Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Evildoer187 is right. Everyone today are mixed with everyone. My great-grandmother was blond, her mum was raped by a Cossack, there you go. My point is, my great-grandmother always defined herself as a Jew, and not as a Jew with Cossack blood. As proven by genetic studies, Ashkenazi Jews trace their roots to Israel, and that's no braniac. Not less important, those are the only roots the Jews (any Jews, Ashkenazi, Sephardi or whatever) identify with. The European edition to the Jewish DNA is irrelevant for definition. When someone tells a story (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

What credibility I have is founded on the ability to ground my arguments and edits on reliable sources, where I set myself a high bar. The Zionist meme you use is a myth, exploded by scholarship yonks ago.

Chaim Gans, A Just Zionism : On the Morality of the Jewish State: , Oxford University Press, 2008 p.7

There is evidence that no such expulsion ever took place. Zionism accepts the myth of expulsion because expulsion, unlike abandonment, appears to provide a better justification for the Jews' return to Palestine.'

Hyam Maccoby Antisemitism and Modernity: Innovation and Continuity, Routledge ‎2006 p.12

As for the Jews of ancient times, there is still a widely believed myth that the Jews were expelled by the Romans 2000 years ago from Palestine (a myth that has religious overtones, connected with the alleged killing of Christ by the Jews'.

Raymond P. Scheindlin,A Short History of the Jewish People:, Oxford University Press,1998 p.51

'When the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E., they did not devastate Judea or expel the Jews from Jerusalem,'

That we have here is a discursive sprawl, unhinged of focus, and it's pointless speaking quietly back to a multi-user megaphone. It's all summed up below.

M. Shahid Alam,Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 p.221 n.7

'Starting in the nineteenth century, Zionist thinkers began to propagate the myth of a common descent to provide a racial foundation to their claim that the Jews are a nation

Because there's no desire to carefully weigh evidence and arguments, but mere to adopt hackeneyed rhetorical positions, it is utterly pointless replying to this. Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer. Re your elided post, Paul Johnson's "A History of the Jews" is an overview, and it has some good passages, but generally is not scholarship, but rather journalism, mugged and tizzied up from sources that are far more interesting. As to the other 'non-Jew', M. Shahid Alam whom you say 'has the gumption to educate Jews on how we define ourselves, both historically and presently,' well, he hasn't. He was paraphrasing Shlomo Sand, who is Jewish and who contests how some currents in contemporary infra-Jewish historiography define Ashkenazi (please don't take this as an invitation to challenge SS. I don't agree with many sections of his book). And when you write 'how we define ourselves', the problem here is that you are defining 'Ashkenazi' in a way many of them would find unacceptable on the presumption that you personally know how they would think, and, as a great philosopher once remarked, it is insulting to say we when you mean I (Debresser will appreciate the original Wir sagen und ich meinen ist eine von den ausgesuchtesten Kränkungen. Minima Moralia, which I recommend). You are assuming a collective identity and self-definition on behalf of Ashkenazis, without asking them (i.e. looking at polling evidence or academic sources which examine the question) and you are not their spokesman. I would say the same of all attempts by editors to define the 'ethnic' group with which they identify.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

("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)

@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)

Yes, I know that. We've disagreed strongly in the past, but that has never altered my positive opinion since I first started encountering your work - unlike many, some in A/1 cases, I've thought you are a valuable addition to the project. Yeshiva training is one of the best schools for learning how to read texts or arguments closely outside of classical languages, and that is a dying art in the digital world of formula1 speed googling and scanning, which I see often in wikipedia. Our recent compromises, rapid and to the point, have more than justified my esteem. I don't care what POV editors have, as long as they exhibit intelligence and empathy with all sides of a subject.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

@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)

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)

Nishidani, Your argument appears to be that there is no evidence for expulsion as an official Roman policy. Ultimately, it makes no difference whether expulsion was policy or merely the by-product of terror, genocide and dispossession. The end result was the same - a mass exodus of Jews from Judea; from Jerusalem in particular. That you say this a Zionist meme causes me great concern as the history of this expulsion and the destruction of the Second Temple pre-dates Zionism. That you continually bring up Zionism in relation to this discussion demonstrates a great deal of prejudice on your part. Anti-Zionism is strongly associated with Holocaust denial and a denial of the history of the Jewish people in general. Tisha B'Av has been observed among Jews for two millenia as the day Rome destroyed the Second Temple and massacred the Jews of Jerusalem, the inhabitants of Judea's most populous city. Is Tisha B'Av a Zionist meme?

"...another date however, which lives in infamy for world Jewry. It is the 9th day of the month of Av, otherwise known as Tisha B’Av, and this day has been a source of mourning in the Jewish community for two millennia." Gilad55 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

"The Roman economy was based on slave labour, supplied by war prisoners sold in slave markets throughout the Roman Empire. Between 63 BCE and 135 CE, the Romans sold into slavery about 250,000 Jews from Israel: The number of slaves sold by Pompeius after his conquest in 63 BCE is not clear, although it is known that Jewish war prisoners were paraded in his march of victory. In 54 BCE, Marcus Liquinius Crassus transferred 30,000 Jewish prisoners to Rome after suppressing a revolt that erupted because of his attempt to rob the Temple’s riches. According to Josephus Flavius the number of prisoners of war from the Great Revolt was 97,000, five thousand of whom were given to Emperor Nero as slaves after the conquest of the area surrounding the Sea of Galilee. No formal data exists for the number of slaves Adrian transferred to the Roman markets, but it is known that the price of slaves dropped markedly due to the large number of Jews sold into slavery. A reasonable estimate places the number at 100,000. This estimate is based on the following data: Before the revolt, there were 1.3 Jews in Israel. Between 400,000 (according to a Jewish source) and 580,000 (according to Dio Cassius, a Roman historian) were killed and murdered during the revolt, leaving about 700,000-800,000 alive after it was suppressed. The 100,000-200,000 difference may be the number of Jews who fled the fightings and those who were sold into slavery.

According to Josephus Flavius, prior to the Great Revolt there were 204 Jewish villages and cities in the Galilee. Prior to the Bar Cochva revolt there were 63 Jewish villages and cities in the Galilee. What happened to 141 Jewish settlements in 60 years (between 70CE and 130CE)?

In summary, the Diaspora and the dwindling of Jewish population in the Land of Israel during the Roman period were a direct result of Roman policies, which aimed not only to destroy the national independence of the Jews, but to turn them into a minority in their own land by means of land confiscations, heavy taxes, foreign settlement, cruel suppression of revolts, and breaking their national and cultural spirit. Hundreds of thousands were killed, murdered, and died of hunger and disease, hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war were sold into slavery, and many fled the religious and economic persecution."Evildoer187 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"In the first century the tensions associated with Roman rule erupted into multiple violent conflicts in Israel and in the centers of Jewish Diaspora. A tax census of Quirinius triggered an uprising by Judas the Galilean in 6 AD (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. 1.1; Acts 5:37; Eccl. Rabbah 1:11). The local population of Egyptian Alexandria rioted against the Jews in 38 AD for not properly honoring Emperor Caligula (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII 8.1). After an incident involving the construction of a pagan altar in front of the synagogue in the Judean town of Jamnia, Caligula ordered a statue of himself erected in the Jerusalem Temple, escalating the tensions (Philo of Alexandria, The Embassy to Gaius XXX 200-203; Josephus, Jewish War II 184-203, Antiquities XVIII 289-309). A messianic contender named Theudas attempted an uprising around 46 AD, but was quickly apprehended and beheaded by the Romans (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Antiquities XX 5.1). In 46 AD Simon and Jacob, the sons of Judah the Galilean, led an uprising in Galilee and were defeated by 48 AD (Josephus, Antiquities XX 5.2).

The First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66-70 AD) followed these smaller uprisings. It ignited with riots under procurator Florus and its exact causes remain uncertain. Most of the details that are known about this war come from Joseph ben Matityahu better known as Flavius Josephus. Josephus personally witnessed the revolt, having fought against Romans in Galilee. He defected and served Vespasian and Titus, later documenting the events he witnessed. According to Josephus the revolt was instigated by a minor disturbance between Jews and Gentiles in the coastal town of Caesarea. Florus’ brutality across Israel and appropriation of temple funds for Rome provoked the populace and made war unavoidable (Josephus, Wars of the Jews II 14-16).

The revolutionaries first attacked Jews loyal to Rome and then overpowered a Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem, temporarily eliminating Roman control of the region. The governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, was dispatched to restore order with thirty thousand troops. After a series of attempts he was defeated and was not able to retake Jerusalem. Emperor Nero appointed Vespasian to put down the Judean rebellion with greater force. By 68 AD Vespasian’s sixty thousand man army crushed the resistance in Galilee and along the Mediterranean. In December of 69 AD Vespasian became the next emperor and returned to Rome while his son Titus took over the military action (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III. 4). Titus besieged Jerusalem in the springtime of 70 AD and by summer’s end the city fell and the Temple was destroyed (Josephus, Wars of the Jews IV 4). The Romans commemorated their victory by erecting the Titus Arch, which still stands in Rome. The nationalistic freedom-seeking spirit among many Jews was shaken but not fully crushed. Three years after the fall of Jerusalem some Zealots, their families and few Roman hostages (960 people), remained besieged inside the Masada fortress. When their defeat was immanent, refusing to be captured alive, the Zealot leaders reached a decision to end each other’s lives. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews VIII-IX).

The Second Revolt

The Second Jewish Revolt, also known as the Bar Kochba Rebellion (132-135 AD), was predated by a series of widespread hostilities known as the Kitos War (115-117 AD) during the rule of Emperor Trajan (Seder Olam Rabba 30; Mishna, Sotah 9:14). In the beginning of the second century Rome was at war with Parthia and some Jews started an insurgency campaign against occupying Roman forces. It is believed that Kitos War was named after Quietus, a general who led the campaign against the Jewish rebels in Mesopotamia. A Roman source reports that the fighting was widespread. The Diaspora Jews of Cyrene massacred two hundred twenty thousand Greeks. Egypt had an uprising as well and two hundred forty thousand Greeks were killed in Cyprus (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68:32). Some fighting may have taken place in Judea as well (Babylonian Talmud, Taanit 18b). Even after these widespread conflicts were settled significant nationalist aspirations lingered among many Jews, laying the foundation for future conflicts.

The historical sources for the Second Jewish Revolt are more fragmentary. They propose several possible reasons for the Bar Kochba Revolt: The Roman desire to rebuild the Temple and their sudden reversal (Gen. Rabbah 64:10), Hadrian’s design to turn Jerusalem into a Roman city with a temple of Jupiter (Cassius Dio, Roman History 69:12, 1-2) and Roman ban on circumcision (Augustan History, Vita Hadriani 14:2). Eusebius speaks of Hadrian building the Roman Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem as a consequence of the war (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.6). However, Aelia Capitolina coins were found in the el-Jai cave together with Bar Kochba coins which had to be minted prior to 135 AD. The presence of such coins prior to 135 AD suggests that Hadrian had these plans for Jerusalem even before the Bar Kochba Revolt began. The war may have been a preemptive action against Emperor’s plans. Though the exact reasons that triggered the Second Revolt remain uncertain, it is safe to assume that as before the hopes of national independence fueled the revolution. Bar Kochba’s Revolt began in the town of Modi’in. Centuries earlier the Maccabean Revolt against the Greeks (167-160 BC) which culminated with Israel’s victory and the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple began in this very town. The revolution was well planed, strategically executed and may not have needed specific triggers, but only an opportunity.

The Aftermath of Jewish Wars with Rome

The Revolts against Rome proved to be catastrophic for Israel and their significance cannot be understated. Since the days of Julius Caesar the Israelites and their unique way of life were officially recognized by the Romans. With an established center in Judea and influential Diaspora communities, the Jews were a recognizable cultural force in the Hellenistic world of the Mediterranean. (Josephus, Antiquities XIV 10. 2). Despite being conquered by Rome, Israel retained the rights to maintain their own worship system and was afforded a measure of self-governance. But the nationalistic struggle for greater independence from their conquerors drastically altered these circumstances. The wars devastated the Jewish population as countless lives were lost in battles, subsequent famine and sickness. Untold numbers of Jews were enslaved and hundreds of towns and villages were destroyed (Josephus, Jewish Wars VI. 9.3; Cassius Dio, Roman History LXIX, 14:1). The constant unrest was problematic for Rome as well. The expenditure of resources and Roman casualties were significant, complicating their internal power struggles and politics (Cassius Dio, Roman History LXIX, 14:3).

The full Roman administration of the region ended the Herodian dynasty and marginalized the Jewish elites. The Revolts decentralized Jewish worship and the absence of the Temple ended many internal sectarian disputes. A new class of Jewish leadership emerged, the sages whose prominence was based not on heredity, but on Torah expertise. This non-political leadership of Jamnia scholars laid a new direction for observant Jewish life without the Temple and priesthood. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the leveling of Jerusalem in 135 AD was followed by a fierce official persecution and compulsory expulsion of all Jews from vicinity of Jerusalem (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV. 6). The course of Jewish life changed dramatically in Judea, the nationalistic aspirations of an independent state were crushed and remaining Jews were forced to relocate to Galilee or to major Diaspora centers. The Jewish followers of Jesus were also subject to Hadrian’s expulsion and the Jerusalem Assembly was dramatically transformed during the administration of its first non-Jewish leader Marcus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV. 6). The establishment of the Roman Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Herodian Jerusalem began a long chapter in the history of the region without meaningful Jewish prominence. As nascent Christianity began to gain prominence in Rome the city of Jerusalem slowly lost its influence as the historical and spiritual center of Jesus movement."Evildoer187 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, Evildoer. Stop introducing generic walls of text from

Here's another book corroborating the exile.. Unfortunately, I don't have the exact quotes at the moment.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And Louis Ginzberg. Scroll to the section titled "Exile". Evildoer187 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A more direct response to Nishidani's number 3. H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, page 334: "Jews were forbidden to live in the city and were allowed to visit it only once a year, on the Ninth of Ab, to mourn on the ruins of their holy Temple."Evildoer187 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dearie, oh wearie me! Rivka Lissak is now an authority on Roman history, in between blogging about Saudi Arabia funding Mossad. Good grief, evildoer, if that is how you 'research' material, please drop wikipedia. I'd suggest you study the history of the Alexandrian Jews, who, before the Roman destruction of the Temple, were calculated by Philo of Alexandria to number over 1 million, and they had not been expelled from Judea. They like so many Jewish communities chose to live elsewhere,-they were and thrived all over the Mediterranean, and the Middle East, from Yemen and Medina to the Caucasus, through Turkey, and across to Libya, Greece, and Italy before the mythic expulsion. Everyone knows this. They constituted 10/12% of the Roman Empire. I.e. the diaspora was not a consequence of expulsion, any more than the Irish, or Italian emigration was the result of expulsion. The Elephantine Jews were in Egypt when Cambyses invaded it, and had evidently not gone there because of some expulsion order to hie to Babylon under Shalmaneser V. For God'ìs sake, this is elementary Mamlachti primary level schooling stuff. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, No one argued that the diaspora began with the Roman expulsion. It has been argued effectively by many scholars that the Roman expulsion grew the diaspora. Persons such as yourself assert that the explosive growth of Jewish communities registered during the late first century was due to aggressive proselytization, not a Jewish exodus from Judea. Simply put, this argument is shallow. Jewish proselytization is academic. The Second Jewish Revolt, the razing of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple is a matter of history. It's naive to think that the Roman conquest and the occupation that followed was kind to Jews. On the contrary, it was marked by economic collapse, mass starvation and the severance of Jews from the physical and spiritual capitol of the Jewish world. As I pointed out earlier, whether or not expulsion was a Roman policy is beside the point. Expulsion occurred.

″ The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the leveling of Jerusalem in 135 AD was followed by a fierce official persecution and compulsory expulsion of all Jews from vicinity of Jerusalem (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV. 6). The course of Jewish life changed dramatically in Judea, the nationalistic aspirations of an independent state were crushed and remaining Jews were forced to relocate to Galilee or to major Diaspora centers. The Jewish followers of Jesus were also subject to Hadrian’s expulsion and the Jerusalem Assembly was dramatically transformed during the administration of its first non-Jewish leader Marcus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV. 6). The establishment of the Roman Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Herodian Jerusalem began a long chapter in the history of the region without meaningful Jewish prominence. As nascent Christianity began to gain prominence in Rome the city of Jerusalem slowly lost its influence as the historical and spiritual center of Jesus movement.″ Gilad55 (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Thanks for underlining my point, i.e. that both of you google non-academic sites, either blogs or businesses, to affirm a point. I show that Evildoer confused 70 CE with 135 CE, a misapprehension that shows confusion over dates and consequences. Now you cite an eteacher seminar (Jewish Studies for Christians) in Jerusalem that spins 135 CE. We are writing an encyclopedia, whose standards of reference and content must compete with the Encyclopedia Britannica, and other august works. It's great that all can edit it, but they must understand that wikipedia will consolidate only if it avoids farcical amateurism, and one does that by consistently checking what current scholarship is doing with every nuance of history.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gilad55 I read a book called "the history of the Jews" written by Simon Schama (a British historian, he has a Wikipedia page), in the book it says that 3 years after the 2nd Jewish revolt was crushed emperor Hadrian died, the emperor that succeeded him to the throne cancelled all the laws against the Jews except the law which allowed Jews to enter Jerusalem on the 9th of Ab only. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani. I used Risslak because her post was replete with citations from historians such as Josephus and Dio Cassius who are, in my humble opinion, infinitely more reliable than politically motivated revisionists like Shahid and Maccoby. Moreover, the same source was used on another article, with virtually no objection. And It wasn't even the only source I used, but you zeroed in on that anyway because you could not attack the other sources I provided.

I gave you what you requested, but they don't say what you want them to say so they are "unreliable" or "Googled". Jewish-related articles on Wikipedia are already in poor shape, and we certainly don't need more editors like yourself who are evidently only out to score political points. And I do believe we've long since passed the acceptable threshold for WP:AGF. I've seen your behavior on various articles and, while I am by no means perfect, I at least try to make articles more balanced. Everything you've done in this area has attempted to put Jews/Israel in a negative light. You are WP:NOTHERE.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"They like so many Jewish communities chose to live elsewhere,-they were and thrived all over the Mediterranean, and the Middle East, from Yemen and Medina to the Caucasus, through Turkey, and across to Libya, Greece, and Italy before the mythic expulsion. Everyone knows this."

And how exactly does this dispute that there was an exile? The fact that some Jews were already living abroad is proof that Jews still living in Judea were not expelled or sold into slavery later on? I call bull on that.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, I provided a scholarly source. The author of the article is Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg. From his bio: "Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg is an Israeli scholar of Christian and Jewish Literature. At eTeacherGroup he holds a position of scholar-in-residence. He is a co-founder of the Jerusalem Seminar for Christian-Jewish Relations that conducts inter-disciplinary research (the seminar is hosted by Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.) Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg has received a fair amount of Jewish and Christian education both religious and secular. He holds M.Div. degree in Christian Theology from Reformed Theological Seminary (2000), and M.Phil. degree in Bible Interpretation (2008) and Ph.D. in Ancient Cultures from Stellenbosch University (2011). Additional studies include doctoral and post-doctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania, Leiden University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Hebrew University of Jerusalem." [11] Furthermore, Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenburg cites Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV. 6 among other sources in the article. Gilad55 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55\ \

Nishidani, Since you mentioned the Encyclopedia Britannica, here is an article on the Second Jewish Revolt and the expulsion taken from Britannica: [12] Gilad55 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55\ \ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilad55 (talk • contribs)

I must agree with Evildoer regarding Nishidani's bias. Nishidani continually argues from an anti-Zionist perspective; which would not concern me so much if Nishidani were not arguing against basic tenets of Jewish history - the Roman expulsion and the subsequent growth of the diaspora included. The mission of anti-Zionism is to rewrite Jewish history by undermining its traditional narrative and replacing it with a manufactured, anti-Jewish narrative. Anti-Zionists are motivated by the belief that Jewish history, most notably the history of the persecution of the Jews, was invented to justify Jewish nationalism. Nishidani cites anti-Zionist theoretical histories almost exclusively then attacks scholarly sources given in response. This is a dead give away. Gilad55 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Sure, yeah. . .

'I used Risslak because her post was replete with citations from historians such as Josephus and Dio Cassius who are, in my humble opinion, infinitely more reliable than politically motivated revisionists like Shahid and Maccoby.' (Evildoer)

'Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenburg cites Eusebius'(Gilad)

I.e. (a) you both cite non-RS (Lizorkin-Eyzenburg doesn't figure as a peer-reviewed scholar in google books)

(b) You both use inferior websites that quote primary sources. As agreed by all competent editors at numerous pages like Ebionim, the Gospel of Matthew etc.etc., we don't use primary sources unless they are filtrated through scholarly sources that meet the highest quality RS criteria, published works by academic specialists in the literature. The attestations of ancient primary sources are not proof of anything. You are both out of your depth, and dismissive remarks about 'anti-Zionist' sources suggest to me that, lacking an argument, you must write ad hominem.

(c)

'Since the Second Temple period, most Jews have lived in the diaspora. Though the fall of Jerusalem led to the expulsion of Jews from that city and the transfer of an unknown number of its population as slaves, the same happened n the diaspora when, in the Diaspora revolt of 114 to 117 C.E. the Jewish populations of Alexandria, Cyrene, and Cyprus were captured, enslaved, and dispersed. In contrast, other than expulsion from Jerusalem, there are no descriptions of large massive expulsions of Jews fom Judea/Palestine during that period or later. Yet, in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the temple and the "Great Rebellion" (70 and 135 C.E., respectively). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora. Howard Adelman, Elazar Barkan, No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation, Columbia University Press, 2011 p.159.

So, lay off this attempt to strongarm the debate and win it by attrition in walls-of-text unreadable junk trawled via google off the net. It is not an argument, and you are both prey to 'a myth' in 'the popular imagination', which has no place on wikipedia. The 'dead giveaway' is in the poverty of your sources and the abundance of unreadable scrawls of chat built up on them.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling Hyam Maccoby a 'politically motivated revisionist' is laughable. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, Neither Evildoer nor myself asserted that the Roman expulsion was the beginning of the diaspora. We do assert that it grew and changed the character of the diaspora. This is not just a Jewish narrative, but a narrative woven into the history of Western civilization. We know as much as we do about this expulsion because it was recorded in both early Christian and Jewish histories; not to mention Roman histories that survived the Dark Ages. Thus, it is a history that belongs as much to Christians and to Western civilization as it does to Jews. That you attempt to cast this as an argument between Jewish nationalists, Zionists, if you will, and scholars is laughable. Scholars agree that Titus terrorized Judea and that a Roman expulsion, whether de facto or de jure, almost certainly occurred. In fact, such an exodus is a phenomenon one can observe in conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries. Gilad55 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

• Nishidani, Neither Evildoer nor myself asserted that the Roman expulsion was the beginning of the diaspora.We do assert...

• I understand from the quality of your evidence that you have no familiarity with Jewish history or history in the large. But it is really too much to discover at this late stage that you don't even bother to read what you write.

• 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)

• 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 Gilad55 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this consistent prevarication? Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, Neither of those statements contradict other statements made by myself and Evildoer. The history of the diaspora, from the Babylonian exile onward, exists on a continuum. Events on this continuum caused and grew the diaspora. By 'cause', I do not mean 'original cause'. Instead, I am referring to a causational relationship between an event (the Roman expulsion) and an affect (the dispersion of Jews in Europe). If you studied history as a science and were familiar with the language of that science, then this would confuse you less. If you were to ask questions rather than accuse us of "prevarication", then I would gladly provide you with whatever information you require. As it stands, you have nothing in the way of an argument and are trying to catch us in contradictions that do not exist. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Reread the record, which you appear to have forgotten. The only questions worth asking here are where editors mugged up the disinformation flaunted with considerable nonchalance here. You have no information to provide me, and construed in context there is no doubt that what I noted above is, if not prevarication, muddle-headed blogging. This article could have been rewritten from top to bottom with first-rate sources in the time wasted dealing with the numerous errors that required deconstruction in what I consider a POV-Cat piece of pushing.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The argument of that IP coward would probably be that the genetic studies showed resemblance between Ashkenazi Jews, Arabs and Druze people, but it doesn't mean the came from Israel. Well, smart-ass, the genetic studies proved that the Ashkenazi Jews have common DNA with Arabs and Druze people living in Israel, which means it's proven Ashkenazi Jews came specifically from Israel. When someone tells a story (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@When someone tells a story genetically speaking Ashkenazis share the closest genetic proximity to themselves, then to Sepharadics, but then not to Arabs or Druze, as my DNA results show (genetically speaking of course) the closest non Jewish populations I share a proximity with are Tuscans, Greeks and north Italians, or southern European populations, Doron Behar's results confirm that the non Jewish contribution to the Ashkenazi genetic pie are southern European populations, specifically Italic populations (such as Tuscans and north Italians), again, this is a genetic point of view here, not a cultural and linguistic one (although culturally and linguistically the Israelites were an east Mediterranean group and not an Arabian one). 84.108.30.185 (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S I just want to make it clear that I was talking of genetics now, that should be secondary with culture and linguistics being first, I completely agree with that, most Ashkenazis culturally and linguistically identify with the Israelites, while a minority identify with populations they have assimilated with. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

' most Ashkenazis culturally and linguistically identify with the Israelites.'

I.e. most European Jews identify linguistically and culturally with the tribal groups described in the Torah: their primary identitarian language is classical Biblical Hebrew, while their cultural sense of self lies in the commandments given to the Israelite tribes (a millenium before the rise of rabbinical schools). This is remarkable, and shows where carelessness leads us.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

[... Most European Jews identify linguistically and culturally with the tribal groups described in the Torah: their primary identitarian language is classical Biblical Hebrew, while their cultural sense of self lies in the commandments given to the Israelite tribes (a millenium before the rise of rabbinical schools). This is remarkable, and shows where carelessness leads us.] There again is that hostility toward the identity of Jews as a people that Nishidani has become so well known for. By the bye, you misused the term 'identitarian'. Identitarianism refers to this: When recalling words learned in college, it's best to find a reference and refresh one's memory before using the word in conversation. Gilad55 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Portion of lead paragraph removed, despite consensus

See diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923

Fast forward to this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=606528036&oldid=606523912

To my knowledge, consensus did not change between then and now. Unless Debresser and Nishidani are suffering from collective amnesia, this is a deliberate violation of consensus, and the former version should be restored forthwith.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Debresser and I worked out that lead in edits and talk down to Feb 12, 2014 as you can see at the top of this page (here). I haven't gone back into the archives, but they should show the same. That was indeed consensual. whatever changes took place after that date were not, as far as I can see, consensual. They were unilateral. I gather Debresser's 17th March alteration, which reintroduces precisely what I found objectionable, to be a slip of memory, for our discussion ruled out making that assertion. To repeat, these articles will always be a POV mesh until we stick to leads that no one can challenge for their neutrality. Partial theories, however widespread though contradicted widely in the academic literature, and not taken seriously even in the Jewish virtual library sister article to ours, should not be toyed with.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've checked archive 10 December 2013 to Feb. Debresser, seeing the intractability of the earlier lead with its balancing statement about genetics and European origins, suggested as a compromise that all this genetic origins stuff be elided and left to the relevant section. I agreed to that, as did others. Put in the theory, or legend, or belief, that all Ashkenazim come from the Israelite tribes, and you get, per logic and WP:NPOV, someone wanting a balancing statement ( the most recent genetic paper says that the matrilineal side is strongly of European/Neolithic origin. All Ashkenazis come from, it would work out, the Middle East on the father's side, and mostly Europe from the maternal side. No one was happy with that, and Debresser's suggestion was acted on, as was the compromise on Yiddish, which, as I have repeatedly sourced, is a complex problem about which assertions of just one of several theories (MHG origin) complicate editing because they require, again, nuancing for balance. As a result through the edits from December to Feb Debresser trimmed and we found the compromise you get on February 12 above. Do we really need to rehash this again? The lede ignored the most important thing of all, the huge contribution of the Ashkenazi to modern Western society and culture. The most important things were neglected for POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly missed (or ignored) this part ([1]). Scroll to the bottom, where we worked out an agreement on the passage restored (then removed again, today) in the diffs above. This happened after the February discussion, and from what I can see here, you (and Liz, IIRC) are the only one who disagrees with that particular passage (albeit vehemently so). Evildoer187 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, it does not matter if every single Ashkenazi has ancestors tracing back to Israelite immigrants. It is clear from genetics that the vast majority do. No nation/ethnic group can claim blood purity, and it's nonsensical to hold Ashkenazim to a clearly impossible standard. The contributions of Jews to Western culture is undeniable, but that has absolutely nothing to do with their ethnic origins, and including it in the lede doesn't take away from said contributions.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Evildoer is right, and Nishidani and I made a mistake today. My last edit of a few minutes ago restores that part of the Middle Eastern origin. Nishidani, I hope I am not confused again, and we did agree on this? Debresser (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There were two consensuses. One which took two months at least, in which I argued on the talk page at great length, and you examined things from both sides, and edited. Watching your editing over that period, I took your work on trust. It was fair, and non-ideological and reflected the talk page. Both you and I state that we don't have time to keep up with the page after Feb 12, when these things had been tidied, and the page was stable. Unbeknown to me, in a brief riff a month later, several editors, with little participation by people like myself who participated in the former consensus, said that remark could be reinstated, and you did it, without explaining why this capsizing of the consensus you and others had reached was invalid. As I show below, even the source used to support the statement does not support it. Weinryb analyses pp.17-22 many theories of the 'ethnogenesis' of Ashkenazim and after dismissing the Khazar theory writes:the rest of the hypotheses and speculations have little or no basis in reality and lack any factual value for dealing with the early settlement of Jews in Poland.p.22, i.e.,I.e., at least there, addressing precisely this issue, he says nothing is known, all we have is speculation and legends. This means (a) the source belies the statement being pushed into the text (b) those who have used Weinryb, never providing the precise page for this putative statement, never even looked at the source. They are convinced of the statement's veracity but have had not a skerrick of evidence to support it while edit-warring, and haven't troubled to examine the source while pushing for its reinclusion. Therefore, thisd is WP:OR and has been for the several months in which edit-warring has taken place. I am disappointed that you now support its reincorporation. Consensus cannot override scholarship, Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Evildoer. The removal of the paragraph despite consensus is a breach of trust, ethics and Wikipedia policy as commonly understood. Moreover, genetic studies point to the existence of four identifiably European matrilineal lines in the Ashkenazi genome. These lines account for not more than 40% of Ashkenazi DNA. The remaining 60% is of Levantine origin. This is the consensus, not an outlier. Other interpretations of the data are efforts to propagandize the data. The paragraph should be replaced as soon as humanly possible. Gilad55 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Evildoer187, you are welcome to add, redact and POV push as much as you like, but you are not welcome to call it consensus. How did you come to the conclusion that, per the discussion you, Gilad55, Debresser and single purpose IP user 84.111.196.56 VS Nishidani, Khazar, When someone tells a story, plus 2 genuinely neutral editors in Liz and myself = consensus? Are you counting (an absence of) votes? Are you counting objections based on policy and guidelines? Perhaps it is you who is suffering from a very singular form of 'amnesia' when assessing consensus. Even the title of the thread, "Staying on topic" (which was started by me) provides a clue as to what the discussion was about before it was turned into a convoluted discussion regarding details as to how best to continue getting off topic culminated in some form of quick decisions to call 'consensus' on something which was being identified as a tendentious. The only point you are correct on is that "this is a deliberate violation of consensus" with you at the heart of it, and I am getting such a headache. The thread did not come to any conclusions as regards consensus. Tacking on, "I think we have consensus." with a response of, "Yeah." while no one else is looking is tendentious.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that many, many editors/contributors have been tied up in the recent events in Eastern Europe and holding down the fort on any article vaguely attached to the regions in question. Check the edit warring noticeboard. Check the ANI. Check the DRN. Check the Jimbo Wales talk page. You may interpret this as carte blanche to do as you will to this article, but please don't be surprised or offended when others return to this article and transfer the bulk of the WP:UNDUE and WP:OR content still accounting for half of this article into the Genetic studies on Jews article where they belong per WP:CONLIMITED. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gilad55 1. Please don't cry "breach of trust". We are all here on the talkpage to discuss it, and there seems to have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding (from whatever side). 2. There is definitely consensus that your genetics babble is overdone in this article, and that nobody really wants to go there with you. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Debresser. Please reintroduce the paragraph as there was no consensus for its removal. Also, genetics is not babble. It is science. If you're unfamiliar with the language of this science, then google the terms. One cannot intelligently discuss Ashkenazi ancestry without understanding the science of genetics. Gilad55 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

@Iryna, no I am not counting the absence of votes. I am referring to the dispute made when an IP editor removed a chunk of the lead passage (see above), which we have long since resolved and agreed that the passage belongs. Your objections appeared to be with the preponderance of genetics in the lede, not that particular passage which had absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Up until now, Nishidani (who isn't exactly an unbiased editor, as his editing history shows) is the only one (to my knowledge) who disagreed with that line. Now that you are here, voice your concerns instead of blowing up in other people's faces. By the way, nobody on this site is completely free of personal bias, and as far as I can tell, that includes you too. Jewish articles are a magnet for politically (and/or racially) motivated editors, and you have thus far done little to prove that you do not belong to that category beyond loudly asserting that you are neutral.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at the previous discussion, neither Khazar or When someone tells a story objected to this passage. The latter actually disagreed with you. That leaves just you, Nishidani (see above), and possibly Liz. You also forgot to include Kitty on our side, as per his/her comments in here demonstrating that he/she clearly shares our views on Ashkenazi Jewish origins. Either you are not reading carefully, or you are being tendentiously dishonest. Which one is it? Evildoer187 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Could I remind you that wikipedia asks of editors to write not what they think or believe, but to devote time to reading through the best relevant sources in order to write, in a neutral fashion, what the state of learned or informed opinion says about any topic or detail which editors may decide to include. The consensus negotiated by Debresser involved extensive arguments based on book evidence over two months. As the text stood when I thought the lead was stabilized consensually (12 February) we had consensus. What occurred a month later, was the same editors returning, without notifying people like myself, and, via Debresser, reintroducing that contested sentence. Consensus implies a mediation between opposed parties, in which agreement is reached in this case to overturn a prior consensus. I see no evidence of that for March, but only several editors agreeing, without notification, to overthrow what was a rational, evidence-based decision. The sentence violates WP:NPOV since it represents as a fact what is one of several theories, as any familiarity with the literature will immediately show. As to not reading carefully, neither you, nor Debresser, nor Gilad or others supporting it, seem to have checked the source ostensibly supporting it. No sentence can stand which is not supported by a reliable academic source which presents, not the author's opinion, but the known lay of the land about which there is no dispute. In these several months, no source has been provided which states that it is a fact that Ashkenazis trace their origins to the Israelitic tribes. Trace here is, as I said months ago, deceptive. It may refer to a belief among Ashkenazis that they hail from Israelitic tribes (to be demonstrated) or that Ashkenazis have traced their origins via a chain of documentary and archaeological and genetic proof back to the Israelitic tribes (the requirement if this sentence is to be understood as a fact. Either work with sources, or please refrain from reintroducing what is a mytheme without objective grounding in the relevant reliable sources. Please respond to the point below. I could only access that source today, though I tried several months ago, to no avail, and it clearly does not justify the sentence is it supposed to corroborate, which means objectively that all editors pushing for that sentence over several months never even checked the source. That therefore is patent proof that the standard protocols for editing here have been ignored or neglected. Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because I didn't object to that specific passage doesn't mean that I can't see anything wrong with it. I've already added support to the fact that this article is off-topic and emphasizes to much on prehistoric and genetic origins and not historical culture. Khazar (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Too much emphasis? It's one brief sentence. It does not detract, in any way, from the rest of the article. I will respond to Nishidani later.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with emphasis. It has everything to do with wikipedia's insistance that editors use reliable sources to state facts, and stick scrupulously to what RS say. The sentence in question is not a fact, but a concocted ('Israelitic') WP:OR spin on one of several hypotheses, according to Weinryb. Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That was for Khazar, not you. His argument was different. By the by, you take this position only until we use genetic sources, and then you reject them. If I provide other scholarly sources (and I can) you will reject those as well. The Ashkenazim self-identify as Israelites, and this is supported by genetic scholarship, linguistics, and cultural evidence. The Romani have no documentation whatsoever of their descent from South Asia, but we don't doubt that they are from South Asia. Only Ashkenazi Jews are expected to provide thorough and intricate proof that they are who they say they are, which is hypocritical and reeks of politics.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I do recall giving you scholarly sources (non-genetic) and you rejected those too, right after citing a book from a relatively unknown Palestinian anti-Zionist writer whose credentials were called into question and could not, under any circumstances, be used as a definitive source for anything. That said, I am willing to compromise somewhat on the language. Perhaps we could take the "Israelite" part out (while mentioning their self-conception as Israelites) and just put "originating in the Middle East". Evildoer187 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop chatting and stop making personal insinuations about what I might do in this or that imaginary scenario. Stick to the gravamen of the evidence in the section below. You have consistently reintroduced weinryb and the attached sentence saying it is 'consensus'. I have examined Weinryb and found no statement in his text that would support your sentence, to the contrary, he dismisses all such arguments as speculative. Therefore you have one ineludible task: show where in Weinryb is a statement supporting that generalization. Please keep your evidence succinct and respond in the section below. You are required to do this because numerous times you have reintroduced this sentence, and the source, and therefore must know where in Weinryb the justification for that formulation can be found. If you don't know, the implication would be you developed the sentence without even looking at the source, which would be disturbing evidence of editorial bad faith. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Read my comment again. I said the article itself, not the sentence. That sentence itself violates WP:OR because it contains a misinterpretation caused by original thought without reliable sources. No current mainstream scholar, historian, or geneticist deny the Ashkenazim's Middle Eastern origin. However, they didn't directly migrate from there. Going by your logic, maybe we should include that they originated from Africa since all humans do. Khazar (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually many mainstream scholars have held that the origin of the Ashkenazi is unknown, 'shrouded in mystery', 'probably indeterminate' etc. All of this is speculative, since there is no documentary evidence for 1000 years, during which European Jews were a minuscule population among world Jewry. Many scholars, geneticists included, take seriously the idea that mass conversion, or incremental intermarriage of a few travellers with local women, might have taken place, and it is widely accepted that there is a strong possibility that the founding population has its roots in Italy, where there was a long established Jewish community and where conversion is attested. The POV being pushed here is part legend, grounded in relatively recent folksy speculation (as Weinryb shows, the Eastern Ashkenazi, if asked would often say they came from Spain), part political (Jews everywhere descent from ancient Israelites and are only returning to their ancestors' homeland) and part ideological (denialism re conversion as a Jewish practice in the past). If Richards and de Costa are correct, there was a huge input from the European matrilineal genepool, which is the one which counts in terms of the religious definition of a Jew, something which also would entail the conclusion that Ashkenazi are as much of European descent as they are of Levantine descent (meaning that sentence would be partial and partisan in tactically privileging the Levantine descent for a polemical thesis etc. The sentence cannot stand because it is a meme replicated the lower down the literacy scale you go, and gets rare the higher the quality of the scholarly source, where it is almost absent, as empirical scruples command.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A Proposal for an ethnogenesis statement in the lead

Please supply your suggestions accompanied by quality RS (academic works abound on the Ashkenazi) below. Be careful not to recycle material amply studied and dismissed in Archives 7-10 on this issue. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Back to sources. No gabble or chat please, only scholarship.

whose ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews traces back to immigrants originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East

This has long been sourced to Weinryb. The link gave no page. I've provided it now. See The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland from 1100-1800, Jewish Publication Society of America 1973 pp.17-22. Please read that very closely. There is absolutely nothing in that source which justifies the WP:OR Evildoer and Debresser have reintroduced without examining the source. To the contrary Weinryb is quite clear that no documentary evidence throws light on the problem of origins, and we have only several theories all speculative.Nishidani (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, an editor who usually argues against the points made by Evildoer and myself, admitted to the oversight (the paragraph was removed unilaterally). The paragraph is not speculative and is well sourced. The paragraph should be replaced as soon as humanly possible and the brinkmanship of editors like Nishidani should be recognized as just that. Gilad55 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Let's agree that reopening this subject for debate would be a kind of double jeopardy. Gilad55 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

It had only one source. Admittedly, it could use some extra sourcing, but my hands are somewhat tied at the moment.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In other words, Debresser, Gilad and Evildoer included a sentence without examining the source that putatively justified the formulation and therefore its inclusion. The process was rotten from the start.

Unless someone can come up with the precise passage in Weinryb which is presumed to support that statement within the next 12 hours, I will take the silence as a failure to find it, and remove the passage (which several sources at my elbow would challenge as a factual statement) as WP:OR based on a fraudulent abuse of sources. Given that no editor reintroducing this, consensus or not, seems to have looked at the source, its reinclusion was ipso facto invalid. As to adjusting the language: that is out of the question. One does not tinker with minor stylistic fixes creatively when the source is found to not support the sentence, but indeed to assert a position diametrically opposed to the original statement it was supposed to provide textual warrant for. One seeks a source before writing any sentence, and, on controversial pages like this subject to editwarring vices, one presents the evidence to the community for assessment and consensus before proceding to insert it. This is how wiki works: and one does not toss in ideas, and then search for a source to justify them here. That is tendentious WP:OR, if not magical thinking.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The passage was introduced into the body of the article some time ago, and I merely added it to the lede. Nevertheless, I have an addition source. There's more coming. I will also work on extracting a quote from Weinryb. "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." https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Diaspora.html Evildoer187 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And just a forewarning, if you removed the passage before consensus is reached on this topic, you will be reverted.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't make silly threats. I have shown you, Debresser and Gilad kept introducing a statement which was contradicted directly by the source you all used. This constitutes, perhaps unknowingly, falsification of wikipedia, and it was done repeatedly. As others have reminded you, you can't get away with sticking crap into a page, and, when shown it is crap, threatening to revert the scrupulous wikipedians who, following the rules, remove abusively constructed edits. Consensus is mandatory in introducing material that is under challenge. Absolutely no consensus is required to remove material that has been decisively shown to be misleading or a gross caricature of the source. Clear? (Take that as a warning. If you go through with your threat, I will consider the behaviour actionable) Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And finally, if you wish to make a fresh proposal (the kind of material you add from the JVL has been discussed and dismissed in archives 8-9-10), then open up a different section (Proposal for an origins statement in lead etc. This section is exclusively for the issue on Weinryb, and has concluded. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Same thing can be seen at Sephardi Jews - been sometime since I looked here. -- Moxy (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

At the least that should have a citation needed tag. The fact that the line is almost identical to the one crafted here shows we have a meme splashing problem here, for ideological purposes. I won't deal with that however, since, apart from some poetry and books on the 12-14 centuries, I know little of Sephardim, whereas half of my intellectual and cultural formation owes debts to Ashkenazi culture, and I am familiar with the scholarly literature.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Academic sources provided, with more coming. Please do not make changes without consensus first (and you do not have consensus).Evildoer187 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that Doron Behar's newest 2013 study be added as a source next to "other Levantines" and "other Europeans" in the "related ethnic groups" section

I suggest that this link: "http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints" be added to "other Levantines" and "other Europeans" in the related ethnic groups section. The reason I think this link should be included is because Doron Behar's newest study concluded that: "Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region."

Is there any opposition? 84.108.30.185 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No. It is a preprint, and we have, with other similar preprints (Elhaik etc.) regarding this argument, always waited for the actual publication. There is anoher reason for delay: Behar's preprint was made in October before the Richards and de Costa study came out. Since Richards and de Costa arrive at different conclusions and emphases to those made by Behar's team, Behar said he would answer them (possibly in the revised version of that preprint). So far, 7 months have passed and, unless I'm mistaken, the preprint hasn't been published. Behar's teams work is, by the way, identified as working within an ideological context and aim, well described here (pp.125-8. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So... I suppose there is opposition... Alright, but Nishidani, if Behar would have had a political aim, wouldn't he only conclude a European/Middle Eastern/Caucasian origin? I mean, his conclusion was that Ashkenazis derive their genetic ancestry and heritage mainly from Middle Eastern and European origin, he wasn't exclusive on anything. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This place is supposed to be rule-guided. Evildoer has just inverted WP:Burden (for which I am preparing a report) and now you first ask permission, find an objection, and then go ahead anyway. The objection is technical. We don't use preprints here usually, and Behar's preprint is taking an inordinately long time to get formally published. There may be problems with it, I don't know. The objection therefore is technical. I don't care one way or another about the content. You should revert yur addition to the article, and exercise patience, like I, for one, do.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani you're right, I'll revert it. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's both proper and courteous. I might add that most of the DNA stuff is too provisory to take, at this early stage, seriously. Apart from the pressure to get the 'right results', the science is so rapid and changing that research is overthrown, contradicted, challenged from years to year (if a philosopher looked at the logic of these kinds of inferences, he would be horrified: the science is one thing, the logic of interpretation another, and that is where POVs obtrude.). Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I hope that in at least a decade results will be more permanent than ever changing. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)