Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Wexler removal

In his violent revert of everything I had added to this page, Tritomex deleted Wexler on the origins of Yiddish. There are several theories about the origin of Yiddish, not one, as the page asserts, in violation of WP:NPOV. There was the degraded Hebrew theory, the jargonized High German theory, the Bavarian theory, the Sorbian theory etc. They are all surveyed in Neil G. Jacobs Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction,Cambridge University Press,2005 in the long introduction to this vexed topic (pop.6ff.) All these are theories and remain such, and no one theory can be allowed to pass as a fact, which is how this article pretends is the case. --Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Wexler you wrote on this page "I don't espouse these views, of course. I just note that several important scholars to my knowledge challenge the assertion in this section of the page. I'd appreciate some review of this" and latter, you overrun this page and presented a minority view as an established fact in direct example of what is POV editing. I have nothing against inclusion of Wexler view, however only as parallel with the majority and mainstream scholar opinion about the origin of Yiddish and not as concluded, established fact. More so this is not an article about Yiddish language--Tritomex (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Total misrepresentation. So, if you can't construe simple English, desist from talking to me. Jacobs says there is no mainstream scholar(ly) opinion now about the origins of Yiddish. Read the sources before coming back here.--Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It is most fascinating how any revert can e "violent." Also, what makes you think Tritomexi is a "he"? --Jethro B 14:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A 'violent' revert is when one edit covering two distinct topics in different parts of a text is reverted on the strength that you object to one of the edits. It means the deleter is removing everything done by a person without discriminating and evaluating the respective merits of each particular edition. That is hostile editing.

See WP:SOAP. This isn't the place to complain about editors or that an article doesn't fit your standards --Jethro B 15:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By chance I check a page while reading a book. I note that it is totally out of sync with wiki criteria and practices, and in many places full of poor sources and dubious material. I make one edit, it suffers a total revert, ostensibly about genetics, but removing everything else, on yiddish from one of the world's foremost authorities (one position among several as I began to edit in relevant material). Shrike arrives, Jethro arrives, NMMGG arrives, and, saying nothing of the lamentably phrased, incoherent edits by Tritomex, you all passively back him by kibitzing on the talk page. That behaviour, over dozens of pages, is not neutral. It is a disturbing pattern, and means that people like myself cannot trust the 'community' to enter a page and analyse all behaviour in terms of policy and the merits of each specific edit without regard to who is editing. I am profiled, I assume, as 'anti-Jewish', and therefore need a cohort of control? It's a bloc partisan behavioural pattern. Tritomex knows nothing of the subjects treated because the sources he adduces are all web sites or googled according to need. All of that crap he put in yesterday is stale, or useless, or contained in an excellent monograph published this year by Toch who dismisses much of the reportage in those JVL sources as erroneous deductions from Church fantasies about the Jews. Archeology is what counts, or direct report from Jewish sources, not Christian sources, which are often suspect because of their need for raising the spectre of Jewish threats. All over Byzantium, the mediterranean littoral and Italy the Jewish presence is attested by epitaphs and synogogue remains. There is almost nothing of this in the north until very late. It's really pointless when WP:AGF is challenged by such behaviour to do anything other that directly edit the text.|}--Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This from the hatnote is pertinent to the problem. It explains why Tritomex's 4 sources are inadequate for encyclopedic work,

All of what Tritomexe put in yesterday is stale, or useless, or contained in an excellent monograph published this year by Toch who dismisses much of the reportage in those JVL sources as erroneous deductions from Church fantasies about the Jews. Archeology is what counts, or direct report from Jewish sources, not Christian sources, which are often suspect because of their need for raising the spectre of Jewish threats. All over Byzantium, the mediterranean littoral and Italy the Jewish presence is attested by epitaphs and synogogue remains. There is almost nothing of this in the north until very late. --Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with content. Seriously, let EVERYONE focus on the content and stop questioning each other's faith and "testing" each other. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nishidani - Do me a favor, dial it back a notch. Some of the rhetoric is just a bit much, and while you might not mean to, your tone is coming off as a bit uncivil and soapbox-ish. Everyone is participating in good faith, lets just remember that and discuss in a calm fashion, please. I have no interest in the subject matter, only in everyone getting along long enough to figure out what is the best content. Everyone needs to just focus on cooperating a bit. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC) You're looking at a few words, and dismissing as rhetoric what I believe to be a legitimate issue of poor editing. Perhaps Tritomex is in good faith. The fact is he established a principle for me, and reverted a mass of academically sourced material, which he then violated in order to edit in what he prefers, and subsequently spattered the page with extremely poor googled sources. I have repeatedly asked him and now Jethro to explain to me why I cannot include a genetic paper in a history section, and Tritomex can do so. His revert asserted that these papers were not to be added to this section. He then added two. It's very easy to talk about AGF on the basis of a few words of exasperation. AGF means, assume good faith. Review, and tell me if it is proof of good faith, to violate principles you ask others to observe, and consistently over two days refuse to explain the anomaly. Thanks --Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Except you've made a lot of comments unrelated to the point of a content dispute and which violate AGF. It isn't AGF, and it's unrelated to the content dispute, to accuse others of tagteaming and profiling you as anti-Semitic; accuse someone of failing to construe English; accusing me (as you later said it was directed to me) of making a revert that "fucked up" some stuff when I never made a single revert on this article, etc. All of these are unnecessary. --Jethro B 19:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC) You totally misread all of your evidence. I never said you used a revert to fuck up a lot of relevant work from quality sources. I said the revert was done by Tritomex. Read again. --Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Thank you for that clarification, although I'd remind you that's one of out a few edits I chose. --Jethro B 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC) If you want to appear usefully neutral, by all means make a fuss about my edits. What is disturbing is that you came here and have focused singularly on what I am arguing, and have said not a word about your judgement on the merits of Tritomex's many edits to the article and comments. My view is that they show severe defects. Perhaps I may be wrong (I certainly am not wrong on his cancellation of my evidence that there are several theories about the origins of Yiddish, everyone but him knows that). No one, no matter where he or she is coming from, gets things invariably right on complex issues, and yet you and a few others, come in and set your sights on me, whose only claim to be a decent editor is that I insist on the highest quality RS, and precise English in articles. I assume good faith, when I observe editors using their independent judgement to review what all editors argue on a page. And please desist from showcasing a few stray remarks in frustration or comic relief from the boredom of consistently being talked past, while ignoring the substance of the evidence produced.--Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC) With the highest respect, while I freely admit that I cum into many places, I certainly did not come in here and "set my sights" on you. The simplest proof is the fact I'm looking at a computer screen, the next proof is only I can read my mind. But this is another example of a wild conspiracy theory aimed at editors, and it does not contribute whatsoever to a discussion. Paranoia doesn't help. --Jethro B 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Pun appreciated but I have a very good ear for tone, and don't believe it. Where have you commented on Tritomex's edits. Where have you corrected the many grammatical errors he has made in his edits? or the factual errors of misreporting things any Jewish person who knows her history would sight instantly as incorrect (for instance for the weird idea Jews were only present in the 1st century in Italy, two centuries off what his source says?) I'll let you in on a secret. I've deliberately left them uncorrected, as I always do, to quietly observe if editors are actually reading the edits made by others which I have to cope with. He has made many very obvious errors in grammar and usage, and you, for one, have not made the easy corrections. Is it paranoia to infer that you spend a lot of time looking at what I write, while ignoring what Tritomex is doing? --Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC) He's made grammatical errors, as have you (consider this comment, where you write the word "drop" twice and misuse semicolons). I've noticed them. So? It's generally considered impolite to go through another person's edits and fix it, unless you have explicit permission from that editor. Not everyone on Wikipedia speaks perfect English. It isn't my job to correct mistakes, unless the editor requests that I do so. But again, this is a lack of WP:AGF - while indeed I have read the comments, and refrained from changing them because I didn't write them, you're assuming that to be not reading the comments. And quite honestly, there isn't any merit or reason to believe that because I'm not changing someone else's comments, I haven't read it. --Jethro B 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I've tried to make this point to Nishidani many times in the past. Everyone makes mistakes when posting, including Nishidani himself. The only person who makes a big deal out of it and insists on correcting and berating others for everything from simple typos to grammar and punctuation is him. Now apparently if you don't act like a condescending prick you're not reading others' comments. Lovely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Uh, both of you have missed the point. It's no problem making those errors on the talk page, as per your example. I could cite numerous examples from the talk pages. There is a different rhythm here: it's chat no one ever looks at but those engaged on it. It is everything when simple errors of syntax, of spelling and whatnot are made in edits to the article, and that is what I was indicating when I cited the fact that he introduced a source on Italian Jews without reading it closely, since it gets the dates out by two centuries, despite the fact that the source loudly registers, as do specialist monographs, the fact that Jews were settled in Italy as early as the Maccabees. It is your job, and mine, and NMMGG's, and everyone's, to correct errors of grammar and source use in the article, particularly when someone who has got a shaky grasp of the language edits. None of you did. I assume therefore none of you took care to closely examine the quality of Tritomex's edits to the article.--Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issue

. This article under the history section, has the following sentence.

'There is a genetic and historic(al) evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.'

This generalization on the genetic evidence, as opposed to historical evidence, is well supported in much of the scholarly literature. No dispute. There is, however, recent evidence which challenges this.

A major authority in the field, Avshalom Zoosmann-Diskin, is on record as disagreeing with our article's statement of one theory as a fact. In a 2010 paper he writes:-

(a) The origin of Eastern European Jews, (EEJ) by far the largest and most important Ashkenazi population, and their affinities to other Jewish and European populations are still not resolved.'

His paper then compares

(b)two competing theories regarding the origin of EEJ,

His conclusion is:-

(c) The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin. The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population.p.4

In short, in the technical literature there appear to be two positions. Can neutral third parties clarify what WP:NPOV requires here, and whether or not it is legitimate to exclude mentioning the other scholarly position which contests the generalization we have?Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are a couple of problems with this RfC. 1. It makes no suggestion on how the text should be changed. 2. It does not state the issue in a neutral manner. An editor has provided about a dozen sources that support the current text (which, by the way, says that there is evidence that supports something, not that the evidence proves it) and only one source that challenges it. Zoosmann-Diskin's theory, as far as has been shown here, is not supported by other scholars, which makes it FRINGE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Make positive suggestions for improving the RfC by all means. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  You should post specific text you want included in the article. Open ended RfCs don't usually end with a consensus for a specific change in my experience. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  The very simple sentence I included in the article was immediately wiped out. It could have been tweakes, as indeed several tweaks, after my comments, have been made, unsuccessfully to the original sentence. The result is not satisfactory.

Since there is a resolute 4 to 1 challenge to my questioning of the compliance of this sentence to NPOV (b) since the sentence is solecistic and ungrammatical but of the 4 no one will change it (c) since my only attempt to alter the sentence got an immediate revert supported by 4 people who will not edit the article to correct its patent and uncontroversial errors, I am seeking wider community input on that sentence. I'm not looking for a consensus in the RfC. I'm looking for fresh eyes that can read a sentence, construe it against the adversary evidence, and see if it complies with NPOV. I think the best thing is for us all to shut up and patiently await third party input. Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Things that are simple to do.

(1)'Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.'(WP:NPOV)

Leaving aside for the moment the outstanding issue, which consists of Tritomex's refusal, in contravention of WP:NPOV: to allow me to register Zoossmann-Diskin's explicit note, as a geneticist, that there are two competing theories':

('In order to compare two competing theories regarding the origin of EEJ, their geographic distances were computed as if they originated from Italy or Israel, i.e. the great circle distances for EEJ were calculated not between Warsaw and other capitals, but between Rome or Jerusalem and other capitals.')

There are some things we can surely agree on:

• As Tritomex reminds me, the page, though on Ashkenazi, has a section on European Jews before the Ashkenazi. As documented above, it has a huge volume, exceeding half of the section, on Judaism outside Europe, mainly in Babylonia. I have suggested this be removed, since it is amply covered in multiple pages, and has no place here. What we need is more work on the topic of the section, not irrelevant blobs on non-European Judaism. May that then be trimmed by removing the paras I listed above?
• Toch's book on the economic history of European Jews, which I have introduced, covers all of the points raised by the several articles Tritomex introduced yesterday. I believe academic cutting-edge books, if they cover the field, should replace general, often dated, sources that are either partisan, or not attributed. Is it okay to replace them with Toch and other specialist academic sources that cover the same material?
• Jacobs gives several theories for the origins of Yiddish, as does Wexler. Tritomex removed all of my work on this section and reconfirmed the old theory, thus recreating a POV imbalance. The standard Weinreich theory we have now as the truth has now been challenged and finessed. The cutting edge denies things are so simple. May then I update and rewrite that to show the complexity of theories?Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not "refuse to allow you" to write down Zoossmann-Diskin study. In fact I proposed you to write it down and place it in genetic section. I presented in upper section some of other studies which have to be presented with ZD in order to maintain WP:NPOV giving each the same merit as ZD. I took on myself a task to write it down if you insist on the inclusion of that single genetic study in the historic and not in to genetic section. So by this I showed maximal constructiveness and good faith.

Considering the section "European Jews before the Ashkenazi" I am not sure what your intention and proposal is right now:

• a) To remove it altogether ?
• b) To include alternative views on Yiddish to that section?
• c To include all genetic studies to that section?

--Tritomex (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• • You added two genetic articles to a section on history, and removed Zoosmann-Diskin from that section on the grounds that genetic articles cannot be used in the history section. What you did, with your revert, and arguments, is in the record. You have refused to explain this contradiction in your editing.--Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please reread what I wrote. The proposals are clear. Focus on what was said, and by all means give me some feedback.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering Yiddish language, although I am not sure that the scope of this article should go in the theories about the origin of Yiddish I would propose the inclusion of the view presented by Dr Robert King

[1] Dr King believes that huge Jewish community originating from Middle East migrated from Middle East since biblical times and established itself in territories of nowadays Germany very early. According to Dr King, This Hebrew and Aramaic speaking community developed Yiddish language. Also, Bernard Beck in the same book: page 78 propose that Polish, Lithuanian, Russian Jews may have lived on that territory since the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Although this is alternative position,if we decide to include other alternative positions I would propose the inclusion of this one too.--Tritomex (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Also we should include the view of Sorbian specialist Heinz-Schuster-Sewc of the University of Leipzig, who is of he opinion that a Slavic ancestor of Yiddish “never existed” and is a pure “product of [Mr. Wexler’s] imagination.”--Tritomex (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I made three clear proposals as to how, uncontroversially, work on other issues. Let's deal with them one by one. First the proposal to remove (see above, I copied out them out above) matter having nothing to do with the topic announced by the section heading. Please discuss these point by point, in logical order. Do you agree to removing all the material (Mesopotamia etc.) not bearing on the pre Ashkenazi Jews of Europe?--Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(::As to Yiddish, it is not our purpose here to adjudicate who is right. The minimal requirement is to register as per Jacobs and others, the four theories proposed, succinctly. This is no place (the Yiddish language article is the place) to cram the section with rebuttals of each. --Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

I do not think that we should give Jacobs an exclusivity of opinion regarding the origin of Yiddish. This would be POV, if other theories like those I mentioned above wont be included, in the same way as the insertion of Wexler controversial ideas have to be balanced with the criticism from other experts as in other case we will again have POV;

Therefore I propose Wexler to the artickle about Yiddish language. The scope of this article will be drastically enlarged if we include all linguistic theories and population genetic studies. Also, I do not understand the reason why we should remove from historic section, important historic facts about the Jewish history predating the formation of Ashkenazi community while we are close to consensus to include ALL genetic studies to the same section. Your argument that " I have suggested this be removed, since it is amply covered in multiple pages", is unfounded and at least controversial as you had previously proposed linguistic theories and single non-mainstream genetic study insertion in the same section regarding Jewish history. While the linguistic theories are already covered in the article relating to Yiddish,this genetic study is "covered in multiple pages" and it has already a place in this article genetic section. My proposal is to include all genetic studies, special tables regarding the findings of each study in relation to the Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews (to avoid eventual POV)(although per source we would have 20 Middle Eastern references and 1 undecided) and to leave Yiddish linguistic theories for the article about Yiddish language. --Tritomex (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC) I think we cant put equality sign between the mainstream opinion and alternative opinion. There is no equality between those who deny the Holocaust, or the existence of Palestinian people and those who reject this view in the same way as there is no equality between those who are stating that Yiddish is Germanic language and Wexler.. That does not mean that we should avoid alternative opinion, but it do not goes in to lead, it should be in part of articles dealing specifically with this issues, or mentioned in separate sections without promoting minority claims to the equal importance with mainstream opinion.Considering Atzmon and Behar their fidomgs are supported by 20 another genetic studies, while Zoosman Disskin is not supported by any other genetic study, therefore its by logical definition of the meaning of mainstream (the prevailing current of thought)[2] do not represent mainstream opinion and has it place only with other studies in genetic section. (WP:UNDUE) "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." --Tritomex (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tritomex about the UNDUE issue. From the sources presented here, it would seem that ZD's findings don't jive with about 20 other high quality papers, so there's no reason to give him equal weight. As for Wexler, from the little digging around I did I don't see much support for his theory either. If there are other sources that support him, please post them here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Check the dates. Z-D is 2010. Almost all of Tritomex's papers predate that, and therefore his evidence for 'consensus' is useless.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

His evidence for consensus is not "useless" if one scholar disagrees with it, particularly if that scholar published a paper almost two years ago and nobody else has supported him since. Even if that wasn't the case, ZD's opinion would need to be mentioned in proportion to its prominence, at about 20:1. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please check the dates, and the primary research focus of his 20 odd papers. A good many of them are to do, not with Ashkenazi, (mentioned en passant) but other Jewish populations. The only acceptable evidence for the several assertions made here are papers dealing specifically with Z-D's Ashkenazi research. You are all making judgements that should be drawn from what geneticists say, commenting on each others work. --Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro provided a good very recent review paper I think review papers are the best WP:RS.I think we should use the same logic as WP:MEDRS.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure Michael Balter's masters degree in biology is a better guide to the subject than Zoosmann-Diskin, Goldberg or Bray? Did you you read Jethro's link, Shrike? It says this (which is what Zoosmann-Diskin is arguing). His autosomatic marker evidence is bound to give a different angle that those who concentrate as most of those papers do, on the male genetic evidence.

given the findings of a common genetic origin plus a complex history of admixture, geneticist David Goldstein of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, says that neither of the "extreme models"—those that see Jewishness as entirely cultural or entirely genetic—"are correct." Rather, Goldstein says, "Jewish genetic history is a complicated mixture of both genetic continuity from an ancestral population and extensive admixture." Michael Balter Tracing the Roots of Jewishness, Science Now, 3 June 2010,

Goldstein, Bray and Zoosmann-Diskin are looking at the admixture. Goldstein confirms that there are "two models" independently from Zoosmann-Diskin. You are all objecting to my inclusion of the other of the two models, and that violates NPOV. When your Jewish genome has 30-60% European admixture, you come from the Middle East and you come from Europe.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Jewish genome??? What in the world makes you think any of the editors here are even Jewish for such an assumption to be cast? --Jethro B 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, really! Check any introduction to English grammar under possessive adjectives for simple clarifications of how 'your' in, say, 'your average guy' etc., does not refer to you, my interlocutor as possessing the average guy: it is a topic marker. Good grief. The length people go to see malice.--Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

When your Jewish genome has 30-60% European admixture, you come from the Middle East and later mixed with Europeans. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so we're all Africans, descended from Lucy, and then went to the Middle East or the USA. Not according to Z-D who knows more about this than all 5 of us, multiplied by 100.--Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How would you go about quantitatively definining knowledge and then multiplying it?? I can't take such a statement at face value, a statement that I believe to be egregiously false, and not just because its' an exaggeration, but because it's an assumption. And when people assume... Well, you know. --Jethro B 23:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

ZD is vastly outnumbered by other people who each know more about this than all 5 of us, multiplied by 100. But I guess only his opinion counts since it's what Nishidani wants to hear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you both address the issues. All of this talk of a mythical 20 papers is just an unexamined list of papers prerdating mostly Z-D's fabrication of one editor's imagination. Address the policy issue. And NMMGG, stop the repeated suggestion that this is about wanting to enter my POV. It's about RS. We are obliged to register all significant views, and two authorities have been cancelled. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An unexamined list? That's a good one. Go and examine it then.

I get it, it's not your POV. It just happens to be one of the favorite issues of people who share your POV on other stuff, so I guess I got confused because of the coincidence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your error again is to personalize this. All theories have a POV fallout. Progress is made by people who examine the technical evidence, not by people who are blinded by the potential POV fallout. As a linguist, I have absolutely no 'belief' in who is right re the origins of Yiddish. The theories are extremely technical and consensus is lacking. As to the genetic origins, they conflict with huge problems every medieval historian of note has stated - that to explain the growth of a population that was in the 10s of thousands, to several million in 4 centuries requires an exponential growth unattested in the history of mankind, since it is twice the highest rate of all other populations for similar post-bottleneck phenomena. Read the statistical breakdown in Jits van Staten. Every historian is puzzled by this. No geneticist has an answer. Therefore, in the history section on origins one must per NPOV deal in the best provisory theories, and not trot out a hackneyed line that assumes Yiddish is a German dialect, and all Ashkenazi hail from the Middle East, which suppresses the fact that a large part of the ancestors of the Ashkenazi did not hail from the Middle East etc.etc. Everyone who has opposed my desire to improve this page has refrained from improving it, as I proposed to do. Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When I see you insisting on including such fringe theories about Palestinians I may stop personalizing this. In the meanwhile, you fought tooth and nail in the face of multiple RS against any change in the Palestinian People article, so your words ring quite hollow.

That Yiddish is a German dialect is supported by practically every linguist except Wexler. Now it's "hackneyed" (a spelling mistake! Remind me to ridicule and berate you for it later) and the majority view is equally provisory as the theory only one guy espouses. You ask me not to personalize but I have to wonder why you don't show such dedication to including what every single unsupported scholar (and sometimes just a guy with no expertise who wrote a book) says when dealing with other issues. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

" When your Jewish genome has 30-60% European admixture, you come from the Middle East and you come from Europe"- This demonstrates lacking of basic genetic knowledge. Bray and all clearly demonstrates(and writes it down) as others that the origin of Ashkenazi Jews is Middle Easter, followed by latter genetic admixture in Europe. This is what all studies do confirm. As I have said above I do not see the reason why the historic paths of Jewish migration to Europe and the well sourced material which explain the parts of Jewish history predating the establishment of European Jewish community (and which in fact explains how European Jewish community was created) should be removed. I do not support such idea.- Considering the attempt to translate the negation of two "extreme models" of pure cultural and pure genetic Jewishness to a support for ZD thesis is manipulative dangerous construct. In fact we have here the negation of ZD and support to all scholarly findings which explains that it Jewishness is not only cultural or genetic. This "extreme models" do relate to pseudo-scientific claims such as Khazar theory, Nazi racial theory and has nothing to with any scientific genetic findings or studies and he certainly do not address specifically ZS theories The origin of any people do not exclude latter admixture, nor latter admixture negate the origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 09:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, live and learn. Now we have the theory that the Ashkenazi come from somewhere in the middle of Easter. Seriously, looking past your lexical misprision, by the same logic, Tuscan Italians, including Dante Alighieri, came or come from the Middle East(Achilli A, Olivieri A, Pala M, et al. 'Mitochondrial DNA variation of modern Tuscans supports the near eastern origin of Etruscans,' American Journal of Human Genetics, vol.80, No.4 (2007) pp=759–68. I can see no evidence here that anyone has read either the papers cited, or the complex historical and linguistic debates many of which contest the simplifications about both language and historical origins which we are given in several of those papers.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What you write is repetitious and ignores the simple requests for clarification I am making.

All studies do not confirm. So please desist from interpreting the material. Proper procedure is to see what geneticists say of each others' views, and record their opinions on the relevant page. We are not permitted to have our own opinions here, nor to allow them to influence what RS state.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I requested that we deal with three issues in order (a) (b) (c), and ignore genetics. The first request is to address the fact that in a section on the European Jews before the Ashkenazi there a four large paragraphs dealing with Adot ha-mizrach, namely the Jews in the Near East, in Mesopotamia etc. Please respond to this, and once resolved, I will address in order the other two points. This is the third time I have repeated a request to Tritomex to address the first issue (a). He refuses to, and keeps talking about genetics (which I excluded) and Yiddish (c). Please address the merits of proposal (a) first.--Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani We had days of exhausting talks regarding genetics, genetics is presented in the first and second sentence of your comments in this section of the talk page. I would strongly like to finish the issue of genetics and I am sure we would have after than many times more easier task to agree on your new proposals. Please Let us finish first the older and bigger issue, and than we can move forward much faster to new ones.--Tritomex (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote at the top of this section. I'm here to write articles, not to waste time in repeating myself to people who repeat themselves. An RfC is required for the genetics (see the new section I have now added), since you have systematically avoided replying to my 2 questions. I have therefore, rationally, decided to look at what can be done rapidly to improve an indifferent page. I listed three things, other than genetics. They are more important than one line on the page. Please address them. (a) is a very simple call. If you haven't an opinion, fine. If you have an opinion, state it.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained above the reasons why I do oppose the removal of historic material related to the establishment of European Jewish community. Also I explained why I oppose giving exclusivity to Jacobs theories relating to origin of Yiddish language especially as there are other theories and because due to (WP:UNDUE) the prevailing view on subject must be presented as such. Concerning the book "The Economic History of European Jews" I think this book is a good scholarly source and can be used together with other scholarly sources related to specific subjects.Tritomex (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have I missed it. Please linked me to the edit where you argue that extensive material on Mesopotamia Jewish academies (the genetics papers say they split from the Ashkenazi Jews around 500 BCE) is appropriate background to a section on the 'History of Jews in Europe before the Ashkenazim'. In no GA or FA article would such otherwise totally irrelevant blobs of material be tolerated.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, when you write:'I oppose giving exclusivity to Jacobs theories relating to origin of Yiddish language especially as there are other theories and because due to (WP:UNDUE) the prevailing view on subject must be presented as such,' all you are doing is providing further proof that you haven't read the source. The book is this. Anyone who has troubled to even check the first pages of the book would realize that it does not deal with 'Jacobs' theories'. There is a vast difference between 'Jacobs' theories' and 'the theories Jacobs surveys'. Jacobs analyses the various theories proposed by numerous scholars on the origins of Yiddish. Please desist from pretending you have any familiarity with sources which your remarks show you haven't read. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with different new accusation of other editors. As I have said there is no reason to give exclusivity only to those theories which comes from Jacobs, because there are other theories [3] which are not mentioned by him and the avoidance to name them would be POV. Therefore abd because the scope of this article is limited while Yiddish is not the main subject here, I proposed to leave this thesis to the article of the Yiddish language.

I do not see "extensive material on Mesopotamia Jewish academies " in this article this is your subjective view. The long standing form explains in very short way the historic circumstances which led to the establishment of European Jewish population. Show exactly what you want to remove. This sentences is maybe not needed here,"The influential, sophisticated, and well organized Jewish community of Mesopotamia, now centered in Baghdad, became the center of the Jewish world. In the Caliphate of Baghdad, Jews took on many of the financial occupations that they would later hold in the cities of Ashkenaz." Also I cant find in the source this claim " Over this period of several hundred years, some have suggested, Jewish economic activity was focused on trade, business management, and financial services, due to several presumed factors: Christian European prohibitions restricting certain activities by Jews, preventing certain financial activities (such as "usurious" loans" this also maybe be better to be removed, the rest is from my point of view related material.Tritomex (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You said you had replied to this edit, citing those paragraphs which have nothing to do with the section head. You never did. Reread the excerpts. Tell me what they have to do with the topic of the article. If there are no policy-based objections, then they should be removed.

The passage you cite (I am responsible for none of the text of this lamentably bad article) is, like much else poorly phrased. There were Jews and Christians who traded? big deal. At any one period the pre-Ashkenazi, say Carolingian, Jewish traders were mostly regional merchants, relatively insignificant in volume compared to Christian traders. I don't see why this is noteworthy either. By all means remove it.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• After the Roman empire had overpowered the Jewish resistance in the First Jewish–Roman War in Judea and destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the complete Roman takeover of Judea followed the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132–135 CE. Though their numbers were greatly reduced, Jews continued to populate large parts of Judaea province (renamed to Palaestina), remaining a majority in Galilee for several hundred years. However, the Romans no longer recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin or any other Jewish body, and Jews were prohibited from living in Jerusalem. Outside the Roman Empire, a large Jewish community remained in Mesopotamia. Other Jewish populations could be found dispersed around the Mediterranean region, with the largest concentrations in the Levant, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece"

• This section explains the historic pattern of the creation of European Jewish communities. Therefor it is related to subject and should stay

• In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, where Jewish religious scholarship was centered, the majority of Jews were still engaged in farming, as demonstrated by the preoccupation of early Talmudic writings with agriculture. In diaspora communities, trade was a common occupation, facilitated by the easy mobility of traders through the dispersed Jewish communities.

• Jewish traders as Radhanite played significant role in facilitating Jewish migrations to Europe as well as Jewish migrations between Europe and Asia from 6th century onward. Therefore this section probably should stay

• In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, the spoken language of Jews continued to be Aramaic, but elsewhere in the diaspora, most Jews spoke Greek. Conversion and assimilation were especially common within the Hellenized or Greek-speaking Jewish communities, amongst whom the Septuagint and Aquila of Sinope (Greek translations and adaptations of the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible) were the source of scripture.

Not related to subject-This can be removed

• After the Islamic conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, new opportunities for trade and commerce opened between the Middle East and Western Europe. The vast majority of Jews now lived in Islamic lands. Urbanization, trade, and commerce within the Islamic world allowed Jews, as a highly literate people, to abandon farming and live in cities, engaging in occupations where they could use their skills.[27] The influential, sophisticated, and well organized Jewish community of Mesopotamia, now centered in Baghdad, became the center of the Jewish world.

Not related to subject-can be removed --Tritomex (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed what there is no dispute about. In writing pages one uses sources that refer to the topic of those pages to avoid WP:OR. In sections that are highly specific, this rule is particularly important. The following passages are still not documented as relevant to the section.

After the Roman empire had overpowered the Jewish resistance in the First Jewish–Roman War in Judea and destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the complete Roman takeover of Judea followed the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132–135 CE. Though their numbers were greatly reduced, Jews continued to populate large parts of Judaea province (renamed to Palaestina), remaining a majority in Galilee for several hundred years. However, the Romans no longer recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin or any other Jewish body, and Jews were prohibited from living in Jerusalem.

even were genetic articles relevant to historical questions, which I argue they are not, in those terms there is a problem. All the genetic evidence adduced says the split between these two wings of Jewry occurred about 600 years before the Roman war and Bar-Kochba. What has a passage dealing with Jews remaining in Palestine after the two wars got to do with Diaspora Jews in Europe?

'In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, where Jewish religious scholarship was centered, the majority of Jews were still engaged in farming, as demonstrated by the preoccupation of early Talmudic writings with agriculture. In diaspora communities, trade was a common occupation, facilitated by the easy mobility of traders through the dispersed Jewish communities.'

You defend this by saying:'Jewish traders as Radhanite played significant role in facilitating Jewish migrations to Europe as well as Jewish migrations between Europe and Asia from 6th century onward. Therefore this section probably should stay.

(a) there is nothing in our article about Radhanite traders. (b) The assertion that Rhadanites facilitated Jewish migrations to Europe needs strong documentation. By all means add some sources from the specialist literature if you have them (c) there is no sure historical evidence linking the pre-Ashkenazi European Jews with the Rhadanites, whos activities in Christian Europe are enigmatic and speculative. No records exist of Babylonian area Jews trading in Europe at this period. (d) Jewish merchants trading with Arabs at the turn of the millenium were confined to the areas under Islamic power, and most of the mediterranean trade with Europe was done by Christian merchants.(e) the evidence for mobility of traders through dispersed Jewish communities has been strongly contested by Toch. There are good grounds for simply writing: 'early West European Jews were affluent because the strong tradition of literacy characteristic of Judaism in the firt millenium, and their occupations in trading, professions and crafts afforded them better means than those to be gained from agricultural activities.'Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Radhenites were indeed Babylonian Jews [4] whose trade was centered to and from Europe. Their role in Jewish migrations to Europe has been supported by population genetic studies [5] and by historians [6] Scientifically Population genetics is much more accurate science than historic interpretation which can not provide direct proves and in many cases is based on secondary and indirect sources, sometimes subjective interpretation of historic facts. This is not just my personal view, this is becoming the prevailing view in historic science of last decade and has been the prevailing view in population genetic science its beginnings few decades ago. The current edition explains the conditions in Palestine after Roman take over which led to the Jewish immigration and the creation of Jewish Diaspora. [7] --Tritomex (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Please try to restrict your comments to what you can, if challenged, refer back to academic sources. The following remark is out of place, being a personal opinion.

Scientifically Population genetics is much more accurate science than historic interpretation which can not provide direct proves and in many cases is based on secondary and indirect sources

this is becoming the prevailing view in historic science of last decade and has been the prevailing view in population genetic science its beginnings few decades ago

Unless you have RS from academic historians on this, you are just expressing your personal views. Stick to the issues. The genetics paper would never get past RSN. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not going now into the significance of population genetics, I will do it maybe when it will be the main subject as I am very much familiar with this issue. Regarding sources I presented above, this are scholarly views on subject and are mentioned in relation to the Jewish migration associated with traders. I would point out to additional sources like Joel Mokyr The Oxford Encyclopedia of economic history Oxford University Press 2010 P.204--Tritomex (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish community in Cologne

. Two edicts of Constantine (Cod. Theod. 16:8, 3–4) of 321 and 331 respectively imposed the onerous Curia duties on the Jews of Cologne and exempted the officials of their community from the obligations incumbent on the lower class of citizens . Acording to the Jewish encyclopedia There are indications that a Jewish community existed here long before Christianity had become dominant. The first official document, however, concerning the Jews of Cologne dates from the time of Constantine, who issued a decree (Dec. 11, 321) abolishing their privilege of exemption from onerous municipal offices ("Codex Theodosianus," iii. 16, 8). His successors, especially Theodosius II., did not content themselves with the withdrawal of old privileges, but curtailed the civic rights of the Jews. Happily for the Jews of Cologne, it fell, in 462, into the hands of the Franks; and a long period of freedom and prosperity for the Jews of that city followed, though many attempts were made by the fanatical clergy to disturb the harmony and interrupt the friendship existing between the Jews and the Christians.In 881 the Jewish community of Cologne ceased to exist, the city having been reduced to ashes by the Norman invaders. It was, however, soon rebuilt, and under the wise rule of the archbishops, which made the city a great industrial and commercial center, a prosperous and numerous Jewish community came into existence during the tenth century, accumulating material wealth and learning in an eminent degree. As in the old city, the Jews occupied a special quarter, situated between the city hall and the Church of St. Laurentius, although they were allowed to reside wherever they chose." From 341 an official document is existing about the establishment of Synagogue (Carl Dietmar, Die Chronik Kölns, p. 34)"Jews lived in Lower Germania since 1th century, but since 4th century they constituted a large and significant community" [8] Currently excavations reviled a synagogue from 8th century(mentioned by Toch on P 297) There are of course more additional materials related to historicity of Cologne Jewish community, therefore I propose the removal of dubious templates from clearly non dubious facts and sources related to the history of Jewish community in Germany from 4th century, especially from Cologne Jewish community itself.--Tritomex (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

New infobox images

Hello,

Due to the fact the article had a lot of images in different sizes it looked messy. I made a new selection and put:

• Albert Einstein - Probably the most famous scientist ever. His influence is seen in science and in popualar culture. German-American Jew.
• Sholem Aleichem - The biggest Yiddish writer ever, and Yiddish is the language of Ashkenazi Jews. Ukrainian-American Jew.
• Marc Chagall - The greatest Jewish painter and one of the greatest painters ever. Litvak-French Jew (Litvak=Belarus and Lithuania)
• Emmy Noether - The most important woman in the history of mathematics . German Jew.
• Felix Mendelssohn - The most famous Jewish composer ever. German Jew.
• Sigmund Freud - A founding father of psychoanalysis. Austrian-British Jew.
• Natalie Portman - One of the most famous actors today and winnder of the Academy Award. Israeli-American Jew (with origins in Romania and Poland).
• Franz Kafka - One of the greatest writers and history, and might be the greatest Jewish writer ever (him and Sholem Aleichem). Austro-Hungarian Jew (from the Czech Republic).

My selection was based on giving representation to as much fields as possible Ashkenazi Jews made an impact in!

In order to avoid controversy, I decided not to put political figures into it like Karl Marx, Ben Gurion or Herzel, again, due to the fact I assume there are Jews who support them and oppose to them. Due to the fact the article is about Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group I didn't put religious figures in it in order not to create confusion!

I hope the selection is OK :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danton's Jacobin (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Yona Metzger, currently the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel, should be included. Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Scholem Aleichem was removed from the infobox (just today), and why there continue to be no Yiddish writers/authors represented in the info box? This is clearly a misrepresentation of Ashkenazi Jews - Yiddish authors should be mentioned prominently, as Yiddish is one of the main characteristics attributed to Ashkenazis.Jimhoward72 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For WP:BLP reasons, it was agreed long ago that the box would contain no living people. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question - then why was Scholem Aleichem, who died a century ago, removed from the list? Why are there no Yiddish authors at all on the list, when the article contues to boast how significant Yiddish is as a quality of Ashkenazi Jews?Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The new image I created was reverted by Avaya1 with the argument: "infobox will not be changed, as arrived at after months of discussion on talk to reach consensus". Can we please get a link to that discussion? How come it was normal to add and remove things in the past and suddently someone decided: "Now it's locked and new people can't do anything?" I don't think anything can be "final" on Wikipedia, and if people feel there is a topic you can discuss than it will be discussed and might be changed.

The biggest Jewish writer, Sholem Aleichem, is not included which is as absurd as the English not including Shakespear in theirs. Chagall is one of the greatest artists ever, and the greatest Jewish, and not including him is like the Italians not including Da Vinci in theirs.

From the other hand, their are definitely too much politicians. Herzl, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir. I understand Herzl, but do they really need two prime ministers?

There are two musicians, Gershwin and Mahler, but the greatest Jewish musicion ever which is Mendelssohn is not included. Wouldn't it make more sense to include him?

I don't think the discussion is closed, on Wikipedia changes can be made as long as they are not based on false information or as long as they are not done by revert wars. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mendelssohn's parents renounced Judaism, did not have him circumcised, and had him baptized as a Lutheran. Perhaps not the best choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but ethnically he was still a Jew, and the article is about Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group. A Jew might be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, but converting will not change his ethnicity. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Mendelssohn considered himself a Jew. That's what they say in the article about him:

"Although Mendelssohn was a conforming (if not over-zealous) Lutheran by confession,[n 3] he was both conscious and proud of his Jewish ancestry and notably of his connection with his grandfather Moses Mendelssohn. He was the prime mover in proposing to the publisher Heinrich Brockhaus a complete edition of Moses's works, which continued with the support of his uncle Joseph Mendelssohn.[59] Mendelssohn was notably reluctant, either in his letters or conversation, to comment on his innermost beliefs; his friend Devrient wrote that "[his] deep convictions were never uttered in intercourse with the world; only in rare and intimate moments did they ever appear, and then only in the slightest and most humorous allusions".[60] Thus for example in a letter to his sister Rebecka, Mendelssohn rebukes her complaint about an unpleasant relative: "What do you mean by saying you are not hostile to Jews? I hope this was a joke [...] It is really sweet of you that you do not despise your family, isn't it?"[61]. Some modern scholars have devoted considerable energy to demonstrate that Mendelssohn was either deeply sympathetic to his Jewishness or sincere to his Lutheran beliefs (though there is in fact no reason to suppose these attitudes to be incompatible).[n 4]"

In the response to his sister you can see it. Mensch with Shteig (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, the new picture is really nice. I didn't like the old one at all. The only thing is, I think more people could have been added. For example Chaim Weizmann (I understand why you don't want politicians there, but the guy is not so much a politician as an activist and a scientist). Bob Dylan is also not a bad idea. Do you know any Jewish modern performer with more influence then him? I don't think so. Mark Spitz would be good as just to break the stereotype Jews are not good in sport. Barbra Streisand would be good because she's awesome. It's important to give enough representation to American Jews, simply because that's where most of them live. Mensch with Shteig (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I will add them tomorrow! I don't have any problems with your selection and I will do it, but I have to say that I don't think American Jews are underrepresented in the infobox. I added now near the names where they came from, 3/8 people in the infobox lived in America. I think 37.5% of the images is a lot due to the fact though now most Ashkenazi Jews live in America, that's not how it was in the past. But as I said, I will add tomorrow what you suggested. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Done :-) Added! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I added 4 more people, based on the suggestion of User:Mensch with Shteig. The people are:

• Chaim Weizmann - A great scientist who helped the allies to win WW1 and did a lot for the foundation of Israel, the first president. Belarusian/Polish-British-Israeli Jew.
• Bob Dylan - One of the most influencial rock musicians ever and the most influencial Jewish one! American Jew with roots in Ukraine and Lithuania.
• Barbra Streisand - One of the most commercially and critically successful entertainers in modern entertainment history. Won 8 Academy awards 140 million albums sold worldwide. American Jew with roots in Galicia.
• Mark Spitz - A swimmer and and a former world record holder. 9 gold medals. American Jew. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done for adding the people, the picture looks perfect now. I don't think 37.5% was enough, but it doesnt matter because what we have now is fine. Mensch with Shteig (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Sockpuppets now blocked.

Recommended revision of the first line

I would like to make a change of the first line, to: "Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim (Hebrew: אַשְׁכְּנַזִּים‎‎, Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation: [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], singular: [ˌaʃkəˈnazi], Modern Hebrew: [aʃkenaˈzim], [aʃkenaˈzi]; also יְהוּדֵי אַשְׁכֲּנַז Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Ashkenaz"), are the Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north, who trace their origins to the Fertile Crescent."69.248.98.23 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it presents a thesis, well-established, as a fact. The Loter or Rhine-Alsace hypothesis is just that.Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with your proposal, maybe there should be also some details about the time of origin. Highly specialized books are dealing with this question. Like for example Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA by Tony Nick Frudaki [9]--Tritomex (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose new edition to the lead: [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], singular: [ˌaʃkəˈnazi], Modern Hebrew: [aʃkenaˈzim], [aʃkenaˈzi]; also יְהוּדֵי אַשְׁכֲּנַז Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Ashkenaz") are ethnoreligious group which likely originated in Middle East, during the Bronze Age (from 2000 BC to 700 BC) and was probably formed as separate Jewish group in the region along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north during the Middle Age- [10]

The term likely and probably I would propose to be included not because there is a lack of RS from population genetics for this claim, as with my knowledge of population genetics I have no doubts regarding this question but because I would like to avoid any long-term dispute.--Tritomex (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that concessions should be made to those who want to raise a big stink over it, because it usually just comes from people with a political axe to grind. For instance, the article on Gypsies is rather explicit in placing their origins in South Asia, and it's known with about as much certainty that Ashkenazi Jews ultimately hail from the Levant. Ashkenazi origins, more than any other, are highly politicized so I'm trying to avoid caving into the demands of fanatics. This is an encyclopedia, after all.69.248.98.23 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I can accept your opinion because scientifically speaking, you are right. Genetically Ashkenazi Jews do originate from Middle East. If you would agree, I would only keep the term likely in the section of Rhineland.

So can we have agreement about this wording: [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], singular: [ˌaʃkəˈnazi], Modern Hebrew: [aʃkenaˈzim], [aʃkenaˈzi]; also יְהוּדֵי אַשְׁכֲּנַז Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Ashkenaz") are ethnoreligious group which originated in Middle East, during the Bronze Age (from 2000 BC to 700 BC) and was likely formed as separate Jewish group in the region along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north during the Middle Ages- --Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting closer, but still a little too muddled in my opinion. I would go with this: [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], singular: [ˌaʃkəˈnazi], Modern Hebrew: [aʃkenaˈzim], [aʃkenaˈzi]; also יְהוּדֵי אַשְׁכֲּנַז Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Ashkenaz") are an ethnic group who trace their origins to the Middle East, and settled along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north during the Middle Ages.

Thoughts?69.248.98.23 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know how to request an article change in semi-protected articles like this one?69.248.98.23 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in order to avoid further speculations-which regularly follows "settled along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north during the Middle Ages." could be challenged based on many different,sometimes non important reasons. If you have reliable source, which can back fully this, I agree to add in this form. If not use this one [11], this source can back my proposal. The time of the origin maybe needs to be mentioned...anyway all depends on source.--Tritomex (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The word "settled" needs to be included. The current version of the article says that they descend from the medieval Jewish communities in that part of Europe, hence the addendum "settled during the Middle Ages". That source you have there would work.

How do I request a change to this article?69.248.98.23 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this: [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], singular: [ˌaʃkəˈnazi], Modern Hebrew: [aʃkenaˈzim], [aʃkenaˈzi]; also יְהוּדֵי אַשְׁכֲּנַז Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Ashkenaz") are an ethnic group who trace their origins to the Levant, and settled along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north during the early Middle Ages.69.248.98.23 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said I agree with your proposal, but for the term "settled" we need references. With the material I have proposed as source I can succefully defend the term "formed" You are free, to go and proceed with your proposal immediately but you have to have RS references in order to be able to keep this long term. I propose to change the lead as soon as possible. Do not forget that Ashkenazi Jews did not settled immediately from Middle East to Rhineland, but went through Roman Empire and became distant Jewish ethnic group only at 8th-9th century. This is why I proposed my wording. However the most important thing is to start with the change, therefor go ahead with it now, with my wording if the task of defending the lead with reliable source, would be on my shoulders, or with your proposal if you have RS for your proposal.--Tritomex (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I think there should be an additional section to the article titled "conspiracy theories", primarily because Ashkenazi Jews were the principle subject of most if not all of them. These include the Rothschilds, blood libels, the murder of Christ, control of the banks and government institutions, Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, etc etc etc. There's also a paper here about how the Jews who settled in Europe were frequently victims of "Orientalism", and were considered the "Asiatics of Europe", because of their origins in the Middle East. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm Evildoer187 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources must specifically discuss the subject of the article, which is Ashkenazi Jews. I understand why you are adding this but it's against policy and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you add images to the infobox?

I have 8 more celebrities/famous figures I want to add to the image box, but I don't know how to implement them.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I will explain you how to do it this evening. Just note that it's better to discuss it first. Here is a link to the discussion: [12] please suggest who you want to add there. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So here is what we see on Ashkenazo Jews:

|image    =
<table border=0 align="center">
<tr>
<td>[[File:Einstein 1921 portrait2.jpg|95x95px|Einstein]]</td>
<td>[[File:Sholem Aleichem 1907.jpg|95x95px|Aleichem]]</td>
<td>[[File:Chagall France 1921.jpg|95x95px|Chagall]]</td>
<td>[[File:Noether.jpg|95x95px|Noether]]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>[[File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy.jpg|95x95px|Mendelssohn]]</td>
<td>[[File:Sigmund Freud LIFE.jpg|95x95px|Freud]]</td>
<td>[[File:Natalie Portman - TIFF2010 01.jpg|95x95px|Portman]]</td>
<td>[[File:Kafka portrait.jpg|95x95px|Kafka]]</td>
</tr>
</table>
|caption= 1st row: [[Albert Einstein]] {{·}} [[Sholem Aleichem]] {{·}} [[Marc Chagall]] {{·}} [[Emmy Noether]] 2nd row: [[Felix Mendelssohn]] {{·}} [[Sigmund Freud]] {{·}} [[Natalie Portman]] {{·}} [[Franz Kafka]]

You can see there is a pattern, right? Like its

 <td>[[picturename.jpg|95x95px|Name of person]]</td> 

Do you get what I mean? So in each line we have a different picture, and in order o separate between the lines you add:

</tr>
<tr>

What I do is I simple look at the patern, I copy a part of it:
<tr>
<td>[[File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy.jpg|95x95px|Mendelssohn]]</td>
<td>[[File:Sigmund Freud LIFE.jpg|95x95px|Freud]]</td>
<td>[[File:Natalie Portman - TIFF2010 01.jpg|95x95px|Portman]]</td>
<td>[[File:Kafka portrait.jpg|95x95px|Kafka]]</td>
</tr>

I add it to the pattern we already have, so we getL
<tr>
<td>[[File:Einstein 1921 portrait2.jpg|95x95px|Einstein]]</td>
<td>[[File:Sholem Aleichem 1907.jpg|95x95px|Aleichem]]</td>
<td>[[File:Chagall France 1921.jpg|95x95px|Chagall]]</td>
<td>[[File:Noether.jpg|95x95px|Noether]]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>[[File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy.jpg|95x95px|Mendelssohn]]</td>
<td>[[File:Sigmund Freud LIFE.jpg|95x95px|Freud]]</td>
<td>[[File:Natalie Portman - TIFF2010 01.jpg|95x95px|Portman]]</td>
<td>[[File:Kafka portrait.jpg|95x95px|Kafka]]</td>
</tr>

And then in the new line I created I just put new pictures and new names. Did you understand what I explained? Feel free to ask questions! But it's important for you to know: Don't add lines on your own, you might have great ideas, but you will be reverted if you do something people don't like, and if you revert them back you might be blocked. The best thing to do is go to the discussion page and join the existing discussion, saying who you want to add: [13]

You said you want to add 8 more people, and I'm sure you thought of great people, but it's too much because then we will have 4 lines of 8 people, when it looks better if you have 2 or 3 lines, so it's better if you suggest 4 people and not 8 people. Also, before doing the edit, as said before, say on the discussion page why you want to add them, wait a bit for the comments, and then do the edit (or ask me to do the edit for you). Danton's Jacobin (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to ask how you upload images from the internet and format them for the image box. Usually, I just find an image and Copy Image Location, and then insert it wherever the image needs to go. That's what I'm having trouble with.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! I'm actually not sure how to do that. There is a link here talking about how to do it: Wikipedia:Uploading images. To be honest, I myself didn't do it so I'm not sure about that. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Orientalism

I took a section from the Jews page, entitled Orientalism, and added it to this article because I thought it was relevant. I feel it also has an educational value to those who wish to understand antisemitism, and how it works, better.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo box suggestions

I have implemented my own additions to the photo box in the article. Admittedly, it looks a little messy because I took the photos from their respective Wiki pages, and re-formatted them for the photo template on here, since I cannot upload the photos manually. I would have preferred using a different photo of Ben Stein, for instance. The people I've added are Ben Stein, Anne Frank, Theodor Herzl, Steven Spielberg, Cliff Simon, Brad Garrett, Ben Bernanke, and Eugene Levy. All 8 of these celebrities are of full Ashkenazi Jewish descent.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC) :Hi :-) I support the inclusion of Anne Frank, Herzl, Spielberg. Really nice! I do have problems with some inclusions:

Ben Stein - Though popular in American, he's not so popular for people outside America.

Cliff Simon - Not a bad actor, but I think there are many, many, many more popular ones then him.

Brad Garrett - Again, not a bad actor but I would say there are many more popular ones.

Eugene Levy - He had a bit of success for a while, but again, for a short time. What would you say if we put Jon Stewart instead?

I don't mind keeping them, but just think we could find some more influencial people in their places, like Mel Brooks, Jon Stewart, Lev Landau, Anton Rubinstein, Mikhail Botvinnik... and what about the amount of lines? Should we take out some people? What do you think? Danton's Jacobin (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Botvinniks and Mel Brooks are nice suggestions, but Jon Stewart, though popular in America, is not well known outside America. Landau is a genious but we already have Einstein to represent that area. Rubinstein is great but we already have Mendelssohn to represent that area. I think keeping it 8 is the optimal idea! Mensch with Shteig (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks best with 8 people, I don't see why we need to add any more people. Besides, Ben Stein is hated by many people for how he does his job and whose interests he represents. Mensch with Shteig (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't change the photobox - it took many many months of long discussion between many users for each figure, to come up with present selection. Also, because of WP:BLP concerns, it has been agreed that no living people will be added to the box Avaya1 (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't just decide something will never be changed. That discussion happened a long time ago, and there is no law on Wikipedia stating ones a concensus was reached no one can suggest any changes and it will stay like that forever. There is a new disscussion now, with new people saying their opinion, and a new, more acceptable selection being made (not a weird one which doesnt include Sholem Aleichem, Marc Chagall or Spielberg). Besides, every ethnic group has at least few living people, the whole idea is to create an image people will recognize as representatives (and even if no living people can be included, which is not the case because it doesnt make sense, I don't know if you hear of it, but Sholem Aleichem is dead). If you want to influence, great, take part in the discussion. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No way we are returning to the old one, it looked bad and the selection was bad. And the no living people thing is, sorry, total crap, and people should be judged by how notable they are and not if they are alive ot dead (besides, it's not like you didn't forget many dead notable people). Mensch with Shteig (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Sockpuppets now blocked.

We are not having living people because of WP:BLP, as decided by adminstrators here, and also we have to have sources that the people listed are Ashkenazi. We also have a consensus selection. If you want to new photobox, you have to get a new consensus for each swap. Avaya1 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And now it turns out that the above users, all agreeing with each other, were sockpuppets. Avaya1 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did the initial conversation/consensus take place? I'd appreciate a link.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was my name crossed out? I'm not a sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildoer187 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Aleichem

I put Sholem Aleichem instead of van Neumann. Sholem Aleichem is the greatest Yiddish writer ever and it's just weird not to have him in the image.

I put Botvinnik intead of Gershvin for two reasons. First of all, Botvinnik represents the Jewish achievments in chess. Second, Gershvin is not known outside America and there are too much Americans in the image already anyway. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nebel et al (2005) on gene flow into AJ

With [14] Gilisa has "low-level" as a description of gene flow which Nebel et al (2005) describe [15]. But there is no such qualification in Nebel et al (2005). Why should this not be reverted? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the same authors (Nebel et al) described in their study from 2001 which preceded the above mentioned study from 2005 a possible gene flow of 12% as "low level" and hence slightly lower rate of 11.5% (Nebel et al, 2005) is low level as well, when following their logic.--Gilisa (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

11.5% represents the rate of R-M17. It does not describe the gene flow, but the frequency of the haplogroup membership in AJ. Their 2001's 12.7% is the frequency of a different haplogroup. In 2005 they theorize "gene flow" from E.-->AJ to explain the 11.5% R-M17 frequency, but they do not qualify it as "low-level". The fact that in 2001 they theorized "low-level" gene flow E.→AJ to explain the frequency of a completely different haplogroup is not relevant. They could have discovered in 2001 that the frequency of EU19 was best explainable with absolutely zero gene flow, but that would say nothing about with what the frequency of R-M17 is best explainable. There's no logic followed here at all.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone put the figure of 11.5% in continue to 12.7% gene flow, so while I didn't read the last paper I was thinking they used R-M17 as indicator for gene flow (of note, R1a1a (R-M17) is subgroup of EU19 (R1a)). While elevated rates of specific haplogroup may be the outcome of bottle-neck rather than common descent in the context of this section my wrong impression was that they meant gene flow. --Gilisa (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dziebel on Bray

I did not remove the content because I disagreed with the wording, I removed it because the claims were false, as I wrote in the edit summary.

Included still are falsehoods. Dziebel does not claim "the Ashkenazim community only formed in Europe by Jews who emigrated from the Middle East at relatively late stage of European history." Dziebel does not claim "However, admixture with European population is not needed to explain the results of Bray et al. study if not assuming Druze, Bedouin and Palestinians to represent the source origin of Ashkenazim in the Levant or Ashkenazim to be subset of these groups. It's only with this assumption that one would expect Ashkenazim to show lower genetic diversity since then they should be newer population. However, assuming Arabs as the source of world Jewry or more antique population have no historical ground."

Why should these claims not be removed? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, Dziebel didn't argue that but it doesn't mean these are falsehoods so please mind being civil and AGF. I used Dziebel as the source which argue that different kin marriage pattern can serve as alternative explanation for the study outcomes than this provided by Bray et al. As for that Jews originated from Arabs: it's completely an assumption that Bray et al made without any historical or scientific background (they didn't even explain why this assumption is legitimate). While Arabs originated in the southern Middle East Jews originated in the north-western Middle east and it's not earlier than 800 BC that Arabs arrived in masses to the Levant region, but leave that aside. AJ are considered, from the genetic aspect, to be closest relatives with Kurds, which are not Arabs and are different from Arabs in language, geographical origin (like Jews, they are from the Levant) and genetics (If I remember it correctly recent studies show that in at least some aspects they are more resembled to Europeans than to Arabs though no admixture with Europeans is assumed). There is no single credible historical or genetical scientific article which argue that AJ or Jews at all are expected to be sub set of Arabs. I will remove this argument from the section for now, soon as I have time I will search for scientific critique of Bray et al for taking this assumption -90% there is one-and will add it there again. Also, this that the AJ was formed in Europe only by 800 BC or later (even 100 years later there were less than 20,000 Ashkenazim in all of Europe) is pretty much consensus in the academy, it's also academic consensus that the ancestors of them came from the ME directly or through what is today modern Italy. See the studies of Risch and Mutolsky.--Gilisa (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would only ever AGF and be civil.

But neither Bray et al nor Dziebel claim that Bray et al (2010) takes it that Jews originated from Arabs. Their genotype methods for the 2010 (what Dziebel calls "2012" for some reason) are here. And they do justify their method; In footnote 10 they say" "Nebel A, et al. High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews. Hum Genet. 2000;107:630–641" To claim that the source populations of these groups were in the southern Middle East when the Ashkenazi source population was in the northern Middle East does not seem like common knowledge that needs no verification. Just because the Arabic language was in the south, does not mean that the ancestors to all those now called "Arabs" were in the south. Ethnic identities can change in a population with the spread of language without changing the ancestral makeup of that population. Anyway, I think your new changes are good. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't make my point clear enough: No doubt that Palestinians were found in previous studies to have genetic overlaps with Jewish people. However, if you read studies about the Palestinian population you will understand that the picture is quite complicated. First, while Galilee Palestinians show strong patterns of similarity those of the West bank show lower similarity and are closer to different Arab people and the overlap is pretty much function of the geographic location they placed in. For instance, those who live in Jisr az-Zarqa overlap with Egyptians and not with Jews of any kind, others overlap with Sudanese, Moroccans and etc. The different genetics represent different origin and history, for example those for the Galilee are known to be the descendants of Jews who were forced to convert to Islam during the 8 AC and they consist small part of the Palestinians. But leave this aside, overlap doesn't mean that one group is super set for the other or that they split from the same root at about the same time. As for the Druze, studies on their population show that they are new population and that they have multiple origins and part of these are not Middle Eastern at all so assuming they can somehow stand for the super set of the Jewish people is not intuitive and need better explanation than general overlap. Arabs being of Southern ME origin is indeed common knowledge: Arabs did originated in the Arab Peninsula, where is today S.Arabia and indeed no overlap between Arabs from Arabia and Jews is to be found. The overlap between Jewish people and part of the Arab people may be the outcome of the last partly descended from some of the local people who inhabitant the Levant before the Arabic invasion. Last thing, it's not surprising that Jews from any group would be more divergent than any European population given that Jewish history is about 4000 years long, so if big enough sample of Jews (few thousands) keeps the right pattern of marriage this variation wouldn't be affected what more that after the expulsion of Jews from Spain an influx of Sephardi Jews settled in East and West Europe and perhaps contribute to the preservation of this variation. What I'm saying, simply, is that the assumptions that Bray made about the Super sets of Jewish people are flawed.--Gilisa (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would gladly read any of the studies you suggest. "Arabs being of Southern ME origin is indeed common knowledge: Arabs did originated in the Arab Peninsula..." That's sounds quite true to me. I wish to make clear though that I never said that that wasn't common knowledge. My related statement was very different: That it is not common knowledge that needs no verification that Palestinian Arabs and Druze source populations originated in SME when the Ashkenazi source population originated away to the North. There are many reliable sources that say other things. For example, Arnaiz-Villena et al (2001), "The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness with Other Mediterranean Populations", Human Immunology vol. 62, no. 10 (October, 2001), pp. 889-900, concludes as to their origins: "Both Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool (Table 3, Figures 4, 5 and 6) that support a common ancient Canaanite origin." And Nebel et al., "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews", Human Genetics, vol. 107, (2000), pp. 630-641, says "According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD. These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times." If there are reliable sources which contradict the claim, then certainly it cannot be common knowledge that needs no verification. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Seeing as Ashkenazi Jews are a Semitic group with origins in the Levant, it goes without saying that they share a good number of similarities with other Levantine groups, hence their inclusion. Although it is true that some of these identities did not emerge until later, the relationship is still there.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, how do these edits constitute vandalism in any way? Evildoer187 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that user Galassi should explain his position of identifying the proposed edits as vandalism.--Tritomex (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree! Ashkenazi Jews are a sub-group of Jews who are a semitic people. Researches had shown that Ashkenazi Jews have genetical similarities with the populations living in the middle east. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an obvious political POV edit related to the Israeli-Arab conflict and doesn't belong here. The history, identity etc of the Ashkenazi don't have much to do with these nations. It makes more sense to maybe add these groups to Israelis, which may also seem political but at least won't seem out of place because Israel is in the Middle East while Ashk. history was formed in European lands. Yuvn86 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not acceptable explanation, Ashkenazi Jews are genetically originating from Middle East as it is evident from population genetics. Culturally semitic traditions are preserved in Judaism. In the lack of any more reasonable explanation I assume that the revert of this edition was also politically motivated and this may lead us to restore it.--Tritomex (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edits before Galassi did. Because if we are talking origin (even spiritual origin or traditions like you wrote) then I don't see any problem with adding "Semitic-speaking people" to the related groups. But Jordanians? Palestinians? please... these people didn't really exist before the 20th century. Yuvn86 (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Although it is true that some of these identities did not emerge until later, the relationship is still there." Please read before you respond, next time. Thanks.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, your argument is that we should exclude Palestinians and Jordanians on the grounds that they "didn't exist before the 20th century", and yet you want to include Israelis? This is contradictory. Objective analysis and consensus have shown that they bear much more similarity to other Middle Eastern peoples in terms of culture, genetics, etc. than they do with native Europeans. You can't just say "they lived there for centuries", and so they're not Middle Eastern anymore, because that is a whitewashing of history and has no place in an encyclopedia.

For someone who is allegedly pro-Zionist, you have steadfastly and consistently attempted to sever diaspora Jews from their Middle Eastern/Hebrew identity. I was under the impression that this was an anti-Zionist argument. However, I digress.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that if some here insist on adding Levant groups to this page then it's more logic to add 'Semitic-speaking people' than specific nations like Jordanians. And I mentioned the article Israelis because it's about citizens of Israel, just like Jordanians means citizens of Jordan. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not specific enough. What about Semitic speaking peoples like the Maltese, who are not related to the Jews?Evildoer187 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Galassi didn't even bother coming to the talk page to explain his position. He knows he has nothing to say against the genetic evedence regarding the fact Ashkenazi Jews came from Israel. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to use the formulation used in the Jews article:

other Levantines, Samaritans, Arabs, Assyrians

I think that one is neutral and literally no one could have any problem with that one! Though I don't see a problem with the current one. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not it is not neutral at all. I am asking again what is the problem with adding "Semitic-speaking people" instead? Yuvn86 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Arabs outside the Levant have a lot of genes from those people who lived there before the conquest so they are not ethnically related to Jews, those groups who are related to Jews are those who are at the Levant. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"I am asking again what is the problem with adding "Semitic-speaking people" instead?" Because it wouldn't be specific enough. Jews are not related to every Semitic speaking people, after all. It's best to just leave it the way it is.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So what in the world is your criteria for relatedness? I suggested it because if Ashkenazi Jews consider ancient Israelites as their forebears (even spiritually) then it seems OK adding the group ancient Jews were descended from (which is Semitic-speaking peoples). Yuvn86 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern Jews and not decedents of all ancient Israelis but only of those 3 tribes who lived in the Kingdom of Judea (Judea, Benjamin and Shimon). I wouldn’t put ancient Jews to the related category because the modern Jews are the decedents of those ancient Jews, they are the same group. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetic, cultural, linguistic, etc. If we are to use that criteria, then other Levantines, Samaritans, Arabs, and Assyrians are a natural fit.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lingustic? that's why I suggested Semitic-speaking peoples addition, because Hebrew the holy language of Judaism is related to other languages of that family groups. But cultural? What exactly, for non-Israeli Ashkenazi? Yuvn86 (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's because Ashkenazi Jews are not related to every Semitic speaking group. They are not related to Maltese, Ethiopians, Somalis, etc. However, Ashkenazi Jews are related to Levantines, Assyrians, and especially Samaritans in not only the linguistic sense, but in terms of genetics, culture, origins, etc. You can find some sources for that on the Jews infobox, but I can provide more if you need it.

However, I'm beginning to seriously wonder why you are so adamantly opposed to acknowledging any connection at all between Ashkenazim and Middle Eastern people. This is especially odd for someone who considers himself/herself pro-Israel, because I don't know any other Israel supporter who is this resistant to recognizing the Middle Eastern heritage of Ashkenazi Jews. Frankly, something doesn't add up. Whatever the reason, you have to realize that this is an encyclopedia, and facts are facts.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You wrote culture, but except love of Hummus, I can't think of many things culturally that unite a New York Ashkenazi with a Syrian. Please enlighten me. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you looked at the sources.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I can come up with few. First of all, they have similar genes, which means they are related by blood. Second, even in Europe the Jews while speaking Yiddish still used the Hebrew Semitic ABC. Third, some of the Jewish religious tradition is similar to those in Islam but they don't have them in Christianity, and the reason is they were both influenced by local middle eastern pagan religions. Fourth, Yiddish music though influenced by European has the middle eastern touch the European one doesnt have. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A non-Israeli Ashkenazi is related to the other people of the middle east ethnically, which is even a stronger connection then a cultural one, and that's why it's worth mentioning them in the related groups category. Studies showed that the majority if Jewish genes are from the middle east, and the way the came to that conclusion is by comparing Ashkenazi genes with Arabic genes from the Levant. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I edited it to be:

Other Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, etc.
Other Levantines, Samaritans, Arabs, Assyrians

I think Levantines makes it clear that who we are refering to are those who live in the Levant region. I tried to make a formulation similar to the Jews article, with reference to other Jewish groups. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little, because it was too confusing.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks great, I don't think anyone can say anything against that one. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are also studies which point a connection to Italians and even to the French, with links even in this article, and some indicate much more similarities to them than to the groups above. Again, some studies, not all. But you both of course will only add Middle Eastern groups to the related groups, becuase that's what you want to see, and what you want others to see; You both seem to make edits based on "look-they-are-related-genetically-to-levantines-so-israel-is-actually-ok!", when in reality it's pretty much irrelevant both for Israel and majority of Jews worldwide (just like trying to find, say, a Greek chromosome is irrelevant and even laughable for the continued legitimacy of Greece). Writing half-truths to push politics just don't belong in here. Yuvn86 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for him, but I'm not doing this for any political reasons. They really are closer in relationship to Levantines and Samaritans than they are to Germans, Poles, or French. I'm not just talking genetics either. However, you do raise a good point in that they are also fairly close to South Europeans (Greeks and Italians, more specifically). I'll add Mediterraneans to the list too.

Although I don't think you quite understand how genetics and PCA plots work.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)