Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

NPOV/UNDUE concerns + related ethnic groups

The following passage in the lead paragraph ("Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin") is highly problematic. First off, the citations provided for it only include one DNA study, with the rest consisting of secondary news articles and journals reporting on the study. Therefore, the words "Some DNA tests" are misleading since there is, in fact, only one DNA test cited. Take, in contrast, this passage which precedes it ("some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East"). The sources used here are much more varied, with more than one DNA study cited, along with a couple of historical sources. This by itself raises red flags for WP:UNDUE and WP:MINORITY.

And now for the heart of the matter. The genetic study used in support of the former passage (i.e. "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin") does not arrive at this conclusion. Rather, it suggests that Ashkenazi maternal/mtDNA origins are mainly traceable to Europe. It does not say that Ashkenazim are mainly European in origin. The passage I quoted omits any mention of mtDNA, which was the main focus of the study. So whoever posted this is either manipulating the source material, or simply did not read the study. I hope I'm not the only one who is concerned about this.

As for the related ethnic groups template, what is the criteria for inclusion? My initial impression was that it entailed sharing common geographic origins, culture, linguistic similarities, etc in addition to genetics. Some extra sources should be provided for all ethnic groups included, because the only citations are genetic studies. But overall, we need to establish some solid criteria for this, so that we may avert future disputes.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Evildoer187 makes some good points, and also some points with which I don't agree. To start with my disagreement, I thoroughly disagree that the study showing a European heritage is in anyway inferior. Quite the contrary. It's more recent, it consists of a larger sample and it's been published in a better journal than most other studies. The argument could be turned on its head to ask if the other studies are relevant. (I think they are, and I'm not making that argument, but it's a two-way street). From a scientific point of view, the most reliable study at hand is the one showing a mainly European heritage.

It's true that the study in Nature talked about maternal origins. It is also true, however, that when Science looked at the results and reported the study, they felt that the results could be described as "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.". Now Evildoer187 may disagree with that conclusion by Science, but that does not really matter. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about sources. I'm not sure if Evildoer187 is familiar with the reputation of science, as he continues to disregard it. When it comes to topics such as these, there is quite simply no better source than Science. So if we look at the results and think one thing, and Science thinks another, then WP:RS is very clear and we go with Science. Thus far the disagreements.

I think Evildoer187 is absolutely right in pointing out problems with the "related ethnic groups". How should we understand this category? The sources used in the infobox all refer only to DNA studies on different populations. Evildoer187 has argued that DNA is not the only aspect that matter, and I think he is absolutely right. Aspects like cultural proximity, shared history, traditions, religion, languages etc... All of these would strike me as relevant. Generally speaking, I dislike the "ethnic groups" template precisely because it's so vague. One suggestion would be to get rid of it altogether, but I'm open for other suggestions.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Saw this at ANI. The vital point for your understanding is that maternal and paternal ancestry are two different things. You already have a source that 80% of maternal genes are from Europe, but another that there is a low rate of European admixture for Y chromosomes. What's going on here? Well, I have a guess: What does a woman have to do to convert to Judaism? What does a man have to do? Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter; you just need to recognize that maternal and paternal ancestries are two different measurements that don't have to come to the same number. Perhaps the most relevant measurement is general autosomal isoforms, which also favor European (specifically Italian) ancestry.^[1] But keep in mind that which ancestry is important is a matter of perspective: from a Biblical point of view, what matters is that someone is the son of X is the son of Y is the son of Z, but from a geneticist's point of view, whichever pattern of inheritance concerns a specific disease condition (usually autosomal) matters, and in fact the founder effects within the Ashkenazi population are more important than general racial affinity. So just sort out your data, be more specific about what you're saying, and you should be fine. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have slightly rewritten the introduction to reflect the fact which all seem to agree upon that it was only 1 test. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that saying that "Ashkenazi Jews are of European origin" is not the same as saying "Ashkenazi maternal/mtDNA origins are mainly traceable to Europe". I would like some expert opinion on the meaning of that sentence.

I would suggest to split the statement in two: one part bringing the test and its conclusion ("Ashkenazi maternal/mtDNA origins are mainly traceable to Europe"), and another bringing the more popular sources' interpretation ("Ashkenazi Jews are of European origin").

In addition, to avoid cluttering the lead with all of this, I would remove this from the lead completely and keep it restricted to the Genetics section of the article. Debresser (talk)

It's an improvement, which is much appreciated, but it still makes no reference to maternal DNA origins. That is misleading, and should be clarified. Moreover, the Science article does state that the study was carried out with a specific focus on mtDNA, to the apparent exclusion of Y-DNA and autosomal admixture analysis. And I don't mean to imply that the study used is "inferior" in any way, just that it's only one study whereas other recent tests (like Haber, also from 2013) have come out reaffirming earlier consensus i.e. Ashkenazi Jews are Levantine in origin with admixture from other sources. Overall, consensus still swings heavily in favor of Levantine/Israelite origins for Ashkenazim, with some studies differing on the details (i.e. the possibility of Caucasus ancestry, or how much European admixture there is), and the article should reflect that. As for whether or not this should go in the genetics section, I am not particularly opposed to it, although a better alternative would be to consolidate everything into one sentence, if possible.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with Evildoer and Debresser. This is blatant POV pushing, and none of this should be in the LEDE in the first place. It should be moved to the Genetics section forthwith.Ankh.Morpork 18:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In the source I read a few lines that are a kind of summary/conclusion, that removes part of the concerns raised above, and clarifies the issue nicely: "Therefore, whereas on the male side there may have been a significant Near Eastern (and possibly east European/Caucasian) component in Ashkenazi ancestry, the maternal lineages mainly trace back to prehistoric Western Europe. These results emphasize the importance of recruitment of local women and conversion in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and represent a significant step in the detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history." This text clearly distinguishes between maternal and paternal lineage. As much as that result in itself would need an explanation, it does not say that there are no Near Eastern influences, but rather says that these are stronger in the paternal lineage and that in the maternal lineage a European influence is dominant. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be some kind of statement on maternal vs. paternal genetic lineage, as if maternal lineage is somehow less pure, more muddy. Please do not rank one above the other, individuals carry genes from both parents and there should be no implication of hierarchy or judgment about father vs. mothers. There seems to be a subtle bashing of maternal lineage results because they don't say what some editors want them to say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that maternal lineages are irrelevant, just that it should be clarified in the article that the study is referring exclusively to maternal lineages. The study does not say what the article says it does. That's the problem.Ankh.Morpork 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there consensus for removing this from the lead and keep this restricted to the genetics section? If so, would all agree if I did this, or do we want to invite some other editor? Debresser (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead must summarize the genetic section, hence it should stay. If the latest and most comprehensive study's conclusions are to be removed from the lead, this leaves the meme of Israelitic origins. Remove both and you ignore WP:Summary style. I know there is a religious and political dimension here. If in orthodox modern terms, Jewish origins are traced through the maternal line, where does that leave us, when the paternal line (except for Levites) is now privileged by science, against rabbinical authority, and science is used to contradict the religious definition? I agree with Jeppiz here, and all that needs to be done is to modulate that lead sentence in a way that conforms to the source, which while focused on maternal DNA also writes:-

The Ashkenazim therefore resemble Jewish communities in Eastern Africa and India, and possibly also others across the Near East, Caucasus and Central Asia, which also carry a substantial fraction of maternal lineages from their ‘host’ communities11, 25. Despite widely differing interpretations of autosomal data, these results in fact fit well with genome-wide studies, which imply a significant European component, with particularly close relationships to Italians3, 4, 6, 7. As might be expected from the autosomal picture, Y-chromosome studies generally show the opposite trend to mtDNA (with a predominantly Near Eastern source) with the exception of the large fraction of European ancestry seen in Ashkenazi Levites22. . . .There is surprisingly little evidence for any significant founder event from the Near East. Fewer than 10% of the Ashkenazi mtDNAs can be assigned to a Near Eastern source with any confidence, and these are found at very low frequencies (Fig. 2).'

Secondly, the same paper notes that the whole descent issue is 'controversial', and thus the other Israelitic statement or generalization is itself a gross simplification. One should not get too passionate about this. The research results change from year to year, and a lot of the papers' over the last two decades will be rapidly junk. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not clear to me what the proposal is. Is the proposal to remove all references to the origin of the Ashkenazim? That's possible, though Nishidani makes a fair point about the summary. Or is the proposal to remove just the most recent and extensive study, and leave the part about Levantine origins? That would violate WP:POV, I'm afraid, and I don't see what NPOV argument could be made for removing one particular study. So before we comment on the proposal, could the proposal be crystal clear? Perhaps even written here?Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My proposal was to remove this from the lead. A lead should indeed summarize the article, as a rule, but does not need to mention all subjects of the article. In this case, where the subject is best discussed in detail, I don't think it would be a serious issue if we would leave this out of the lead and discuss it only in a section. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for intervening but, as a genuinely neutral party, I don't even feel the need to invoke Wikipedia policies or guidelines as to this current version of a lead. It is off-putting to a reader to be plunged straight into an overcited discourse on DNA haplogroups (particularly as the majority of readers would only identify DNA with forensic criminology and if they have any interest in the subject/postulations at all). It does not serve an being informative: quite the antithesis. There is a dedicated section and it should stay in that section for readers who are interested (although DNA stats have already proved themselves to be problematic in Wikipedia for a multitude of reasons, one of which being that they are borderline OR). I sincerely hope you can work it out here amicably. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A way to summarize the genetic studies for the lede without getting into due weight for the various POVs is just to say something like "Many genetic studies have been done, arriving at a variety of conclusions"; then the details can be left to the body. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That could be a good compromise if there is consensus that it is essential that it be in the lead, but it would definitely need to go to the bottom of the third paragraph. From my reading, I'd still feel that it's UNDUE. The lead should either be brief or, if anything is to be expanded on, there are far more important historical and cultural issues dealt with in the article which should take preference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the sister pages Jews, Sephardi Jews, Moroccan Jews,etc., trace middle eastern origins in the lead. There are two points here: (a)coherence over related pages (b) NPOV, which means if there are two theories, then both must be either alluded to in the lead (easily done), or neither must be mentioned. I don't see why one line in a lead is undue, however. In any case, a large number of genetic papers use the word 'controverial' or 'disputed' for the issue of Ashkenazi origins. If it is mentioned, an adjective like those is sufficient. If it is not mentioned, then we avoid WP:LEDE summary style on this issue, though there is no good reason for it. I would argue however that it's not the lead which is problematical, as it stands, but the background or prehistory section. To repeat: our model should be the Jewish Virtual Library article, which is not obsessed about the complicated debate on origins. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with the above compromise as well. Is it "many" or "several"? Debresser (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea is not to remove the genetic study in question. It is to edit the corresponding passage so that it better reflects its conclusions. As it stands, the article does not fulfill this requirement. That's what we're concerned about.Ankh.Morpork 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all let's get the lead straightened out. Then we'll look at the "Genetics" section. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec with Debresser) Well, here's the text. Let's mull suggestions for finessing it.

Scientific studies differ on their origins, with some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] while another DNA test suggests that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin.[10][11][19][20][21][22] The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[23][23][24][25][26] and in Rome in 139 B.C.

Just two points

(a) 'scientific studies'. Why mention scientific studies and ignore historical studies. Why does science have a privilege here in the lead? (b) Note 12-18. Jared Diamond's link is to somebody's typescript, not the journal. Most of the notes, for the pro and contra, are dubious (the Jewish expulsion in CE 135 is not widely endorsed by modern scholarship, since it is a canted spin on the fact Jews were disallowed in Jerusalem, not expelled in a diaspora that, for centuries had spread all over the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Much of the notes, in short, show signs of nervousness. But I must have dinner.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the author above me. All of the laws that were made against Jews by emperor Hadrian in 135 C.E were repealed when Hadrian died three years later by successor, all laws except the law which Forbade Jews to enter Jerusalem except on the 9th of Ab. hundreds of years prior to both rebellions Jews were already living in southern Europe. Guy355 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, have a pleasant meal. :) I meant that I agree with the proposal of Atethnekos! "Many genetic studies have been done, arriving at a variety of conclusions" Your proposal is no good for all the reasons mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The former wording lead although examines a solely population genetic question, includes non genetic sources as well. Regarding the population genetics, results regarding the Israelite origin of Ashkenazi Jews are clear in the case of Y chromosome and almost clear regarding autosomes. Regarding maternal origin, the debate is still going on and we do not have clear picture, as there are two opposite views. The former wording of the lead wass fully in line with the results of 20 years of genetic studies and well sourced. The lead of this article was fully in line with one of the most prestigious book of population genetics Shriver, Tony N. Frudakis D. (2008). Molecular photofitting : predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA P:383-390 which was used as one of sources. [2] --Tritomex (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the list of genetic studies done from 2000-2012 with some quotes:

List of studies

Hammer and all [3] Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora. [4] [5] Nebla and all "It is believed that the majority of contemporary Jews descended from the ancient Israelites that had lived in the historic land of Israel until ∼2000 years ago. Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture.In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews.. " [6] Anna C Need and al "Here we show that within Americans of European ancestry there is a perfect genetic corollary of Jewish ancestry which, in principle, would permit near perfect genetic inference of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. In fact, even subjects with a single Jewish grandparent can be statistically distinguished from those without Jewish ancestry. We also found that subjects with Jewish ancestry were slightly more heterozygous than the subjects with no Jewish ancestry, suggesting that the genetic distinction between Jews and non-Jews may be more attributable to a Near-Eastern origin for Jewish populations than to population bottlenecks." Shen and al "A 2004 study by Shen et al. compared the Y-DNA and DNA-mt Samaritans of 12 men with those of 158 men who were not Samaritans, divided between 6 Jewish populations (Ashkenazi origin, Moroccan, Libyan, Ethiopian, Iraqi and Yemeni) and 2 non-Jewish populations from Israel (Druze and Arab). The study concludes that significant similarities exist between paternal lines of Jews and Samaritans, but the maternal lines differ between the two populations. The pair-wise genetic distances (Fst) between 11 populations from AMOVA applied to the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial data. For the Y-chromosome, all Jewish groups, except for the Ethiopians, are closely related to each other. They do not differ significantly from Samaritans (0.041) and Druze (0.033), but are different from Palestinians (0.163), Africans (0.219), and Europeans (0.111). Nevertheless, the data in this study indicated that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their geographical neighbors, the Palestinians." Naama M. Kopelman and all "We perform a genome-wide population-genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry...Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, the most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population". Faerman "Ashkenazi Jews represent the largest Jewish community and traditionally trace their origin to the ancient Hebrews who lived in the Holy Land over 3000 years ago. Ashkenazi Jews are among the groups most intensively studied by population geneticists. Here, main genetic findings and their implications to the history of Ashkenazim are presented reflecting in a way major developments in population genetics as a discipline. Altogether, Ashkenazi Jews appear as a relatively homogenous population which has retained its identity despite nearly 2000 years of isolation and is closely related to other Jewish communities tracing their common origin to the Middle East." Hammer and all 2009 [7] In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage. By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations we are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Our estimates of the coalescence time also lend support to the hypothesis that the extended CMH represents a unique founding lineage of the ancient Hebrews that has been paternally inherited along with the Jewish priesthood" Haplotype VIII of the Y chromosome is the ancestral haplotype in Jews. Lucotte G, David F, Berriche S. Source International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. Abstract DNA samples from Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews were studied with the Y-chromosome-specific DNA probes p49f and p49a to screen for restriction fragment length polymorphisms and haplotypes. Two haplotypes (VII and VIII) are the most widespread, representing about 50% of the total number of haplotypes in Jews. The major haplotype in Oriental Jews is haplotype VIII (85.1%); haplotype VIII is also the major haplotype in the Djerban Jews (77.5%) (Djerban Jews represent probably one of the oldest Jewish communities). Together these results confirm that haplotype VIII is the ancestral haplotype in Jews." Behar and al 2006 [8] "Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry" L Hao and all "...The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Iraqi) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. Interestingly, the distance to the closest Southern European population follows the order from proximal to distal: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian, which reflects historical admixture with local communities. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry" [9] The study examines genetic markers spread across the entire genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for making a human — and shows that the Jewish groups share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships. Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East. From there, groups of Jews moved to other parts of the world in migrations collectively known as the Diaspora. Atzmon and all. Behar and all 2010 "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." In conclusion the authors are stating that the genetic results are concordant "with the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World" Priya Moorjani and al 2011 A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15], [38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39], [40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC Cambell and all 2012 "North African Jews are more closely related to Jews from other parts of the world than they are to most of their non-Jewish neighbors in North Africa, a study has found. North African Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to Each Other and to European and Middle Eastern Jewish Groups. SNP data were generated for 509 unrelated individuals (60.5% female) from the 15 Jewish populations (Table 1). These SNP data were merged with selected datasets from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) to examine the genetic structure of Jewish populations in both global and regional contexts (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). The first two principal components of worldwide populations showed that the North African Jewish populations clustered with the European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups and European non-Jewish groups, but not with the North African non-Jewish groups, suggesting origins distinctive from the latter... The relationships of the Jewish communities were outlined further by the IBD sharing across populations [Fig. 3B and SI Appendix, Tables S1 (lower triangle) and S4], because the Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations."

Additionally, similar results were found in Haber and all 2013 study and the most recent study carried out by M. Metspalu

Based on this studies, and secondary academic sources I propose the wording "Most of genetic studies points to an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East",[ --Tritomex (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's a prime example of how to cherry-pick sources in favor of one's view and ignoring sources taking an other view. It's one of the most basic errors in any scientific discussion. While I would agree that most studies on male lineage point in a Levantine direction, it's equally true that most studies on female lineage point in a European direction. There's even some genetic study suggesting an origin in the Caucasus. That's a theory I don't believe in myself, sure, but it goes to show that the situation is not at all as clear-cut as in the very selective list of sources Tritomex refers to above.Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a selective list, I did not denied that. However, when you say selective list you must show what is on the other side

In paternal Y chromosome studies nothing.

In maternal line, you said that "that most studies on female lineage point in a European direction." This is not correct. Behar and al published 2 studies, J. Feder et al published one pointing to Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews while Richards published one study pointing to predominantly European and minoritarian Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jewish females. So numerically it would be at least 3:1, although in my personal view genetics is not numerical. All maternal genetic studies found at least some Middle Eastern origin among AJ females. In line with this the maternal origin of Ashkenazi Jews is not as clear as their paternal origin and can not be concluded based on the current results of genetic studies.

Regarding Autosomes, the overwhelming majority of studies are in support of Middle Eastern origin of AJ as cited above. There are one and half exception. Zoossmann-Diskin whose conclusions are based mainly on X chromosomes believes in predominantly South European origin while the controversial study of Elhaik (which was heavily criticized in academic world) found predominantly Caucasian and to lesser degree Middle Eastern and South European origin in AJ.

Regarding comparative studies, all genetic studies found genetic link between AJ and Middle Eastern people (Shen, Nebla, Thomas)

I mentioned now all genetic studies carried out so far. When I said Middle Eastern origin, I did not mean that AJ are genetically pure. Origin does not exclude admixture, as in the case of all other people. Also, there are few academic books from population genetics which do summarize this question like: Shriver, Tony N. Frudakis D. (2008). Molecular photofitting : predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA P:383-390 which was used as one of sources. [10]--Tritomex (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, I think I formulated myself badly and I apologize. Your list of studies is of course beneficial to the discussion and a valuable contribution. In criticizing the list as leaning in one direction, I did not intend any criticism of you and I apologize if I was unclear.

I do maintain that most (as opposed to all) studies suggest European female lineage. Though nicely written, the recent study in Nature does in fact suggest in no unclear words that the studies of Behar et al. were wrong. Already a few years ago, an academic article looking at the evidence at the time said most research on maternal lineage suggested a European heritage, and studies published after that has further confirmed that view.

While the topic of genetics is interesting, I think we should not overemphasize it. Regardless of genetics, it is clear that all Jews have a connection back to Israel rooted in several other important cultural, historical and religious aspects.Jeppiz (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, the LEDE you have proposed still has two problems. 1) the DNA test concludes that maternal origins are mainly Western European, and that's what the LEDE should say but it doesn't. 2) The number of secondary sources used, especially in relation to the previous passage concerning Israelitic origins which contain a variety of different studies and historical sources. This gives the appearance of padding and violates WP:UNDUE.Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz] Thank you for your comments. Although I agree with most you have said, I must state that based on my knowledge most of the X chromosome studies carried out on AJ females did not suggest European female lineage. In fact, this hypothesis was first proposed by well respected geneticist David B. Goldstein from the Duke University and based on his analysis the only genetic study which supports this hypothesis is the one carried out by Richards. Goldstein on other hand claimed that regarding Richards study "estimate that 80% of Ashkenazi Jewish Mt-DNA is European was not statistically justified given the random rise and fall of mitochondrial DNA lineages". Two identical studies which used the same techniques namely that of Behar and Feder did not found support for European maternal origin of AJ females. So in my view, while the standing of population genetics on Middle Eastern origin of Y chromosome and autusomes of AJ is pretty clear, this is not yet the case regarding mtDNA, whose origin remains uncertain. I have also to agree fully with AnkhMorpork, there are WP:UNDUE problems with current wording and even maybe WP:OR problems as well. 1 ) The Israelite origin is supported (as I presented above also) with: 1) historic sources 2) academic books from population genetics 3) Y chromosome studies 4) autosome chromosome studies and 5) X chromosomes (mtDNA) studies as well. On the other hand the European origin is sourced with only one mt DNA study carried out by Richards. Actually Richards study can only be used as source of maternal and not general origin. Also Richards (as all mt DNA) studies found also a minoritarian Middle Eastern origin among AJ too.The current wording also missed to say that the majority of genetic studies are in support of ME origin of AJTritomex (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically, most of the genetics papers, if not all, are nonsense, and the same holds in terms of conceptual analysis. What does "origin" mean? An arbitrary point in time taken as a decisive starting point, and thus so because of an interpretative framework that precedes the evidence. The arbitrary starting points in this discursive field are two 600 BCE and ICE. I don't want to debate this here, but people who look at the way this stuff is presented ought to understand the problem simply on the basis of the obvious consideration that there is not such thing as pure descent, which translates into 'all origins are multiple', genetically, historically, and geographically.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork Your proposal has been rejected above on the grounds that we can not mention only one study and call that summarizing.Please try to be more constructive in your next proposal. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but is there an agreement on anything concerning this subject? Guy355 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have tried a compromise version for the lead, which - if there will be no reverts, will allow us to concentrate on the Genetics section. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

With all of these references to chromosomes and DNA, I forgot this was a discussion about one sentence in the lead. I think it's ridiculous for any sentence to have 10 footnotes on it (as seen above). Pick one or two representative references and leave it at that.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is one excellent, comprehensive yet succinct source, with impeccable credentials, which covers all sides of the dispute. Cherie Woodworth, 'Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes,' in Kritika, vol. 11 no. 1(Winter, 2010), pp. 105-123. This is basically a review of the evidence from linguistic studies on Yiddish (and should also be used to correct the false information in the lead on that language) but also has the advantage of being neutral, evaluating the various theses in the light of contradictions, challenges and problems in each. Something like this should cover all angles for the lead.

The origins of the Ashkenazi are disputed: the mainstream theory holds that the Rhineland was the cradle of the Ashkenazi, another argues that Eastern Europe was the hearth for the originative population. Genetics has suggested a Middle Eastern link in paternal DNA, while mitochondrial DNA, from mothers, points to a strong indigenous European base. The origins of the Yiddish language spoken by Ashkenazim are equally shrouded in mystery. ref Cherie Woodworth, 'Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes,' in Kritika, vol. 11 no. 1(Winter, 2010), pp. 105-123.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser, if there's only one study that supports a mainly European origin for Ashkenazim, and dozens in support of a Middle Eastern origin, that means the former is a minority view and the article should naturally give emphasis to the consensus view. The cited study doesn't even support that. It says maternal origins are mainly European.Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, Ashkenazim are a subgroup of Jews, who originate in the Fertile Crescent. The majority of genetic studies and historical sources support this conclusion, so it makes perfect sense to include that in the LEDE. In terms of genetics, the consensus view indicates that Ashkenazim are genetically Middle Eastern (specifically Levantine) with varying degrees of admixture from Europeans, especially Southern Europeans. Ashkenazi is Hebrew for Germany, just as Sephardi is Hebrew for Spain and Mizrahi for Eastern. Yiddish is a high Germanic language with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Slavic elements, written in the Hebrew alphabet.Ankh.Morpork 18:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

'Nishidani, Ashkenazim are a subgroup of Jews, who originate in the Fertile Crescent.' I.e. a meme, with ideological elements posing as a truth statement. The meme is wrong because, as any historian, Jewish or otherwise, will tell you, conversion was widespread in early Judaism, from which it follows that many Jews did not originate necessarily in the Fertile Crescent. It is this chronic confusion, and the insistance on popular 'doctrine' that makes editing this and contiguous pages almost impossible. As you all know, the Inca Jews of Alon Shvut, like the Beta Israel, the San Nicandro Jews, and so many others, did not 'originate' in the Fertile Crescent, and therefore these numerous contrarian instances demolish your trite generalization. As to the genetics study, all we are seeing is the meme being applied to early genetic studied conducted by interested parties. The newest study undermined the paradigm. This is inevitable in science.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that converts were absorbed into the Jewish people, Nishidani. However, genetic studies so far have only indicated admixture with Europeans, not complete origins in Europe. Once there are sufficient citations and sources conclude that Ashkenazi Jews don't originate in the Levant, we can edit the article to reflect that. Until then, we can only work with what we have.Ankh.Morpork 15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, nobody has said anything about Ashkenazim being pure. The LEDE indicated, until the passage was removed, that there was a study which concluded Ashkenazim were mainly European. A cursory look at the study would show this is not the case, and some editors took issue with this, and rightly so. Lastly, genetic studies qualify as WP:RS, so we are not in a position to dismiss them as "garbage".Ankh.Morpork 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What is happening is a fudge over a very comple debate in order to assert a thesis. It is even being asserted that there is only one study, and very recent, that contradicts the spurious 'consensus'. Yet, to cite just a few:-

(1) Selden et al, 'European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations,'(2006)

'The finding in the current study that individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent are predominantly “southern” European further suggests the later migration of this ethnic group from the Mediterranean region. Regardless of the European country of origin, each of those participants with four grandparents of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage showed this predominant “southern” cluster membership.'

(2)Cochran et al [Recently, Cochran et al. Cochran G, Hardy J, Harpending H: Natural history of ashkenazi intelligence.J Biosoc Sci 2006, 38:659-693 'used 251 autosomal loci to calculate genetic distances and concluded that "from the perspective of a large collection of largely neutral genetic variation Ashkenazim are essentially European, not Middle Eastern". ]

(3) Avshalom Zoossman-Diskin, 'The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms,' (2010)'According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. . 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.,'

(4)Costa, P?ereira, Richards et al. 'A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages', Nature Communications, October 8, 2013 'Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The LEDE section looks fine, for now. I would revise the wording a bit ie "Consensus among geneticists place Ashkenazi Jewish origins in the Levant, although details vary". Something to that effect.Ankh.Morpork 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am happy all more or less agree with the lead now. I also think it should be improved, but I wanted to make a first step here. Perhaps we should now say "Genetic studies, researching both paternal and maternal lineage, while all pointing to certain Levantine origins, have arrived at a variety of conclusions regarding the inter-mixture of other origins and their prominence."? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although you did forget autosomal admixture.Ankh.Morpork 19:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Or even "Genetic studies, researching both paternal and maternal lineage, while all pointing to certain Levantine origins, have arrived at diverging conclusions regarding the inter-mixture of a variety of other origins and their prominence."?

Morpork this recent study which suggests that the Maternal roots of Ashkenazis can be traced mainly to Europe studied much more than previous studies. On science magazine the title was "did Ashkenazis originate in Italy?", I heard they have a reputation of knowing a thing or two about this subject. Besides, this study was not the only one, another study published by NYT suggests a varying amount of European ancestry on the Ashkenazi maternal side, from about 30% to 60%, with north Italians showing the greatest genetic proximity to Ashkenazis and Sepharadis. Also, a 2010 autosomal study concluded about 85% European ancestry in the autosomal of Ashkenazis and Sepharadis. Guy355 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and speaking of historical records, Josephus Flavius claims there have been about 6 million Jews throughout the Roman empire, with only 500,000 in Judea, and he also mentions a very large community in the Italian peninsula. Also, there was a large population of so called "god fearers", people who partially practiced Judaism, but have not went through a full conversion, if male they were not circumcised yet, and in general the god fearers did not keep the Kosher dietary law. It was rumored that emperor Vaspian's wife was a god fearer. Guy355 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no autosomal genetic study claiming 85% European origin among AJ and Sepahardaic Jews. Also, Josephus did not claimed 500 000 Jews living in Judea, he claimed 1,1 million Jews being killed in the Great Revolt of Judea Josephus, War of the Jews VI.9.3.--Tritomex (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the recent proposals of Debresser and AnkhMorpork. Although it should be emphasized that the paternal origin is indisputably Middle Eastern --Tritomex (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"A 2006 study by Seldin et al. used over five thousand autosomal SNPs to demonstrate European genetic substructure. The results showed "a consistent and reproducible distinction between ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ European population groups". Most northern, central, and eastern Europeans (Finns, Swedes, English, Irish, Germans, and Ukrainians) showed >90% in the ‘northern’ population group, while most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards) showed >85% in the 'southern' group. Both Ashkenazi Jews as well as Sephardic Jews showed >85% membership in the "southern" group. Referring to the Jews clustering with southern Europeans, the authors state the results were "consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups".[127]". Guy355 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Debresser. you asked me for my opinion re your removal of the origins' stuff. I'm fine with not mentioning origins, if everything goes. You removed half of the problem. See the section below, commenting on the sentence which continues

before the Middle Ages from the river Loire in the center of France to the Rhineland in the north - thus the term also includes the original Jews of France from the medieval period.[17][18]

This constitutes with the main sentence, an espousal of a theory, i.e. the Rhineland hypothesis, that would have the Rhineland populated from Jews along the river Loire. I don't know where all of this WP:OR comes from, but as Michael Toch's book shows, this is a thesis, not a fact and 'Loire valley' is way too specific. (Toch suggests slow settlement northwards from France and Italy (p.72) and also views the claims about Cologne with scepticism, in the sense that he argues there is no evidence for other than transient existence p.71).

So, if you remove the origins (genetic controversy) while retaining this section, you are removing page evidence for a controversy of origins, and leaving in a WP:OR pastiche which favours one of several theories while presenting it as objective history. The POV remains.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't take care of all issue at once. I think with this new sentence about genetics in the lead, we have taken care of that issue. I'll be happy to work alongside you further to remove other problems. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy355 You misinterprated Seldin findings. The AJ 85% membership in "southern group" is not explained with European but with shared Mediteranian origin of AJ by the authors themselves. Mediteranian people do have shared genetic ties do to neolithic and letter migrations. *See People* *E1b1b1 etc* "Ashkenazi Jewish as well as Sephardic Jewish origin also showed >85% membership in the “southern” population, consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups". The study did not examined other Mediteranian people who also have genetic connections with South Europeans, as Pierre A. Zalloua and al and Haber and all have found.--Tritomex (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my error. This subject is still debated, therefore I reckon we should keep an open mind, science and technology get better everyday. Guy355 (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There is way too much genetic technical detail in the main Ashkenazi article. This should all go into a sub-article, with a summary in the main article. Keith McClary (talk) 03:44, 3 February 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)

Yambaram's section

It was made clear in the discussion above that that section was to be deleted due to gross misinterpretation of the citations. But it seems that he/she got butthurt and found a refugee location for it. I've at least tried to rid the sentence that indicates "Ashkenazi" Jews living in Germany as early as 321 BC. But neither Galassi nor Debresser will allow this to happen. The latter even said: "Stop telling us to consult the talkpage for your POV edits. There are 3 sources there!" in this edit here here. So why am I being accused of creating POV edits when those who revert me refuse to co-operate? In fact, it seems that neither Galassi nor Debresser edit. All they do is just wait and revert edits that doesn't fit into their liking. Khazar (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you have not engaged with anyone on this talkpage. If you have objections, state them here. Other contributors watching this page are not mind-readers.

If it walks like a duck... it'll be treated like one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just stated my objections above and I'd be happy if you'd address them. As for not addressing anyone on the talkpage, neither are you. You're just dodging my points and calling me a POV-pusher simply because I am unable to communicate with my reverters effectively; you being one of them. Khazar (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused as to what 'addressing' other contributors on the talk page actually means. This is the first time you have even made your presence known (i.e., I've never encountered you here and have checked the history here, and on the article, and you don't appear). Debresser, Galassi, and I have all actually been involved with the discussion of content here. No one presumes to read the talk page, agree with the points made by one contributor and change the content of the article according to their reading of choice. That is known as POV pushing, and precisely why others who do have the courtesy to discuss changes before initiating them revert changes which have not been agreed on (known as 'consensus').

Then please clarify on what addressing other contributors on the talk page actually means considering that I'm quite new here. You still haven't addressed the original issue, but instead chose to characterise me as a "POV-pusher" despite WP:POV not being the issue at hand. If you actually read my comment, you'd know the dispute was over a sentence that violated WP:OR and WP:V. But now, there's no need for that because Nishidani solved the issue rather than taking my comments out of context. Khazar (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Characterising other editors as lurking behind dark corners and jumping on you for no justifiable reason, other than being POV pushers, is not WP:CIVIL behaviour. Evidently, you are unaware of the fact that editors do have articles on their watchlists and keep an eye out for sudden and contentious changes to the content. It may not be an official policy or guideline but it is standard practice to revert content that's not been agreed on... in fact, has been dismissed as WP:OR, redundant or does not meet the criteria for being verifiable... but only where it has been discussed and you have participated and consensus has been reached: not on the strength of a discussion still in progress, or one that has been dismissed just because you, personally, have made a decision as to its merit or lack of merit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that I violated WP:CIVIL and I sincerely apologize for that. It'd be better if I left the other editors unmentioned rather than criticizing their behavior. Sorry. Khazar (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. As was noted, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion of the content in order to make it clear what kind of changes you propose to make before making them. There are still outstanding issues surrounding the content which could probably do with an injection of fresh energy, particularly where WP:OR has been cited. Discussion here has already proven itself to assist in improving the article. Precise NPOV concerns are taken seriously. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars

There appear to be contributors who read discussions on this talk page, are 'citing' them in order to make POV changes to the article, yet have not actually engaged with anyone on the talk page.

Rather than having to deal with an edit war, perhaps some form communique could be left here. In the meantime, please do not change the content of the article before the fact. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not different from Galassi or Debresser. Rather than waiting and reverting, why not actually contribute to the article instead of labelling editors POV changers? On another note, it was made clear that section wasn't made to be and considering that you won't even mention my username, you seem to fit the description of a contributor who won't "actually enage with anyone on the talk page". I will stand aside for now because edit wars are destructive. But if I don't hear from you, Galassi, or Debresser within a week, then I won't hesitate to revert. Khazar (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are provided to discuss proposals—they are not provided to make declarations or attack other editors. What is the problem that needs to be fixed and why? No reasoning is provided here or in the previous section unless "butthurt" has a scholarly meaning that I am not familiar with. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone here. I brought up the problem that the statement claiming "Ashkenazi" Jews were in Germany as early as 321 BC is not supported by any of the citations provided. That is the problem I proposed and is written very clearly. Now, will you address it or will you pretend I didn't propose anything like you just did now? Khazar (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You have an attitude, and that is seriously getting on the nerves of all other editors here. In short: you revert an edit with three sources, because you claim it doesn't specify the word "Ashkenazi". I don't have access to those sources, but I remember we spoke about this before and decided to use the phrase "forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews". Is that what you refer to when saying "consult the talk page"? Debresser (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish presence is attested in Europe, but Khazar is correct that any Jewish group before 1000 CE should not be called 'Askenazi' unless we have a good academic source for it. This has been said repeatedly, and the example we have is the Jewish Virtual Library article, which starts around 1000 CE. 'Forefathers' is still OR based on the principle 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' (Ashkenazi are attested 700 years after the 321 ref to Jews in Cologne, and therefore they descend from Jews in Europe at that time. Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So what should the article say? Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead's fine, thanks to some intelligent compromises with Debresser. In my view, most of the section on pre-Ashkenazi Jews, being either false (first line to cite just one example), poorly sourced, or irrelevant (Baghdad!!? etc.,) or unnecessary (compare Shira Schoenberg's Ashkenazim for the Jewish Virtual Library which is exemplary in this regard). The function of this section is to insinuate genetic continuity of the blood-stock. One could start with Charlemagne with a short para, always, however, using academic works which link these to the Ashkenazim emerging in sources ca.1000 CE. I've tried to do this several times, but have been systematically reverted by one POV-pusher in particular. Some people cannot help wishing to prove that the Ashkenazi descended lineally from the 12 tribes of Israel. This is a dead meme in all but the shoddiest hasbara. Jews everywhere, throughout history, have traditionally had a deep sense of connection with the world of the Bible, which mixes legend and history, mostly composed in Babylon, about the past, but to convert this into race theories of direct continuous blood descent from a few tribes around 900BC. is not only jejune but ideologically obtuse. The Ashkenazim embrace two wings, the Western and Eastern, and n the 19th century, the former disowned the idea that Jews were a 'nation' )(Volkstamm), and insisted that a Jew was defined by common adherence to a religion. The latter insisted on a ghettoized sense of tradition, intermarriage, non-assimilation and religious traditionalism, and ancestry was crucial for them. What we have in this section is the residue of the POV of the latter, abetted by a concern to justify Israel post 1948. Israel needs no justification along blood lines, or theories of descent, and such ideological interests in the descent meme should not disturb our encyclopedic ambitions, which do well to follow Schoenberg's example. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just made an edit Remove the word "Ashkenazi" per talkpage. Fix "B.C." which obviously (see also source) should be CE. I think this solves the issue? Debresser (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, well-done. I don't follow this page that much, given the waste of research-time and its results that withers on the vine, or is that snipped, as soon as one tries to bring some order into the page. I do hope, Debresser, that you can look over closely the section I mentioned. The Ashkenazi have such a magnificent history they do not need defensiveness, or mythic roots, or angst over historical roots. The last millennium is so rich, that it is a pity to see its genius impoverished by barrel-scraping behind the mists of time. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have limited time for such relatively large projects. Perhaps an editor would make a bold attempt to do this, or start a section about it with specific proposals for a rewrite. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, Jews were defined as a nation or ethnic group long before the establishment of the State of Israel. Jews are not merely practitioners of Judaism, but a people that share ancestry, a culture, a language and an ancestral homeland in which Jews have maintained a continuous presence for three-thousand plus years. What you call hasbara is, in reality, anthropological and archeological fact. Gilad55 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

There might be some truth to this "fact" if Jews were a closed ethnic group and for 3,000 years, never married people of other ethnic groups and didn't accept people who have converted to Judaism. But, on the contrary, there has been a lot of intermarriage and a fair number of individuals who have converted to Judaism because of marriage or for religious reasons over the past three millennium. To talk as if there is some unbroken line of purity of ethnicity and culture that is shared by all people who have even a marginal ancestral relationship to Judaism is a naive understanding of ethnicity, especially for ethnic groups in diaspora. People move around over centuries, intermarry and customs change. You are arguing for an ideology that doesn't reflect human migration and dispersal, especially over the past 300 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No one said anything about purity, Liz. Ashkenazi Jews, like other Jewish divisions, have mixed to varying degrees with populations they've encountered post-diaspora. Nobody denies this. What I (and I'm assuming Gilad too) take issue with is when people minimize or outright deny the Jewish ties (blood or otherwise) to the Israelites and indigenous status to Israel, especially when virtually all of evidence available to us affirms this. Indeed, it's a sensitive issue and I'd rather put this discussion to rest.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Gilad55 Ashkenazi's Sepharadics and Mizrahis (excluding Yemenite Jews) share a close genetic proximity and they all have middle eastern ancestry, but their culture is very different, the way they pray, the way they look and the languages that they developed (Yiddish, Ladino, Judeo Arabic etc)are completely different, that being said, Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Chinese Jews, Indian Jews (from India) share a closer genetic proximity to their non Jewish countrymen than they do to Ashkenazis, Sepharadics and Mizrahis. Also, it should be noted, that Ashkenazis and Sepharadics have a large European component, and a close genetic proximity to Tuscans, Greeks and north Italians, my DNA results, on Gedmatch, Admixture, with link to Oracle, by proportions, Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 puts me closest to Ashkenazis, then Sepharadics, and then Tuscans, then Greeks, and then North Italians (rather than Arabs or the Druze), my largest component at 48.55 percent is native European (with the Western European and Southern European components being the largest), the following largest component at 34 percent is near eastern (with the largest component being Eastern Mediterranean followed by Red sea i.e south west Asian) and the last largest component at 16% is west Asian i.e west Caucasian. The native European component being the dominant, is confirmed by a 2013 study published by NYT concluding the European component at 30-60 percent (I fit in the ratio) among Ashkenazi and Sepharadic populations with a close genetic proximity to Italians (as you may see after Ashkenazis and Sepharadics I share a close genetic proximity to modern Tuscans i.e central Italians, followed by modern Greeks, followed by modern North Italians). And lastly, according to the Torah, the "mothers" of Israel were not born Jewish (Rachel, Leah etc), instead,, they were converted, and to this day, non Jews converted to Judaism are considered equally Jewish to people born to a Jewish mum, therefore I doubt converting local women would in any way harm the Jew's claim to the land of Israel according to the eyes of Jews to 2,000 years ago at least, it also should be noted that the term "Jews" and the following of the full Torah exist only since the Babylonian captivity, before that the Israelites worshiped many gods besides "Elohim", they were, Canaanite, Elohim is a Canaanite god, and they worshiped another Canaanite god, Asherah, Hebrew is a Canaanite language, it's very close to Phoenician, another Canaanite language. And finally, according to the Roman Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, there were large conversions in the Roman empire, and most Jews seemed to live in southern Europe. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

'Jews were defined as a nation or ethnic group long before the establishment of the State of Israel.' Actually most 19th century European rabbis didn't define their fellow worshippers 'ethnically', and confusing 'nation' and 'ethnicity' is pointy. Even contemporary orthodox rabbinical definitions define ethnic descent only by considering one branch, and thus the category there is not one of generic ethnicity (which would include the patrilineal line). The problem is, definitions, esp. here, change radically over time according to what kind of categorical comfort zone the zeitgeist dictates. Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the racial definition of Jewishness did not subside until sometime in the 20th century. It was abandoned in favor of one embracing ethnicity.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The idea of race exists only since the late 18th century, Jews were considered a nation since forever. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Attribution errors

In the section "Female lineages: Mitochondrial DNA," I notice that some of the text in the last paragraph, beginning "Variation in Ashkenazi mtDNA is highly distinctive," seems to have been lifted and slightly modified. but without attribution, from the 2013 study mentioned in the paragraph above it http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html.

I have only casually read this page--there may be other instances that I haven't seen.

Dcb2 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Dcb2

That is true, but the changes seems to be legitimate paraphrasing, which is not a problem and rather encouraged. Nevertheless, it would be a good idea to see if the source supports the current flow of argument. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing regardless of consensus and ignoring other articles

There are some users here who seem to completely ignore consensus and additional articles. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)