Jump to content

Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.111.196.56 (talk) at 13:53, 10 March 2014 (→Another issue with the lede). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]
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)[reply]


The idea of race exists only since the late 18th century, Jews were considered a nation since forever, but not a race. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the need to use the talk mode in order to edit controversial subjects is gone, and apparently users may now cherry pick what they want in the first part of an article. -_- 84.111.196.56 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


It appears like the need to use the talk part of the article is gone. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly has not. Please note that blatant edit warring has not gone unnoticed. If there are further additions to be made to the article, they should be discussed here on the talk page. Consensus is not a 'vote', and voting does not replace consensus. A few (couple?) of POV pushers who don't manage to achieve the consensus they wanted (read as 'in their favour') due to a larger number contributors involved expressing valid and legitimate reservations regarding the content being pushed, does not give them the right to invoke, "But there was no consensus." Yes, there was consensus by virtue of enough doubt about the validity of the content and usage of said content for the purposes of the article.
Please, playing at amateurish semantics in edit summaries in order to get your way is patronising.
Unless my memory is failing me, we never discussed that passage until now. You have failed to even consider the reasons I (and apparently Ankh) made that edit. I will leave a warning on your talk page regarding WP:AGF.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD may not have a statute of limitations, but views as to disruptive editing are very, very clear. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Iryna Harpy Thank you very much for clearing my doubts up. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome... and thank you for your vigilance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You're welcome. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

The passage cited in this diff (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=598680421&oldid=598680017 ) actually appears further down in the article, but was continuously reverted by an IP editor on the grounds that it is "cherry-picking". This reason is not a sound one, because Ashkenazim, like most other Jews, officially define themselves as "Israelites", not "Israelites mixed with European converts". The European admixture is already accounted for in the LEDE, although it really belongs in the genetic section. Moreover, it's like asking us to stop identifying Germans as "a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe" because there are Jews, Turks, and Asians living there as well. It had a reliable source attached to it as well, and I intended to add more before I was reverted. The only conceivable reason I see for removing it is to suppress the Israelite origins of Ashkenazim, which is not encyclopedic.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer, I'm not denying the partial Israelite origins of the Ashkenazi, and since you're Mizrahi and I'm Ashkenazi, I suggest you don't speak for us, we never identified with "the Israelites" only with the nation of Israel, but when talking of roots, we always mentioned Germany and Poland, please, don't speak in our name. Second of all, when the admixture of other origins is as high as 30-60%, as it is (this is confirmed by my DNA results, which I could gladly show you) they're ought to be mentioned, and not singled out. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying the Israelite origins, I never had, I suspected that you're suppressing the European origins of the Ashkenazis, I'm Ashkenazi, and I will never deny any of my ancestry, which is mainly of European and near eastern ancestry, I can gladly show you my results, and BTW the only link attached to that sentence was a book about the history of Polish Jewry. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Populations never remained entirely of one source, the English population is already of Germanic and Celtic ancestry, and is now being even more diversified by migrations from south Asia, Africa and east Asia, the same can be said of the German population. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue is with the partial sentence "and arriving to Europe in stages following the Greek and later Roman conquests of Judea"? I don't mind that. What is the problem with it precisely, 84.111.196.56? Debresser (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand 84.111.196.56's issue is with the fact that there are other prominent origins for Ashkenazi Jews apart from the Israelite tribes of the Middle East. Is that the issue? Debresser (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then I would agree with Evlidoer187. The first and main origin is the Israelite tribes. A lede should be kept simple, and this sentence seems to make the main point clearly enough. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser yes that was the issue, especially since the European ancestry makes such a large appearance, that in some individuals (such as myself) is larger than the near eastern ancestry. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, I ask that the European admixture may also be added, this isn't a minor contribution we're talking about, it's around 30 to 60%, therefore in some individuals (such as myself as I've noted) the European ancestry is larger, and even in the case that the near eastern ancestry is higher, the European ancestry still makes a large contribution, I suspect that users such as evildoer try to hide this contribution. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's like trying to hide the very high European ancestry among many Catholic Latinos in several Latin American countries. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said, in that case I agree with Evlidoer187, that we should focus in the lede on the main points, including the Israelite tribes origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with the lede

I am less happy with "originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East". Why say generally Middle East if they came specifically from the Land of Israel? Debresser (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I am partially Ashkenazi. Furthermore, I'm not speaking for anyone. I am here to edit an encyclopedia on topics that pertain to me or interest me, not to advocate for anything.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the LEDE should focus on the main origin of the group as a whole, without bogging it down with "but they also have this admixture, and a smaller amount of this and that". Nobody is hiding anything. The European admixture simply came later, and doesn't take prominence in Jewish self-identity.

I would agree with changing the lede to "Israelite tribes of the Southern Levant" or "Israelite tribes of the Land of Israel".Evildoer187 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "the Biblical Israelite tribes" or just "the Israelite tribes"? I don't know. I am just looking for the best way of putting this. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would opt for "Israelite tribes of the Southern Levant" personally, because it's more specific. The main Jews article has a similar passage in the lede.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why Southern Levant? Jews are attested in Iraq and Iran from 2,600 BC. Conversion was not infrequent for another 1000 years after that. Worse still, why a controversial and tendentiously specific subcat to Middle Eastern people/Semitic People is required has only one explanation: to ground all Jews as direct descendants of the tribes who settled, for the core part of their history, in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of ancient Israel. The CAT appears to wish to specify that all Jews descent from people who lived within the borders of what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories, an extraordinary, indeed freakish coincidence, uh? No other people can boast of such extraordinary topological identity between the beginning and end of time. It's quite mystical (and mystifying)Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish people did not exist in 2,600 BC. They are defined as specifically Levantine because that is where the genesis of their culture, identity, language, etc took place. Ashkenazi (meaning "Germany" in Hebrew) Jews are an ethnic division of the same people, and very few Jews (until recently) defined themselves as Ashkenazi, or Sephardic, or whatever (in fact, most still don't). They were just "Jews". Genetics and foreign admixture do not factor into either categorization or the lede description. They don't for any other group, so why do it here?Evildoer187 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The category is there because it is ethnographically correct. We don't classify African Americans as non-African just because they no longer live in Africa, or they have white blood in them.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial part of the Ashkenazi Jewish population have been found to have Y-DNA markers that are associated with Semitic peoples; Nishidani speaks of "grounding all Jews", but no one is claiming that the Jews, or any other ethnic group, have 100% of their members with 100% Middle Eastern descent, or expect any other ethnic group to be "full-blooded" in that fashion. As Evildoer mentioned, we don't deny African-Americans their African descent based on having some non-African blood (and indeed, having some non-African blood is very common). I would think that most ethnic groups have a certain amount of mixing.

For that matter, someone is considered Maori if they can prove just one Maori ancestor, and yet we still have the Maori listed as under the category "Indigenous Peoples of Polynesia", even though many people accepted as that ethnicity may well only have a small fraction of their ancestry actually originating from Polynesia, and may have far more ancestry from elsewhere. Yet despite very substantial intermixing with non-Polynesians, no one questions the Polynesian descent of the Maori people; it seems the only justification for why different standards are applied to the Ashkenazi Jews is because they were displaced from their land.

It seems like we're applying very strict standards to Ashkenazi Jews that aren't applied to other ethnic groups. I don't think there's a reasonable doubt that the Jews of the Middle East contributed hugely to the gene pool of modern Ashkenazi Jewry, and speaking in absolutes when discussing blood quantum, but not expecting it from other groups, seems a little odd. Kitty (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Evildoer and Kitty, The Ashkenazi's were first recorded in the Rhineland in the 11th century C.E, they didn't exist at 66 C.E, their culture and language (Yiddish) came from Europe, their "origin" was in the Rhineland (culturally), Hebrew was the prayer language until the 20th century among most Ashkenazis, for example, my great grandparents didn't speak one bit of Hebrew, but they did speak fluent Yiddish (a west Germanic language), so no Evildoer, their everyday language was Yiddish, it's like saying the language of Roman Catholics is Latin because they use it at prayers. And AGAIN, this isn't just minor admixture, (Kitty the Y chromosome and the MTDNA make up a fraction of ones ancestry, most of the roots are found in the autosomal dna) it's large and for some it's even dominant. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on topic

The subject of this article is 'Ashkenazi Jews'. It is not 'DNA profiling the Ashkenazi Jews', although to a reader it would certainly seem to be a major concern as that particular subject accounts for virtually half the article. I will remind everyone (again) that there is an article explicitly dealing with DNA profiling already in existence on Wikipedia, and is appropriately called Genetic studies on Jews. Judging by the numerous interpretations of what is significant and what is not significant, as well as the lack of participation in expanding the Ashkenazi Jewish section of the relevant article by those developing it here, IMHO it looks very much as if this is an attempt by autodidacts to fly under the radar by usurping the subject of this article.

WP:OFFTOPIC - There have been ample arguments by other contributors as to why tracts of DNA parsing is inappropriate when considering what Jewishness is or isn't, as well as it being made clear that self-identification (as well as hundreds of years of intermarriage/interbreeding with other haplogroups) should be considered as you appear to be rewriting the concept of ethnicity and belief systems according to the readings of a science which has yet to gather data from a significant sample group. Sheesh! If science is of such great significance to Jewishness, please provide scientific proof of God, the fact that the world is only several thousand years old (ad infinitum) and explain why empirical sciences seem to bear no significance anywhere other than where it suits you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned that this debate has become pointy and that DNA arguments are being used to prove some point and will be of very little interest to the general reader who comes to this article. This article should be literate, well-written, concise and directed to the average reader who has a curiosity about the topic but doesn't want to have to interpret DNA data. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you have the wherewithal to remain diplomatic, Liz, I'm afraid that this ongoing DNA drive has impacted negatively on my tact. In plain English = I'm getting agitated and can get a bit rude, for which I apologise to all.
What is abundantly evident to anyone looking at this talk page is that majority expresses concerns, consternation and quarrels about the subject of DNA. The DNA information - where and if it is relevant - needs to be carefully summarised (with a hatnote pointing interested parties to the subject-specific article) and relocated in the Genetic studies on Jews. Disputes over interpretations of research would also benefit by being exposed to other Wikipedians working explicitly with the subject matter, and would provide a better venue for scrutiny on its correlating talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good proposition. But how will the other frequent editors of this article feel about that considering many of them are primarily concerned about the Jewishness of genes? The definition section is also too long and unsourced and should be shortened in addition to having a link to the Who is a Jew? article. Khazar (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this article, which is about an ethnic group, is missing valuable information that distinguishes them from other ethnic groups; languages and cuisine in particular. By reading this article no one without background information about Ashkenazim can tell what exactly they ate, what common languages they spoke [seems obvious but it's not considering many Ashkenazi Jews were polygot], or their religions [mainly mentions differences with Sephradic and Mizhrahim and poor detail on their customs]. Khazar (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my own perspective (as a reader), I'd agree that your suggestions are the kind of information people are interested in. Yes, from my knowledge through friends of the family, the standard was that they were at least trilingual (Hebrew, Yiddish and the regional language: Russian, Polish, etc... plus sometimes also Ukrainian, Belarus...). This also ties in with Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence which is notably missing research into the intelligence levels of children brought up in polyglot homes. Again, that's an area of research which is still in its infancy, but has yielded interesting (if not unsurprising) results.
Cuisine is always a vital binding and developmental factor in social groups, which it is why it features in so many other articles about ethnic groups. Besides, I want to interrogate a few cooks about their family secrets for cabbage rolls in case someone has a better recipe than mine. What? Doesn't anyone remember that women used to spy on each other through kitchen windows at night as a competitive sport... (or maybe that was only in Ukraine)? All of these are the interesting, illuminating and relevant factors which speak to us about various cultures! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede passage is not contingent on genetics. I'm baffled as to why all of the other factors (such as self-identity, culture, language) are being omitted in this discussion. The source I used was not a genetic one.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazim trace their origins to the ancient Israelites. No serious scholar disputes this. The cultural, linguistic etc differences between them and other Jews in the diaspora are not relevant to their origins.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is because of good talk page discussion here that DNA and genetics have largely been removed from the lede. A sure thing that genetics is of limited relevance where "descent" questions arise. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The lede should be about attested historical origins, not blood.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I included that passage in the lede because it is relevant to the article. Ashkenazi Jews, like other Jews, self-identify as descendents of the Israelites who originated in the Middle East, not Europe. Genetics were only used as supporting evidence, but in hindsight, I should never have opened that can of worms. No other people in human history are expected to "prove" that they are who they say they are.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews&oldid=598984413"