Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

More rubbishy WP:OR.

The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[12][12][13][14][15] and in Rome in 139 B.C.[16]

This is a conspicuous WP:OR construction.

• Note 12. Refers to W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.

I?ve asked for over a year for this to be verified. No one has done so. My verify tag was removed

• Note 13 refers to Jews in Cologne 321. True, and they were probably there (Schuette the excavator attests this) in the Ist century CE. But it is an WP:OR construction to use this to say they were the forefathers of the Ashkenazi Jews. Note 13 source does not mention Cologne’s Jews are the forefathers of the Ashkenazi. It does not mention a ‘beginning of settlement' along the Rhine at that date either either.
• Note 14 Likewise mentions the same facts of Constantine’s 321 decree re Cologne, but there is no mention of them being thought to have settled ‘along the Rhine’ or to being Ashkenazi forefathers.
• Note 15 reads:

But how did the Jews get to the town on the Oder?

In the year 70 AD, the Romans conquer insurgent Jerusalem and destroy the temple. After further insurrections the Jews are banished from Palestine and there arises a strong Jewish diaspora - dispersal through many lands. After initial settlements in the Middle East, Jews move on into Europe. The so-called Ashkenazic Jews get through Turkey and Greece to central Europe. They settle in Germany, which is called Ashkenaz in rabbinic literature. The Ashkenazi speak Yiddish and form the largest part of the whole of Jewry. The first documented mention of Jewish life in Germany is from 321 AD in Cologne. The Rhineland forms the early centre of Jewish settlements, which sees a heyday in the 10th century.

(a) This is hackwork, full of untruths or distortions and the source is written by a certain Johanna Adrian, who turns out to be a student at the European University Viadrina at that. This is unacceptable for our RS criteria.

• Note 16 from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. The article concerns Roman Jews. There is no mention of anything related to Ashkenazi Jews. There is no mention there that 'The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling . . .in Rome in 139 B.C.'

This latter statement is stupid as well. We know that Jews are attested in Rome in 139 BCE., as already constituting a community (that implies an earlier presence.) On that date they were subject to an expulsion order.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In short, it is self-evident that Jews were in Europe from pre Christian times, amply attested in numerous places. But the above notes contain nothing about either Ashkenazi forefathers or ‘beginning to settle along the Rhine.

It would be nice if somebody could please access that Cambridge History of Judaism, page 1042.

The way you present it does sound like WP:OR original research. On the other hand, the truth of it is so obvious that I doubt we can apply that guideline to it. 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

No one has verified that Cambridge source for a year now, and it is all the sentence hangs on. There is 'no truth' to it for reasons I gave above. Jews were in Montenegro, Trier, to the East, and the Iberian peninsula, in Salonika, earlier, so we have Balkan evidence that is implicitly dismissed in order to favour the Rhineland-West theory. If you read Toch's book, after the 6th century plague there was a massive population drop throughout these areas as well. Toch argues for evidence of transient small communities north. So, we apply WP:OR criteria even if you think it obvious. It is not to many scholars. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see your reason to reject a project of a student. All professors and MAs and BAs were students once themselves. Especially since that website is a project of the Insitute for Applied History – Frankfurt. Doesn't sound that bad as far as reliable sources go. But I do agree that the other sources seem circumstantial. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Nishidani here, a work by a student is not WP:RS. It might hypothetically be the best work ever, and it still does not matter. WP is not about truth, it's about verifiable facts, and an unpublished work by a student is not WP:RS no matter how good it hypothetically is.Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

According to archaeologists and Cologne Jewish museum Jews have lived in the province of Lower Germania since the end of the first century AD. continually to Modern Times. By the fourth century they constituted a large and significant community.

In 321 Emperor Constantine the Great sent a letter to Cologne in which he assented to having Jews appointed to the Town Senate, the Curia. Only a large and well-off community was capable of providing members for such a municipal honorary position because in late Antiquity, members of the curia faced massive private financial burdens"... "the Cologne Jewish community Excavations at the Town Hall Square have, in the interim, brought evidence for the continuity of the Jewish community from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.For example, before an earthquake destroyed it end of the eighth century, the first synagogue that can undeniably be identified used a building from late Antiquity. This includes an oval basin that was utilised in all the phases of the building . Scientific investigations have proved its utilisation for a time span of 1,000 years.[[1]]--Tritomex (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the story about "W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.". To start with, it is Finkelstein not Frankenstein. Second, this is a multi-volume work so the volume number should be cited (it is volume 4). Third, Davies and Finkelstein were the editors of the first two volumes of the series so they aren't even relevant. The editor of volume 4 was Steven T. Katz, but he was not the author of page 1042. Fifth, page 1042 lies in Chapter 39, "Jews in Byzantium", written by Steven Bowman. Sixth, this volume was published in 2006, not 1984. Finally, here is the complete relevant text: "Therefore, Constantine’s general law regarding the admission of the Jews of Cologne to the decurionate 13 was beneficial at the time – note the pristina observatio perpetual exemption." with a footnote "CTh 16.8.3; December 11, 321." I don't see any other mention of the Rhineland here, which is hardly surprising given the chapter topic. In summary, whoever added this was being extremely sloppy about the citation (I'm trying to be nice) and since it is a brief mention in passing in an article on a different topic, without any mention of "forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews" or similar, it doesn't support the text. This fake citation appears in History of the Jews in Germany also. Zero^talk 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually had read most of the Bowman 2008 article, which is on Byzantium, but couldn't access that one page.In any case, special pleading for poor sources, rather than the correct application of policy, is misplaced. Secondly, Tritomex, you don't appear to read what your interlocutors write, and give the impression you are fending off people who might in your view have something 'against Jews', not a desire to write articles on, say, Jewish history with the same close source control and textual pertinacity they customarily adopt with any other article. It's commonplace here, but extremely wearisome. What you say above about 321 is not in dispute. I and everyone else know it. What it ignores is the concrete issue of whether texts speak of Jews, transient or settled, in the early Roman Empire as 'forefathers of the Ashkenazi', 'from the Loire to the Rhine valley' etc., which is how the doctored or fudged text we have is framed. I must insist on this, we should at least have the same scruples on the Ashkenazi that Shira Schoenberg's article in the Jewish Virtual Library has. I.e., we don't underwrite speculative reconstructions of possible events. We stick to the facts or the state of scholarship.

I take it then, that it is acknowledged that the sentence has no sourcing that warrants the formulation in it? If so, then normal procedure is to remove it. It is as clumsy and artificial at least as the other sentence Debresser removed. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's say all agree that parts of that sentence are unfounded. If we remove that part, then the sentence loses part of its functionality in the lead, and the question is where to place it and in what connection. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the functionality of that sentence? Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

To show the origins and spread of Jews into the places where later they would be called Ashkenazi Jews. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(a) The origins are, by widespread scholarly agreement, obscure, so they can't be 'shown' as yet. We know that Jews were in many places in Europe under the Roman Empire. We do not know of their links, or the continuities, between these and the Ashkenazi. (b) There was a dramatic collapse of populations after the massively devastating Plague of Justinian, for example. We cannot wish to have connections when the best literature shows none. At most we can cite hypotheses, but that gets us into a swamp of conjecture inappropriate to a lead. That explains also why this is another rubbishy piece of WP:OR. Why the scruple over genetics, which you quickly removed and yet the tolerance of 'stuff' that is far more dubious? Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't answer the question: if we remove parts of the sentence, what should be done with the rest of it?

Let's keep this professional. I didn't remove anything till I established firm consensus (of which you were a part) about what to remove and with what to replace it. That is precisely what we are doing now as well. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't answer the question because (a) it wasn't intelligent (b) you are failing to respond adequately to the points I raised. Sentences are written according to sources. Passable sentences reflect the best scholarship. This has nothing of either. I have said repeatedly, good articles like Shira Schoenberg's, manage to write the history of the Ashkenazi from their first appearance and designation as such. On wikipedia, one gets the impression that one cannot follow this palmary example because numbers of editors want to invariably prove that all Jews are (a) related and (d) originate from ancient Israel or the 'Israelites' (who weren't even Jews), which gets us into all sorts of technical messes, because we stray from ascertainable facts in doctrines, ideologies, and hypotheses. The sentence needs to be removed, because it is false, incoherent and WP:SYNTH or, euphemistically, WP:OR: punto e basta. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you always have to be so unpleasant... The question is a good question, or "intelligent" as you call it. If you don't understand the question, please ask me to explain.

I have already agreed with your point, so there is nothing for me to respond to. Your lengthy text above in point (b) is off-point. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you agree, let's remove the sentence. I've got sources for it, by the way, but they are meme stuff, which anyone can grub up, and if one puts that it, one is dragged into putting all of the contrary stuff in. Your point was not 'intelligent' because if you remove the objectionable stuff (as I documented) from

The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[12][12][13][14][15] and in Rome in 139 B.C.[16]

you get

'The forefathers of the Ashkenazi' which is not a sentence, but a programmatic declaration without a verb or a predicate.

If I appear disagreeable, it's because I have to a spend an inordinate amount of time saying what is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure the Volume used here says 1984,,,but the isbn is wrong...was asked to find all the copies...many volumes..below the ones that can be seen. -- Moxy (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• William David Davies; Louis Finkelstein (16 February 1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 1, Introduction: The Persian Period. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21880-1.
• William David Davies; Louis Finkelstein; Steven T. Katz (2006). The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77248-8.
• William David Davies; Louis Finkelstein (1989). The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Hellenistic age. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21929-7.

This is a non-issue

I fail to see the point of the current discussion. It's a fact that not one WP:RS source has been presented to support what is currently being said in the lead. Quite the opposite, it is clear that the section as it stands violates WP:OR as it makes far-fetching claims that find no support in the sourced used. That being the case, I have removed the section. While I'm sure we all agree it would be preferable to have something about the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews, that's not a reason to invent a story with no support in the sources. I do think we will need to add something, when good sources are found. While waiting for that, it is obvious that it's far better to have nothing at all than a story written by someone who either did not understand or did not read the sources. If someone disagrees, I dare to say they need to read WP:OR carefully. What we do here at Wikipedia is to find sources and present what the sources say. We do not invent stories and misrepresent sources. For that very simply reason, part of the introduction had to go as it has been established by several users that it not only is invented, but that it also completely misrepresents the sources.Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East by Jamie Stroked directly points to the link between Jewish communities in Roman empire as forefathers of AJ, without using genetic results (which also almost without any exception are pointing to same direction) The encyclopedia states on page 337 " In 135 CE when Israel was under Romans, the Jewish people were expelled again from their homeland and scattered across the countries of Middle East and North Africa. From ninth century CE many Jews from this scattered communities began to arrive in Europe. Over the centuries large Jewish communities grew up in several European countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe and around Mediterranean, Subsequently, the Jews who lived in central and eastern European communities came to be known as Ashkenazi Jews". [2]-

The same conclusion are clearly pointed out in Tony Frudakis academic genetic book [3] The Hebrew university in Jerusalem article states that "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. It is estimated that prior to 1096, the first Crusade, the entire Jewish population of Germany comprised 20,000 people." [4] I do not understand why revisionist history should be promoted also here, as it was done in articles regarding Khazars.--Tritomex (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I was about to write a serious reply, then I read how you ended and realized you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Tritomex, I'm getting tired by the constant insinuations that everybody not sharing your opinion is a revisionist. It's a non-starter, and it violates WP:NPA. Let us know when you're ready to discuss without insulting others. And no, there's nothing "revisionist" about accurately reporting what sources say. Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I insulted you, this was not my intention. Also I don't believe that everybody not sharing "my" opinion is a revisionist. Revisionist history also has not necessary negative connotation and I understand the need for presenting alternative views as well as I recognize the problems with this article, but what I wished to say is that this same problems discussed in this article exists in other related articles, and I lack similar discussion of broader community there.I pointed out to one related article where I believe discussion of numerous problems raised on talk page is needed. --Tritomex (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, "revisionist" is definitely an insult, but let's move on. Nobody dispute that ancestors of the Ashkenazim lived in the Roman empire, the question is in what part(s) of the empire, at what times, how and when did they move, and when did they arrive at the Rhine. It would seem that there is a lack of academic research on this.Jeppiz (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Essentially I made a mistake by not creating new sections as my comments were totally unrelated to the concerns and questions you personally raised here at this section. My apology on that issue.I can agree with you, regarding sources Maybe this book Atlas of Jewish History By Dan Cohn-Sherbok P 82-83 can be helpful. [5] It explains the pattern of migration following the destruction of Roman Empire and subsequent creation of AJ community.--Tritomex (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The constant problem here, Tritomex, is succumbing to the temptation to google sources which appear to corroborate one's personal views. It's the easiest thing in the world to do. Many sources say the Jewish European populations came from the Middle East after ICE. Many quality scholarly sources will tell you this is a meme in a certain variety of literature, one that has no firm historical evidence to back it. It was a widespread narrative 'assumption'. In writing an encyclopedic article however, one does not assemble source material to buttress one's opinion, or preferred view. One surveys works and articles by the field's foremost scholars or those who comment on the state of the art, and one takes particular care not to privilege a view if there is significant dissent within the academic ranks. We are not dealing with the truth here, but the state of qualified interpretations. One can find numerous declarations Yiddish is a variation on High German. One can find numerous acknowledgements that this view is under challenge. There is no scholarly consensus. To cite one of dozens of examples of this,

'It is fairly clear that the Jewish populations that first began speaking what could be called Yiddish came from various locales, such as France, Germany, the Slavic lands, and the Mediterranean. The difficult question is which of these groups contributed most to the distinctive character of the language and culture. The traditional view, which is also probably still held by the majority of scholars who have studied the question, is that Yiddish was born of eastward migrations. In other words, Jews from France (and perhaps Italy) moved into Germanic-speaking territories and adopted some form of Middle High German (the ancestor language of both Yiddish and German). More recently, several linguists have suggested that the most important migrations were of Slavic-speaking Jews who moved westward. This debate hinges in part on theoretical issues about the nature of language-contact influences.' William F. Weigel 'Yiddish', Jewish Language Research Website 2002

Debresser in his edit violates precisely editorial neutrality, by replacing a statement which indicates there is a scholarly divide about the origins of Yiddish, with a selective reference to the mainstream view, which he presents as a 'fact'. A mainstream view is not a fact. It is the considered opinion of a majority, and requires attribution, and given the dispute notice should be accorded to the dissenting view. Yiddish has two major branches, Western and Eastern, and he has palmed off the origins off the former as the origin of the latter. Scholars don't know: and we can't pick and choose. These are extremely elementary procedures on wikipedia, and compel editors who do understand the rules to revert edits that are POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You made the very same mistake you fought against above: you come of with some novel theory instead of a mainstream view and gave it prominence over those views. It was actually a bit funny seeing you falling into that very same pitfall. But I hope you will agree to let it rest. Or, if you want, let's open another section on this issue, so as not to mix two issues in one thread. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not Google for sources supporting any view, and I do not think Debresser violated editorial neutrality by sourcing Yiddish in same way as Encyclopedia Britannica did [6] or any other Encyclopedia on earth, would source it. The problem would be if he would do the opposite. We all know P. Wexler theory, proposed something like 20 years ago. In all this years I did not see any scholar of Yiddish or linguists claiming that Yiddish is Slavic language, nor that this theory received any degree of mainstream support. So in my opinion this is is a question of WP:UNDUE. Yiddish certainly have Slavic as well as Romance, Hebrew and Aramaic elements as well. This is also well known and references regarding Slavic elements within the High Germanic Yiddish lan. should not be twisted with the theory that Yiddish was Slavic language in its origin. Tritomex (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The pages of Atlas of Jewish History By Dan Cohn-Sherbok I cited here are not controversial. The same is true for many other sources I cited here. All this sources can be&should be used in this article as they are sources of high quality regarding this subject .--Tritomex (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please learn to format your replies properly. You've been here for quite a time. It is not difficult. Opinions, the above is one, don't count. Debresser passed off as a fact what by his edit summary he admits is a mainstream view, one which I have shown to be challenged by authoritative scholars of Yiddish. WP:Undue is ridiculous as an excuse to assert as a fact what is a majority thesis while suppressing the minority view. You ought to read the policy page.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting that view as the only one in the lead, that was a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, which is why I reverted it. You should really know better, Nishidani. I would even have WP:AGF thoughts after such a strange move. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Again I don't the understand the time spent on this. Yiddish is a Germanic language according to any standard work on linguistics. I can can recommend Routledge's The Germanic Germanic languages, a standard reference. The view that Yiddish is Slavic is WP:FRINGE, having no support in linguistics. Jeppiz (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz. I didn't write the old lead. It mentioned, in a completely distorted fashion, Yiddish. I myself often read that Yiddish is a form of German in linguistic textbooks. But I also follow the technical literature which says that is a point of view, problematized, not only by Wexler, over the last decades. Therefore, to correct that I mentioned the lively controversies over the Germanic thesis in recent years. Weinrich for ****'s sake spoke of Yiddish as a 'fusion language'. See

• Max Weinreich, "Yiddish, Knaanic, Slavic: The Basic Relationships", For Roman Jakobson, The Hague: Mouton, 1956, pp. 622-632.('The four main components of Yiddish in M. Weinreich's fusion model are Germanic, Slavic, HA, and Loez.'Jacobs below p.21).
• Neil G Jacobs, ‘’Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction,’’ Cambridge University Press, 2005 pp.9-16, esp conclusion p.55.((a) there are two modern views, one seeing Yiddish as divergence from German, the other as convergence with German p.9 (b) 'Collectively, both the Bavarian scenario and the Judeo-Slavic scenario have moved the field toward a non-Loter, eastern origins view' p.15)(c) 'On purely structural grounds it can be demonstrated that Weinrich is correct in his claim that the linguistic system of Yiddish was, from the outset, never identical to the linguistic system of any variety of German, or even of any combination of varieties of German.' p.17) Jacobs's original view was that Yiddish is a creole/pidgin language.
• Cherie Woodworth, 'Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes,' in Kritika, 11, 1 (Winter 2010): 105–23
• Dan D.Y. Shapira, Dan D. Y. Shapira, “Yiddish–German, Slavic, Or Oriental?”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, Cilt: 6, Sayı: 24, Kış 2010, s.127-140.(he calls it 'colonial German'by the way)
• William F. Weigel 'Yiddish', Jewish Language Research Website 2002.(see the quote above)

The problem is technical, related to several: (a) early references to Knaanic (may be a misapprehension though see Dovid Katz Knaanic in the Medieval and Modern Scholarly Imagination in Ondřej Bláha, Robert Dittmann, Lenka Uličná (eds.) Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background, Academia: Prague 2014 pp.156-191)(b) debates on Western versus Eastern Yiddish, with particular ref. to the apparent Slavic aspectual system in the latter (reproduced in modern Israeli Hebrew)

Yiddish as we know it is not just a Germanic language with Slavic syntax and lots of Hebrew words; it is the only Jewish language in which the Semitic elements are more than loan words and expressions; it is in Yiddish that the Hebrew-Aramaic component behaves as an independent language system of its own, and it is in the Oriental language, in the old and good Orientalistic sense, where we find such independent language systems formed of Arabic and Persian elements.Dan Shapira, above p.136.

(c) demographic patterns of Jewish settlements to the East, outside of the strictly Western Germanic areas (d) the 'demographic miracle' of suggesting that an exiguous western population's eastward expansion and growth could produce 13 million Jews from 15,000-30,000 medieval germanocentric communities, a rate unparalleled in world history. The so-called High German of which Yiddish is often thought to be an offshoot, was itself a Romance language remodulated into Germanic, as Shapira, and Meillet argue. All very complex, but if Yiddish is to be mentioned, then one should not assert as a fact what, as Debresser admits in his edit summary, is a mainstream view. My point is always that we must write with our eyes fast-set on what the best modern scholarship is saying, and that, as per Jacobs, says the old view of Yiddish as an outgrowth or jargon of German is simplistic. We have a POV parading, therefore, as a fact. Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Knowing Yiddish, German and Russian, on a practical speaking level, I can tell you that obvious loanwords aside, Yiddish is an old German dialect, which I would place closest to modern Bavarian from among modern German dialects. Especially in written Yiddish the German is very pronounced. As I said, apart from obvious loan-words. Just a side-note, to remind all of us what we are talking about. I am not relating to grammar here, although it seems close to German grammar imho. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but you are not RS. Sprachgefühl gets one nowhere on a recondite subject of linguistic origins. It looks Germanic to me as well. But I have no idea where the truth lies. I do have a very informed knowledge of what scholars of the subject argue, and they admit complexity and uncertainty. If editors underwrote Goethe's dictum:Das Höchste wäre, zu begreifen, daß alles Faktische schon Theorie ist, we'd all get on marvellously, since doubt and curiosity are far more heuristically productive than the complacencies engendered by comfortable 'facts'.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, I know. I was just reminding all of us what we are talking about, so to say. There is a story about a man coming to a rabbi with the lungs of a pig and claiming the pig a kosher one because the lungs are smooth (a prerequisite for being kosher in cows). The rabbi says that the lungs are fine, but what can I do that this is a pig?! Same here: all these scientific articles are fine, but what can I do that this is a language of the strongest possible Germanic origin in all ways possible?! :) Debresser (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Rabbinical humour aside, I would question you on how much of a research specialist you are in Yiddish Studies. As I am familiar with Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Belarusian (don't confuse Ruthenian vernacular with Russian), I was in constant contact with colleagues from Jewish Studies at the university I was attached to as they developed their Yiddish Language units. Firstly, you fail to acknowledge the fact that Yiddish is still being deconstructed AND reconstructed because it has been recognised as an endangered language for some time. There are also recognisably different streams which developed (it was not one homogeneous language you could check against a Merriam-Webster or Oxford Dictionary over the centuries, nor texts for standard grammar). The aforementioned colleagues are unable to reach consensus on the subject. In their less humble opinion, it is not as simple as you would have it. The final equation of relevance to Wikipedia is not your POV or my POV but that of globally recognised scholars. No WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. Oh, and no shoehorning. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how you apply the term "deconstructed" and "reconstructed" to a language I speak as a living language. It may be endangered, but I am one of those who speak it. I need not look in a book to know how to express myself in it, nor will whatever any book writes make me change the way I speak it. Yes, there are many dialects, if you wish, of Yiddish. But there is a kernel. And that kernel is Germanic. Other words are demonstratively loanwords. What is "shoehorning"? 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Shoehorning is what you've just demonstrated by your response. It's a POV argument whereby you make the facts fit your theory despite there being a multitude of 'but', 'and', 'or' arguments. Yes, Yiddish is a living language which has changed quite dramatically from diasporic community to diasporic community. As, according to your user page, you live in Holland, I very much doubt that you would be able to have a fluid conversation with a 6th generation New York Yiddish speaker (unless they've been schooled in Yiddish according to common predecessors). Don't be confused by lexicological jargon. I've used the terms 'deconstruct' and 'reconstruct' as per Forensic Linguistics and Endangered Languages Linguistics: databases are created in order to parse languages. Studies reveal all manner of problematic areas such as syntax which don't adhere to Germanic or Hebrew. We're not simply talking about current use. That would be a little like trying to dismiss known quantities in the historical evolution of the English language and make determinations as to its roots simply using the current forms. The 'kernel' you speak of is what influences you to make a determination you're not qualified to make. No one is preventing you from speaking your 'version' (dialect, if you will) of Yiddish. No one is forcing you to believe anything other than your own concept of the truth... but personal POV should not colour your judgement as regards the content of an encyclopaedic article. I'm not concerned as to whether you've determined that the chicken came before the egg or visa versa. I would say that there is a consensus view here echoing my sentiments: if experts in the field don't know, how can any of us declare that we 'know'. I'll draw on a beloved Ukrainian saying, "Take a kernel of this and a kernel of that and, before you know it, you'll have enough to make kasha." Well, it isn't a Ukrainian saying, but it ought to be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned, the 13 million Jews growth from 15,000-30,000 for 1000 years as a rate unparalleled in world history. Although this question is unrelated to subject, there are many parallels in history for such growth rate. For example, the Palestinian people grow from less than 180 000 in 1800 to more than 12 million today, in just 200 years. Regarding literature you used although there are some good sources, I still do not find anyone beside Wexler claiming that Yiddish is Slavic language. This is certainly not the case for Max Weinreich who explained in details the level of influences of Hebrew, Slavic and Aramaic languages on Yiddish without anywhere claiming Slavic origin for Yiddish. There are many sources repeating Wexler theory (which should not be twisted with well established fact that there are Slavic and other influences on Yiddish) and you mentioned them. Heinz-Schuster-Sewc of the University of Leipzig, the most prominent linguist on Sorbian language replied to Wexler that ”the Slavic ancestor of Yiddish “never existed” and is a pure “product of [Mr. Wexler’s] imagination.” So generally speaking I can agree (as it was stated above) that the Wexler theory remains WP:FRINGIE even decades after it was published.Tritomex (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex. I mentioned that datum with regard to one of the issues regarding Yiddish, because it is often raised among scholars of the Ashkenazi, and even genetics papers mention the notion (I myself am not sure that 15,000-30, even 50,000 is a reliable figure) of a 'demographic miracle'. Please don't use this to raise 'parity debates' like that of the Palestinians (there's ample discussion of that on the relevant pages). You are trying to pin down my remarks, sourced to several scholars, as a backdoor attempt to sneak in Wexler's Khazar theory, which is immensely silly. The several citations above show texts which survey the complexity of the debate on Yiddish origins among scholars. Wexler's own view on an Iranian-Turkic Jewish population developing during emigration via relexification through Sorbian a form of Yiddish is certainly minority, but that Eastern Yiddish is not automatically accepted as a derivative of a degraded form of an original west German medieval tongue is evidenced abundantly in the contemporary scholarship. The view you espouse is the conventional one.

Wexler for that matter does not quite simply claim Yiddish is a slavic language (the 15th in his 1990 paper, which he himself disowns as 'antiquated' in his review of Jits van Straten's book) - his point was that this is true of Eastern Yiddish, which in his terms however is a merged Slavic language ( but not of the Judaized Germanic most call Yiddish, and from which he would wrest that monicker. so you don't understand the point. You don't understand Weinreich's theory and its variations either. I suspect that for Heinz-Schuster-Sewc you got to that from here where he is cited as being at 'the other extreme' (of the spectrum) for his dismissal of Wexler. So please don't confuse things, esp. when the topic requires detachment and curiosity, not POV defensiveness (subtext. It is thought that all of my remarks here are to be read as a delegitimation of the direct-descent-from-Israel thesis. If so, then the evidence can be dismissed without studying the matter, because I a priori must be pushing a thesis. I'm not). I underwrite what Iryna Harpy states. There is an intensive academic discussion, the theories are several, and only an powerful personal investment in traditional narratives would deny that we do not have 'facts' here on the origins of Yiddish, but fascinating, sometimes mutually exclusive theories. Therefore our lead sentence, if it mentions Yiddish (it need not) should respect sources and the controversy, and not assert as a fact one, even if majoritarian, traditional view. Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong here regarding Wikipedia guidelines. We are under no obligation to mention every minority view in a lead. That is what sections are for. See in this regard WP:MOSBEGIN. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, Debresser. I'll be brief. You are forbidden to fob off as a 'fact' what is a mainstream view. That edit of yours was disinformative. There is no 'minority view' at stake here. There an array, that could be multiplied rapidly, of sources that clearly state that the origin(s) of Yiddish is (are) not yet settled, for the simple fact that it has numerous dialects, each with its own history, location, and the full picture of which came first is not resolved to the satisfaction of the relevant academic community. Against the evidence above, you have only a sries of comebacl opinions.Nishidani (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are places like the Yiddish article where the Wexler theory could be mentioned. Certainly, this theory has no such prominence that it has to go the lead of this article. I did not find any encyclopedia, beyond Wikipedia mentioning this theory at all. Fringe theories, are not going into the lead of any article, especially those indirectly related to the subject --Tritomex (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What on earth, after my extensive remarks above, has this obsession with Wexler to do with the price of fish? I.e.this is just one more example of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach to other editors.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani You must first establish consensus, then edit. I have reverted your edits, will post on WP:ANI and ask for page protection. We just had the same problem above, and then you help building consensus. Now you ignore that process, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

So right now the article says we know nothing about the origins of Yiddish. I don't think this is correct and I definitely don't think it's in accordance with NPOV.

• While some sources for the opposite can be found, the vast majority of linguistic reference works refer to Yiddish as a Germanic language.
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on Yiddish, clearly states that it is a Germanic language.
• This article isn't even about Yiddish, so bringing up an academic minority view about Yiddish in the lead of an article on a different subject strikes me as odd. I've yet to see an argument for why the lead here should not agree with Britannica and the main reference works. The discussion about origins and different theories have its place, and that place is in the article on Yiddish. In the lead here, I think it's enough to say that it's a Germanic language, in line with most sources.Jeppiz (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm siding with Debresser on this one. I'd elaborate, but I'm on my way out the door.Ankh.Morpork 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz. The page lead now reads:

'They spoke varieties of Yiddish, a language developed from a High German language.[13]

Baumgarten 2005 p.72 is not googable, so Debresser is required to cite from that book the exact passage justifying the formulation.

I'm disappointed to see you misrepresenting my position. I expect that of several editors here, not of you. I did not bring up an academic minority view. I noted that Yiddish experts of the first water openly state that disagreement exists in their ranks. I gave several sources. I'd even give you Jerold C. Frakes, The Politics of Interpretation: Alterity and Ideology in Old Yiddish Studies, SUNY Press 1989 pp.25ff. esp.p.66 (for Weinreich)' 'the development of Yiddish cannot be conceived of as a gradual breakaway of a German-speaking group from its former language' p.66); or Max Weinreich's thoroughly mainstream view which says it is a fusion language, which went through several stages Loez, German, Slavic with Hebrew Aramaic presiding over each period.Max Weinreich, History of the Yiddish Language, Yale University Press, vol.2, 2008 pp.349-351. What Debresser et alii, are pushing, is something the greatest historian of Yiddish dismissed.

The optimal edit since others, not I, insist on Yiddish being mentioned in the lead, would be simply to state 'and they spoke Yiddish'. As soon as you elaborate on origins, you walk into an academic minefield. It's as simple as that.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Now there is a proposal I can live with: we can simply omit the whole question of the origin of Yiddish. I think the remaining statement should sound something like. "The traditional language of Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish". That also is very unqualified, but still, omitting the position of Yiddish as a main characteristic of Ashkenazi Jews would probably be the worse alternative. By the way, I suppose the statement about the Germanic origins of Yiddish was there for a reason: to make the argument/connection that Ashkenazi Jews as a group originate in those lands where that language was spoken. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, I wish someone had said that earlier: I would have had more time to hog the Christmas pud and drink more than I have. Okay. "The traditional language of Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish" is poifect. The complexities of origins can be left to anybody who wants them in, lower down in the article.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "a language developed from a High German language." is supported even by sources provided by Nishidani. History of the Yiddish Language, "There is no independence in language but self determination. Sometimes we hear the history of Yiddish condensed into such formula: Jews spoke German and than recast it in their own manner, since quantitatively the German component in Yiddish is the largest, we may justify this qualification." ...Its well known that all languages were influenced by other languages, however my native language is not Turkic but Slavic, although it was heavily influenced by Turkish, English is not an ancient Italic language despite being influenced by Latin etc. So if we state that "They spoke varieties of Yiddish, a high Germanic language which was influenced by Hebrew, Aramaic, Romance and Slavic languages this would be supported even by source used by Nishidani, namely Max Weinreich and could be a compromise solution.

The disputed origin of Yiddish as originating from German, is a view, not supported by large majority of Yiddish scholars and would equal for example to placing a claim in the lead of 9/11 article that weather 9/11 was and inside job or not is disputed by historians.--Tritomex (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You read the linked page of one source, not the whole text, Tritomex, which would clarify. It's very simple, in Weinreich's view, Loez-speaking Jews moved into Germany, and absorbed a dialect or several of German, which became the largest component, with Hebrew-Aramaic already present and further added, and then Slavic. Weinreich denies the Jewish forebears ever spoke a pure variety of German. Had Yiddish come straight out of some pure German dialect, no one could explain its maddening (to some) structural peculiarities. The other text, by Frakes, who translated Baumgarten's book we use as a source (p.72 but unchecked) has a fascinating detailed discussion on the century-long rift between haskalah Ashkenazi scholars who thought it was a degraded form of pure German, and pro-Yiddish scholars who denied this, and opted for a variety of approaches emphasizing Yiddish's pecularities. It was an ideological battle, still with us today, and infra-Jewish. Weinreich argued for a 'fusion language' theory, and fused languages have two origins at least, not one. Editorial judgement consists in not jumping at encyclopedic entries or a limited number of books that say what one believes, but in surveying the field widely, seeing the lay of the analytic land, and drafting a formula that espouses no view, but, with due weight, modulates sentences to reflect the complexity of sources. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tritomex I agree with you that the point of view that Yiddish has non-Germanic origins is not worth mentioning in the lead. But I also say more than that, and Nishidani agrees with me here: that the question of the linguistic origins of the Yiddish language is not an issue which should be mentioned in the lead of this article at all. This article is not about Yiddish, but about Ashkenazi Jews. After all, a lead should summarize an article in so far as is directly relevant to the subject of this article alone, and this issue is not. Can you agree with that? Debresser (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally yes, pending consensus with other involved editors. Concerning newest (now reverted) edition on page regarding the origin Eastern European Jewry of the 19th century, I object both the inappropriate placing of this text (which can leed to WO:SYNTH) and the non encyclopedic way of its presentation. Also, there are many (and much more) reliable sources which do not support the disputed origin of AJ. As this article should not look as a battleground, in my opinion, further edition of this kind, should be added only in consensus, after discussion and proper balancing based on all relevant (and not just selective) sources.--Tritomex (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Debresser (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Something I forgot.It is obvious, that the source of recent edition refers to the dispute about the "line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry" from certain European countries and not to dispute about the origin of Ashkenazi Jews,.--Tritomex (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. Jeppiz, myself, Debresser, and I presume Iryna Harpy, now appear to concur that the introduction of material asserting the origins of Yiddish can be dispensed with. Ankhmorpork alligned himself with Debresser but took no part in the discussion. If this representation of the above is misleading, any of those named can challenge my summary of the conclusion, which is that consensus has been arrived at, along the lines Debresser suggested, writing.

As to Yiddish, I gather many people are looking at Yiddish language, which is not a reliable source, since it is dated. As I noted citing Frakes and others above, there are two schools of debate on origins, nicely summed up Alexander Beider 'Reapplying the Language Tree Modelto the History of Yiddish,' in Journal of Jewish Languages, BRILL, 2013, 1 pp.77–121

As a result, methodological remarks are needed to make clear what tongue can be called Yiddish when speaking about a time period many centuries ago.1 One part of the definition is shared by all authors:this designation can be applied to the vernacular Jewish language

• (1) in which the German component is quantitatively and structurally dominant
• (2) that represents an ancestor of (at least some) modern Yiddish varieties
• (3) that is distinct from local German dialects.

The consideration of the last position represents the main source of the existing controversy in Yiddish linguistics. Here various scholars can be assigned to two major groups characterized by what can be conventionally called the Germanistic and Judeo-Centric approaches. For the representatives of the first group, during a large period of time Jews in German territories spoke the same language as their Gentile neighbors but for the presence of a certain number of words specific to Jewish speech. For the representatives of the second group, Ashkenazic vernacular language was fundamentally different from that of the surrounding Christian majority from the beginning of the Jewish settlement in German lands.p.78

This source leaves no shadow of a doubt that a controversy exists over origins, that a consensus exists its dominant structural imput came from Germanic, but that the Judeo-centric school will not accept that it came out of (as a direct descendant of) some variety of pure Germanic, and insists that it began as a fusion of Jewish tongues with Germanic. That is the essence of my position from the outset, and nothing that has been argued here undermines what is the acknowledged awareness of contemporary Yiddish scholarship that the old pure Germanic model is not a 'fact' but a thesis. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This sources do not question the Germanic origin of Yiddish, nor do they classify Yiddish into another language group. Yiddish is not pure modern day German language but a Germanic language with large Hebrew, Aramaic, Romance and Slavic influences. Every languge has more or less authentic components, still most of this languages are belonging to some groups. --Tritomex (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

When you patently don't understand what is being said, then you are not obliged to add further comments, particularly when they repeat what you have repeatedly asserted. Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishidani, for your excellent summary. Tritomex, I think it would be good for you to take a little breather before entering into further discussions as I know that it is easy to get caught up in details and misunderstand the bigger picture. I, too, have observed that the Yiddish language page has fallen behind the discussions here. Judging by the history of that subject-specific article, it could do with the assistance of those developing the Yiddish section here in order to get it up to scratch. Energy is better expended in the appropriate venue, and objectivity (NPOV) should be the priority. As it is evident that there are no linguists who are experts in this specific field, autodidacts should err on the side of caution. Pushing the envelope is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That conference abstract still here?

I was surprised to see the text "A 2013 conference of the American Society of Human Genetics with more than 10 scientists participating concluded that there was "no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews" still here after so long. First, it is a false report — except in very rare cases where scientific conferences vote on some issue, they do not "conclude" anything. They just provide a venue for participants to discuss their work. Second, this source miserably failed to get support at WP:RSN. That was not surprising, since it is just a notice of a poster session. Such things are not peer-reviewed, and in fact don't even establish that a paper exists. Ask anyone who attends scientific conferences. It will become citable if/when it is published. Zero^talk 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll also note that the source given does not establish that there was a poster actually presented at the conference (only that it appeared in the conference program earlier), nor whether what was presented at the conference matches the abstract (exceptions are common, because of the time lag between when the abstract must be submitted and when the conference is held). Nor does it verify "more than 10 scientists participating" — actually there were probably far more than 10 but that is entirely irrelevant anyway. Zero^talk 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If that conference produced a "false report" and all those scientists are wrong as you claim, then maybe the section Ashkenazi Jews#Criticism of the theory (still needs to be expanded, dozens of DNA/genetic tests and evidence should be added) will enlighten you. -Shalom11111 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear. The "false report" is our sentence that misrepresents what the source establishes. Conferences don't produce reports. Some of them produce "proceedings", which are mere compilations of material presented at the conference, but this one apparently did not. In any case, the truth of the abstract is irrelevant. Our sentence cannot be here because it falsely reports the source and anyway the source fails WP:RS. Zero^talk 02:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The debate itself is sick

Firstly I would like to say emphatically, that any mention of Jewish DNA or any other minority DNA with negative implications, should be the one universal exception to freedom of speech. Especially, the case when that group has a proven history as both a minority and getting punished for their parentage, by multiple ruling governments (unless of course they are of that DNA).

That said; read the actual study that those who are saying the current study proves European descent and see what you think the British author of the study had found. The 2 people (and probably more) I believe to be fanatical anti-Judean descent group have praised here over and over.

I had read the whole debate above twice, it seems based on their own words the people who are against the Judean lineage for the majority of today's Jews usually make claims about exactly what they are doing, about the contesting view in their eyes.

The examples I can refer to, I will mention 3.While on the other side Debresser is a tricky one himself, he says he is changing it for consensus then only puts our view (the view he and I share) he likes that position.

1) The anti-Judean heritage group makes the claim that the study claims the descent of these people is "controversial" it seems they had said that 4 times in the above debate, look. Yet, this I guess is how far they had read in to the Richards study before forming a definitive opinion. However, that study says the opinion Jews are not from the Mid-East is the controversial claim, reversed from what is implied above. Richards claims 3 times, claiming anything other than Levantine heritage is controversial. His team also states, from the actual study itself:

"There is consensus that all Jewish Diaspora groups, including the Ashkenazim, trace their ancestry, at least in part, to the Levant, ~2,000–3,000 years ago5, 12, 13, 14. "

in the first paragraph.

2) They claim disparagingly, again and again that the majority of Jews, who according to unanimous consensus without exception, even the Khazarian hypothesis, have claimed from parent to child that they are Judean in origin for the passed 1000 years, and was the main aspect of their whole lives (after their humanity itself in importance), is merely a "meme" or rumor, is obviously offensive. The meme is the Kazar hypothesis, due to the fact that not a single person had even heard it 200 years ago, and until the passed 30 years not over 100. And was never ever taught even in Russian history books, let alone anyone else.

3) Most importantly, the claim over and over, that the European heritage according to this "most recent study" according to the no Judean heritage group, is Eastern European or even Southern European. Firstly in interviews Richards and his team have said twice, that the idea of the majority of Jews converting on the Black Sea 1200 years ago, has been 100% debunked in this study. He said this in his interview for Live Science, and for a Jewish publication.

But more importantly his theory makes the claim that and this separates the superstitious anti-Semites, and their current memes, or canards, and the people looking for truth, that only 5% of the female line "originates" or in current scientific methods is found among the present populations Eastern Europe (aka nested), and only 4% of the female line is found (nested) in the present North African populations. Virtually none have a connection to the Caucuses. I know but science has not caught up to the footnotes of history yet, that this is due to the mass evictions of Jews by their Muslim rulers in the stans and Bukharia, who were the basis of those societies and made up the majorities there (I base this on the domination of Hebrew the Torah's chosen people, rather than Arab the Koran's chosen people's names there, until today, but even more so 200 years ago). These mass evictions occurred in during the 17th Century, and among those forcefully converted to Islam is where in fact you will find the Khazars who rejoined the nested Caucus populations as the Caucus religion which is Islam in the east.

The key finding of Richards and his team if it is correct at all, is that the majority of Ashkenazi female "founders" originate in a group that joined the Jews between 1800-2300 years ago and are now only found in the populations of the British Isles, Northern Italy and Germany, I am referring to what the genetic science world refers to as the K1a1b1 lineage. These lineages are NOT found in Eastern Europe or the Caucuses to any extent up until this point. Yet the debaters had connected the Richards and his team study to claims of Eastern European heritage among the MtDNA tested, so have obviously not even skimmed, let alone read the study itself. From the study:

"The K1a1b1 lineages within which the K1a1b1a sequences nest (which make up the vast majority, and include 19 lineages of known ancestry) are solely European, pointing to an ancient European ancestry. The closest nesting lineages are from Italy, Germany and the British Isles, with other subclades of K1a1b1 including lineages from west and Mediterranean Europe and one Hutterite (Hutterites trace their ancestry to sixteenth-century Tyrol)26. Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types2, likely the result of gene flow from Mediterranean Europe. K1a1b1a is also present at low frequencies in Spanish-exile Sephardic Jews, but absent from non-European Jews, including a database of 289 North African Jews2, 25. Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews25, who are known to have a distinct Near Eastern ancestry, with no known influx from Spanish-exile immigrants (although Djerban Jews, with a similar history, have not been tested to date for mtDNA, they closely resemble Libyan Jews in autosomal analyses27). Thus the Ashkenazi subclade of K1a1b1 most likely had a west European source."

K1a9 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. S4), accounting for another 20% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or 6% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and also dating to ~2.3 ka with ML (Supplementary Data 2) again includes both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi lineages solely from Europeans (again suggesting gene flow out into the wider communities). Like K1a1b1a, it is also found, at much lower frequencies, in Sephardim. Here the ancestral branching relationships are less clear (Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary Fig. S4), but K1a9 is most plausibly nested within the putative clade K1a9′10′15′26′30, dating to ~9.8 ka, which otherwise includes solely west European (and one Tunisian) lineages, again pointing to a west European source.

K2a2 (Fig. 4) accounts for another 16% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or ~5% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and dates to ~8.4 ka (Supplementary Data 2). Ashkenazi lineages are once more found in a shallow subclade, K2a2a1, dating to ~1.5 ka, that otherwise again includes only east Europeans, suggesting gene flow from the Ashkenazim. Conversely, the nesting clades, K2a2 and K2a2a, although poorly sampled, include only French and German lineages. K2a2a is not found in non-European Jews25.

Haplogroup K is rarer in the North Caucasus than in Europe or the Near East (<4% (ref. 23)) and the three Ashkenazi founder clades have not been found there (Supplementary Note 2). We tested all eight K lineages out of 208 samples from the North Caucasus, and all belonged to the Near Eastern subclades K1a3, K1a4 and K1a12. Haplogroup K is more common in Chuvashia, but those sampled belong to K1a4, K1a5 and pre-K2a8.

The fourth major Ashkenazi founder mtDNA falls within haplogroup N1b (ref. 2). The distribution of N1b is much more focused on the Near East than that of haplogroup K (ref. 24), and the distinctive Ashkenazi N1b2 subclade has accordingly being assigned to a Levantine source2. N1b2 has until now been found exclusively in Ashkenazim, and although it dates to only ~2.3 ka, it diverged from other N1b lineages ~20 ka (ref. 24) (Supplementary Table S5). N1b2 can be recognized in the HVS-I database by the variant 16176A, but Behar et al.2 tested 14 Near Eastern samples (and some east Europeans) with this motif and identified it as a parallel mutation. Therefore, despite the long branch leading to N1b2, no Near Eastern samples are known to belong to it.

In our unpublished database of 6991 HVS-I sequences, however, we identified two Italian samples with the 16176A marker, which we completely sequenced. We confirmed that they belong to N1b2 but diverge before the Ashkenazi lineages ~5 ka, nesting the Ashkenazi cluster (Fig. 6; Supplementary Table S5). This striking result suggests that the Italian lineages may be relicts of a dispersal from the Near East into Europe before 5 ka, and that N1b2 was assimilated into the ancestral Ashkenazi population on the north Mediterranean ~2 ka. Although we found only two samples suggesting an Italian ancestry for N1b2, the control-region database available for inspection is very large (28,418 HVS-I sequences from Europe, the Near East and the Caucasus, of which 278, or ~1%, were N1b). Moreover, the conclusion is supported by our previous founder analysis of N1b HVS-I sequences, which dated the dispersal into Europe to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene24."

But before that one of them repeats again and again, I guess to force it to be true, that the study over which you are debating proves a Caucus heritage. Neither the article in Science, but in this context far far far more importantly the study upon which it is based makes that claim, even once. Finally, Richards and his team's study is just one among many done so far, by reputable geneticists. The study was published in the scientific team's own words in Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk loganewski (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I can partially agree with you, the situation on Khazars page is even worse. I suggest you to take your concerns to adequate noticeboards.--Tritomex (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What is 'Jewish DNA'?

The brief answer to the persistent confusions shown by editors here, including the two above, will be found if one ruminates on the implications of the following quote.

‘How far back must we go to find the most recent shared ancestor for – say – all Welsh people or all Japanese? And how much further is it to the last person from whom everyone alive today- Welsh, Japanese, Nigerian, or Papuan-can trace descent. . . Speculative as they are, the results are a surprise. In a population of around a thousand people everyone is likely to share the same ancestor about ten generations. Some three hundred years- ago. The figure goes up at a regular rate for larger groups, which means that almost all native Britons can trace descent from a single anonymous individual on these islands who lived in about the thirteenth century. On the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C.Steve Jones, Serpent's Promise: The Bible Retold as Science Hachette 2013 p.27. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)