Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Paragraph on maternal lineages in lead

"Genetic studies on Ashkenazim have been conducted to determine how much of their ancestry comes from Europe, and how much derives from the Levant. These studies—researching both their paternal and maternal lineages—point to at least some ancient Levantine origins. But they have arrived at diverging conclusions regarding both the degree and the sources of their European ancestry.[28] These diverging conclusions focus particularly on the extent of the predominant European genetic origin observed in Ashkenazi maternal lineages."

I don't think such a disclaimer is significant enough to put in the lead, since it bears little impact on Ashkenazi peoplehood. I think it should be moved to the section on genetics, where it would make a good introduction. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Also, "extent of the predminant European genetic origins" make little sense since it assumes extent, so I think predominant should be taken out. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the lead should summarize the main points of the article. This version is a compromise, which was the product of a hard period on this article and its associated talkpage, with edit wars and much discussion. For these reasons both I think it can stay, and that it is probably best it stays. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Degree of Levantine Heritage

As per the description given above by Debresser, the lead should reflect the main points in the article. As is seen in the genetics section, there is a consensus of a significant proportion of Levantine ancestry present in Ashkenazi groups:

• Citations 108 to 110 unequivocally support this in vague terms.
• Citation 111 specifies that the study relating 30-60% of matrilineal descent is of Sephardi AND Ashkenazi populations, and it specifically points out Italian Jews, an unreliable group for discussing Ashkenazi origin given that all three of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Italki Jews may be present.
• Citations 112-118 again demonstrate a massive patrilineal ancestry from the Middle East.
• Citations 119-124 divides matrilineal descent into two categories: 40% from four women (Behar suggests that they are Middle-Eastern, Richards that they are European) and 60% from around 150 other women (Behar also suggests this is a Middle-Eastern population, Richards is silent). Subsequently, an underdeveloped afterword describes citation 125 (2014 Fernandez study) which supports Behar's theory of Middle-Eastern ancestry for the haplogroup K.
• Citation 127, the Seldin study, claims that both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews associate closely with southern Europeans; this association between Ashkenazim, a Jewish population in northwest Europe, is not made elsewhere in the article.
• Citations 128-129 describe the Bauchet study, which signified a degree of closeness between Ashkenazi Jews and "Arabic North African" descent, again reaffirming a Middle-Eastern origin.
• Citations 130-132, the 2010 Atzmon-Ostrer study, "refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry".
• Citations 133-134, the 2010 Bray study, suggests a 35-55% prevalence of European genomic characteristics and explains this as being a result of relaxed endogamy within Ashkenazi communities followed by "ethnic endogamy" wherein the Ashkenazi population breeds within itself and thus propagates their unusual heterozygosity.
• Citation 135, Behar 2010, finally explains, again in vague terms, that Ashkenazim have a definitive element of Middle-Eastern ancestry.

Of course, there's also the Khazar theory, but given its own page and the section here, it makes sense to say that it is hogwash which has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.

While nobody in their right mind would deny that there is a statistically significant element of European heritage (because yes, I am classifying historical revisionists as being out of their right minds), the consensus of these studies as formulated in the Wiki is that (a) patrilineal descent is very strongly Levantine, and (b) matrilineal descent features significantly more European ancestry than the patrilineal, but of the three studies cited on the topic, the majority (ie. two) argued for Middle-Eastern matrilineal descent. So ultimately, unless someone wants to update the article itself to say otherwise, describing the article as indicating "at least some ancient Levantine origins" is simply misleading; the information in the article reflects the effect of "A LOT of ancient Levantine origin" (or perhaps substitute "Middle-Eastern", since studies struggle to separate the Levant from the rest of the Mediterranean populations). So ultimately, while I can understand why Al Khazar thought it necessary to revert my edits to the lead, I think I've demonstrated here why the minor corrections I made better reflect what is actually written in this very Wikipedia article, and hence will be reverting back. Benjitheijneb (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Benjitheijneb. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You still don't understand, do you? The 2013 on Ashkenazi mtDNA was the most comprehensive one to date. The results weren't different, the conclusions were. After better understanding of how to pinpoint the origins of mtDNA, the study indicated that the origin was prehistoric Europe rather than the ancient Levant. You also ignored the gargantuan sample size of 836 in the 2013 study and gave more weight to the ones that cite <100 samples. This violated the undue weight which you ironically preach. The Fernandez et al. 2014 study only made conclusions on one ancient mtDNA K sample and layed a small shadow of doubt rather than adding any noticable weight.

As for changing "derives from Levant" to "derives from Europe", that is the biggest red flag applicable to this article and to your own argument (ironically). The term "derive" indicates that Ashkenazi ancestry originated from that location. For obvious reasons, "derives from Europe" is incorrect because they originated from the Levant and recieved European admixture. Your edit indicates vice versa which ironically coincides with the anti-Semitic Khazar theory. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but if there is no more support for you, this edit will be reverted in a week. Khazar (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did I mention anything about deriving from Europe? The question is "how much of their ancestry comes from the Levant, and how much derives from European populations", a description of the academic confusion and not a factual statement; would you rather the word "derive" was repeated in both cases?

I would wonder if your questioning of the sources is straying into original synthesis areas. Comprehensive? Maybe, but certainly not decisive. While the sample size as cited does indeed hold significance (though indeed, why is a citation of the original article not available but virtually all of the citations rely on news websites? found the article, was thrown by the ordering of surnames), it still fails to disprove the studies surrounding it. Please note that the 2013 Richards study is the only one which argues for a majority of matrilineal ancestry being European; even Goldstein's comments only lend to host-community similarities in "some" cases, the rest he labels as being not-distinctly-Middle-Eastern, not as European. On the weight of the other sources cited, a strong study standing alone still does not make a case for rejecting the consensus of the rest of the scientific community.

Finally, as I was in agreement with Debresser, the lead reflects the contents of the article. The consensus of external material cited in-article as it stands points to a significantly large element of Levantine origin with strong interchange with European populations, with disagreements noted on the extents of both elements. This is on the basis of the studies as presented and not of the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each source. If this is factually incorrect, it makes more sense to edit the article as required to indicate otherwise before the lead, rather than the inverse. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Since both of you have very little knowledge about genetics, I'd rather hear from someone more familiar in the field of genetics. Perhaps Andrew can provide his feedback. Khazar (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to point out I am not a geneticist, but like you guys just a Wikipedian who got drawn into these discussions, just a few years earlier. (Outside WP I am a genealogist, and I did once write an article about one Y haplogroup in a journal for genealogists, and while I was very busy corresponding with geneticists about that I even got a letter in a serious science journal, connected to the same subject.) When I started, these articles were nightmares for WP, because there is very little secondary writing that actually brings all the different conflicting studies into perspective for us. (And of course there are many sensitivities.) Lucky for you guys, the journal articles are starting to be more useful, but often I found that the only way to handle some of these topics was to list the findings of different articles in a neutral way, but mentioning for example which articles are older/newer, or more/less comprehensive. In other words, let the readers see what is available and do not try to decide here on Wikipedia. The exceptional cases would be where a new study clearly trumps previous studies, but agreeing on which ones those are can sometimes be controversial too!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrew's oversight here has been commendable. I would also add that in summarizing positions in a fast-evolving field, we should, for reasons of simplicity and cogency, try to refer to research within the bounds of the last 10 years. I see stuff going back to the late 1990s, etc., which is quite pointless to cite here.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

But what about the edit that was made? Can't you see that there is dangerous word play there be switching the positions of the words "Levantine" and "European"? Benjitheijneb isn't even aware of his own edits and the notability of the term derive. Khazar (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, cool down, will you. "dangerous word play"... Debresser (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

While Andrew's observations certainly do apply, as it is in this case best to leave it to the readers to make their own judgments on the text body, a phrasing of one form or another is REQUIRED in the lead. Why is the "dangerous wordplay" that was already there any better than the one I proposed, which I justified by comparing to the body of opinions present in the article and which both Debresser and Tritomex agree are more appropriate? The simple truth is that the body of evidence and opinions present in the article are better represented with the change in place. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Academic books from population genetics clearly states that AshkenazI Jews have substantial/dominant (not some) Middle Eastern origin in regard of Y DNA.Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA

By Tony Frudakis, Ph.D.[2] There is no a single Y DNA genetic study that contradicts the Levantine origin of AJ Y DNA. So yes, the phrase used has to be changed. (All the genetic studies which point to additional European genetic admixture, beside Levantine, are transgenome genetic studies, that examine both paternal and maternal genes. As someone who is very much familiar with population genetics, I know that there is no single genetic study which question the dominant Levantine origin of Y DNA of AJ. Concerning mtDNA (mternal side) contrary to clear results of Y DNA, one study /Richards at all/ points to dominant European while 3 others (Behar, Ferer and Fernandez) point to dominant Middle Eastern maternal origin of AJ.Tritomex (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is to switch the places of the words "derive" and "originate". Only the simple minded hack jobs are concerned with the "predominant" adjective. Jews do not originate from Europe, they originate from the Levant. Khazar (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ashkenazi Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130601233030/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Eva Braunn Ashkenazi Jew

Just saw a documentary "Dead Famous DNA", Episode 3, found on Netflix. The scientist on the program had access to Eva Braun's DNA through her own hairbrush that was taken by an American soldier. The DNA results on her hair showed that she had Ashkenazi Jew ancestry. Pretty interesting and ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycdx1 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Yiddish"

The usage of Yiddish is under discussion, see talk:Yiddish language -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis in Europe vs. Middle East

This is regarding my edit from 23:43, 16 August 2015 which was reverted by Debresser. Before my edit, the leading paragraph stated that the Ashkenazi Jews trace their ethnogenesis to Europe. This seems to be a clear mistake to me, as Jews come from the Middle East. The Ashkenazim certainly developed culturally in Europe and became a distinct community among Jews there, but that does not change their Middle Eastern ethnic origins. Therefore, I deleted the phrase "and ethnogenesis," since it implied that the Jews are European, rather than Middle Eastern.

It's obvious that it would be impossible to arrive at rabbinic Judaism without a pre-existing rabbinic tradition going back to the land of the Jews in the Middle East. It's not as if a Jewish population popped into existence in Europe without a seed population of ethnic Jews. The Jews in Europe got there from somewhere else where they existed earlier, namely, the Middle East. Therefore, ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazim was certainly not European.

As cited later in the article, DNA analysis supports the Ashkenazic account of exile from their homeland in Judea and Samaria. Some admixture may have occurred later in Europe, but this is completely irrelevant to the ethnogenesis. The original gene pool of the Ashkenaz community was already formed before this admixture, and so by definition we must designate the older seed population as the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazim.

Furthermore, the original statement had no citations. Despite Debresser's edit comment, I was not deleting a sourced statement. Even if this were a controversial statement, this would actually be a reason to remove the statement from the leading paragraph completely and leave the discussion for a later section in the article. Certainly it should not be left in such a prominent place unchallenged. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that rather misses the point. Their ethnogenesis qua Jews is in the Middle East (and I don't think Debresser was saying anything else). Their ethnogenesis qua Ashkenazim is in Europe. In other words, while they trace their origin to the Levant there is no reason to suppose that, while there, they were a group distinct from other Jews; they first became a distinct group in Europe. Clearer now? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sirmylesnagopaleentheda - Ah, I think I understand what you mean now. In this case, "sociogenesis" captures the meaning better than "ethnogenesis," which implies descent, race and genetic origin. Analogously, the sociogenesis of America was North American, despite a European ethnogenesis. The only ethnic Americans are the indigenous peoples of America. That is, the ethnicity of the colonists, comprising their descent and cultural background, their language, customs, and religion, are clearly European; while their society coalesced in the New World. The colonists were not ethnically American, but rather socially American. Similarly, the Ashkenazim were not ethnically European but socially European. Musashiaharon (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis can't mean ultimate genetic origin, as if so we all originate in East Africa. Every ethnic group is to some extent a social construct. White Americans are a poor example, as they did not assimilate into the pre-existing population, nor have they been around for long enough to constitute an "ethnic group" in their own right; so neither of the possible reasons for ascribing an American ethnogenesis is present. Ashkenazim are a recognisable ethnicity, not just a social group, and are marked among other things by their religious ritual and their use of Yiddish. That identity first began to exist in Europe; and on the traditional theory that they were the descendants of Graeco-Roman Jews who moved to the Rhineland from Italy in Roman times, they have been European a lot longer than they have been Ashkenazim. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

To pick on a minor point, there are much younger populations than the Americans who are being considered an ethnicity already, like the Rastas and the Moldovans and others, all less than 100 years old. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the US is disqualified based on age, rather than by origin, for the hypothetical "American ethnogenesis."

Back to the primary discussion, no one cares that they ultimately originated in Africa, because it doesn't characterize the people at all. In terms of characterization, it's much more useful and explanatory to say that the Ashkenazim are Middle Eastern. For example: Why do they wear a hat to pray? Because they're Middle Eastern. Why did they bathe and wash so often compared to the Europeans? Because they're Middle Eastern. Why were they isolated in ghettos? Why don't they eat pork and blood sausages? Why does even the most uneducated Ashkenaz know the Shema in Hebrew? Because they're Middle Eastern.

If you look for European influences, those are pretty detailed and minor in comparison, with the exception of the Yiddish language, which didn't develop until the 12th century (by which time the Ashkenazim had already been in Europe for centuries). Those would be things like the style of tefillin, a handful of slight pronunciation differences in Hebrew, the shape of their kiddush cups. You cited their religious ritual, but all it really does is show that they are much more similar to their Middle Eastern brethren than to the Europeans. These tiny differences from other Jews are immaterial compared to their differences from the European population.

You also mentioned that "they have been European a lot longer than they have been Ashkenazim." If age is any factor, that only proves my point, since they were also Middle Eastern a lot longer than they were in Europe. The fact that the Ashkenazim found themselves in exile in Europe is all the more reason to further explain their true origins in the opening paragraph. Musashiaharon (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition, this information is sourced. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Debresser - That comment didn't really add anything to the discussion. Source 16 says nothing of ethnogenesis. It only describes the movements of the Jewish community through Europe in passing, and the term "originally" should be taken in that context. There is not a word about ethnic beginnings in that quote. Similarly, a Californian might say they originally came from New York but on further questioning say they were raised there but were born in Boston. Without further detail or emphasis, "originally" does not necessarily describe the birth or beginning of anything. You can't use this citation here. Its context is too narrow and doesn't match the statement you're trying to support. Musashiaharon (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Musashiaharon That comment added a very important thing to the discussion: that editors should not remove sourced information from articles. Now, if the information is not in the source, that is another story, but the point is absolutely vital in itself. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That was precisely my point. This information was not in the source, and so is as good as uncited. Musashiaharon (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

But all those points relate to their ethnicity as Jews. The distinctive points that make them Ashkenazim as distinct from other Jews all arise in Europe. As you say, it's not a question of ultimate origin but of characterisation; and that must mean the characterisation of the particular group, not of a wider group which it forms part of. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. They are ethnically Jews. I'm fine with saying that certain influences were picked up in Europe. I'm even ok with noting admixtures later. However, saying that the Ashkenazim originated in Europe is incorrect.

You mention also the idea that we must characterize the particular group rather than the wider group. I can agree with that too, but this is the summary paragraph. In summaries, one begins with the general before narrowing down to the specific. One must also be clear and not make statements without context; without context, a true statement can turn into a false one. Musashiaharon (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ashkenazis became a distinct group in the Holy Roman empire around the 10th-11th century, that is to say, they became linguistically/culturally at least in part distinct from say, the Jews in Iberia, or the Jews in Provence, or the Jews in Milan. That is what is mentioned in the lead, all the long articles on genetic origins and admixture are in the DNA section. Guy355 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Guy355. Perfect! We were just discussing context, and it looks like you missed the context of my remark about origins. Kindly read the past conversation about the term "ethnogenesis," its implications and limitations, and the lack of any citations for such a strong term.

This here is a case in point, that even where context is present, one can still be misunderstood, just as I was. This is especially so for the summary paragraph, where no context has been introduced yet to qualify "ethnogenesis."

Worse, the term is redundantly coupled with "emergence as a distinct community" which already covers sociogenesis. This redundancy implies that other important geneses included under "ethnogenesis," such as the genetic genesis and religio-genesis, were also in Europe, which is clearly false. The first Ashkenazim were not indigenous to Europe, so their genetic genesis could not have been in Europe. Also, their religion was not created in Europe either (I can go at length on this if necessary, but that's another topic). Since "emergence as a distinct community" is acceptable, and the redundancy and generality of "ethnogenesis" is problematic, I propose to strike "ethnogenesis." Musashiaharon (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion has nothing to do with it, Christianity wasn't created in Europe either, practically no European today practices an actual European religion, with the exception of the Saami perhaps. Guy355 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And one could have precisely the same argument about religion: Christianity did not originate in Europe, but Protestantism did. So do Protestants practice a European religion? Does it matter? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Inasmuch as religion is a part of culture and ethnicity, it does matter. And yes, Protestant Christianity is a European religion based on an Near Eastern one. They are separate religions in that there is a religious stigma against intermarriage, and it is problematic to pray in each other's churches, due to issues of icons from one side, and the rebellion against the papacy and established practice from the other. No such religious stigma exists among Jews, whether Ashkenaz, Sephardi, or any other Jewish group, with the exception of the Karaites, who are therefore considered a different religion. It's all quite consistent.

Also, my other points still stand. Musashiaharon (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

But a Protestant is still one sort of Christian. Qua Protestant, he is a member of a European religion. Qua Christian, he is a member of a Near Eastern one. The analogy with Ashkenazim is exact. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) -- It's not exact, because there was a major cultural break between the Protestants and the Catholics in the Reformation. Please re-read my comments concerning intermarriage. Even worse, the dogmas there are mutually exclusive, and each group considers the other's practices to be sinful. There was no such break between the Ashkenazim and the rest of the Jews, and so the relationship is closer than that between the Protestants and Catholics. Musashiaharon (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So ethnogenesis and biological lineage are two, although often associated, completely different things - checked. Ethnic is a term associated with a group of people who developed certain way of life, based on common language, customs, traditions, rite, habits, mentality, and geographical locality - checked. Biological lineage can be traced via new genome technology, in laboratory - checked. Article seems to have real trouble escaping a trap (it goes back and forth, while some contributors flip-flop in their argumentations): controversial issues underlying certain interpretations used to fit certain history narratives, unfortunately almost always invented or revised, motivated by ideology and burdened with very current political agendas.--Santasa99 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no problem with different definitions, as long as the definition in use is unambiguous. Since this topic is particularly complex, it is important to be exact and not to make implications beyond the sources. Musashiaharon (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is surprising that no geneticists have commented in this article on scientific perspectives of the Ashkenazim; i.e., the clear North African genetic origins of a high percentage of people who either practice Judaism, or who are from that background. Especially those who are nominally from an Ashkenazi background. Here is one of several genomic labs focused on scientific markers of the Askenazim: http://ashkenazigenome.org/ And, elsewhere here in the Wiki there is a significant entry delving into that: Genetic studies of Jewish origins. Sidney Orr (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Khazar

any information on this? They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There's an entire section, linking an entire article about this. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

The is huge undue weight on Ashkenazi genetic origins, which basically copies and pastes much of genetic studies on Jewish origins. They is no real "controversy" as to European admixture in Ashkenazi Jews. ALL JEWS show admixture from their host populations, particularly maternal admixture. Both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews have about 30% European admixture, which according to many comes from an ancestral population of Jews in northern Italy, considering Jewish relation to italians. There is this "pure Jews" bullshit going on. Iranian Jews also have admixture, they have Persian admixture. Turkish Jews have admixture... and Yemeni Jews, often heralded as the most "authentically Jewish" of all Jews, have been found to have such a great genetic similarity to Arabs that they likely descend from Arabian tribes who converted to Judaism. There is this bs mystique of supposedly enigmatic with Ashkenazi Jewish origins as opposed to Sephardic, whom they are incredibly closely related to. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. This has been mentioned and discussed several times. The present version is actually already greatly reduced compared to other versions that preceded it. Be prepared that cutting down on these sections will likely be met with resistance by some. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Das et al. 2016 should be placed after Behar et al. 2013

The logical place to cite Das et al. 2016 is after Behar et al. 2013, which itself comes after the mentioning of the Elhaik et al. 2012 study on this page. As a peer-reviewed article in Genome Biology and Evolution there's no legitimate way Das et al. 2016 cannot be cited in this article as it clearly is completely focused on the overall origin of Ashkenazi Jews.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashkenazi Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071130145053/http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/viewarticle.cfm/Jewish-Genius-10855?page=all to https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Jewish-Genius-10855?page=all
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071130145053/http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/viewarticle.cfm/Jewish-Genius-10855?page=all to https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Jewish-Genius-10855?page=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

20

@Debresser:: In response to your edit summary, Why would a more comprehensive list of editors be called "clutter". I deleted the long list of 20 authors in that citation, because when there are that many, it makes it hard to skim for pertinent information. All of the major citation styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) let you put "et al." if there are more than 3-8 authors and then you truncate it to 1-3 names plus "et al.", so at most you'd only ever list 7. At the end of the day I don't really care that much. I'm just answering your question. —PermStrump(talk) 21:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Genetic section

I have some proposals for adding. There are some statistics on physical appearance from the Jewish Encyclopedia cited from various studies.[3][4] A section for this is suggested to be created as in other articles, e.g. Greeks.

The genetic section may also be a little changed, the male lineages part relies on a few studies. I suggest the data of the study of Rootsi 2013 et. al to be added, which confirms that the variety of R1a among the Levites is absent in 1000 sampled Eastern Europeans and that R1a-M582 found among the Levites is a clade restricted to Asia. I think that this is an essential information, because it is now only implied that the frequency of R1a among Levites is like that of Central or Eastern Europeans. I also propose the inclusion Zossmann-Diskin 2010 [5], the most comprehensive study on Ashkenazim I have found, because analyses all lines of evidence - autosomal, paternal and maternal. Zossmann-Diskin cites the claims of all the studies cited here in his conclusion.Userius (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

And what would Zossmann-Diskin 2014 say? Debresser (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That Zossman-Diskin 2010 were wrong with the conclusions - dominant R1a subclade of the Ashkenasi Levites is significantly present among Sephardic Levites and doesn't exist in Europe, but only in marginal occurrence among other Levantine populations.GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that he concluded new views, not present in the article, some of them are somehow unexpected and possibly unlikely. He speculates that the parental lineages constitute genetic drift on the basis of the autosomal analysis. Though it is said that EEJ mtDNA are mostly European throughout the article, the study places them by mtDNA intermmediate between Middle Eastern and European populations, by Y DNA, however, they remain in the Middle Eastern cluster. Nevertheless, he claims that both lineages are misleading, because of genetic drifts and varitety of reasons and should not be used to trace the origin of EEJ. Instead he uses autosomal analysis for that and concludes that EEJ seem to be mostly of Italian origin. And autosomal analysis is what the paper is mostly about. He criticized some previous studies for erroneously defining dominant Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi autosomes due to a methodical failure, while agreeing with Cochran et al for claiming dominant European origin of Ashekenazi by autosomes.

I'll help with citing some interesting statements. For example, unlike Rootsi, he supports European origin of Ashkenazim R1a : "haplogroup R-M17, whose frequency is ~12% in Ashkenazi Jews. By comparing the structure of the STRs network among the various Ashkenazi populations and among the various European non-Jewish populations they reached the conclusion that a single male founder introduced this haplogroup into Ashkenazi Jews in the first millennium"(actually he quotes another study)

"The mtDNA analysis presented in this study does not place EEJ among other European populations rather their position is more intermediate and marginal, as can be seen in figure ​figure55 and in figure ​figure6,6, where autosomal distances are correlated with mtDNA distances. This lends further support to the notion that because of the unique demographic history of EEJ, their uniparental markers were subjected to stronger genetic drift than the biparental markers and thus should not be used to trace their origin."

"The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations(Mizrahi) do not share a common origin. The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population. EEJ seem to be mainly Italian (Roman) in origin, which is easily understood, considering the historical evidence presented above"

"It thus seems possible that EEJ founder population in Rome was composed of exiled Israelite males and local Roman females. In its simple form this clearly contradicts the facts, because both the autosomal and X-chromosomal polymorphisms demonstrate that EEJ do not occupy an intermediate position between European and Middle Eastern populations, but rather a strict European one. From table ​table11 it is clear that Italians are as close or closer to the other Jewish populations and Palestinians as EEJ. It is possible that once the founder population was established no other males but many females joined it, thus creating a population that is almost entirely European in all genetic aspects apart from its Y chromosomes"

"The inference that the NRY points to a Middle Eastern origin of EEJ is erroneous not only because the Y chromosomal analysis contradicts the analyses based on the other chromosomes, and because the NRY is a single uniparental marker that does not represent the whole history of the population, but also because its smaller effective population size makes it much more vulnerable to severe genetic drift caused by demographic bottlenecks"

"EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data."

• EEJ described as follows by hime:"Eastern European Jews, (EEJ) by far the largest and most important Ashkenazi populatio. Studies that compared them by genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers to European Mediterranean populations revealed that they are closer to Europeans than to other Jewish populations " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userius (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

We should not have speculation, or "somehow unexpected and possibly unlikely" conclusions, for that matter. Just mainstream. Debresser (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I included none of these claims in the section.Userius (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Userius has been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

He seemed intelligent and pleasant enough. Who was he a sock of? Debresser (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-established state of Israel

There was a Jewish state by the name of Israel in antiquity on the same land where there is a Jewish named Israel now. I don't understand the complaint. How are they not the same? Also note that if any of the responses amount to "Ashkenazi/Sephardi/modern Jews are not REALLY Israelites" then I will respond by pointing out WP:BIAS before promptly walking away.ChronoFrog (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but the two states are not in the same territory and not based on the same principles of government. The only thing that remains the same is the name. I don't think that can be called "re-establishing". Debresser (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is mostly the same territory (we didn't have Ashkelon back then, for example), and they are both nation-states of the Israelite people.ChronoFrog (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ashkenazi Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020004618/http://hugr.huji.ac.il/AshkenaziJews.aspx to http://hugr.huji.ac.il/AshkenaziJews.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109003252/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/www/publications/pw32.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/www/publications/pw32.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105135315/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html to http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911054719/http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf to http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"...coalesced as a distinct community in the Holy Roman Empire around the end of the first millennium."

Records assert there are not many Jews in Germany prior to the sixteenth century.

Concentrations may have existed in Russia during the first millennium regardless of evidence correlating a northerly and westward migration pressed by expulsion attributable to Saint Vladimir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.211 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

To reflect the scientific fact that Ashkenazi Jews are descendant from the Khazar Tribe, this has been proven by John Hopkins and is Scientific FACT, all private racial DNA tests list Ashkenazi's are Khazarian-Turkic. There is no evidence to support Ashkenazi's are Semitic nor middle eastern, however, the Sephardic Jews are. This is a FACT and must be addressed, any attempts at whitewashing it, or quoting highly erroneous and discredited studies done before 2012 should be revealed as misinformation. 2001:569:BC08:8200:2CE7:E0B6:B26D:7E3B (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC) " This is a controversial request, which as a matter of fact has been rejected in the past several times. Please do not add the edit request till such time as there is consensus. Debresser (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please consider new research showing no connection to the middle east http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.195.168 (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral

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

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

As a matter of fact, genetics as a science started in the second half of the 19th century.

That paragraph doesn't say that the Khazar theory is "intrinsically" anti-semite, only that it is "associated" with ant-semitism.

I understand what is meant by "keeping a theory in the academic conscience" very fine, although it might be rephrased.

If no hypothesis is corroborated by historical sources, then you agree that the specific theory in question also isn't.

In short, this section is so far much noise and little wool. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

And it's not to do with genetics as a science. "Genetically descended" here means simply "descended through an unbroken chain of biological parenthood", as opposed to adoption, conversion or other forms of mixing in. An analogy. If it is uncertain whether an object got to a place by falling there or being deliberately thrown, it is not anachronistic to describe the first theory as being "by gravity" even if the person who thought that lived before Isaac Newton. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Most editing and edit warring in this areas occurs because texts are written and rewritten without (a) a knowledge of the topic(s) and (b) without consulting the sources existing on any given, or related page. When I posed the above query, I expected someone to examine the issue closely. I.e., to note that a statement like 'The hypothesis is not corroborated by historical sources,' referred to Mikhail Kizilov The Karaites of Galicia: An Ethnoreligious Minority Among the Ashkenazim, the Turks, and the Slavs, 1772-1945, BRILL, 2009 p.5.(a book I introduced to several wiki articles) fails verification. It does so because it has been mindlessly copied from another wiki article, but with the wrong page link.

The joker who keeps fiddling with the text without going closely through the 20 odd sources (cited over several articles) that would enable this paragraph to give a succinct synthesis of the topic is wasting my time while getting your support gentlemen. Examine the fucking sources, and the talk pages, for once.

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

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

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

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

This Doesn't Make Sense

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

Obviously events in the future can't effect the past. What is the 9th-11th century migration from? I'm not sure how the Crusades effected Jewish Migration. As the Jews were expelled from various countries by the dates mentioned, they were received in Eastern Europe. A edict of protection was created for them in Poland around this time. Still, the earlier migration is confusing. 76.19.232.52 (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Agree. A possible explanation could be that the immigration started in the 10th century and was accelerated by the events of later centuries. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe I wrote that sentence. The part about the Rhineland massacre should be after the onset of the crusades.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to do the honors? Debresser (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I did. The whole sentence was out of order. :P--Monochrome_Monitor 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It probably meant to say that it accelerated the migrations that began in the 10th century. "resulted in" is an overstatement though. My understanding is that the creation of Prague as a economic center under the Premyslids led to Jewish immigration there. This was after Charlemagne eliminated Avars and opened the way to... I presume Kiev. I can't remember the source of this, but I'll be reviewing this soon for my personal research.76.19.232.52 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Ok, it doesn't say "resulted in" but "with the". It does sound better without the Rhineland massacre before the crusades. However, I think if information is added about why the Jews migrated in the 10th century, then this sentenced could get axed. There was a route opened up that Prague was a part of, but I'm not sure about other areas right now. At some point, I will be revisiting this.76.19.232.52 (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Please do :)--Monochrome_Monitor 03:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashkenazi Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126124833/http://ocyiddish.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=11 to http://www.ocyiddish.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Khazar Hypothesis

There are studies that support the Khazar hypothesis. https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/1/61/728117/The-Missing-Link-of-Jewish-European-Ancestry http://jogg.info/pages/11/coffman.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabomb (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not happy with this editors edits, which I think make this article less accurate and encyclopedical. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific Debresser. Please explain why. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

At this stage I'd be happy enough to have my fellow editors examine these edits for themselves, to see if any of them also sees something that doesn't look right. Can't really point my finger at it. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

No, it's actually not settled science, as you can see from the links he provided you with. Just because you don't like or agree with the conclusions those studies came to doesn't mean you can ignore them. I'm also willing to give those studies a look due to the fact that the supposed "genetic evidence" proving this heritage are highly questionable themselves, and that as mentioned by Eran Elhaik, a post-doctoral researcher, many of the "genetic qualities" which are used to signify Ashkenazi origin can also be traced to areas such as Georgia. Ashkenazi genetic heritage is far from a settled science, because it hasn't been settled, with respected individuals such as Richard Dawkins even objecting. At the very least there should be some mention of the dispute over the validity of the studies claiming Ashkenazi heritage, due to numerous recent research efforts which directly call it into question. http://forward.com/news/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/ 2601:49:1:5316:AC9D:BDFB:FF38:3497 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is settled science - it turns out that Ashkenazi Jews are mostly European at least through mitochondrial DNA https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html. Of course, this is extremely politically charged because of how it relates to Zionism, so I don't bet on it being ever to be documented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashkenazi Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721133548/http://ftp.beitberl.ac.il/~bbsite/misc/ezer_anglit/klali/05_123.pdf to http://ftp.beitberl.ac.il/~bbsite/misc/ezer_anglit/klali/05_123.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

23 and me DNA test categorization of Ashkenazi jews as European?

The DNA test 23 and me classifies Ashkenazi jews as being European rather that being middle eastern. So are Ashkenazi jews not really middle eastern but a small group of Europeans who converted to Judaism and eventually called themselves Ashkenazi jews? If Ashkenazi jews are not real middle eastern people but instead maybe a group of celtic people who converted to Judaism then ashkenazi jews are not real jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.231.114 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read Ashkenazi_Jews#Genetics. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How is "Ashkenazi" pronounced? (I'm not going to waste my time and energy trying to decipher that ridiculous IPA nonsense, which appears to be purposefully designed to make it impossible to see how a word is actually pronounced.)

In English: Stress on the third syllable. Z is voiced, as in "zoo". The first a is short, as in "ash". The second a is long and flat, as in "rather". The word rhymes with "khazi" and "Benghazi".

In Hebrew, both a's are flat (as in Italian and Spanish words), and the stress is (technically) on the last syllable (Ash-ke-na-ZEE), though one does not hear this very much. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Among those who speak a descent Hebrew the stress is always on the last syllable. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ethan Klein's DNA test

Joe26713 has repeatedly inserted content about a DNA test taken by one Ethan Klein, an operator of a Youtube channel called h3h3Productions. At least 4 other editors, before me, have removed this material, finding it to be inappropriate or insufficiently important to be used in this article about Ashkenazi Jews. [6][7][8][9][10][11] I find no independent reliable sources to establish the significance of this particular test, and a strong current consensus against its use here. Accordingly, this material should not be restored unless a change in consensus is first established by disucssion here on the talk page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

92% of world Jewish population in 1930

This statistic, repeated three times in this article, appears to come from a publication by Arthur Ruppin in 1930 (not 1931), and also not to be strongly supported [12] (not that there is necessarily another number that is better).--Pharos (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Differences in rituals and pronunciation

What's wrong with saying that Ashkenazi Jews have differences with Mizrahi Jews regarding rituals and Hebrew pronunciation?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

While it's an accurate and reasonably clear statement, I don't see what it adds to the lede. Which section(s) of the article is it summarizing? Jayjg ^(talk)

Pashtuns being included as a related ethnic group

There is no reason to list Pashtuns (also known as Pathans) as a related ethnic group to Ashkenazi Jews. This is highly misleading. The reasons being:

• Pashtuns do not show any strong affinity towards Ashkenazi Jews or any Jewish population for that matter (excluding the Indian admixed Bene Israel). They cluster with Afghans and Pakistanis.
• Pashtuns are not listed as a related ethnic group on any of the other Jewish groups wikipedia pages such as Sephardic Jews or Mizrahi Jews who were historically closer to them. Neither is it reciprocally seen as a related ethnic group on the Pashtun ethnicity page.
• Pashtuns are a typical population from Afghanistan/Pakistan and do not posses any significant Semitic admixture.
• Culturally and linguistically the two groups are completely unrelated.
• The one and only source is from the early 2000s, and as far as I can tell does not explicitly state that Pashtuns and Ashkenazi Jews are close. It was published prior to genome-wide analyses and only looks at uniparental markers. This gives a distorted image of relatedness. Genome-wide/autosomal analyses directly comparing Ashkenazi Jews and Pashtuns/Pathans does not show any close affinity between the two groups.

Given the above facts, the removal of Pashtuns/Pathans as being particularly closely related to Ashkenazi Jews is reasonable.

Wadaad (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

References

I too noticed that the source does not seem to mention the Pashtun explicitly, so I retract my opposition to this removal. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser, thank you. In the future I hope you take the arguments of an editor into account as well instead of merely referring to possibly outdated sources. Also, don't always assume bad faith when someone edits pages on Jews. Not everyone is anti-Semitic. I was merely trying to correct things. Also, the same message to @Galassi. Wadaad (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall anybody here even thinking that you were anti-Semitic. Do you? Debresser (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I assumed you guys did since this page gets violated often by anti-Semites. Wadaad (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We're Semites, not paranoids. ;-) Debresser (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

Khazar Hypothesis Please change: In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany (as opposed to the currently held theory that Jews migrated from France and Germany into Eastern Europe). The hypothesis is not corroborated by historical sources,[164] and is unsubstantiated by genetics, but it is still occasionally supported by scholars who have had some success in keeping the theory in the academic consciousness.[165]

The theory has sometimes been used by Jewish authors such as Arthur Koestler as part of an argument against traditional forms of antisemitism (for example the claim that "the Jews killed Christ"), just as similar arguments have been advanced on behalf of the Crimean Karaites. Today, however, the theory is more often associated with antisemitism[166] and anti-Zionism.[167][168]

A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded.[169]

To: In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern Poland. The Results of genetic studies conflict on the theory. A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded. The results of other studies support the theory, for example "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE" by Ellen Levy-Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" by Eran Elhaik. 2605:E000:1703:6154:B9B8:7F4:1A0D:A6B1 (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not done Not clear why that would be an improvement. Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be an improvement because it would make it accurate and politically neutral. See the section below this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1703:45A4:358A:5DED:D422:A6C0 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Khazar Hypothesis

There is evidence that the Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars. But, some people want to keep it out of the article to further a political agenda. They're afraid that it would weaken the Jewish claim to Israel if it turned out the Ashkenazi Jews were descended primarily from people other than the Israelites. They don't care about the truth. They just want to turn the article into a propaganda platform.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:1703:45a4:358a:5ded:d422:a6c0 (talk • contribs)

As it says in Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, "most contemporary scholars dismiss it," so we don't need to include it here. But the article I mentioned is long and thorough, and easily found by people searching for info about Ashkenazim. ubiquity (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@2605:e000:1703:45a4:358a:5ded:d422:a6c0 Please keep your political assumptions out of the discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do they?

I've been fighting this battle for over 2 years. Why do you think there's been so much opposition to my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1703:45A4:358A:5DED:D422:A6C0 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that you admit to being here to fight, WP:SOCK and WP:BATTLEGROUND apply. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I never wanted to fight. Other people have been fighting me, including you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1703:45A4:358A:5DED:D422:A6C0 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So you're User:Ultrabomb, who has been trying to insert this material for the last two years? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding assimilation of Ashkenazi Jews in Kingdom of Poland / Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Ashkenazi Jews did not assimilate for several reasons:

1. In Poland / PLC Jews were under direct protection of the Crown, not ruled by local nobles. They had a privilege of self-government. 2. Forcible conversion of Jews in Poland and later PLC was punishable by death. Unalike Western Europe Jews did not have to assimilate to survive. 3. PLC was a land that was home to Catholic Poles, Catholic and later Protestant Germans (almost all Polish cities after Poland converted to Christianity, between 966 and 1200s were started by German settlers), Catholic and later Protestant Lithuanians, Orthodox White Russians, Ruthenians and Cossacks, Old Slavic Church Serbian refugees from Ottoman Empire, Muslim Tatars, etc. all very different in custom, dress, language and worship, Jews did not stand out at all in that mix, unlike the West, which was pretty uniform from Germany, through France all the way to Britain. 4. Persecution of Ashkenazi Jews in Central Europe started with the fall of PLC in 1795. Under the administration of Austrians / Germans / Prussians the Ashkenazi Jews were reminded why they left the Holy Roman Empire in the first place. Russian Empire, being home to a multitude of ethnic groups of all possible religions did not target Jews specifically, but did not protect them specifically either, so persecution encouraged by local nobility (keen on expanding their lands holdings) was ever-increasing and more bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.16.172 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland missing from list of regions with significant populations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyya (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

link needs to be added...

But, I cannot do it.

this part here

Biblical Ashkenaz is usually derived from Assyrian Aškūza (cuneiform Aškuzai/Iškuzai), a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates

needs this link added to the word Cimmerians

Cimmerians entry

Cobradetroit (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The word "Cimmerians" is already linked in the etymology section, and we don't usually link a word more than once, unless there is a special reason to do so. Is there one in this case? Also, why would you write "Cimmerians entry" instead of "Cimmerians entry"? Debresser (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism

Above, where it says this article is of interest to WikiProject Judaism, it says it is rated as High Importance, but should it be rated as Top Importance? Vorbee (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense and even two statements contradict each other

while an estimate made in 1930 (near the population's peak) had them as 92 percent of the world's Jews.[33] Immediately prior to the Holocaust, the number of Jews in the world stood at approximately 16.7 million.[34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.159.110 (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC) since only 1 mln of sephardic, mizradhi and ethiopian jews was just 80 years ago according to this nonsense and other holocausters claim that 6 mln that supposedly perished in 1945 were 95% of all jews in Europe...fix this nonsense...additionally now some jews claim that 38 mln jews are living in the world

Migration to the East (Poland)

I think it would be valuable to add in this article why the Ashkenazim started migrating and thrived in Poland. What is missing in the "High and Late Middle Ages migrations" section is mentioning of 1264 Statute of Kalisz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz) which created legal protections for Jews, which were later extended by King Kazimierz Wielki, or Casimir the Great, in the early fourteenth century.

This is nicely described here https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/resistance-during-holocaust/jewish-life-poland-holocaust as:

Jews had been living in Poland since at least the Middle Ages. When Crusaders moved through Europe in the thirteenth century, Jewish refugees sought safety in Poland. The 1264 Statute of Kalisz created legal protections for Jews that were extended by King Kazimierz Wielki, or Casimir the Great, in the early fourteenth century. With these protections, Jewish communities in Poland began to thrive. Scholars suggest that by the sixteenth century, 80 percent of all Jews worldwide lived in Poland, where they enjoyed relative autonomy and tolerance and developed a rich social and cultural life, including several significant Jewish religious movements, such as the Hasidim (a sect of Judaism with an emphasis on mysticism and prayer) and a Jewish reformation movement called the Haskalah.'

References

Jews were not seeking safety, they came with invaders during crusades and were the main force behind all crusades — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.159.110 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of Ashkenazi in Germany 200.000?

That can't be right. This source says 100.000 Jews in total and I believe they are mostly post-WII immigrants. If I'm wrong, I'd love to see the source (really). 93.132.46.43 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Update on Ashkenazi Culture (Eastern Europe)

I intend to add an update to the article with new information about the transformation of Ashkenazi culture after the second world war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvallentine1211 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

This sentence I feel is very misleading: "In the late Middle Ages, due to religious persecution, the majority of the Ashkenazi population shifted steadily eastward,[27] moving out of the Holy Roman Empire into areas later part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, comprising parts of present-day Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine" 1. Jews were barred from German cities mostly in the Middle Ages NOT late Middle Ages as much. Late middle ages means 1400-1500. A very significant migration happened in the 1300s to Poland especially Krakow under king Kazimierz Wielki 2. ..into areas later part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, comprising parts of present-day Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine... This part is misleading. Poland should be first on the list as it was the first territory they entered. Then Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova and Ukraine. Please note Russia did not allow any Jews into the country, in fact, even when Poland east was taken over by Russia in 1795, Jews were not allowed into Russia proper, but could visit for short periods to do business (they were not allowed to settle there). The Russians called the territory acquired from Poland the 'Pale of Settlement'. Jews from this area were incorporated into the Russian empire, but as stated earlier were barred from settling in Russia proper. I would not include the word Russia in that list. I think emphasis must be made to reflect that more than 50% of Jews in the middle ages, in Europe lived in the territory that is now Poland.

Thanks for reading this. My email: wojciech_mar@hotmail.com I am a licenced city tour guide in Krakow, Poland GoodViewFromHere (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Old French to "elements of Hebrew, Aramaic and Slavic languages"?

Yiddish has an Old French substrate with words like leyenen, briv, and others; should this be added to the lead (if appropriately sourced)? It's an important element of both the history of the Ashkenazi Jews and of Yiddish, forming part of the link between the Jews of Judea, the Jews of the Roman Empire, and the Ashkenazi Jews of the Middle Ages. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In the case of briv or zup, how can one know if these words came to Yiddish from German or French? Like it says at tantzn, "From Middle High German tanzen, ultimately from Old French dancer". So how do we know that these words came straight from French without German at least in the middle? Debresser (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good questions in my view. If they can be answered satisfactorily with reliable sources, either pointing to Old French or High German, than they can be added. This is all just more material reinforcing the High German/Old French Western origins of the language, against the fringe Slavic theories of Paul Wexler and others. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

STOBI it is part of REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, or you can write: STOBI it is part of MKD, the flag of MKD it is yellow sun on red layer Vanhelsingskopje (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've change the link to Macedonia (Roman province) which is the most accurate. Thanks Goldsztajn (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Haredi / Hareidi

Haredi or Hareidi or both? This article has four of one and two of the other. As a former proofreader, I would prefer to see six of the same spelling, and I’ll make that amendment in a while if no one demurs. Otherwise, it can lead to people spending time trying to find out whether there is a difference or whether they’re just alternative spellings (as I did).Nick Barnett (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is at Haredi, but both are acceptable. I too would prefer to see Haredi, but don't think enforcing my personal preference is justified. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not checked the article in detail, but I can't think of a good reason not to make the spelling consistent as Haredi throughout the page? warshy ^(¥¥) 20:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

With respect.

Please review the sentence in the article:

"Biblical Ashkenaz is usually derived from Assyrian Aškūza (cuneiform Aškuzai/Iškuzai), a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates,[40] whose name is usually associated with the name of the Scythians."

The use of the word WHOSE is not clear. It could refer to "a people" or "Cimmerians" or Armenians. Less likely but still possible grammatically, it could refer to "Biblical Ashkenaz". Please clarify the sentence in the article.

GreekLantern (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have personal access to the books cited, but Wikipedia's page for the Scythians themselves cites Iškuzai as an Assyrian exonym, so I presume that is what is intended; I have edited accordingly. Of course, if anyone who does have access to any of these sources could provide quotes, that would go even further in improving clarity. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Gladstein and Hammer 2018 reference

In reference 91 "Glanstein" should be changed to "Gladstein"

Gladstein AL, Hammer MF (March 2019). "Substructured population growth in the Ashkenazi Jews inferred with Approximate Bayesian Computation". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 36 (6): 1162–1171. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz047. PMID 30840069.

Agladstein (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

khazars and turkic jews

the khazars are descendants of turko khazars in southern russia ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F05:F400:C86:D647:3DC3:1AF7 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

2015 Genetic Study by Jiao-Yang et al.

There's a study by Jiao-Yang Tian, Hua-Wei Wang, Yu-Chun Li and Wen Zhang called "A genetic contribution from the Far East into Ashkenazi Jews via the ancient Silk Road" that clearly states: "An early eastern European Ashkenazi origin from Italy (first millennium and earlier) would also agree with the finding that an origin mainly from Germany or another central or western European country during the late Middle Ages, is demographically not possible." Do not remove - it's a constructive feedback. It's a known fact that many of the people who go by the name "Ashkenazi" aren't such. Too bad Wikipedians here are ignorant whose bias destroys this site's credibility. Sincerely yours, a Jew.--Mark Savage (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Israeli Jew. Your comment would be taken more seriously if you'd cut out the rant. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, anti-Zionist who's openly admitting it; sorry not sorry for calling the truth. If the fact that my academic knowledge in history is harmful to u, because u falsely believe that about 150,000 historic Ashkenazim in France, Germany and Austria combined by the year 1500 could given birth to over 11,000,000 Jews in less than 4 centuries and that "there were virtually no pre-Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe prior to the 16th Century (while all demographics lists show otherwise) " - it's not my fault. Do not censor nor spare information from the Wikipedia readers. I hope it'll be a changing point in ur future of edits. No hard feelings. 🤭--Special:Contributions/Mark Savage (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Mark Savage, The full quote from that study is:

"This suggests that Ashkenazi Jewry may date to Roman times, possibly originating in Italy, which is also suggested by analysis of mtDNA8 and autosomal data20. An early eastern European Ashkenazi origin from Italy (first millennium and earlier) would also agree with the finding that an origin mainly from Germany21 or another central or western European country18 during the late Middle Ages, is demographically not possible. Recent work also suggests a sizable Jewish presence in eastern Germany (the Danube region, rather than the Rhineland) prior to the expansion in Poland between 1500 and 1650AD22."

The author seems to be saying, not that the Ashkenazi Jews did not come to Eastern Europe from the west (west/central Europe), but that they did not originate there (having derived more of their ancestry from Italy and the Middle East). The author apparently does not hold that the Ashkenazim came from the Rhineland (to Eastern Europe, i.e Poland), but does consider it likely that they migrated to Poland/Eastern Europe instead from the Danube region of southeast Germany (having come to the Danube region from Italy, and with some of their ancestors having come from the Near East before that) - the Danube region is not far from Italy. The study does not seem to deny that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews (after having come from Italy) lived in Central Europe or nearby (with the Danube region suggested here) and then from there (in the main) expanded to Poland/Eastern Europe.

Also, assuming the motivations of other users and conspiratorial accusations are against Wikipedia policies. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Skllagyook (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi Jewry" and "Eastern European Jews" aren't tied hand in hand in reality nor in this article. 🤷🏻‍♂️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Savage (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Savage You called yourself a Jew, and the Hebrew in the citation gave away that you are Israeli. I, however, strongly object to you calling me anti-Zionist, whether or not that would be true is besides the point. Please remove that from your reply. Please notice that I did not call you out on your opinions, and per WP:NPA that is unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)