articles and considerable portions of three books, two by Wexler and one by Jits Van Straten The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled,' De Gruyter 2011, which at least shows, in its survey of what is actually being written about and reliably published that much of the crap on this page just trots out a hackneyed popular piece of hasbara. The wasted part of the day is that nothing of what I read can be included here because I'm outnumbered by the usual line-up, and I doubt on the evidence whether anyone opposing a sensible rewriting of this article according to informed sources can get a word in edgewise anywhere on the article, as opposed to the talk page, where of course, boredom reigns if one does, on reading the quality of the responses. Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm delighted to hear that your day was not completely wasted, and that you succeeded in reading 11 articles and considerable portions of three books to enhance an argument in support of including material regarding views that you "don't share... of course." Such determination should be emulated by others. --Jethro B 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you enjoyed reading Wexler. His agenda is right up your alley. What are Van Straten's credentials? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Gil Atzmon is an endocrinologist and gerontologist, who obtained his Ph.D in population genetics from Hebrew University. For Tritomex, Jethro and yourself, this is hunky dory, a good source for an historical issue.

• Jits van Staten obtained his Ph.D. in microbiology at the University of Minnesota in 1972. His side-interest is Jewish genealogy and he has created the best data base for Amsterdam historical Jewish community. His book was published by de Gruyter. I think his book 'superficial', not technical enough for my taste, but it does provide a comprehensive survey of many of the key issues. He knows more about the historical side, and the scholarly debates on these issues than most of the biologists cited, whose 'evidence' consists, to judge from their bibliographies, of rather dated general books.

• Zoossman-Diskin earned his Phd in population genetics at Tel-Aviv University in 1997 and specializes in the genetic origins of Jewish populations.

• Paul Wexler is one of Max Weinstein’s students, and professor emeritus of historical linguistics at TAU, and one of a rare breed of qualified experts on the intricate warp and weft of slavonic, germanic and yiddish linguistics. I enjoyed reading him, but I'm not persuaded, if you care to know. That, in any case, is irrelevant.

So, what’s your beef? That there is only one story to tell, and any ‘dissident’ to the main narrative is to be weeded out on whatever policy ground one can scrabble after? Zoosmann-Diskin p.4 says the genetic evidence is controversial. We cannot mention that? On the language, all we have at the moment is the old theory about Yiddish, one strong POV. We cannot mention then that some eminently qualified specialists challenge it? Our job is to mention this as part of the discourse on Ashkenazi origins (unless, uh, you are one of those people who believe everything has the right interpretation and any disturbance of the 'truth' is only evidence of anti-semitism, or jihadist politics).--Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hajj with the ridiculous paranoia, it doesn't help. --Jethro B 14:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So what a microbiology expert has to do with Jewish history and Jewish genetics. Van Staten is maybe interested in Jewish genetics or history but he has no any credentials in this field. What he knows or not is something that is not important at all. Zoossman-Diskin study has its place in genetic section, this study has no place in historic section.

There are 21 genetic studies some of them carried out by genetic scholars with much higher reputation than Zoossman-Diskin and who are not thinking that the genetic evidence is controversial. In fact no one beside him think so, Considering Atzmon, he does not give historic narrative by his own-he is providing a clear secondary reference from "A History of the Jewish People" written by one of leading Jewish historian Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson--Tritomex (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can say something intelligently responsive to what RS say that helps resolve a legitimate issue, this is the last time I will respond to you here, because nothing you write is apropos, and is full of personal assessments of RS.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani what is now the reason for your citation template? You have clear references in both sources ." Contemporary Jews comprise an aggregate of ethno-religious communities whose worldwide members identify with each other through various shared religious, historical and cultural traditions 1,2. Historical evidence suggests common origins in the Middle East, followed by migrations leading to the establishment of communities of Jews in Europe..."Most Jewish samples, other than those from Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant (Fig. 1b) The tight cluster comprising the Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian), Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi), north African (Moroccan) and Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally located on the principal component analysis (PCA) plot when compared with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and Caucasus non-Jewish populations (Fig. 1)". This Jewish cluster consists of samples from most Jewish communities studied here, which together cover more than 90% of the current world Jewish population5; this is consistent with an ancestral Levantine contribution to much of contemporary Jewry....Our PCA, ADMIXTURE and ASD analyses, which are based on genome-wide data from a large sample of Jewish communities, their non-Jewish host populations, and novel samples from the Middle East, are concordant in revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations fromthe Levant. The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant."

So your citation template is fully unjustified therefore please avoid WP:POINT, WP:OVERTAGGING, --Tritomex (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. I ask for verification of Davies (1984:1042) and you removed the tag by simply adding a new source, which, see below, is dubious also. I have had to restore the tags, because you have not understood them ('historic' evidence requires historical documentation confirmed by historians, not genetic data). I have also added a citation request for 'They brought with them both Rabbinic Judaism and the Babylonian Talmudic culture that underlies it.' 'They' in the sentence flow, please be attentive to English, means that the theoretical Ashkenazi of the 4th century (now you have put that back to the 3rd century!) brought the Bablyonian Talmudic culture with them. That is an exceptionally extraordinary claim for a period for which we have nothing but one dubious claim, mostly rejected, about the Cologne graveyard. See below.

Your argument for removing my material, not only Zoossmann-Diskin, but Wexler was the wild assertion that

• Regarding different sections in this article-there is a historic section which deals with historic details and genetic section deals with genetic details.
• To begin with and to finish with: There is a section devoted to Genetic study in this article and you can not edit whatever you want, wherever you want. Bray et al is mentioned in this article in proper section.
• Historic facts-goes to historic section, genetic facts goes to genetic section.

Having established this principle that I cannot cite a genetic paper for an historical fact, you do two things. You leave the Atzmon genetic paper which violates your own principle on that section, and go ahead and add another source [11] to the same section, and follow it up with a third which is again, a genetic paper in the history section, violating the very principle you used for removing my addition of Zoossmann-Diskin. It's called 'giving people the run-around': a wild editor with a POV battle mentality messes with a text, while others assist, help revert, use the talk page to challenge the lone editor, with never a peep about the bullshit the wild card throws. The others are so inattentive to what you are doing they don't even check your edits to correct the numerous grammatical errors you make. It is one of the standard tagteaming ploys in this section of wikipedia.

In other words, the only logic in what you are doing is that you feel entitled to remove my material on grounds which do not apply to anything you add to that section. I tagged 'historic' in 'genetic and historic evidence' because the genetic paper cannot be used for a claim about historic evidence, which is in the competence of historians. Your addition of a genetic paper for historical claims therefore is invalid on your own principles.

As to your charge above, don't be silly. I tagged the material in ther article (which you evidently have not consulted: it was added here by someone copying and pasting it from History of the Jews in Germany where the section is totally unreliable because the extraordinary claims there are no longer accepted by historians). You evidently have not verified if the source is correct. I refer to . D. Davies, Louis Finkelstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042). You removed the tag without verifying the source, but added to it here here, where the new source is also invalid and tried to confirm the same invalid claim by three further googled and invalid sources here after I challenged it. Worse still, the claim you make on the basis of these sources, that Jews were in Germany in the 3rd century, which no historian I am familiar with agrees to be documented, is contradicted by a further source you then add higher up, which states

'the majority of the founders of the population came more recently from the region of present day Israel, moved to Spain, France, and Italy, and then in the 10th century into the Rhineland valley in Germany.' (that itself requires qualification, because Jews were there before that date. But genetics journals are not good on history)

You have now added this mess.

In the territory of nowadays Austria Jewish presence is documented since 3rd century CE[20]In Hungary, Jewish presence was documented since the Roman period.[21]In France Jewish communities existed in 465 CE in Brittany, in 524 CE in Valence, and in 533 CE in Orleans, although the Jewish presence in France dates to earlier period. In Romania the Jewish history dates back to 2nd century,[22]while the Jewish presence in Italy dates back to 1th century.[23]

• Note 19 is a Jewish Virtual Library reference. It is the only ref between 19-23 which might have some claim, were it not for the fact that it contradicts what scholars now say. It cites Cologne. That evidence is regarded as doubtful in specialist sources.

We have already pointed out the archeological record from Late Antiquity with its transient Jew in a number of places along the Roman border. There is not a single location or a single location of continuous habitation, except for a doubtful claim put forward for Cologne.' Michael Toch, The Economic History of European Jews: Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages,Brill, 2012 p.67

• Note 20 refers us to the newspaper account of the discovery of a Jewish amulet in Austria, not Germany (Ashkenaz). Worse, the article contradicts its own conclusions, saying there's no proof the child was Jewish, that the amulet may have been bought for him, only then to conclude it proves, not the presence of Jewish objects, but of a Jewish community. The journalist obviously is incompetent.
• Note 21 is a Virtual Library reference to Jews in Hungary, not Ashkenaz. And your link is broken
• Note 22 is a reference to a page of the Romanian Jewish community on Jews in Dacia. What's Dacia got to do with Ashkenazi in Germany? So what?
• Note 23 is a Jewish Virtual Library ref to Italy's Jews. So what?

All this would be interesting for someone who knows nothing of the subject but totally irrelevant. You appear to be preaching to the choir, trying to prove to me that Jews existed in the Roman empire! That's obvious. Jews constituted some 10% of the Roman Empire, for ****'s sake. The page is however on Jews in Ashkenaz, and the formation of that community. Edit to the page, not according to the fantasies you imagine another editor might secretly entertain.--Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ps. Your edit here is again wrong-headed, and hypocritical. It is wrongheaded because , as I remarked here, 'I have had to restore the tags, because you have not understood them ('historic' evidence requires historical documentation confirmed by historians, not genetic data).' It is hypocritical because you removed one source, a genetics article, on the ground this cannot be used for historical data here and now supply a source that comes from a genetic stub. Unless you can understand that your editing is totally self-contradictory, it will have to be removed again (after a day), and unless you can adequately supply a source written by a competent historians, it cannot satisfy the request I made. --Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani If you have a problem with references given, you have to present it. You inserted a dubious-discuss template without explaining the reason of insertion and you have removed a valid source from Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

+

Ps. Your edit here is again wrong-headed, and hypocritical. It is wrongheaded because , as I remarked here, 'I have had to restore the tags, because you have not understood them ('historic' evidence requires historical documentation confirmed by historians, not genetic data).' It is hypocritical because you removed one source, a genetics article, on the ground this cannot be used for historical data here and now supply a source that comes from a genetic stub. Unless you can understand that your editing is totally self-contradictory, it will have to be removed again (after a day), and unless you can adequately supply a source written by a competent historians, it cannot satisfy the request I made. --Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

−

Regarding the third source given for this sentence it states:"Ashkenazi Jews, that is, those Jews of Eastern European origin, constitute more than 80 percent of all world Jewry. The early founders of the Ashkenazi community made their way to Europe during Roman rule, but the majority of the founders of the population came more recently from the region of present day Israel, moved to Spain, France, and Italy, and then in the 10th century into the Rhineland valley in Germany."

So this is directly inline with the sentence, and with the remaining two sources explained above, although it is not upon me to justify the source, but upon you to explain the insertions of this different templates. If you have no reason to explain why the Hebrew university publication is dubious, than the removal of unjustified template is the only solution. As you may have noticed, I let your removal of well respected historic book of Edward Henry Palmer, which you described as outdated(without providing any source for such claim) just in order to achieve finally some kind of consensus with you. Considering the source from Jewish virtual Library it clearly states that the "Evidence of Jews in the area now known as Germany dates back to the early 4th century" so again I don't know what is dubious for you in this source. Templates are used to present the need to improve sources and references and this is what I did and what I will do. There can be no logical doubt that everything presented in this 2 sentence is fully supported by the sources given. I would also like other editors to share their impressions regarding the references given. Prof Atzmon and Prof Behar directly refer to well known Jewish historian Hayim Ben Sasson, and are providing direct historic reference from the book "The History Of Jewish people" Considering the Hebrew university paper it provides clear reference about historic migrations and establishment of Ashkenazi Jewish community, while genetic info is given in different section.

• • (The page is however on Jews in Ashkenaz,) Please read the title of the section!!
  • (What's Dacia got to do with Ashkenazi in Germany?) Are you at least familiar with the title of the chapter: History of Jews in Europe before the Ashkenazim
  • (The journalist obviously is incompetent) Please avoid WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(a) Please stop sidestepping my request. You removed Zoossmann-Diskin from the section because you said it was not, as a genetics paper relevant to the history section. You retained a genetics paper for the history section (Atzmon) and added one more to the history section (Hebrew University Genetic stub on Ashkenazi). Please reply to this. Why do your edits permit genetic papers as sources for historical facts, but my edits are not allowed to follow your procedure?

The section shouldn't be there, except as brief background, and is an obvious abuse. As a separate section it mixes three subjects (a)Ashkenazi Jews (b)the Jews in Europe (c) the Jews in Mesopotamia. Ideally, all such pages should be written from sources that deal with Ashkenazim, otherwise you violate (as is the case all over this page, WP:OR). What do the following passages in this section have to do with the article, or the section heading?

• After the Roman empire had overpowered the Jewish resistance in the First Jewish–Roman War in Judea and destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the complete Roman takeover of Judea followed the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132–135 CE. Though their numbers were greatly reduced, Jews continued to populate large parts of Judaea province (renamed to Palaestina), remaining a majority in Galilee for several hundred years. However, the Romans no longer recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin or any other Jewish body, and Jews were prohibited from living in Jerusalem. Outside the Roman Empire, a large Jewish community remained in Mesopotamia. Other Jewish populations could be found dispersed around the Mediterranean region, with the largest concentrations in the Levant, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece,

• In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, where Jewish religious scholarship was centered, the majority of Jews were still engaged in farming, as demonstrated by the preoccupation of early Talmudic writings with agriculture. In diaspora communities, trade was a common occupation, facilitated by the easy mobility of traders through the dispersed Jewish communities.

• In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, the spoken language of Jews continued to be Aramaic, but elsewhere in the diaspora, most Jews spoke Greek. Conversion and assimilation were especially common within the Hellenized or Greek-speaking Jewish communities, amongst whom the Septuagint and Aquila of Sinope (Greek translations and adaptations of the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible) were the source of scripture.

• After the Islamic conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, new opportunities for trade and commerce opened between the Middle East and Western Europe. The vast majority of Jews now lived in Islamic lands. Urbanization, trade, and commerce within the Islamic world allowed Jews, as a highly literate people, to abandon farming and live in cities, engaging in occupations where they could use their skills.[27] The influential, sophisticated, and well organized Jewish community of Mesopotamia, now centered in Baghdad, became the center of the Jewish world.

I gather from what you said that all of this stuff can be removed as irrelevant to the topic.

(b) It is not WP:OR, which deals with article content additions. On talk pages one evaluates sources by examining their relevance, authority and utility. I noted that the newspaper account contradicts itself. It says the one object found was Jewish. The child may not be Jewish. This is proof there were Jews. Even an idiot would know that you can't use a newspaper report, that is so incoherent it contradicts itself, for an historical 'fact'.--Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, many of your comments here have been quite vociferous and employed harsh rhetoric. While I welcome your opinion and enjoy spending days discussing a lively topic regarding views that you "don't espouse these views, of course," please let's try to maintain as much civility as possible, along with good faith (see WP:AGF). That includes calling other edits or editors "hypocritical" rather than assume good faith with the edit, or languishing that your version isn't being inserted. All of this combined will contribute to a much more pleasant conversation, one that would be equivalent to us sitting around a campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya. I'm looking foward. --Jethro B 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's consider this respectable study, and what it has to say.

Progressively more detailed population genetic analysis carried out independently by multiple research groups over the past two decades has revealed a pattern for the population genetic architecture of contemporary Jews descendant from globally dispersed Diaspora communities. This pattern is consistent with a major, but variable component of shared Near East ancestry, together with variable degrees of admixture and introgression from the corresponding host Diaspora populations.

The study also writes, and references:

Since their emergence as a national and religious group in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago (Biran and Naveh 1993), Jews have maintained continuous cultural and religious traditions amid a series of Diasporas (Ben-Sasson 1976).

And also:

Early population genetic studies based on blood groups and serum markers provided evidence that most Jewish Diaspora groups originated in the Middle East... Our research teams and others have independently performed genome-wide analyses of Diaspora Jewish groups and comparison with neighboring populations... Yet, they came to remarkably similar conclusions, providing evidence for shared genetic ancestries among major Jewish Diaspora groups together with variation in admixture with local populations.

--Jethro B 14:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you omitted that they admit:'These patterns have been congruous with the inferences of many, but not of all historians using more traditional tools such as archeology, archival records, linguistics, comparative analysis of religious narrative, liturgy and practices.'

A very large number of historians and linguists find huge technical problems in the notorious bottleneck problem of explaining how the minute medieval Ashkenazi population became the several millions attested in late 19th century censuses. It is one of the major stumbling blocks in genetic readings of Ashkenazi history.

I keep calling for the historical evidence, and you two keep quoting geneticists on history, while one of you refuses a source for an alternative history because it is in a genetics paper, which is a stark and 'violent' incongruity in methodology.

In my family, we also have a genes that are Jewish markers, which however, since we have a fair understanding of logic, does not mean we 'originated in the Middle East', since by the same logic, giving three centuries of documented history, we originated from Brittany, Ireland, Wales, England, Spain, Italy, and Goan India, with genic imput from all those populations. What these geneticists keep doing to define the Jewish type is excluding the logical deduction one could equally make from the other 30-55/60% of the genome which hails from other lands. If you tell me Sachertorte, which I had at lunch, is made from chocolate, you're right, but it contains eggs, vanilla, and sugar as well, and without them would not be Sachertorte, but just chocolate. As often as not, people choose which genes they want to privilege to establish their genetic identity. Identity, however, is always cultural, not racial, as the B'nei Moshe and Beta-Israel examples show. I'm amazed that, after WW2, people have lost their sensitivities to this topic, and actively embrace a kind of stereotyping which enabled genocide.

What geneticists define as 'Jewishness' in Europe relates to male founder genes, the paternal lineage in Y-DNA. What Rabbinical Judaism's halakhic definition accepts as 'Jewishness' is matrilineal descent. The two definitions are in stark conflict but are collapsed in the commentariat, and even by geneticists, who ignore that their results, based on a quasi-racial stereotyping of the 'Jew' are not compatible with halakhic law which defines 'Jews' by different descent criteria. That is why I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians as well who observe the methods of professional research in that discipline, like the earlier C.D. Darlington who introduced me to the topic several decades ago.--Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani Your comment about me and others "wild editor with a POV battle mentality messes with a text, while others assist, help revert, use the talk page to challenge the lone editor, with never a peep about the bullshit the wild card throws." is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules.--Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

:Nishidani There are no "genes that are Jewish markers" stop using racial terminology There are Middle Eastern haplogroups of Y DNA and mtDNA while your qualification of respected scientists as "quasy racial" people who are "stereotyping of the 'Jew' " is an insult against Jewish people and those scientists who carried out this studies. Although your opinion regarding "Jewish genes" has no weight, Wikipedia has zero tolerance for racism.--Tritomex (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Jewish markers is shorthand for 'The powerful genetic markers of Jewish ancestry' (interview with Harry Ostrer). So, cut the toxic insinuations that I am insulting 'the Jewish people'. That's provocative bullshit.--Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to fight what you believe is "provocative bullshit," it's not helpful to go call someone "provocative bullshit." --Jethro B 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex wrote:'your qualification of respected scientists as "quasy racial" people who are "stereotyping of the 'Jew' " is an insult against Jewish people' is 'provocative bullshit' because nowhere did I call geneticists 'quasy racial' people (where did he get that from?) and, having distorted my remarks, specifically said that I had 'insulted the Jewish people'. That is the usual antisemitic meme thrown by POV warriors, and is provocative bullshit. Don't defend it.--Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, firstly, they are a genetic research group, not a historical research group. Secondly, obviously not all are going to agree on something. But on the article for the Holocaust, we don't say "Many historian, but not all, agree that the Holocaust happened." Thirdly, what their research did was support those many historians, and go against those other few. The research backs up the many. --Jethro B 16:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, I repeat, please reply to my original request. I.e. My edit was removed because it contained a genetic paper in the history section. Tritomex retained the other genetics paper, and included a third. Where is the logic in that? What is the policy basis for such idiosyncratic rule shouting while making an exception for oneself to the proclaimed rule?--Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Nishidani, your comments above demonstrate a remarkable amount of original research and personal opinions being interjected into here. It seems that you are rejecting geneticists out of personal opinions, stereotyping beliefs, a state of awe, and rejection of the methods that established geneticists use, alongside personal anectodes, which is not a Wikipedia policy, and is not a valid reason. It's unfortunate that is what has contributed so largely to the discussion here. --Jethro B 16:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. That on a talk page I have to explain to people, who are not adding anything from books to the article but just googled tidbits, what historians say on an historical topic, is not 'original research'. It is a reflection of my responsibilities as an editor to familiarize myself with the topic. If my interlocuters can't understand the point, I explain it to them. Most of the comments I made actually are the same that Ostrer has mentioned in his interviews, and that you can't recognize the echoes means you are not doing your homework.

Many of these genetic papers make historical claims which are not derived from the genetic evidence, but from a geneticist's correlation of the genetic evidence with books they read about Jewish history. And precisely there, critics have noted many errors, particularly in Ostrer's work. He is 'unfamiliar with Jewish history'. What the Applebaum's state goes for all of this evidence.

A thornier problem is that Ostrer, like many research physicians, takes genetic data to be more scientific, and therefore more definitive, than they are. Genetically described populations reflect probabilistic clusters of markers inscribed in our DNA. They are not a concretization of race. Moreover, many of the conclusions that can be drawn from genetic evidence are reliant on the quality of accompanying historical data. For example, the Cohen modal haplotype is a cluster of distinctive genetic markers shared by a high percentage of contemporary Jewish Cohanim (the priestly clan that traces its ancestry back to Moses' brother Aaron). The idea that the ancestry that these men share can be traced to the ancient Israelite priesthood makes sense to almost everyone who views these data, but it is not inherent in the data. The data show only that these men share common ancestors who lived a specified number of generations ago. Estimating when those ancestors lived depends on an educated guess about the length of an average generation during the last 3000 years or so. But the idea that those ancestors were Cohanim is derived from our knowledge of Jewish history, it is not inscribed in the genetic markers.--Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I could add a lot of other criticism on this abusive use of genetic papers on questions of exquisitely historical purport, in the literature. You are both confused over this.

To conclude. Tritomex made a principle of asserting that the history section here must not contain genetic papers, and then proceeded to violate his own principle. I'm fine with the principle, and think the history must be based on what historians say. For example, his four references from useless sources today, on Hungarians, Italians, Romanians etc., are snippets (the Romanian source has an unsupported assertion in one brief line of habitation from the 2nd century) which are covered amply by historical works specializing in this. I will therefore replace all four with an appropriate source in due course. I.e. Michael Toch The Economic History of European Jews, Brill 2012 pp.155ff. You have the link. Read it. It includes the 'Jewish amulet' bit ion Haaretz. Read the whole book. It shows what a shambles much of the traditional googlable stuff about early habitation is, in an historian's perspective.--Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collobaritive project open to all. That includes those who have a PhD in physics and those who are in 8th grade. It is the responsibility of editors to use RS (that includes Haaretz) to back up their statements; not to use personal opinions to explain why a change should occur, which is what you did when you said "I'm amazed that, after WW2, people have lost their sensitivities to this topic, and actively embrace a kind of stereotyping which enabled genocide" and "I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history" along with a personal anectode "In my family." All of that is very nice reading around the fireplace, but isn't proper here.

Also, please don't accuse others of being silly. If I wanted to be silly, I'd join the circus! --Jethro B 17:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz is not RS if (a) on the talk page it can be shown to be a self-contradictory for the information required and (b) better sources exist (as is Toch here) which cover exactly the same material, are written by area specialists and are under academic imprint. Serious editors do not waste time fussing like this or justifying poor edits when someone provides a far more comprehensive RS source for the same material. They look at the merits between two proposals and see what is more encyclopedic. They exclude partisanship. That is what I mean about avoiding putting people through an exercise of time-wasting challenges. It's courteous to see the obvious, and allows editors to confirm that they are in an good faith environment.--Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Circus acts aren't silly. They're sad, notoriously so. If one wants to be silly, it's enough to become a politician.--Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I'm really not sure this is worth continuing, given that the initiator of the discussion seems to believe this is just some "exercise." --Jethro B 17:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do I have to spell that edit summary out for you. The section is on European Jews prefatory to the Ashkenazi. The issue contested is genetics as a source for historical information (see my original complaint). No one here so far seems to be familiar with the historical literature. Everyone else is prepossessed by arguing genetic evidence for a presence which lacks historical confirmation, using historical allusions in genetic papers that cannot be confirmed by sources on the Ashkenazi. I've been dragged persistently through appallingly time-consuming explanations by people who refuse to explain their behaviour, while no one is actually looking at the historical literature (in abundance) pertinent to the question, save myself. That means for me that I am being put through an exercise in distractive time-wasting talk page chat. --Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani The historic chapter had and has only one opening sentence regarding genetic origin of Ashkenazi Jews, which is supported by 20 different genetic studies and represents consensus.(I can add all 20 genetic studies as reference) You altered this section with inclusion of enormous quantity of your taughts regarding one-single genetic article which contrary to 20 others, has different opinion on the subject than the mainstream. With this you created a POV in which you tried to present the genetic origin of Ashkenazi Jews as controversial, and without consensus, which is not the case, nor it is supported by overwhelming majority of genetic scholars and studies. Off course you can add that genetic study to the article, in proper section(genetic study) but not by vandalizing the historic section of this article and by creating POVs.Historic section will be devoted to historic facts and both genetic references (Behar and Atzmon) has direct secondary references regarding historic facts from "The History of Jewish People" by Ben Sasson. There is no reasonable argument to include Zoossmann-Diskin in historic section and not to include 18 other studies, some carried out by geneticists with much higher reputation than Zoossmann-Diskin which all support the findings of Atzmon and Behar. With your logic, the whole historic chapter will be transformed in to second genetic section, because you can not accept the current well documented and properly attributed sources.--Tritomex (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. To go back to the start. I'll take you through this very slowly and methodically. We had this:

(a)Although the historical record is very limited, there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.(ref name="Atzmon2010")

(b)There is a genetic and historic[15][dubious – discuss] evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.[16][17]

My edit showed there was no such thing as a 'there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence.'

To make this statement without violating WP:OR, you require a text to assert that there is a scholarly consensus. What you repeat now, that Atzmon is supported by '20 different genetic studies and represents consensus,' is your judgement, unless you can cite a source which makes that backup statement. Therefore you shouldn't be repeating it again and again.

There happens to be a majority, and a minority opinion within genetics, with this regard. What you argue is the majority opinion is sustained by Atzmon and co. You removed the minority opinion, represented by Zoosmann-Diskin and co (for he had a dozen collaborators on his three relevant papers), by Goldman and by Bray et al. Their views are fairly given at Genetic studies on Jews. Per WP:NPOV all relevant views must be represented.

2.

You write:

(a)

You altered this section with inclusion of enormous quantity of your taughts regarding one-single genetic article which contrary to 20 others, has different opinion on the subject than the mainstream.

That sentence is incomprehensible, so I cannot reply to it.

(b) 'With this you created a POV in which you tried to present the genetic origin of Ashkenazi Jews as controversial'.

The source you removed says:-

The genetic affinities of the Jewish populations have been studied since the early days of genetics, yet the origin of these populations is still obscure.. . The origin of Eastern European Jews, (EEJ) by far the largest and most important Ashkenazi population, and their affinities to other Jewish and European populations are still not resolved.'

In other words, whereas I cited a genetic paper which says the issue is 'obscure' and 'unresolved' as opposed to your undocumented assertion that a scholarly consensus exists, you removed the source that challenges Atzmon, and then said I created a POV. No, I registered a dissenting POV to what Atzmon et al. claim. By removing a 'minority' source, you created a POV, one narrative when there are at least two. You did the same with your deletion of material contesting the tired, and hotly challenged old theory, that Yiddish is a dialect of High German. So you created a double POV imbalance by repressing all sources which challenged a false and simplistic one-sided story.

A consensus view in a subject does not, ipso facto, deny the validity of mentioning a dissenting opinion, neither in the Supreme Court judgements, in science, in scholarship or on wiki. That is what WP:NPOV means. All positions are represented with due weight. You appear not to understand this.

• You have therefore violated NPOV by supressing an opinion which conflicts with Behar and Atzmon.
• You have sourced the idea that there is historic evidence that the Ashkenazi come from the Middle East to three genetic papers. I have repeatedly told you that (a) evidence from history is, according to historians, absent for the origins of the Ashkenazi (the historical consensus) (b) Historic evidence, per Toch (2012) says that whereas Jewish presence is everywhere attested in epitaphs and synagogues, no significant evidence exists of this sort for the Ashkenazi until the 9th century. (c) you said on three occasions Historic facts-goes to historic section, genetic facts goes to genetic section. and yet you are violating your own opinion in using, in the historic section, three genetic papers.
• When faced with this contradiction, you say, but Atzmon and Behar use an historian's book for their historical 'facts', and refer me to The History of Jewish People (1969) which was not written by Ben Sasson, he was the editor and a contributing author. Apart from it being way, way behind the immense strides in Jewish historical studies in the last 4 decades, that book does not support, as far as I can see, a claim that the Ashkenazi came from the Middle East. It says that with the growth of their populations, and encouraged by the slave trade, European Jews began to move into Germany in the ninth century (p.394) One does not cite geneticists who cite outdated books, which happen not to mention the issue in question, on an historical problem for which there are superb modern historical works written over the last decade. So, you have have no argument to justify breaking the rule (genetics in the genetic section, history in the history section).--Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While I admire such methodology, I think you should beware of WP:TLDR. That's a lot a lot of text to sit down and read, and I doubt most people will read all of it. --Jethro B 22:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I't's called being responsible and scrupulous concerning getting encyclopedic, reliably sourced and exact phrasing into wikipedia, irrespective of POV. I doubt a large part of what I read. I don't discount it if the source is reliable and from scholars of repute and standing. --Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani Beyond Zoosman-Diskin there are 20 other studies which do not support controversy in the origin of Ashkenazi Jews Hammer and all

[12]

• Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene

flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.

• [13]

• [14]

• Nebla and all

"It is believed that the majority of contemporary Jews descended from the ancient Israelites that had lived in the historic land of Israel until ∼2000 years ago. Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture.In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews.. " [15]

• Anna C Need and al

"Here we show that within Americans of European ancestry there is a perfect genetic corollary of Jewish ancestry which, in principle, would permit near perfect genetic inference of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. In fact, even subjects with a single Jewish grandparent can be statistically distinguished from those without Jewish ancestry. We also found that subjects with Jewish ancestry were slightly more heterozygous than the subjects with no Jewish ancestry, suggesting that the genetic distinction between Jews and non-Jews may be more attributable to a Near-Eastern origin for Jewish populations than to population bottlenecks."

• Shen and al

"A 2004 study by Shen et al. compared the Y-DNA and DNA-mt Samaritans of 12 men with those of 158 men who were not Samaritans, divided between 6 Jewish populations (Ashkenazi origin, Moroccan, Libyan, Ethiopian, Iraqi and Yemeni) and 2 non-Jewish populations from Israel (Druze and Arab). The study concludes that significant similarities exist between paternal lines of Jews and Samaritans, but the maternal lines differ between the two populations. The pair-wise genetic distances (Fst) between 11 populations from AMOVA applied to the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial data. For the Y-chromosome, all Jewish groups, except for the Ethiopians, are closely related to each other. They do not differ significantly from Samaritans (0.041) and Druze (0.033), but are different from Palestinians (0.163), Africans (0.219), and Europeans (0.111). Nevertheless, the data in this study indicated that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their geographical neighbors, the Palestinians."

• Naama M. Kopelman and all

"We perform a genome-wide population-genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry...Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, the most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population".

• Faerman

"Ashkenazi Jews represent the largest Jewish community and traditionally trace their origin to the ancient Hebrews who lived in the Holy Land over 3000 years ago. Ashkenazi Jews are among the groups most intensively studied by population geneticists. Here, main genetic findings and their implications to the history of Ashkenazim are presented reflecting in a way major developments in population genetics as a discipline. Altogether, Ashkenazi Jews appear as a relatively homogenous population which has retained its identity despite nearly 2000 years of isolation and is closely related to other Jewish communities tracing their common origin to the Middle East."

• Hammer and all 2009 [16]

In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage. By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations we are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Our estimates of the coalescence time also lend support to the hypothesis that the extended CMH represents a unique founding lineage of the ancient Hebrews that has been paternally inherited along with the Jewish priesthood"

• Haplotype VIII of the Y chromosome is the ancestral haplotype in Jews.

Lucotte G, David F, Berriche S. Source

International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. Abstract

DNA samples from Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews were studied with the Y-chromosome-specific DNA probes p49f and p49a to screen for restriction fragment length polymorphisms and haplotypes. Two haplotypes (VII and VIII) are the most widespread, representing about 50% of the total number of haplotypes in Jews. The major haplotype in Oriental Jews is haplotype VIII (85.1%); haplotype VIII is also the major haplotype in the Djerban Jews (77.5%) (Djerban Jews represent probably one of the oldest Jewish communities). Together these results confirm that haplotype VIII is the ancestral haplotype in Jews."

• Behar and al 2006 [17]

"Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry"

• L Hao and all

"...The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Iraqi) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. Interestingly, the distance to the closest Southern European population follows the order from proximal to distal: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian, which reflects historical admixture with local communities. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry"

• [18]

The study examines genetic markers spread across the entire genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for making a human — and shows that the Jewish groups share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships. Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East. From there, groups of Jews moved to other parts of the world in migrations collectively known as the Diaspora.

• Atzmon and all.

• Behar and all 2010

• Priya Moorjani and al 2011

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15], [38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39], [40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC

• Cambell and all 2012

"North African Jews are more closely related to Jews from other parts of the world than they are to most of their non-Jewish neighbors in North Africa, a study has found. North African Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to Each Other and to European and Middle Eastern Jewish Groups. SNP data were generated for 509 unrelated individuals (60.5% female) from the 15 Jewish populations (Table 1). These SNP data were merged with selected datasets from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) to examine the genetic structure of Jewish populations in both global and regional contexts (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). The first two principal components of worldwide populations showed that the North African Jewish populations clustered with the European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups and European non-Jewish groups, but not with the North African non-Jewish groups, suggesting origins distinctive from the latter... The relationships of the Jewish communities were outlined further by the IBD sharing across populations [Fig. 3B and SI Appendix, Tables S1 (lower triangle) and S4], because the Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations."

So do you want only Zoosman-Diskin, or you want all of this+ other studies which I did not cited now to be included in historic section? Because if the lonely study telling the opposite from mainstream is included I have to include all of this, giving each of them as much importance and space as Zoosman-Diskin study in order to avoid POV. This is historic-not genetic section So please accept reasonable and rational solution and avoid broadening the historic section with genetic information by 5000-10000%. As you can see the single genetic sentence represent consensus and it it single not because there is no more info to say about Atzmon and Behar or about other studies, but because I did not think genetics has place in that section. That is why I proposed you to edit ZD in genetics. BTW This edit was not originally mine, I just removed few contested words from a sentence which stood there for a long time. If you dispute the word "historic evidence", I am also ready to find consensus with you. However, my knowledge of genetics is enough to know that regarding the Middle Eastern genetic origin of AJ there is more than enough evidence. However if there is consensus to opposite, to include ZD in historic section, I am ready to edit all details and analysis from all studies, most of them not even mentioned here to historic section, as I am myself a medical doctor familiar with genetics. Also in such case I would include a table showing each study in relation of confirming/opposing the Middle Eastern ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews and in relation of specifically supporting/or not the origin of Ashkenazi Jews from ancient Israelites --Tritomex (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it, because you are battling a strawman, and dodging my simple point.

It's neither my job nor yours to subscribe to a truth. An editor is obliged simply to survey the relevant literature and enter all points of view, if (s)he encounters different conclusions. Zoossmann-Diskin et al,(and to a lesser extent Bray et al.) draw a different conclusion. Per wikipedia NPOV you are obliged to register all relevant opinions on a topic, and you insist on cancelling on, even though its author is a first rate geneticist. For several days you have been asserting, against policy, that Atzmon et al have the truth, and to register any scholarly disagreement with it is POV-pushing. Is that clear? You are repressing a POV because you subscribe personally to the conclusion of many of your sources. That is a patent violation of wiki procedures.--Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani no one will prevent you to add Zoossmann-Diskin et al to the genetic section, even more I would advise it, but if you insist that Zoossmann-Diskin should be also included in historic section by expanding the single sentence in that chapter which relates to genetic studies(which was originaly not my edition-I removed parts of it that you have challenged) POV can be avoided only if all (and I mentioned only some) genetic studies would be added there too. Thats mean 19 additional studies, analysis, references, diagrams and tables and to give each of them same space as ZD. in order to avoid this(although this would certainly explain the level of consensus) I proposed another solution, although I am now ready for this too.

Considering Bray and all, it does not support ZD, as Bray and all confirms the Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews in 65%-45% in the same way as all studies before and later. --Tritomex (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)