Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

This article has been referenced by a media organization. Untitled The reference is in: Jennifer Senior (October 24, 2005). ""Are Jews Smarter?" (cover story). New York Magazine.

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

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:[1] "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 [2],[3],[4] 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)

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 [5] 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)

Wexler removal

In his violent revert of everything I had added to this page, Tritomex deleted Wexler on the origins of Yiddish. There are several theories about the origin of Yiddish, not one, as the page asserts, in violation of WP:NPOV. There was the degraded Hebrew theory, the jargonized High German theory, the Bavarian theory, the Sorbian theory etc. They are all surveyed in Neil G. Jacobs Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction,Cambridge University Press,2005 in the long introduction to this vexed topic (pop.6ff.) All these are theories and remain such, and no one theory can be allowed to pass as a fact, which is how this article pretends is the case. --Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Wexler you wrote on this page "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" and latter, you overrun this page and presented a minority view as an established fact in direct example of what is POV editing. I have nothing against inclusion of Wexler view, however only as parallel with the majority and mainstream scholar opinion about the origin of Yiddish and not as concluded, established fact. More so this is not an article about Yiddish language--Tritomex (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It is most fascinating how any revert can be "violent." Also, what makes you think Tritomexi is a "he"? --Jethro B 14:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)