Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Khazar Hypothesis[edit]

There are studies that support the Khazar hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabomb (talkcontribs) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not happy with this editors edits, which I think make this article less accurate and encyclopedical. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You'll have to be more specific Debresser. Please explain why. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
At this stage I'd be happy enough to have my fellow editors examine these edits for themselves, to see if any of them also sees something that doesn't look right. Can't really point my finger at it. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoever has been reverting my edits wants to keep mention of studies whose results contradict their position off of Wikipedia.The ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews is a political issue. But, politics and science don't mix. The article should mention studies supporting both positions and let readers decide for themselves which they think is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabomb (talkcontribs) 03:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Khazar hypothesis has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by historians, geneticists and basic logic. It is an antisemitic canard used for the purpose of cultural erasure of Jewish heritage and history. The politicization of the issue does not change fact. It's settled science, like climate change and evolutionary theory. Scharb (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral[edit]

In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany (as opposed to the currently held theory that Jews from France and Germany migrated into astern Europe). The hypothesis is not corroborated by historical sources[147] and is unsubstantiated by genetics, but it is still occasionally supported by scholars who have had some success in keeping the theory in the academic conscience.[148] The theory is associated with antisemitism[149] and anti-Zionism.[150][151]

This is all a laughingstock caricature. The 19th century scholars did not argued in terms of genetics, a science that postdates the period. The Khazar hypothesis was originally about eastern European Jews, not about the Rhineland hypothesis primarily. There are several theories about the origins of Jews in Europe, not just the Rhineland vs Khazar hypothesis. No hypothesis like this or the Rhineland hypothesis is corroborated by historical sources: these theories both arose in lieu of historical sources, which are lacking for both. What 'keeping a theory in the academic conscience' is supposed to mean is anyone's guess. The Khazar hypothesis is not intrinsically anti-Semite or antizionist, since it has been supported by Jews and Zionists. All these points were once clarified by careful editing on related pages. Whatever you guys think about the idea, and I have no problem with those who think it nonsense, it must be described accurately, and neutrally, and not with dumb offthehand writing like the boorish pastiche that some idiot has now restored.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, genetics as a science started in the second half of the 19th century.
That paragraph doesn't say that the Khazar theory is "intrinsically" anti-semite, only that it is "associated" with ant-semitism.
I understand what is meant by "keeping a theory in the academic conscience" very fine, although it might be rephrased.
If no hypothesis is corroborated by historical sources, then you agree that the specific theory in question also isn't.
In short, this section is so far much noise and little wool. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Just become someone is Jewish or Zionist does not mean everything they write is in support of either. People are people ok? .Jonney2000 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And it's not to do with genetics as a science. "Genetically descended" here means simply "descended through an unbroken chain of biological parenthood", as opposed to adoption, conversion or other forms of mixing in. An analogy. If it is uncertain whether an object got to a place by falling there or being deliberately thrown, it is not anachronistic to describe the first theory as being "by gravity" even if the person who thought that lived before Isaac Newton. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Most editing and edit warring in this areas occurs because texts are written and rewritten without (a) a knowledge of the topic(s) and (b) without consulting the sources existing on any given, or related page. When I posed the above query, I expected someone to examine the issue closely. I.e., to note that a statement like 'The hypothesis is not corroborated by historical sources,' referred to Mikhail Kizilov The Karaites of Galicia: An Ethnoreligious Minority Among the Ashkenazim, the Turks, and the Slavs, 1772-1945, BRILL, 2009 p.5.(a book I introduced to several wiki articles) fails verification. It does so because it has been mindlessly copied from another wiki article, but with the wrong page link.
The joker who keeps fiddling with the text without going closely through the 20 odd sources (cited over several articles) that would enable this paragraph to give a succinct synthesis of the topic is wasting my time while getting your support gentlemen. Examine the fucking sources, and the talk pages, for once.

The theory is associated with antisemitism[149] and anti-Zionism

The theory as it is currently framed is associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism beyond a doubt and trying to remove that is not good faith

While everyone sat round, sitting on a general opinion, mostly reverting or challenging versions without consulting sources or introducing any new ones, I did 99% of the work documenting the theory, the anti-Semitic and the anti-Zionist history etc. The fact is that, apart from several rather obscure antisemities in Canada and the US, and the endemically anti-Semitic Slavophile world, the theory was discussed and propounded widely among notable Jewish scholars for a century, and was revived by them. It is in contempt of the record to try and say, as you are all endorsing now, that it is 'currently framed' or intrinsically anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist. To assert this is to ignore the evidence, and violate the neutrality of Wikipedia by 'framing' a theory as 'essentially' something it never was, and certainly isn't even to day, in Jewish tradition. Still this is a numbers game. So trying to plead for a scrupulous review of the record is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Saying that the Khazar hypothesis is associated with anti-semitism is an attempt to discredit it by associating it with something bad. It's like creationists arguing that the Nazis believed in evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabomb (talkcontribs) 03:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This Doesn't Make Sense[edit]

Chronologically: "The Jewish communities along the Rhine river from Cologne to Mainz were decimated in the Rhineland massacres of 1096. With the onset of the Crusades in 1095, and the expulsions from England (1290), France (1394), and parts of Germany (15th century), Jewish migration pushed eastward into Poland (10th century), Lithuania (10th century), and Russia (12th century)."

Obviously events in the future can't effect the past. What is the 9th-11th century migration from? I'm not sure how the Crusades effected Jewish Migration. As the Jews were expelled from various countries by the dates mentioned, they were received in Eastern Europe. A edict of protection was created for them in Poland around this time. Still, the earlier migration is confusing. (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Agree. A possible explanation could be that the immigration started in the 10th century and was accelerated by the events of later centuries. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe I wrote that sentence. The part about the Rhineland massacre should be after the onset of the crusades.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to do the honors? Debresser (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I did. The whole sentence was out of order. :P--Monochrome_Monitor 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It probably meant to say that it accelerated the migrations that began in the 10th century. "resulted in" is an overstatement though. My understanding is that the creation of Prague as a economic center under the Premyslids led to Jewish immigration there. This was after Charlemagne eliminated Avars and opened the way to... I presume Kiev. I can't remember the source of this, but I'll be reviewing this soon for my personal research. (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)John Dee
Ok, it doesn't say "resulted in" but "with the". It does sound better without the Rhineland massacre before the crusades. However, I think if information is added about why the Jews migrated in the 10th century, then this sentenced could get axed. There was a route opened up that Prague was a part of, but I'm not sure about other areas right now. At some point, I will be revisiting this. (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)John Dee
Please do :)--Monochrome_Monitor 03:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)