Talk:Yiddish

United Kingdom- (Greater) Manchester.

As usual, the community is said to be in "MANCHESTER". This is so not really the case, as the community lives in 3 component parts (City of Salford, City of Manchester and Bury Metropolitan Borough) of Greater Manchester, for the most part. "Jewish North Manchester" is made up of part of the city of Salford; mainly Broughton Park and Higher Broughton, and the neighbouring districts, to the north, of Prestwich and Whitefield, which are in the Borough of Bury. Only a minority of Jewish people, in the conurbation, lives within the city (of Manchester) boundaries, as such, now ! The whole area is, however, a pretty continuous one, straggling the local authority borders.

NY Times Article

Is it appropriate to include a link to the following "NY Times" article in the reference section? </http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/29/science/scholars-debate-roots-of-yiddish-migration-of-jews.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm>

Mention of Holocaust in the Lead

I strongly believe that mention Holocaust should be in the lead of this article, given that there were 10+ million speakers before the war, and less than 2 million now. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 06:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I did think it was somewhat tangential initially but those figures suggest it's pretty pertinent, so I agree. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The number of speakers has its own section, and is not relevant to the language per se. Debresser (talk)

I agree. That's the single biggest impact on Yiddish of all time. deisenbe (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't just mention the fact, but specify the impact of that fact om the language. Otherwise, the connection is not clear. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say putting the maths in is the prime reason, so a succinct sentence stating the reduction in numbers before and afterwards or percentage or whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean " putting the maths in is the prime reason"? Debresser (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with you - i.e. the reason the mention of the holocaust in the lead is solely because of the numerical impact on the number of speakers - and that number/fraction/proportion needs to be there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Yiddish language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111026142515/http://gazetaeao.ru/idish to http://gazetaeao.ru/idish
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213221220/http://yiddishsummer.org:80/internship-information.html to http://www.yiddishsummer.org/internship-information.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514090330/http://www.virginia.edu/jewishstudies/academics-yiddish-language.html to http://www.virginia.edu/jewishstudies/academics-yiddish-language.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked, removed the first of the archive links (cannot be created due to bots.txt on original site).-- Elmidae 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Clear consensus that the language is the primary topic. I've moved the old history at Yiddish to Yiddish (disambiguation) and then deleted it – there was nothing worth preserving there, just an attempt to turn the redirect to a dab in 2006. Jenks24 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Yiddish language → Yiddish – Per WP:NCLANG, this is already the well-established WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Yiddish. Yiddish (disambiguation) doesn't even exist, nor is there such a thing as Yiddish people. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone, be aware of the previous the Yiddish-versus-Yiddish-language discussion at Talk:Yiddish. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we will need to preserve that talk page, if this is moved. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment we have Yiddish culture and we should have a disambiguation page. So we are missing that. We do have an Yiddish people article, it's missing a redirect to Ashkenazi Jews -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• On the contrary, disambiguation pages aren't for listing every title that begins with a particular word or for acting as a "see also" article. They're for things that the title, on its own, might refer to. Yiddish culture isn't referred to as "Yiddish". —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's not PTM, it's actual real world usage of the term "Yiddish" alone, to refer to the people and the culture and the language, thus a true DAB situation. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical. In real world usage I've never heard or read anything resembling "I like Yiddish" or "he's studying Yiddish" where it was intended to mean the Yiddish culture rather than the Yiddish language. I have never heard or read anything resembling "the Yiddish" or "the Yiddishes", to refer to the Jewish people. Can you point us to examples of such usage? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Largo Plazo on this as well. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Largoplazo linked to the previous discussion about this proposal, which refers Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages#Article_names, where it says "Most language articles should be on a page titled XXX language." So I think we should keep this here. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Calidum 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:LANG specifically says not to follow those in cases of languages, as I cited above. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. @Debresser:, the relevant guideline is WP:NCLANG, whose first sentence is Articles on languages can be titled with the bare name of the language where this is unambiguous. Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages is a rather inactive project, and the paragraph in question stems from before 2006; it should be updated to reflect the current practice. Anyway, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, global guidelines take precedence over local consensus. As Largoplazo stated, there is no plausible ambiguity, because a) Yiddish culture is culture written in Yiddish, thus can be treated as a sub-article and b) it is never referred to as just "Yiddish", so is a WP:PTM. No such user (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCLANG. Thank you, No such user, for pointing out WP:NCLANG. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom's analysis. Cavarrone 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yiddish is a Creole language.

Yiddish is by definition a Creole language. Jews who spoke/wrote in Hebrew or Hebrew dialects (e.g. Aramaic) migrated/were brought as slaves to Eastern Europe/Russia, where they creolized their versions of Hebrew to adapt to the dominant languages (i.e. German language, Polish, and Russian). Several sources already cited in this article attest to that. From the Yiddish Institute of Jewish Research: [1] From the Journal of Language Contact: [2] Yiddish, like other creoles, features code-switching, for which Jews could understand similar Hebrew-derived words that non-Jews in Eastern-Europe could not understand—this idea is noted in Joseph Dorman's 2011 documentary, "Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness." Therefore, this page should include the description and categories Creole language and Category:Pidgins and creoles In addition, the language family tree should include the Afroasiatic languages that co-parented Yiddish—also cited in the above and already included sources.

What do you think? Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

well no -- you need a RS to make that claim. There is a refutation online here at a linguistics site: "In short: No, Yiddish is not a creole. A creole is a stable language developed from the mixing of parent languages. A creole develops if (and, AFAIK, only if) its speakers were children who grew up speaking what used to be a pidgin as their first language....Yiddish was not a language that developed from two language groups trying to communicate with each other." Rjensen (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you not consider the sources provided above reliable? Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The pidgin aspect of this has been discussed here before, and if it wasn't a pidgin it can't be creole: Talk:Yiddish/Archive_3#Yiddish_is_a_pidgin --Futhark|Talk 20:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't even understand the motivation for hypothesizing that Yiddish arose from a pidgin. Were Jews arriving in German-speaking areas centuries ago, picking up German with certain typical grammatical errors and making their own alterations to it any different from Jews arriving in New York in 1895, learning to speak English with certain typical grammatical errors and making their own alterations to it? Does anybody claim that a Jew who says something like "You think you should maybe talk to him a bisl before he does something meshugge?" is speaking a creole preceded by an earlier pidgin? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As I asked in the archive referenced by Futhark, if Yiddish were ever a pidgin, which, by definition, would have had the inflectional complexities of German stripped out of it, then isn't it a miracle that Yiddish today has developed into an inflected language that are largely all the same as the ones that German has? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the analysis of the sources previously provided by this very article?

Here is a separate, related source, and it is clear that because Yiddish (and Ladino for that matter) was originally written in Hebrew, and was specifically created by Jews who adapted to the dominant languages of regions in which they arrived after various Jewish diasporas:

"As these Central European communities grew, local Jews developed their own unique hybrid of medieval German dialects, combining them with Hebrew and Aramaic. From this sprang Yiddish: a rugged vernacular, destined to bind millions of distinct European Jews - both secular and religious - into a common Jewish culture that would define Ashkenazi life in Eastern Europe until the Holocaust..."

"Likewise, Hebrew remained the sacred language of prayer and scripture and of responsa literature (rabbinic dialogues regarding law), while Yiddish was used as the everyday vernacular, assuring that Eastern Jews would continue to maintain ties to Jews in German lands, just as they would remain distinct from their non-Jewish hosts. Within the Polish settlement experience - this is noteworthy as a special case Yiddish was not abandoned for the dominant Polish. It remained a most significant and distinguishing factor of Jewish life and culture well into the 20th century." (YIVO 2004).

that Yiddish should be considered a Creole language, under the category of Category:Pidgins and creoles Category:Pidgins and creoles, and have Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, Canaanite, and Hebrew added to the Language family tree of the Wikipedia page Yiddish. Otherwise, it does not make sense why all of a sudden non-Jewish Europeans would begin speaking/writing in Hebrew. Therefore, Yiddish is a Creole language from both Hebrew and the various Eastern European languages that Jews encountered. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are syntactical and narrative problems with what you've written here, including the "Hebrew language Hebrew" part, and I'm not able to follow your train of logic so I can't respond directly.

We know that Yiddish is largely German with elements from other languages, Hebrew as well as Eastern European. This is not a revelation. It is also not, in and of itself, what determines that a language is a creole, because that is not what "creole" means. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at the YIVO and JLC sources above. The first doesn't use the word "creole" anywhere, and the second considers whether Modern Israeli Hebrew, not Yiddish, is a creole. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input —Largo Plazo (talk)! I repaired the broken links/grammar. In relation to the shared Semitic and Indo-Aryan (European) parenting of Yiddish, the YIVO PDF source says the following:

The language is characterized by a synthesis of Germanic (the majority component, derived from medieval German city dialects, themselves recombined) with Hebrew and Aramaic. (pg. 1).

From the 1970s on, some linguists, using evidence from both Germanic and Semitic components, began opting for a more easterly Danube-region origin, around Jewish centers in Regensburg, Nuremberg, and Rothenburg. (pg. 2).

By all accounts, Yiddish was from very early on the universal spoken language of Jews in the Germanic-speaking territory known as Ashkenaz in Jewish culture. It was one of the major new European Jewish cultures that arose in medieval Europe. The others include Sepharad (Seforad) on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal); Tsarfat (Tsorfas) on French soil; Kenaan (Knaan) in the Slavic lands; Loe(y)z in Italy; Yavan (Yovon) in Greece; and Hagar (Hogor) in Hungary.

From earliest times, Yiddish was written using the same alphabet as Hebrew and Aramaic. Semitic alphabets have only consonants (many, including Hebrew and Aramaic, eventually developed systems for indicating vowels via diacritic marks). The loss of some ancient consonants in actual pronunciation “freed up” a number of letters to function in Yiddish as European-style vowel-letters, most famously ayin for e; alef for a and o sounds; and various combinations of yud and vov for diphthongs. Some of these devices were further developments of Aramaic-era usages. In Yiddish, the consonant-only Semitic script evolved into a vowel-plus-consonant European-type alphabet that provided a good (eventually, for modern standard Yiddish perfect) phonetic match between letter and sound. Words of Hebrew and Aramaic origin continued, however, to be spelled historically. They also maintain a unique sound pattern within the language; words are usually accented on the syllable before the last (the penult), rather than on the root syllable as in the Germanic parts of the language. (pg. 3).

Eleventh-century “glosses” (translations of “hard words” into the vernacular) are early manifestations of a written tradition that used Yiddish to explain Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The oldest known complete Yiddish sentence, dated 1272, occurs in an illuminated festival prayerbook manuscript known as the Worms Mahzor (Vórmser mákhzer); the words contain a blessing for the person who will carry the book to the synagogue. Its text is written into the hollows of a large calligraphic Hebrew word. (pg. 3-4).

In the east, the original Germanic and Semitic components were enriched by a Slavic component, which gave the language a new layer. (6).

In the early Soviet Union, Yiddish became a government-supported language and literature, and the state financed school systems, advanced research institutes, and literature. But Soviet rule, after some years of freedom in the earlier 1920s, made for a highly “straightjacketed Yiddish” with dictates on spelling (banishing the historic spelling of Semitic-origin words in the late 1920s), vocabulary, and, most importantly, content. Then, in the 1930s, Stalinist orders closed most of the extant institutions. In the purges of 1937, leading Yiddish writers and cultural leaders were arrested and executed; later, in the major postwar purge, the greatest surviving authors were murdered in 1952. (pg. 6).

Hasidism enhanced the status of Yiddish among the three languages of Ashkenaz. A new layer of sacred words that derived from Hebrew or Aramaic came into the everyday language, for example, dvéykes (literally, a cleaving; reinvigorated as a form of Hasidic rapture and cleavage to God); histálkes (disappearance, adapted to refer to the death of a Hasidic holy person—a tsadik or rebbe). (pg. 6-7).

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the cultural affinity of most American and other Western Jews was for the emerging State of Israel and Israeli Hebrew. Moreover, Yiddish often had an image of “greenhorn” lack of sophistication and lowbrow humor; its use was associated with failure to climb on board the American socioeconomic ladder of success. Starting in the 1960s, attitudes toward Yiddish began to change, influenced by several factors including the gradual death of the last masters (and of Yiddish- speaking parents and relatives) that evoked nostalgia for the “old country”; growing consciousness (and knowledge) of the Holocaust; a recognition that Israeli Hebrew was now secure and that its proponents need not “fear” Yiddish; the changing evaluation in the United States of black and other ethnic cultures; and, a growing scholarly movement that saw a great world literature in Yiddish prose, poetry, and drama in 150 years that can schematically be dated from 1850 to 2000. (pg. 11).

All passages refer to an essential co-parenting of Hebrew, as well as Aramaic, as a Semitic language to the various "Asheknaz" languages of Germany, Poland, and Russia, also noting several other relatives, on page 2, as above. This premise defines Yiddish and other Semitic/Hebrew-influenced Indo-Aryan languages like Ladino under the current definitions of Creole language on Wikipedia. This concept is also noted in Zuckermann's JLC article when he describes the hybridity of Yiddish: "as reflected in Slavonized, Romance/Semitic-influenced, Germanic Yiddish itself" (pg. 49). I apologize for the earlier confusion regarding the initial sources. Thank you for your help. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The current definition of Creole language on Wikipedia is "a stable natural language that has developed from a pidgin (i.e. a simplified language or simplified mixture of languages used by non-native speakers) becoming nativized by children as their first language, with the accompanying effect of a fully developed vocabulary and system of grammar." Nothing above indicates that Yiddish evolved from any pidgin. Also, Yiddish was Yiddish well before the 20th century, so it puzzles me greatly what we're intended to derive, in the context of a discussion of whether Yiddish is a creole, from any of the text beginning with "In the early Soviet Union". —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your continuing theme is that Yiddish is a hybrid of contributions from multiple languages. Again, as I said above, this is beyond dispute. Not only that, it's patently obvious. It is also not tantamount to Yiddish being a creole. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of Pidgin: "A pidgin /ˈpɪdʒɨn/, or pidgin language, is a grammatically simplified means of communication that develops between two or more groups that do not have a language in common: typically, a mixture of simplified languages or a simplified primary language with other languages' elements included. It is most commonly employed in situations such as trade, or where both groups speak languages different from the language of the country in which they reside (but where there is no common language between the groups)."

The above articles explained that Jews who carried with them Hebrew, a Semitic, Afro-Asiatic language, adapted their language to the various Eastern European languages, as other Jews did in Spain, Greece, Morocco, etc. Therefore, Yiddish was first a pidgin, and then a creole.

Also, the YIVO PDF document began with "YIDDISH. Yiddish is the historic language of Ashkenazic (Central and East European) Jewry, and is the third principal literary language in Jewish history, after classical Hebrew and (Jewish) Aramaic." The line, "In the early Soviet Union" (pg. 6) was in the middle of the article as it explained Yiddish had stabilized in the Soviet Union (Russia and Eastern Europe) and caused Jews speaking/writing in it to face persecution and slaughter. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if this point has been made: Yiddish only came into existence because the Jews spoke and wrote in Hebrew and brought it to Eastern Europe, as noted above. Jeffgr9 (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first paragraph reads "A pidgin is an A. Yiddish is a B. Therefore Yiddish is a pidgin." It's a non-sequitur. There was no pidgin. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph defines pidgin, then identifies that Yiddish fits the description of pidgin when Jews first arrived in Eastern Europe. And then, when looking at the previous sources—i.e. how the Yiddish pidgin in Russia had stabilized and for which it was recognized as a distinct Hebrew-derived language—it became a creole.

So, the logic should read now: A pidgin is an A, Yiddish is an A when Jews first arrived in Eastern Europe; a creole is a B (a stabilized pidgin over time), so Yiddish changes from A to B over history. Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Nothing in what you posted here says anything about Yiddish that conforms to the definition of a pidgin. It never says it's a pidgin, it never says it was a language with a restricted vocabulary and simplified grammar spoken by multiple parties with mutually incomprehensible mother tongues to enable transactions with each other. That's what defines a pidgin. Most cases of synthesis by a language of elements from other languages, whether they be vocabulary or grammar, are not examples of pidgins leading to creoles. Modern Spanish is not a creole because it includes Arabic vocabulary. Modern French is not a creole because it includes Gaulish vocabulary. Modern Japanese is not a creole because it has borrowed a lot of English words. Also, the choice of writing system that a people uses to write a language has nothing to do with it being a pidgin. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In response to your original question: Your reliable sources don't say that Yiddish is a creole, so you have nothing to cite in the article to support an assertion that Yiddish is a creole. Your arguing from those sources that it is a creole is your own synthesis, on which article content can't be based. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite the vast trove of vocabulary in English that comes from languages that aren't Germanic, English is still properly classified as a Germanic language, and it would incorrect to add it to categories like "Romance languages". Likewise for Yiddish, which is essentially a form of German with load words. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Largoplazo. I note that most of the RS do not call Yiddish a creole language. Rjensen (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So do I, as my reverts of Jeffgr9's edits probably already made clear. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. There's not a shred of evidence supporting the contention that native Germans spoke anything but German when interacting with the Jews. --Futhark|Talk 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

References in this section

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yiddish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://yivo.org/downloads/Yiddish.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2016 genetic study on Turkish origins of Yiddish

I would be interested in other editor's opinions on whether this study merits a 1-2 sentence mention at the end of the "Origins" section, e.g. as previously used:

A 2016 study used geographic population structure analysis based on the autosomes of Yiddish speakers to determine the origin of the language. Their findings suggest that Yiddish-speakers are descendants of people who originally came from areas near from four villages – Iskenaz, Eskenaz, Ashanaz, and Aschuz – in north-eastern Turkey, rather than from Germanic lands as is generally argued.

The Origins section goes to some length to discuss the unsettled state of Yiddish origins determination, and Slavic/Turkish sources have long been discussed, so I believe this is hardly out of place nor WP:UNDUE. The study was carried out by a well-published cross-institutional team, published in a reputable journal and uses sound (as far as I can determine; I do ecology, not genomics) and extensively documented methodology; this appears to be good research, covered by mainstream media. Article is open access, btw.

So please chime in with your assessment, people.

(I'm somewhat ticked off by Debresser's hamfistedness in refusing a source twice because of a naked claim of "implausibility" and "can not take seriously", then pounding on WP:BRD instead of actually making their case while at the same time claiming that they maybe would gracefully have desisted if I had phrased that summary differently... but whatevs.)

--Elmidae (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it merits brief inclusion. One doesn't judge, as Debresser, the merits of a primary source according to one's private lights. It's a minority view, but reputably published by distinguished academics. I've tweaked your proposal.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence I removed repeatedly read: "Yiddish originated from four villages in north-eastern Turkey". That is ludicrous, and does not reflect the article correctly. I am not against a short mention of the main conclusions of this research, and content wise, I think it fits perfectly behind the sentence about Dovid Katz' opinion. That should give you a hint what crucial part of the article you didn't mention. Debresser (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't ludicrous, it is overly concise,all you had to do is tweak it with one or two words: 'Yiddish-speaking Askenazi originated from (areas around) four villages in north-eastern Turkey'.'(Source:The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Yiddish speaking AJs have originated from Greco-Roman and mixed Irano-Turko-Slavic populations who espoused Judaism in a variety of venues throughout the first millennium A.D. in “Ashkenaz” lands centered between the Black and Caspian Seas./traced nearly all AJs to major primeval trade routes in northeastern Turkey adjacent to primeval villages, whose names may be derived from “Ashkenaz.)

This is sheer bad faith hairsplitting, Debresser.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, you have a longstanding allergy against me, and it shows. I didn't have to "tweak it", as you say, because it is missing something essential, without which the edit is unacceptable, both as an incorrect reflection of the source, as well as in that the statement as it is is ludicrous ("Yiddish comes from Turkey"!).

On your very important procedural and behavioral comment. Actually, I am under no obligation to invest from my time to fix other people's mistakes or improve their bad edits: I can simply remove them till such time as they comply with the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. I did post on the user's talkpage, explaining a bit more in detail, what was missing, and you had to meddle there as well. Not very helpful, all in all, I think. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence you have read the article, and reverting is lazy. You do this frequently and your talk page comments are often unfocused. Let's stick now to the substance of the proposal, not frig around with formalisms. I.e. is a paper written by those academics, with their tenure, and in a notable RS acceptable or not. I believe the obvious answer is, yes. So if you dislike the formula that is given to summarize its Yiddish conclusions,devise one yourself and propose it as an alternative. This means, of course, doing some work, rather than wasting time.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why identifying a geographical origin for people who spoke Yiddish somewhere other than central Europe at some point in history demonstrates that their development of a distinctive language has to have happened at that same time? Why could that not have happened until later, when they had moved west, with Yiddish developing among them then, quite ordinarily, as an offshoot of the ambient Germanic dialect? I don't understand how it can be a relexification, because not only is the vocabulary primarily Germanic, but so are the morphology and syntax. To call it a relexification of a Slavic or Turkic language is like the woodsman who spoke of his trusty axe that he'd had his whole life, other than having had its head replaced three times and its handle four times. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire for clarification, but this is not a forum for anything other than the merits of edits that have been proposed, in terms of WP:Due, WP:RS etc. We are not allowed to presume, like the sockpuppet below (Kuzia), to know better than the authors of our reliable sources. That holds even when we do know better.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me a sockpuppet. I am not a frequent guest here, but I doubt that ethical rulings here are any different from other Wikipedias. It is also interesting to witness such cases of lack fear of being wrong. No, this is not only my opinion, and it is not just an opinion: there are objective criteria of what qualifies as science and what is appropriate in a scientific publication (just to clarify: I am talking only about the quasi-linguistic part of the paper), and moreover Dr. William Martin, the editor-in-chief of GBE, does agree on this. This is not the right place to discuss the details - let's just see what way of solving the issue the editorial office chooses. Kuzia (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, but your first wiki handle gave no indication you have ever edited here, and my inference, though based on long experience, was incorrect, now that you clarified your record.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying a top molecular biologist Dr. William Martin disagrees with the material in the paper from Paul Wexler (but not that from his colleagues in his own field), then you are saying a molecular biologist disagrees with one of the world's foremost authorities of Yiddish, regarding Yiddish. You will appreciate the absurdity of this, I'm sure.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I fail to see what you mean. I can only confirm the absurdity of your statement, I didn't say that Dr. Martin has anything to do with linguistics. In, fact the whole journal has nothing to do with linguistics. Another note: if you think that Paul Wexler is one of the "foremost authorities of Yiddish" than you disagree with most scholars in the field. Here is e.g. the latest summary of his activity from the Origins of Yiddish Dialects: "... this book mainly ignores various texts published by Paul Wexler, starting with 1991. The reason is simple: I read these writings and consider that their scholarly quality is so low and their methodological drawbacks so striking that they do not deserve serious discussion by authors adhering to the realistic approach to science." Kuzia (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As the article on Paul Wexler (linguist) himself says, "Paul Wexler's theories have been criticized harshly by other scholars. The majority of scholars have rejected his theories on Yiddish." The footnote for this leads to this, which says "The majority view among Yiddish linguists—a very small but committed cadre of scholars—is that Wexler’s argument is untenable." —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that a paper with patent logical absurdities isn't a reliable source, and was attempting to see whether anyone agreed with my tentative evaluation of the paper as being as reliable as the woodsman's assertion that he still has his original axe, or a paper claiming the snowy egret must have evolved from the kangaroo because "its features are all exactly like the features of the kangaroo--if you don't count the features that are different". We certainly do discount sources here as WP:FRINGE, even when numerous people have written papers and books supporting the same fringe theory. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You've indicated no logical absurditiesa and secondly, the only criteria that are relevant for inclusion are the policies set forth at WP:RS. The fact is that the four scholars are all highly qualified and published in the various disciplines reflected in the study.

• Ranajit Das Manipal Centre for Natural Sciences (MCNS), Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
• Paul Wexler Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
• Mehdi Pirooznia Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
• Eran Elhaik Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
• The publishing venue,Genome Biology and Evolution, confirms its RS status. I suggest you examine WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the irony in your choice to respond to me in relexified Yoruba. Yes, I recognize that you've replaced all the Yoruba words with English ones, the Yoruba morphology with English morphology, and the Yoruba syntax with English syntax, but it's unmistakably relexified Yoruba. (What I just wrote is absurd, right?) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (WP:RS) I know far from everything about Yiddish, but my common sense tells me that based on what I do know about it, as well as what experience I've had with German and Slavic language, the grammar of Yiddish is fundamentally German and not Slavic: the morphology of its nouns and its adjectives and its verbs, its use of definite and indefinite articles, etc. Per P. H. Matthews in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (a reliable source), relexification of a language involves replacement of its vocabulary "without its grammar being affected similarly". I think one would be hard put to say Yiddish has a nearly unchanged Slavic-like grammar. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see a big problem with the axe metaphor. Note that the paper focuses on locating the original speakers of what would become Yiddish. It doesn't claim that Yiddish sprang fully formed, German lexicon and all, from villages in modern-day Turkey - it suggests that the original speakers of what would become recognized as Yiddish came from there, slowly developing the language as a trade idiom, switching out grammar and vocabulary units over the centuries. It probably only became recognizable (to us) some time later. That doesn't strike me as far-fetched at all.--Elmidae (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Switching out grammar = not relexification. Anyway, has anybody (Wexler included) found any record of a language spoken by Jews with primarily German vocabulary but Slavic or Turkic grammar? Anyone's claims to the contrary, genes aren't going to reveal the answer to this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a brief comment: the article is clearly unscientific. I have contacted the chief editor of GBE: he understands the situation, and I hope the end of the story will be withdrawal of the article. Kuzia (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Gee whizz. That must have slipped by the entire editorial staff of Genom Bio & E and at least two external reviewers, not to mention the teams at Sheffield & Tel Aviv and John Hopkins; I'm holding my breath here (and congratulations for your manifest clout with the chief editor, mate). Are you people, like, a little invested in the issue or something? I'm recalling why I don't usually bother editing these nationalistically charged topics... -- Elmidae (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In short, ignoring sneers and bad faith faith accusations by Nishidani and Elmidae, the point here remains, that anybody who wants to add information from this article, will simply have to do a better job. I see no reason for either to continue posting here and drive this discussion into directions it shouldn't go. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, try not to hit the door with that chip on your shoulder on the way out, bucko.--Elmidae (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I might add, before you loft off to your previous occupation of mechanically hitting 'revert', that an insistence that everyone follow your unstated preconceptions about what constitutes a "better job" (which you are apparently unable or unwilling to formulate) leaves little room for assuming good faith - it merely smacks of arrogance. I don't agree with Largoplazo re the validity of the paper, but then I know little about the subject and they may even be right; at least they make an argument. But "I don't like the write-up, keep trying until I do" posturing? Nope. - I suppose at least you aren't making blow-hard noises about getting the paper retracted... --Elmidae (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. That was a queer post, about getting the paper retracted. How do you "retract" a paper once it is published. I have no problem with the research itself. I just think its conclusions were misrepresented, leading to a rather absurd statement. I could rephrase it myself, but would prefer not to. That is why I posted a few ideas on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you retract a paper? I can't give you the procedural details, but this is hardly unexplored territory, as in the case of The Lancet and the vaccine-autism paper, explained at MMR vaccine controversy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Update from the GBE editor: "In the meantime, several other people have written in. The paper is coming under considerable pressure. ... The fate of the paper in question is open." Kuzia (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I'm ready to eat crow on this, but I would be very surprised if anything happened without what we like to call a "scientific debate" playing out... i.e., published rebuttals and at least one challenge-response cycle in print. This was the case even in the Lancet controversy (unless, of course, Kuzia has been collecting compromising photos of the Editor).--Elmidae (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I also think that practically, you can't but the bird back in its cage, once it has flown out. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Genome Biology and Evolution is an online-only publication. Retracting a paper from such a venue is a far easier matter than dealing with hard copy. --Futhark|Talk 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

* Comment Just a comment from an observer on the sidelines here. For anyone with a "mother tongue" intuitive feeling for both languages, Yiddish and German, the connections between them, and the fact that one is a variation of the other with Hebrew words added (and some other Slavic words also added, depending on the different 'flavors' of Yiddish dialect one is using) is very much obvious, intuitive at every moment. The Wexler "theory" of the so-called Slavic relexification of Yiddish, also very obviously, should definitely be defined in Wikpedia as a Fringe theory, since it is espoused only by him and nobody else. Now, on the teaming up together now of the veteran crank/crackpot linguist adorning the academic roster of a second tier Israeli University (Wexler) with the recently famous dissenting genetics researcher Elhaik, to finally "prove" the so-called Khazar genetic origin of Ashkenazi Jews, it should raise more than eyebrows on any observing person with some knowledge of the internal Jewish and academic politics involved here. It would make perfect sense for an Israeli Sephardi genetics researcher to be now making an academic career outside of Israel, precisely on the "non-Jewish" origins of the Israeli predominant ethnic group, the so-called "oppressors" of Jewish society in Israel, namely the Ashkenazi Jews. As various editors have already observed above, this entire "genetic" (read, "scientific") charade is pretty much implausible, nay indeed ridiculous. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now, if you actually read the relevant literature, you of course will note that there is agreement between Wexler/Elhaik and everyone else. The Ashkenazi are derived from a Jewish community originating in the Middle East. That is what they and every other geneticist argues. So what's so fringe and crackpot about the consensus they endorse? Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What is fringe, as fringe as it comes, as I said above, is Wexler's linguistic "theory" of the so-called Slavic relexification of Yiddish origins. And, a fringe theory of linguistic origins is now also used to buttress some new genetic theories of ethnic origins. Overall, just a completely ridiculous "scientific" charade. warshy ^(¥¥) 11:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, I hope you were not suggesting a connection between the origins of Yiddish and the origins of Ashkenazi Jews? Debresser (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A note or two

• It originated during the 9th century[4] in Central Europe

There are 3 theories: this phrasing in the lead says the dominant model by Max Weinreich is wrong.

Secondly in the origins section it is contradicted by the first line which paraphrasaes Max Weinreich’s view:

’The established view is that, as with other Jewish languages, Jews speaking distinct languages learned new co-territorial vernaculars, which they then Judaized. In the case of Yiddish, this scenario sees it as emerging when speakers of Judeo-French and Judeo-Romance languages began to acquire varieties of Middle High German, and from these groups the Ashkenazi community took shape’.

This in short asserts that the Ashkenazi and Yiddish took shape in Western, not Central, Europe.

Central Europe refers to, I presume, a Bavarian-Danubian-Czech area. Hence the lead line contradicts the origins opening sentence. There are a lot of small things here than require attentive reading to iron out such slippages.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yiddish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815140430/http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results to http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wexler and WP:DUE

@Debresser:, you reverted my edit without giving a reason other than "no consensus". Please give a legitimate reason for why you think it's not undue weight.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See discussion above. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Why only test people who speak Yiddish? Speaking a language does not mean you originate where the language originated. That's just ridiculous. Also, the study is from the same people who write all of these studies accepted by literally no one other than antizionists, antisemites, and themselves.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And that definitely doesn't answer my question, which is about DUE WEIGHT. Are you arguing that the weight given to one fringe view is not undue?--Monochrome_Monitor 23:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your criticism of an academic study is original research at best, so let's not go there. We are talking about one sentence, not in the lead, so no, I don't think that is undue weight. The discussion above also seems to have reached the conclusion that this point of view can be mentioned, which means the editors did not consider it undue, no. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research, there's an "academic study" study debunking its methods. And due weight does not mean "worthy of mentioning". It may be a few sentences but in effect the mainstream theory is given as much coverage as the fringe one.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that may be something to work on. But essentially that is the problem of an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be :)--Monochrome_Monitor 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As a minority language

Many countries are listed in the infobox, yet in the body of the article it's mentioned that only some of them have it as an official minority language. There should be a source to confirm or deny these claims (infobox and section). —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 14:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced in the text only for Sweden. For the Ukraine it says from 1917-1921, so I would remove the Ukrainian flag from the infobox. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know Slavic isn't Russian

To the IP user who has removed "Slavic languages" from the list of languages from which Yiddish has drawn in this edit, yes, I know Slavic "isn't" Russian. Russian is a Slavic language, and one of the Slavic languages from which Yiddish has drawn, along with Polish, Ukrainian, etc. Your edit summary doesn't make sense, sorry. I'm restoring the text again. Largoplazo (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Largoplazo on this. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Yiddish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330161904/http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc96/EDOC7489.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc96/EDOC7489.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106211758/http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?cat=4 to http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?cat=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228021003/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_geoSkip=0&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C16001&-redoLog=false&-_skip=0&-geo_id=01000US&-_showChild=Y&-format=&-_lang=en&-_toggle=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C16001 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_geoSkip=0&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C16001&-redoLog=false&-_skip=0&-geo_id=01000US&-_showChild=Y&-format=&-_lang=en&-_toggle=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C16001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016053859/http://www.mla.org/census_data_results%26state_id%3D36%26place_id%3D39853 to http://www.mla.org/census_data_results%26state_id%3D36%26place_id%3D39853
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016053859/http://www.mla.org/census_data_results%26state_id%3D36%26place_id%3D39853 to http://www.mla.org/census_data_results%26state_id%3D36%26place_id%3D39853

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Yiddish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20051030022701/http://www.bisso.com/ujg_archives/pix/armyNavyFull.jpg to http://www.bisso.com/ujg_archives/pix/armyNavyFull.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152810577
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://regeringen.se/download/f5c9eed7.pdf?major=1&minor=2218&cn=attachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://regeringen.se/download/098c9eb4.pdf?major=1&minor=67638&cn=attachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216075513/http://www.yivo.org/aboutyivo/timeline3.htm to http://www.yivo.org/aboutyivo/timeline3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103220918/http://yiddish-almanach.org/index.php/the-yerusholaymer-almanakh/ to http://yiddish-almanach.org/index.php/the-yerusholaymer-almanakh/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213025703/http://mapage.noos.fr/bernardlazare/CahiersY.htm to http://mapage.noos.fr/bernardlazare/CahiersY.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

History section contains wrong information

In the History section it says, "The Jewish community in the Rhineland would have encountered the many dialects from which Standard German would emerge a few centuries later." Unfortunately this is simply not true. Standard German derives more or less entirely from The East Central German varieties located several hundred miles away and Rhinelanders would have been influenced by this the same as everyone else. --Pfold (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, this is nonsense. If you read Yiddish it's easily recognizable as a Franconian dialect. That makes sense because most of the cities from where the Jews where evicted to Eastern Europe where in Franconian speaking areas, both in modern Germany, Belgium and France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRB-Europe (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree – as far as I can discern, the dialectal foundation of Yiddish is indeed primarily East Central German (compare here), with Bavarian influences (as pointed out by Dovid Katz) such as (regionally) old dual for plural forms of the second person. (To me, the Bavarian-like sound of Yiddish is striking. There are no specifically Franconian features I could pinpoint.) Presumably, its origin lies in the regions where, in the high medieval period, East Central German dialects were spoken side by side with Bavarian and West Slavic dialects, such as in (Northwestern) Bohemia and adjacent areas – where there are also East Franconian influences, especially in the Vogtland region –, unless the Bavarian (and Slavic) influences are significantly more recent than the origin of Yiddish (presumably in the High Middle Ages); it appears that the Slavic loans are mainly from East Slavic and Polish, so maybe West Slavic did not play a significant role in the initial genesis of Yiddish and this genesis took place further west, such as in Thuringia west of the Mulde. It is essential to study the Middle High German dialects – or the medieval ancestral stages of the modern dialects – for this purpose, and compare them with "Proto-Yiddish", rather than compare the modern dialects directly with modern Standard Yiddish. The medieval German dialects were considerably less divergent from each other than the modern dialects are, and East Central German in particular was much more limited and mainly spoken west of the Mulde. Western Yiddish in particular is notoriously neglected, and appears to have few Slavic influences. Eastern Yiddish, on the other hand, functions essentially as a language island dialect, first in Slavic environment, now in environments like English. Frankly, there are still many open questions about the origins of Yiddish, and it is an area of active research. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a good/interesting short essay that would be a solid basis, in my view, for new linguistics research into the origins in Yiddish. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yiddish poster/sticker

I'm not entirely sure how to attach this photo as an example of yiddish being used in the daily life of hasidic people; however, it's a photo I took in Borough Park, New York back in 2018. Roughly translating it, it's saying that "nobody should doubt that someone who takes out a smartphone in public has "evilness and cruelty" because "he" (referring to the person) knows how strongly it irritates all the kids from the surrounding? and he doesn't even care that all ?? because of him destruction and ?? god forbid" please correct my mistakes too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yiddish_poster.jpg#filehistory

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ispitwhenitalk (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it belongs on the page, especially as there is not even a full translation of it. I'm sure there's thousands of other, and more neutral, subjects of Yiddish used in storefronts, on the sides of schoolbuses, in newspapers, etc, in 2019 Brooklyn other than this. JesseRafe (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Isny?

The first paragraph of § Printing includes this sentence:

One particularly popular work was Elia Levita's Bovo-Bukh (בָּבָֿא-בּוך), composed around 1507–08 and printed several times, beginning in 1541 (Isny) (under the title Bovo d'Antona).

This is the only occurrence of "Isny" in the entire article and talk page. It's not in a standard bibliographic format, but it may refer to the place of that first printing. There is a community of that name in the appropriate region:

Isny im Allgäu is a town in south-eastern Baden-Württemberg, Germany. It is part of the district of Ravensburg, in the western, Württembergish part of the Allgäu region. (From Isny im Allgäu)

But since that's just a hypothesis unsupported by any direct evidence, I'm deleting the mention from the article. --Thnidu (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 18:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC), Thnidu)

@Thnidu: According to de-WP, the book was indeed printed in Isny im Allgäu. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi langauge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ashkenazi langauge. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Recognized minority language in what countries?

What the definition of a "recognized minority language"? If the Census Bureau and New York state print material in Yiddish, is it an official minority language? The US Census bureau has full-page adds in Yiddish and carries informational Yiddish material on its website. The New York State Dept of Ed certifies bilingual Yiddish-English teachers. The New York State Dept of Health also produces material in Yiddish, as noted CNN noted in 2019 when critiquing the translation. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The factbox says that Yiddish is a recognized minority language in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and Ukraine. However, the text of the article says that Yiddish has that status only in Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Clearly, these can't both be true--they agree on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Netherlands, and Sweden, but the factbox has four countries not listed in the main article. And that has one country not listed in the facctbox. User:Vicki Rosenzweig

Propose to include Yiddish flag in the article

In 2014 there was a discussion here about the article "Yiddish Flag" being removed "due to the lack of external references either to the prototype flag or the initiative for its use", meanwhile the flag is still considered by the small Yiddish communities as their language flag, the examples might include the use of flag on Duolingo for the (yet) incoming Yiddish course or the Memrise Yiddish course. Gdominik100 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My first question is: What do we need flags for? As it is, I don't understand the obsession with including flag logos in every single list of countries, as though the countries' names aren't already there and aren't the primary way we identify them. How many flags are most people even able to associate with the correct country? I usually read it as a digression: "Germany's entrant in the contest this article is about was Dieter Krieger, and, by the way, this is what Germany's flag looks like. Hungary's entrant in the contest was Laszlo Karoly and, by the way, this is what Hungary's flag looks like. Iceland's entrant ...."

In addition, unlike sloppy websites like Duolingo, Wikipedia knows that there is no one-to-one correspondence between flags and languages and therefore doesn't pretend that there is.

Then, there is no flag that is "the Yiddish flag". A design that one person came up with and that Duolingo adopted because they wanted a graphic to use in lieu of a bona fide flag and that a few other people like doesn't thereby become "the Yiddish flag". Of interest to me was this. It simply cannot be Wikipedia's position, in the context of the current state of affairs, that such-and-such design is "the Yiddish flag", and thereby appropriate for use to represent Yiddish. Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)