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 05:20, 12 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]

Nope.We have Semitic peoples just as Maoris are Polynesian. No one specifies the island group in Polynesia where the original Maoris came from. No one should specify the very small corner of Western Asia where the Ashkenazis in this fairy tale meme, come from.

I understand from my ancestry.com saliva test that I am 99% European. My geographic results are: 61% Scandinavia, 3% Finland/Northwest Russia, 13% “Great Britain” (much of which I know to be Scots-Irish), 3% Irish, 9% “Europe West,” 9% “Iberian Peninsula,” 1% “Italy/Greece” and another 1% “West Asia.”Gary Leupp, 'White Men' Counterpunch 7-9 February.

So the Japanologist Gary Leupp is of West Asian descent? No. Any one who wants to know what their DNA sorts out to be topologically, can do so. The genetic evidence often focuses on that 1% or 20%, whatever, and then trounces the 99%, which makes nonsense of the claim. Ashkenazi at the latest are on the maternal line overwhelmingly of European descent, with a semitic element in the paternal lineage. Hungarians were told they were of distant Uralic origin, as indeed their customs, language and folklore suggest. Genetics says they are overwhelmingly European. The Hungarians page has a cat Ugric peoples, just as the Ashkenazi page has a CAT, Semitic peoples. Evildoer is pushing an ideology out of folk legend, there is no justification logically, genetically or historically for the claim insinuated into the page by such a cat. To deduce from one's religion or the religion of one's recent forefathers, one's otensible ancestral homeland some 2000 years ago makes all Christians Middle Easterners, indeed from Southwest Asia, since Christianity began as a Jewish heresy. None of this chat would get past the first week of a sophomore's intoductory course on logic.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CounterPunch (an activist magazine) is not a reliable or scholarly source. Not even close. And what you dismiss as a "fairy tale meme" is accepted by scholars, historians, geneticists, etc in addition to it being the traditional narrative among Jews themselves. Several others here have suggested that genetics are not relevant, and in hindsight, they are absolutely right. No other people in human history are expected to provide concrete "proof" that they really are who they say they are. If there weren't so many people out there who are deeply invested in rewriting Jewish history (invariably for political purposes), we would not be having this discussion at all.
"Ashkenazi at the latest are on the maternal line overwhelmingly of European descent, with a semitic element in the paternal lineage." A significant Semitic element, you mean. The paternal line is overwhelmingly Near Eastern. Show me a source where it says the paternal line is only partially Near Eastern.
"Hungarians were told they were of distant Uralic origin, as indeed their customs, language and folklore suggest. Genetics says they are overwhelmingly European." First, I thought you said genetics were in their infancy and thus "unreliable". It looks as though you are simply changing your arguments to suit the situation. Second, Ashkenazi Jews are not overwhelmingly European. Admixture analysis places them at 30-60 percent on average. Third, the Magyars invaded Europe and imposed their culture and language on the locals, much like Christianity, whereas Jews were a foreign nation who admixed to a certain extent with the different cultures they encountered. The comparison is (at best) sketchy.
"To deduce from one's religion or the religion of one's recent forefathers, one's otensible ancestral homeland some 2000 years ago makes all Christians Middle Easterners, indeed from Southwest Asia, since Christianity began as a Jewish heresy." Christians do not define themselves as a nation or an ethnic group with specific roots, language, etc. They are an openly proselytizing religion. You are being disingenuous, as usual.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani: Nonetheless, you are presumably happy for the Maori to be considered a Polynesian people even though they have substantial non-Polynesian blood, yet you feel that for Ashkenazi to be considered of Middle Eastern descent, "all" Jews must have Middle Eastern descent. The prevalence of Semitic markers on the Y-DNA should speak for itself in this regard.

The DNA results that you've used as an example refers to autosomal DNA and shows substantial intermixing between a wide variety of peoples. Personally, my father's DNA results came up as 93% Ashkenazi, and the other 7% as "unassigned", with Semitic Y-DNA markers; I would think that most Ashkenazi Jews, and Jews in general, among the generations who were born in the era before intermarriage was common, would have similar results. You're comparing a person whose family is a result of a substantial amount of intermarriage throughout various parts of Europe, and is therefore part of many ethnic groups, to a people who are a distinct ethnic group that very rarely intermarries (indeed, far less than the Maori, for whom, oddly enough, you do not have such strict requirements of blood quantum and are presumably happy to accept as of Polynesian descent even if many identifying members of the group may have only one Maori ancestor in the last 5 generations, or even less for that matter.)

As far as the "religion of one's recent forefathers", you seem to be under the impression that conversion to Judaism was far more common in the last thousand years in Europe than it actually was. Presumably the rather extreme prevalence of anti-semitism in Europe during that period, and the fact that we don't have records of massive amounts of converts to Judaism in Christian Europe, should speak for itself in that regard. With the certain rarity of intermarriage in mind at least during the last thousand years (after all, who in Christian Europe would want to convert into the religion of a largely hated and persecuted people?), how common do you think conversion to Judaism was?

Is it statistically at all likely that someone would convert a thousand years ago, marry another convert, and the children would end up marrying the children of two converts, and so on for twelve generations in a millenia (approx. 4 thousand ancestors, minus distant-cousin marriages)? Being Jewish has only really been remotely socially acceptable for quite a short period of time. Especially with the lack of intermarriage among the Jews in mind, the statistic improbability that an Ashkenazi Jew's recent forefathers were all converts is indeed mind-boggling.

As far as your point re: Christianity, that comparison is certainly invalid. Christianity is a religion that is based on proselytism, accepted converts, and had no prohibitions on intermarriage. It was also the dominant religion in many countries and often the only one that could be practiced without discrimination/persecution. Judaism is a religion that actively discourages converts, had no country where it was a majority, and its people were subject to discrimination, oppression and often death. I'm not sure why you think Judaism attracted converts to anywhere near that extent... Or why you think comparing Ashkenazi DNA with the DNA results of someone who was clearly the product of a substantial amount of intermarriage between a variety of ethnic groups within Europe, and only has 1% Western Asian DNA, is reasonable.

It seems unlikely that over the period of 3,000 years, the DNA of the average Ashkenazi would be only 1% Israelite and 99% convert, especially considering that Y-DNA markers are still quite frequently found among the Ashkenazi.

I'm afraid I don't really find any of the points you've made to be valid, and you certainly seem to employ different standards for different ethnic groups. Kitty (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nishidani assert that AshkenazIm base their descent on a religious belief then go on to say that if Ashkenazim are allowed to do this, then Christians should also be allowed to claim ME descent because Jesus was a Jew? If so, that is beyond the pale. Jews are an ethnic group that traditionally lived in clusters or closed communities outside of the Levant. Christians are co-religionists, not a people. Also, why would we (Ashkenazim) invent our ancestry? Why would our ancestors lie to their children about their heritage? We've always been a liberal bunch (by Jewish standards) who set a high bar for conversion, but who welcome sincere converts; most of whom convert in order to marry a Jew. We don't cling to our descent as one would a religious article, or as something one must possess to be a member of the "Jewish ethnocracy". Instead, it is merely where we come from. Gilad55 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

I don't know, Gilad55. Perhaps you could direct the question at him if this is what you're reading into his comment. This is not a debate, nor are you addressing a judge in a court of law. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Nishidani, please respond to my question. Gilad55 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

I'm compelled to intervene here, yet again, as regards running amok. Kitty, invoking terms like 'presumably', 'statistically likely' may be understood on a talk page, but it has no bearing on this article's content (speculation has no bearing on any article's content). You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia adheres to a strict secondary sources policy. Interpreting data (the very little which actually exists at this point in DNA research) is strictly WP:OR.
May I also remind everyone (again) that the subject of this article is 'Ashkenazi Jews' (please see 'Staying on topic' below). As has been aptly noted, Who is a Jew? and Genetic studies on Jews are articles unto themselves. Talk pages are not forums, people... so why does this one read like 'The Jewish Philosophical Fight Club'? Work-shopping articles shouldn't need to involve referees. We're not simply talking about minor tweaks to the lead: we're talking about major problems with the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the very little which actually exists at this point in DNA research" This is not true. Dozens of studies have been carried out in the past decade alone. No interpretation is necessary. The studies speak for themselves, and they corroborate the Jewish narrative of Levantine origins. I can quote them, if you'd like.
However, you are correct in that genetic studies should not even be an issue. Only we (Jews, that is) are expected to prove that we are not lying about who we are, and we shouldn't have to. We don't do this for any other ethnic/national group.
Just for starters, here's one non genetic resource. Jewish Virtual Library is WP:RS. The source JVP's uses is "The Hebrews: A Learning Module from Washington State University", by Richard Hooker, "reprinted by permission".Evildoer187 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Only we (Jews, that is) are expected to prove that we are not lying about who we are..." (sic). What a load of rhetoric, Evildoer. Evidently, you haven't bothered to explore any other ethnicities. What about 'China'? Have you bothered to find out how many distinct ethnic groups who aren't of Chinese ethnicity exist there? Australian aboriginals who are having to prove that they weren't disparate tribes of stone-age dwellers but, in fact, had an intricate system of some 250 nations and 'song lines' carrying information regarding laws, geography, mapping, complex social structures and 'farming' methods ad infinitum? Eastern European ethnic groups who have to prove that they weren't 'Russian' or 'Polish'? As noted to Kitty, welcome to the dystopia which is our world. Incidentally, when did 'you' have to prove that you are not lying about who you are? Seriously, I'm at a loss as to what you're talking about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Diaspora.html
"The Jewish state comes to an end in 70 AD, when the Romans begin to actively drive Jews from the home they had lived in for over a millennium."
"In 73 AD, the last of the revolutionaries were holed up in a mountain fort called Masada; the Romans had besieged the fort for two years, and the 1,000 men, women, and children inside were beginning to starve. In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe".Evildoer187 (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term "statistically likely" to ask whether something WAS statistically likely, in response to specific claims made by Nishidani (re: "religion of one's recent forefathers"), to suggest that what he is claiming would be very, very, rare. I feel I had the right to make the point about the improbability of his claim, and I feel that telling me I am not allowed to respond to it by pointing out that improbability is merely nitpicking. You haven't actually addressed my points, or asked Nishidani to provide secondary sources to back up his claims, instead prefering to concentrate on my choice of words ("presumably" was also reasonable in this context, since I'm pointing out that a different standard is being applied to Jews in regard to required blood quantum.)

If you have anything to say regarding the specific points that were made, I would certainly welcome your input, but suggesting that I don't have the right to point out a double-standard or the holes in a very improbable argument (which was offered with no evidence, incidentally) seems rather inappropriate. Unless Nishidani can provide evidence of hordes of converts to Judaism in recent times (prior to the last few generations, of course), my point about the improbability of one's "recent forefathers" being only converts stands. Kitty (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite pointless to reply to these various remarks. No one seems to exercise the slow art of close reading. I long for someone trained in a yeshiva. It would be offensive to state my real impression of this chitchat (I'll do it in Japanese, but don't look it up:鳥なき里の蝙蝠) My impression is most of the Jewish history cited here is googled, not the result of a deep immersion in the history. No one has the slightest understanding of the statistical implication of the genetics. This has taken on the appearance of a walls-of-text attrition strategy to sow confusion, since no one appears to be able to focus on the logic of what is being said. Silly points are made and expanded. I cite Gary Leupp, one of the foremost historians of Edo Japan, for his personal take on gene analysis and identity, and it is not examined for its logical status, but dismissed because he wrote it for Counterpunch. I get Evildoer throwing myths my way ('The Romans . . systematically drove the Jews from Palestine') from the Jewish Virtual Library when no modern historian accepts that nonsense at face value anymore. By all means, mess up wikipedia with a nonsensical piece of POV shuffling to insinuate all Ashkenazi have genetic links to ancient Israel/Palestine (as opposed to the legitimate affection felt for the creation of an autonomous Jewish culture in Israel)- sheer unadulterated speculation. Consensus is based on numbers, and this is a numbers game. I've registered my dissent for the record.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, just as a general rule of thumb, you probably shouldn't state that your opinion of a conversation is going to be offensive and then state said opinion in a language which may well be spoken by the people you are arguing with (which in this case, it is). I'd like to suggest that you review Wikipedia's policies on civility. Thank you. Kitty (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I am pointing out my only concern, Kitty, being the content of this article, half of which reads like the Reader's Digest guide to DNA research findings. It is not informative to a reader; it has been interpreted by autodidacts; the article on the subject matter - Ashkenazi Jews - is suffering from a lack of any edifying information because there are a mass of contributors who have become so sidetracked by details (which belong in Genetic studies on Jews) with only a hatnote to the main article being justifiable. As it currently stands, the article ought to be retitled 'Ashkenazi Jews (version as written for Jews)' which should been on a disambig page along with the article 'Ashkenazi Jews (version as written for uniformed, interested non-Jewish readers)'. Trying to fit the meaning of life, the universe and everything is simply not doable for a standard Wikipedia article. Take a look at comparable articles for other ethnicities. Do you imagine for one moment that you're going to come out at the end of the article with anything more than a simplistic, cursory understanding? And don't throw ethno-religious into the argument as making it far more complex than any other ethnicity that ever existed on the planet. Every ethnic group is highly complex, and has a convoluted history. In fact, perhaps other groups would be envious of the fact that Jewish peoples have a relatively linear history and reference points to draw on. Welcome to the dystopia that is the history of human evolution: everyone has a 'unique' and 'special' card to wave. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nishidani, you've registered your dissent. You've also sacrificed your credibility by denying a major cause of the diaspora, i.e. the expulsion of Jews from Judea by Roman forces. The Second Jewish Revolt is a matter of history. We know that it occurred and that it ended in the razing of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple. We do not know how many Judeans were killed and forced to flee Judea between 132 and 135 AD, but we can safely assume that the number was significant given the sudden appearance and accelerated growth of Jewish communities in the Mediterranean following the defeat of Bar Kochba. Gilad55 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

"As it currently stands, the article ought to be retitled 'Ashkenazi Jews (version as written for Jews)' which should been on a disambig page along with the article 'Ashkenazi Jews (version as written for uniformed, interested non-Jewish readers)'"

I hope you're not being serious. There's plenty of info for the uninformed reader to cut their teeth on. It doesn't say what some people want it to say, but that's life I suppose. You can't please everybody. And especially given these outlined concerns of yours, it would be counterproductive to remove passages with reliable sources attached simply because there are some people with political or ideological axes to grind. On that note, it's unfortunate that Wikipedia has, thus far, done a very poor job of keeping politically motivated editors away, which over the years has made my attempts at editing in some areas into a very frustrating experience. Some of the Jewish/Israel related articles on here are almost Stormfront quality.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani I learned in a yeshiva, see my user page. But I work till late at night (it is now after 2am here), and I have no time to read long posts. Nevertheless, our many disagreements aside, we agree that 1. the history section of this article needs a capital overhaul 2. the Jewish categories should not be made subcategories of Middle East and/or Asian descent categories. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 1, not so much with 2.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Evildoer187 again I completely agree with you, it's a shame politics have gotten so deep into this subject, these days it's almost impossible to search and know more about Ashkenazis without getting into the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I mean it should be obvious, Ashkenazi culture, by the very definition of those who belong to it, is traced to the Israelites of antiquity, genetics should be secondary because they don't always comply with the groups culture or self definition, for example, most (I say most because some have assimilated into other cultures) of the modern day Hungarians define themselves culturally and linguistically with the Magyars of the Ural mountains who invaded westwards into Europe and eventually settled there during the early middle ages, but genetic studies suggest that they are very Slavic/Germanic genetically, does that mean the Hungarians define themselves as such? Well, most don't (as I have noted some always assimilate to other cultures), another example perhaps for this subject, Karl Marx, who his parents were originally Ashkenazi Jews (culturally and linguistically I suppose) converted to Christianity (not necessarily by full will, it was truly just not to be discriminated against) and their son, Karl never identified (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) as a Jew (culturally or linguistically, again correct me if I'm wrong, it may not be the best example), but as a western philosopher and probably as a German (culturally and linguistically) and therefore, as a cultural and linguistic descendant of the Germanic peoples of central Europe (regardless of the fact that by genetics he was probably mainly of a near eastern and southern European source). Just like a person who has no genetic connection to the Israelites or indeed to the near east at all, but he converts to Judaism, and accepts the culture and traditions and identifies himself as a cultural and linguistic descendant of the Israelites. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S @Evildoer187 Perhaps Heinrich Heine would have been a better example instead of Karl Marx. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 05:20, 12 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]

Iryana Harpy, You labor under the delusion that Jews are nothing but co-religionists when we are, in fact, an ethno-religious group. Judaism is a feature of, but not the determinator of Jewish ethnic identity and the ME descent of Jews. DNA evidence affirms that most Jews are related in the order of third and fifth cousins and therefore admissible in a discussion of ethnicity and descent. Raising Judaism as a topic in this discussion is a distraction, not genetic studies. Gilad55 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

No, Gilad55, I believe you are misreading my observations. Are you proposing that Judaism is a fully detachable component in the equation in an ethno-religious group? You're shoehorning the DNA argument in order to make it fit by referencing 'third and fifth cousins'. How were such relationships tracked prior DNA testing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Iryana, Judaism is a feature of Jewish ethnic identity, but not its determinator. Persons who want to paint us strictly as a religious group tend to push the religious component while sidestepping the more complex ethnic component (complex for non-Jews, that is). How were these relationships tracked prior to DNA testing? We simply assumed that we were related as this was the belief transmitted by our oral tradition. It's wonderful to have that tradition affirmed by science. Gilad55 (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
As an aside, I was offended by your assumption that because I am Jewish I read Torah literally, i.e. believe in a young earth, believe that G-d is a wizened man with a long white beard, etc., and apply the sciences only when they do not conflict with Judaism. We Jews boast more than our fair share of great scientific minds and achievements. Gilad55 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
And no, I don't believe I was misreading your observations. You made a poor assumption and I was offering a correction. May I ask what is your ethnicity, Iryana? Gilad55 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Why would you need to know what my 'ethnicity' is, Gilad55? How would that impact on my ability to read and interpret the content of this article with neutrality?
I'm sorry if you were offended by my observation, but it seems to me that you are reading your own method of balancing your faith, ethnicity and other issues into 'the Jewish ethnic identity'. This identity is not yours alone. Pushing DNA as a major determining factor in the subject of Ashkanazi Jews appears to be about your ontological security rather than as a method of improving the information relevant to this article. Please do not assume me to be stupid, or prejudiced... or any of the other things running through the subtext of your response. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 11 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]

Evildoer, you're not talking of genetics are you? I'm sorry, there's been a misunderstanding... You were talking of identity and cultural heritage, and the fact that the Ashkenazis (and the proto Ashkenazis) throughout the last 2,000 years, have held the Torah in high regard, and in their Israelite cultural and linguistic heritage, I'm deeply sorry, I have misinterpreted your argument, yes, it's true that the cultural and linguistic heritage among Ashkenazis is with the Israelites, I'm again deeply sorry of the misunderstanding, yes I agree that the stuff about the genetic origins needs to be put in the "genetic studies on Jews" article. Again, I'm deeply sorry. :-( 84.111.196.56 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, mate.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. :-) 84.111.196.56 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source I used was from Jewish Virtual Library, and had nothing to do with genetics. DNA studies are good secondary sources, but they shouldn't even be necessary. No other people in history have had so many people in so many places try to rewrite or deny their origins.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's another problem with the "Notable Ashkenazim" section. It simply mentions their disportionately high record of achievements in relation to their small population size. What's the point of mentioning Nobel prizes and Fields medals if the reader doesn't know what they were for? Only the iconic Einstien is mentioned and there should be more mentions of important Ashkenazi Jewish contributions/inventions/discoveries as well those who contributed in other fields like literature. It's a shame Lev Ladau, Dennis Gabor, and Sergei Brin are left unmentioned. Khazar (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer I completely agree, culture and linguistics should be the first source, and these prove a line going back to the Israelites of antiquity, with genetic sources, proving a near eastern and European source, being secondary, again, it was a misunderstanding, I didn't know you weren't talking on genetics, I thought you were. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we may now discuss the possibility of re-inclusion of that main passage.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus that it is okay to restore that sentence. The most vehement IP opponent agrees now, and I have not seen other opponents. I did see a lot of talk about genetics, but nothing against. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think we do have a consensus. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews&oldid=599244183"