Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

new paper on mitochondrial dna

The origins of Ashkenazi Jews remain highly controversial. Like Judaism, mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line. Its variation in the Ashkenazim is highly distinctive, with four major and numerous minor founders. However, due to their rarity in the general population, these founders have been difficult to trace to a source. Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of oundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history.

- http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html

Deserves a mention. The first para to this article is pretty ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.197 (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

History of the Ashkenazi. What has this to do with the subject?

Compare Shira Schoenberg, Ashkenazim at the Jewish Virtual Library to our history. Nothing there gives us what we have here, because the following 'stuff' has nothing to do with the Ashkenazim.

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 Kokhba rebellion of 132–135 CE. Though their numbers were greatly reduced, Jews continued to populate large parts of Judea province (renamed Palaestina), remaining a majority in Galilee for several hundred years. But, 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, and Italy, including Rome. Many Jews were denied full Roman citizenship until 212 CE, when Emperor Caracalla granted all free peoples this privilege. Josephus ben Matthias, a direct-line descendant of the Hasmonaeans, became a Roman citizen and adopted the family name of the Roman Emperor Flavius, before 70 A.D. This was before he accompanied Vespasian's son Titus to Jerusalem and wrote The Antiquities of the Jews (The History of the Jews). As a penalty for the first Jewish Revolt, Jews were required to pay a poll tax until the reign of Emperor Julian in 363. In the late Roman Empire, Jews were free to form networks of cultural and religious ties and enter into various local occupations. But, after Christianity became the official religion of Rome and Constantinople in 380, Jews were increasingly marginalized.In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, where Jewish religious scholarship was centered, the majority of Jews were still engaged in farming. Early Talmudic writings were concerned with agriculture. In diaspora communities, trade was a common occupation, facilitated by the easy mobility of traders through the dispersed Jewish communities.[citation needed] Throughout this period and into the early Middle Ages, some Jews assimilated into the dominant Greek and Latin cultures, mostly through conversion to Christianity.[43] A remnant of this Greek-speaking Jewish population (the Romaniotes) survives to this day. In Mesopotamia, and in Persian lands free of Roman imperial domination, Jewish life fared better. Since the conquest of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar II, this community had always been the leading diaspora community, a rival to the leadership of Judea. After conditions for Jews began to deteriorate in Roman-controlled lands, many of the religious leaders of Judea and the Galilee fled to the east. At the academies of Pumbeditha and Sura near Babylon, Rabbinic Judaism based on Talmudic learning began to emerge and assert its authority over Jewish life throughout the diaspora. Rabbinic Judaism created a religious mandate for literacy, requiring all Jewish males to learn Hebrew and read from the Torah. Jewish minorities in both Christian and Islamic lands achieved a higher literacy rate than the majority of gentiles, which M. Botticini and Z. Eckstein suggest gave them an advantage to fulfill urban commercial and financial roles.[44] In the Caliphate of Baghdad, Jews took on many of the financial occupations that they would later hold in the cities of Ashkenaz. Jewish traders from Baghdad began to travel to the west, renewing Jewish life in the western Mediterranean region.[45] They brought with them Rabbinic Judaism and Babylonian Talmudic scholarship.

This has almost nothing to do with our article. Read Toch, or any number of authorities, and you will find comprehensive analyses of what little we do know about the pre-Ashkenazi Jews of Europe in late antiquity, the Dark Ages until the beginning of the first millenium CE when we start to get a preciser focus (as I tried to do in my edit). Tritomex has yet to justify what this blob of irrelevancy is doing here. If the Jewish Virtual Library article has no need of it, why do we?Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Could we try to get this important article into shape

This has suffered extensively from edit-warring, and the result has been extensive use of scratchy sources. The history of the Jews is extensively documented by many solid academic books, and articles. It's not hard to use this, instead of scrounging about for snippets from the internet. I did a preliminary edit for the early (pre-)history mainly consisting in the removal of all of those paragraphs which had no place here, dealing as they did with Jews in Persia and the Middle East with no connection to the subject of this article. I'd be quite willing to leave the article if a few people out there could subscribe to the idea that academic sources cover all the bases, and we should use them.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No Nishidani, this article has been edited by numerous editors and it is in good shape. You created an extremely one sided POV pushing article from the Khazars overwriting the entire article with a fringe theory based on three controversial and marginal scholars. You removed dozens of good sourced references and highly respected scholars. You even sourced famous Jewish historians through this marginal scholars, despite the fact that Sand has been accused by Israel Barthal of falsifying them. If your question means that you ask for permission to repeat what you did with Khazars-the answer is no-Also I hope the same editor(s) who use to join you in reverting me are not going to appear with the same intentions here.--Tritomex (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahimé. There's a simple test for this. Ask anyone with GA experience to look at the article version to which you have reverted. As to the rest, any reader can examine how you wrote Ophel inscription and how I revised it. Any article you persist in working on, cannot, almost by definition, be improved as long as you exercise revert powers.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent editors are asked to examine the quality of sources Tritomex used as opposed to those introduced and now obliterated (b) to ask what on earth are extensive paragraphs about the Jews in the Persian empire and Byzantium to do with ancient and medieval Ashkenazi origins when none of the texts used make a connection. People come to read this article for information on the Ashkenazi, not on Mizrahi communities, which are amply served. (c) in his revert Tritomex removed several uses of high quality sources like Toch, while restoring useless googled pages like this, preferring the outdated Jewish virtual libary tour pages to recent historians like MIchael Toch, and restoring absolutely unrelated, extraneous blobs like the following, which could apply to the Spanish Sephardim by the same logic. I.e.,

In Mesopotamia, and in Persian lands free of Roman imperial domination, Jewish life fared better. Since the conquest of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar II, this community had always been the leading diaspora community, a rival to the leadership of Judea. After conditions for Jews began to deteriorate in Roman-controlled lands, many of the religious leaders of Judea and the Galilee fled to the east. At the academies of Pumbeditha and Sura near Babylon, Rabbinic Judaism based on Talmudic learning began to emerge and assert its authority over Jewish life throughout the diaspora. Rabbinic Judaism created a religious mandate for literacy, requiring all Jewish males to learn Hebrew and read from the Torah. Jewish minorities in both Christian and Islamic lands achieved a higher literacy rate than the majority of gentiles, which M. Botticini and Z. Eckstein suggest gave them an advantage to fulfill urban commercial and financial roles.[44] In the Caliphate of Baghdad, Jews took on many of the financial occupations that they would later hold in the cities of Ashkenaz. Jewish traders from Baghdad began to travel to the west, renewing Jewish life in the western Mediterranean region.[45] They brought with them Rabbinic Judaism and Babylonian Talmudic scholarship.

We need book on Jews in ancient and early medieval Europe, not distractions.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I created the Ophel inscription and Ophel Treasure articles and I do not object an argument based rewriting of those articles. All new articles could contain mistakes and that is why they can be corrected peacefully with mutual respect. I clearly stated that contrary to this what you have done to Khazars article is unacceptable. I did not remove Toch, although he is far from being the best source. The Jewish virtual library is very much updated and reliable regarding Jewish history.

Mesopotamia is mentioned as the focal point of Jewish migrations, birth place of Talmud and in this context it is important in understanding Ashkenazi Jews. Also, the sections explains the reasons of migration of Jews from Palestine to Europe-which is considered by some scholars as the main root of migrations of Ashkenazi Jews. The patterns of Jewish migrations and trade which brought Talmud to Europe are also very important in understanding Jewish history. The same goes for the understanding of traditional Ashekanzi occupations which were brought to Ashkeanzi Jews by Jewish traders from Near East and South West Asia. I do not see anything objectionable here.--Tritomex (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(a) You need a modern academic source that say that thew Ashkenazi came from Mesopotamia. So far it is all WP:OR

(b)you need a modern academic source saying the Ashkenazi emigrated from Palestine (which is not Mesopotamia. So far it is all WP:OR

(c) Your allusion to the Radhanite trade group in relation to the formation of the Ashkenazi, a very complex issue, needs a good academic source.

You have supplied nothing, and in the meantime wiped out sources of high quality which I began to introduce to give some solid grounding to this section.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The same goes for the understanding of traditional Ashekanzi occupations which were brought to Ashkeanzi Jews by Jewish traders from Near East and South West Asia.

Michael Toch dismisses the way this argument has been used with regard to the rise of Ashkenazi trading groups on pp.197-100, etc. as a myth based on distorsion of sources. You have replaced such scholarship with a synthetic construct which is a mishmash of hackneyed memes to push a thesis. Goitein is quoted on this with approval: 'To all intents and purposes, the Arabic-speaking Jewish merchants of the Mediterranean area were confined to the realm of Islam . .The European traders with whom the Genizah merchants dealt were exclusively Christians, Italians and Byzantines.'

So please desist from pretending you know something about the history which this article is supposed to write up.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

a) I do not need "modern" sources and I do not know what modern source mean. Nowhere in the article it is claimed that AJ came from Mesopotamia. What kind of policy based argument is this invention? WP:OR (modern source-categorized by whom?)

b) The source fully reflects the text, it is reliable and well written.

c) I did not "wiped out sources of high quality" from this article, show me what I have removed or stop making baseless accusations.

d) You are distorting Toch as you did with Polyak, while Goitein views are contrary to what you try to prove here. WP:SYNTH. --Tritomex (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

(a) (b) (c) (d) do not answer my points. You do not show where I distort Toch. You never showed where I distorted Pol(y)ak, and you fail to understand Goitein. Assertions are not an argument, they are off-the-cuff insinuations one interlocutor is in bad faith (WP:AFG). Keep this up and you will be reported. The evidence is now substantial. You are making serious article construction herculean in the laboriousness required to cope with these adventitious opinions that talk past serious questions.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem

I reverted this edit because it is technically false. But there is a problem in the source, a source by the way that I found on the page and had no alternative but to use it.

• The problem is that Kriwaczek, in writing:-

Where and when, during the first post-Christian millenium, eastern European Jewry came to be labelled with the Hebrew name of their Scythian neighbours on the Blackl Sea steppe is unknown, but ever since then it has been Ashkenazi.'

is espousing the Khazar thesis, but the facts do not allow this conclusion. Ashkenazim came into use to refer to European Jews east of the Spanish Sephardic communities, I guess, wherever they might have been, but certainly not in the sense of of 'eastern European Jewry' particularly since it was used of the French and German communities at that time. When one encounters this kind of misleading evidence in RS, one should, as here, enter it, and then go for a better source which specifies that Ashkenazi 'came to refer' to European Jews' so that the otherwise respectable Rs's POv can be remodulated.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite this note, the text is being changed without RS authority, which is 'illegal'. Cf.

the widely accepted term is Central and E Europe. E E is no longer acceptable and the authors mean that part of Europe.

Not authors, but author, and the author did not necessarily mean 'that part of Europe'. The source says eastern European Jewry came to be called by this term’, and his book was published in 2011. You are overwriting the source according to your preconceptions of correct usage, changing the author’s own stated opinion. That opinion can only be reverted or change by some other reliable source. Kriwaczek’s note leaves no room for doubt he believed that Ashkenaz was applied first to Jews to the East and then to the West. I doubt this, and have asked for quality RS that study the emergence of the word Ashkenaz in Jewish literature so we can pinpoint which source first made the connection. This shouldn’t be difficult.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yovhannes Drasxanakertc

Tritomex wrote in an edit summary, "Yovhannes Drasxanakertc associated "Togormah" and not "Ashkenaz" with Armenia. Note 52 page 149". Well, not exactly. Actually he identified Togormah and Ashkenaz as the same people. From Chapter 1:

Tiras who was the third in descent from Japheth begat three sons: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. And as Tiras ruled alone over the Thracians, he thought that he should divide his own territories into three parts and hand these over to his sons to possess, and thus he carried out his intent. 13. To Ashkenaz, who first named our people Ashkenazian after himself, he gave the suzerainty over the Sarmatians, and to Riphath that over the Sauromatians, 14. whereas Togarmah inherited our own people, over whom he ruled, and called the former Ashkenazian the House of Togarmah from his own name. 15. You now know why we are called Ashkenazian as well as the House of Togarmah and thus can be quite certain of the narration concerning the patriarchy of our people, although there are some who give different accounts, and others who tell allegorical epics.

This is in the file ydh1.htm in this edition. Zero^talk 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case it's just the last example of Tritomex's WP:SYNTH, WP:OR in the service of falsifying sources, and should go into the list of reports of his obstinate distortion of wikipedia articles by the removal of impeccably sourced material. Do that once more, Tritomex, and there will be no alternative to asking for a long ban from any article dealing with this area.

I wrote:here

'In the 10th century, History of Armenia' of Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i (1.15) Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia.ref name="Gmirkin" >Russell E. Gmirkin,Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 2006 p.148 n.42'

The source Gmirkin reads:

Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia at Yovhannes Drassanakertc’i, History of Armenia,’ 1:15.

Tritomex clicked on the page link read it, and, probably with the Khazar identification of themselves with descendants of Togarmah in mind, made this edit:-

Edit summary Yovhannes Drasxanakertc associated "Togormah" and not "Ashkenaz" with Armenia. Note 52 page 149).

Note 52 on p.149 reads:-

cf.'Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, History of Armenia, 1:14-15. Yovhannes labeled Togarmah a son of Tiras, ruler of the Thracians. The Phrygians of central Anatolia came from Thrace, probably after the fall of the Hittite Empire'.

(a) He elided what Gmirkin wrote, on the basis of a WP:SYNTH argument that Khazars=descendants of Togarmah, hence Ashkenaz was not associated with Armenia, despite the source saying it was! Note 52 p.149 makes no mention of Ashkenaz. Incredible.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

'You now know why we are called Ashkenazian as well as the House of Togarmah and thus can be quite certain of the narration concerning the patriarchy of our people, '

That's fascinating, Zero. Someone writing in Armenian at the height of the Khazar empire (ca.900 CE) that the Armenians to the south call themselves Ashkenazians/House of Togarmah. The letter of king Joseph ca.960 reads:'You ask us also in your epistle: "Of what people, of what family, and of what tribe are you?" Know that we are descended from Japhet, through his son Togarmah.'Jacob Rader Marcus,The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315-1791, Hebrew Union College,(1938) rev.ed. 1999 p.257. Surely some scholarly sources must have examined this nexus? (the temporal implication is that Christian Armenians and a Judaic Khazarian elite saw themselves in terms of Genesis's genealogical chart as affines.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani you accused me of WP:VAN, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, for removing one sentence referenced to P:148. This is not in line with WP:AGF. Especially your allegations of me as a "falsifier" is something that goes beyond Wikipedia rules at least per WP:CIVIL. Concerning User:Zero0000 quote from Chapter 1, I can agree that this quote can justify the addition provided. I was referring in my revert to Note 52 page 149". about Drasxanakertcs elaborations regarding Armenian history.--Tritomex (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You erased this

'In the 10th century, History of Armenia' of Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i (1.15) Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia.

which paraphrases a specialist source where it is written:-

:Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia at Yovhannes Drassanakertc’i, History of Armenia,’ 1:15.

Ergo you removed RS material on personal grounds, and cited the next page as justification. The next page says nothing on Ashkenaz. Doing that is vandalistic POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Also another problem is sourcing. "Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as Pre-text for Revelation" is a book written by a priest. It could be used for theological elaborations in regard of different religious perspectives on biblical phrases, but it is not reliable source for historic claims as for "Aškūza a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates"Tritomex (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Are you saying that any scholar with rabbinical qualifications cannot be cited for anything on Jewish history?Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes a Rabbi (without formal education from history) is not a reliable qualification to be an expert for Jewish history. He could be an expert for Jewish theology. Not so long you reverted an academic scholar described by numerous secondary sources as NBC and FOX as "top scientist" regarding ancient Jewish history based on his religious convictions which as you claim made him unreliable. Here, we have a historic extrabiblical subject which should be referenced through historians and not through rabbinical or other religious authors. Also, for example Rabbi Kleiman wrrote a book regarding Jewish genetics which has received a huge popularity. Are you claiming his book is reliable source on that issue?

Not 'formal education from history'.: 'formal education in history'.

First. You refuse to remove the many instances on this article where historical 'facts' are sourced to genetics papers here. The proof is that you have sat on this page for over a year as it deteriorates, and now you are laying down a principle which you refuse to apply here. The lead reads:-

Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Germania"), are a Jewish ethnic division who trace their origins to the indigenous Israelite tribes of the Middle East.[10][11][12]

(10) That is a (extremely POV) statement of an historical nature. It is 'supported' by (10) Jared Diamond, an anthropologist (11) from M.F Hammer et l. a genetics paper (12) and Nicholas Wade writing on genetics as science writer for the NYT.

When I see you remove those sources on the technical ground you have just waved in my face, I'll take you seriously.

You allude to my removal of Douglas Petrovich at Ophel inscription. He is not an academic scholar. He is a Phd candidate at Toronto University, is a Creationist and has never had anything published by a mainstream University Press, and that Fox News thinks he's a 'top scientist', (sigh!) . . . . well, you can try to convince someone at RSN. Good luck. Sverre Bøe, like Geza Vermes or Oskar Skarsaune or Reuven Firestone or Daniel Boyarin etc.etc., had his training at theological colleges, underwent doctoral training, graduated with a PhD and is published under peer review in a major academic press. All biblical scholars undergo intense historical and philological training, whether their central interest is theology or not. You cannot read the Bible at an academic level in the original unless you understand the historical complexities. Philology is the handmaiden of history. Sverre Bøe's sphere of recognized academic competence is the Bible, his book shows a thorough command of the academic literature and the linguistic-textual issues, all of which involve inextricably historical issues. He was trained in that. Rabbi Kleiman was not trained in genetics.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

All honest Christian, Jewish or Islamic priests are by the definition of their function creationist.This would per your definition disqualify all of them from being reliable regarding history (which indeed is the case regarding non theological subjects if they do not have formal education). Douglas Petrovich, is the academic dean at Novosibirsk Biblical-Theological Seminary in Akademgorodok, Russia, his theological training consists of a MDiv and a ThM from The Masters Seminary (Sun Valley, California) and a BA in at Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, Illinois), So what is the difference between Petrovich and Bøe? Geza Vermes,, Oskar Skarsaune, Reuven Firestone, Daniel Boyarin have all formal education from respective non theological sciences for which they can be considered experts. The origins of population groups is one of the main subject of exploration in population genetics. Much more than in classical history. Regarding history, one of the differences between population genetics and priests is that population genetics explores history from scientifically established point of view while theologists explores it from religiously established point of view. The difference in objectivity of both of this approaches can be easily measured. --Tritomex (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no objective way to separate "reliable" from "unreliable" sources, but we have to try. A properly qualified person who publishes in eminent places should normally be included, and a strong argument would be required to make an exception. At the other end of the spectrum, sworn enemies of science, such as "archaeologists" who support the historicity of the great flood, should be excluded by default. I have no opinion on Sverre Bøe since I didn't look at his record, but I did look at Petrovich and he is completely out of the question. Zero^talk 06:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

All honest Christian, Jewish or Islamic priests are by the definition of their function creationist.

So the Pope's dishonest? Go read Humani generis, which I guess in your view is 'dishonest'. Idem Jewish views on evolution and Islamic views on evolution. It is easy to evaluate RS here. Sverre Bøe practices modern scholarship, accepts the discipline's consensual results, is peer-reviewed, and widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature (here, here here here and [1] and here) to cite just a few examples. Scholars ignore Douglas Petrovich. You have no argument.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

So what are you claiming with Humani generis? Its well known that the Catholic Church basic doctrine is that the world was created by God: This, as everyone knows did not change. ( Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican City, 36.) The same goes for Islam هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن طِينٍ ثُمَّ قَضَى أَجَلاً وَأَجَلٌ مُّسمًّى عِندَهُ ثُمَّ أَنتُمْ تَمْتَرُونَ He it is who has created you out of clay, and then has decreed a term [for you] - a term known [only] to him. The same goes to Judaism Maimonides and Gersonides both underlined creation as it is written in the book of Genesis. You cited theological citations for Boe, no one has disputed his theological credentials. (He has a very popular video series about God and the Bible) yet I do not find anyone citing Boe on historic issues, especially those unrelated to Bible.--Tritomex (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Read some pages of Sverre Bøe's book. It is not a theological discussion. It is an historical survey of the concept of Gog and Magog, using the best contemporary historical, textcritical and philological scholarship. If you cannot understand the difference between Creationism and biblical fundamentalism, which is what Douglas Petrovich subscribes to, then not even the tetragrammaton can help you.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex again

For medieval Jews the term Ashkenaz represented Germany and also France. The historical sense for this terminology lies in the unification of this two lands under Carolingian rule and in close relationship between the Jews of this two countries. Later, after the migration of Jews eastward, the distinction between French and German Jews gradually fully vanished.(Reconstructing Ashkenaz: The Human Face of Franco-German Jewry, 1000–1250 By David Malkiel Preface P1)

• It's page ix not p.1
• You (or whoever) misconstrued the meaning of the passage.
• And it was inserted into the wrong section, breaking the chronology of usage, apparently since eyes were distracted by the historical implications of Carolingian.

So I had no alternative but to fix the damage to the narrative flow by adding this as an addendum to the section.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you doing with the text Nishidani? The text  : The Human Face of Franco-German Jewry, 1000–1250 By David Malkiel Preface states "For Jews living in medieval Europe, Ashkenaz refereed to Germany but in this study as in the modern usage it refers to France..This make historic sense given the unification of this lands under Carolingian rule and especially because of close cultural ties between the Jews of this two centers....The terminological and cultural distinction between France and Germany faded following eastward migration of large numbers of Central European Jews in Middle ages." You translated this into : "Given the close links between the Jewish communities of France and Germany following the Carolingian unification, modern studies now use the term Ashkenazi to embrace both the Jews of medieval Germany and France, since the ethnic differences and the terminological distinction between Zarephath (France) and Ashkenaz (Germany) dwindled following the diaspora to Eastern Europe" So what you wiped out was that "For Jews living in medieval Europe, Ashkenaz refereed to Germany" and "cultural distinction between France and Germany faded following eastward migration of large numbers of Central European Jews in Middle ages. This has to go to text as it is the point of whole addition. While you added even an Armenian medieval mythology about the meaning of Ashkenaz you forgot to mention what Ashkenaz actually meant for medieval Ashkenazi Jews.--Tritomex (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's what you are doing with the source and English that is problematical. Do you know what the term Medieval period refers to? You placed Malkiel in the midst of the discussion of 8th-9th century usage, breaking the continuity. The idea of Ashkenazi Jewry as a collective extending over Europe dates to the 1300s CE, not to the 9th century, as your mess suggested.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I refer to source QUOTE "For Jews living in medieval Europe, Ashkenaz refereed to Germany So this does not go to modern times and does not mean modern meaning. Also 'The terminological and cultural distinction between France and Germany faded following eastward migration of large numbers of Central European Jews in Middle ages." does not refer to modern times. It clearly states Middle ages --Tritomex (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but you are having difficulty construing what I wrote, and what Malkiel wrote. Medieval Jews can refer to any community from the 5th to the 15th century, i.e. a period of 1,000 years. Are you suggesting that Jews from 500 CE onwards Ashkenaz referred to Germany, when neither Ashkenaz as a european topnym nor Germany existed for those early centuries of the medieval period. Editors have to understand the implications of copying sources without thinking about them, and what you did is paraphrase without thinking of what you meant, or what the text implied. That's why I fixed it.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I should add that this addendum was wrong for the section in the first placem since it has no relevance to 'Etymology'. It should follow, if the article eventually is restructured according to wiki norms, and not just a WP:SYNTH, unsourced serious of opinions, in the history section. Etymoloy is followed by history, not by a series of little essays of no substance as we have here.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Public announcement about the article

Hi to all, I just want to make something clear for everybody. This article is currently undergoing a historical revision and the main user responsible for this is above Nishidani. He attempts, quite successfully and for his own reasons, to completely change the origins of Ashkenazi Jews, to manipulate their DNA studies (on genetic studies on Jews too) as he slowly removes sources on researches that contradict what he promotes. It's okay to add new sources for citation and such but what he does is different: He's scientifically establishing a few specific theories as facts (some of which are considered nothing but conspiracies, like the Khazars one) while deliberately deleting all other inputs/theories, a clear POV pushing and violation of Wikipedia's rules. What I just said can be easily confirmed by checking his contribution and recent writings. This is not the first time I bring this up and I'm definitely not the only one who thinks this way. Intended to whom it may concern, I believe this message could lead to a positive outcome. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Another plaintiff without the courage to act on what she believes are a dossier of huge violations of policy. Report me. If you don't, you are just a blowhard, wasting digital space. By the way, this article can't be edited seriously, because it's sat on by monitors who revert any sign of serious editing.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would I ever make such claims about someone if there was no truth to it? What would I possibly gain from doing that? There are other users who agree that you're POV-pushing articles while trying to conceal and deny this fact, as they simply notice it. Whether or not it's a result of your left wing views (a quote of you: "the fact I read Haaretz instead of Arutz Sheva"...), your personal interest conflicts and WP:BIAS occurs too often. A perfect example that proves this happened yesterday as I added some criticism about the sections you extensively edited and transformed, Khazars#Conversion and Khazars#Ashkenazi-Khazar theories (both theories are often used as a tool to indicate the "these Jewish converts" have no claim to the land of Israel and other serious accusations). The new section, criticizing the alleged theory, was reverted by you over and over again while many users insisted it should stay[2]. Why were you removing this information? Because (and I quote from you again) it has "to be discussed first", it's "pushing the article out of reasonable limits," "The page simply cannot support extra material" (what about all the material you have added?) it has "no reliable sources" (really?!) and others claims. Finally, I am saying this solely because there's nothing I like more than justice, or in this context: real, balanced, neutral, and good Wikipedia articles. And as history shows, awareness brings change. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I edit alone, and hope good editors approve or help the article I work on. No one has shown in several months that I have distorted any source, and they are almost all high grade scholarly sources, on that page. Several of you see Israel's interests, and Israel's enemies everywhere, and work articles when something about Jewish people is mentioned as if everything outside editors write is 'suspect', 'anti-Israel' or 'antisemitic'. You want the true message about this Israel to be hammered home. On the Khazar article all this was covered. It was not enough. The 'truth' (we are dealing with an antisemitic smear or lie or untruth) had to be hammered home. And that is what you edit did. You did not join the discussion. You just rammed in the edit, and 'friends' who have never done anything to work on, or improve that article over the last several months, rushed in to back you. It's politics for you guys, and it threatens to ruin a good page. In any case you have chosen to write this complaint on the wrong page.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani is know to me for a long time now as a POV editor, and as an editor who easily take up edit wars. All editors please take this into account, and watch his edits closely. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This egregious and unsupported personal attack against an excellent editor, who was recently selected as editor of the week in recognition of his "irreplacable conscientiousness and depth of knowledge in contentious areas, despite adversity faced in them", has no place on this talk page which is for content related discussion. In any case, I very much doubt your inappropriate comment will have the results you intended and only reflects poorly on yourself as an editor. Dlv999 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can easily support it, since it is the truth. Other editors with the same POV have earned my respect (I would like to mention User:Zero0000), but this editor is aggressive. Did you even notice his usual belligerent language above, accompanied by WP:CABAL accusations? These are some of the usual signs of tendentious editors. As far as his Editor of the Week reward is concerned: I sincerely doubt the wisdom of such a reward for an editor whose talkpage shows his involvement in numerous WP:ANI and WP:AE discussions (as an involved party), not to mention a warning. Bottom line: if this is a personal attack, I am sorry, but it is allowed to give other editors fair warning. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser for saying what you think. Ironically I actually reported exactly these two users not long ago here, and yes I do acknowledge that their edits are neutral and constructive sometimes, Dlv999. Anyway I think that from this point it would be better if this issue is discussed elsewhere and not on this talk page, so let us stop it here. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loewsdills (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were an admin, I'd simply remove this last comment from the discussion. As I am not, I'll suffice with saying you are not contributing to anything here. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Problematical lead definition of origins

a Jewish ethnic division who trace their origins to the Israelite tribes of the Middle East[10][11][12].

This is an historical claim, and is ambiguous. 'trace one's origins' can refer (i) to a myth or belief about origins underwritten by Ashkenazis (subjective) or (ii) the result of a successful inquiry into one's origins which documents one's real ancestral roots (objective). (d) as it stands 'who' should be 'which'.

The three sources are (i)a university typescript of a lecture given by the anthropologist, Jared Diamond; (b) Nicholas Wade reviewing genetics research; (c) a genetics paper.

• A university lecture typescript fails RS
• The genetics papers are not valid for historical questions (source:Tritomex).
• Whatever Nicholas Wade wrote earlier, he now states:

the origin of one of the most important Jewish populations, the Ashkenazim of Central and Eastern Europe, has remained a mystery.' Nicholas Wade, 'Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree,' New York Times, 8 October 2013.

• The contrary could be stated therefore using the same order of sources. Namely,

The origins of Ashkenazi Jews are wrapped in controversy,ref name=CostaM. D. Costa and 16 others (2013). "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages". Nature Communications. 4. doi:10.1038/ncomms3543.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). See sources 1-11. /ref and their history before the Middle Ages remains a mystery.refNicholas Wade, 'Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree,' New York Times, 8 October, 2013:'Still, the origin of one of the most important Jewish populations, the Ashkenazim of Central and Eastern Europe, has remained a mystery./refref ‘(Was the great Eastern European Jewry of the 19th century preponderantly descended (as is normally believed) from immigrants from the Germanic lands further west who arrived as refugees in the later Middle Ages, bearing with them their culture? Or did these new immigrants find already on their arrival a numerically strong Jewish life, on whom they were able to impose their superior culture, including even their long (a phenomenon not unknown at other times and places – as for example in the 16 century, after the arrival of the highly cultured Spanish exiles in the Turkish Empire)?) Does the line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry of today go back to a quasi autochthonous Jewry already established in these lands, perhaps even earlier than the time of the earliest Franco-German settlement in the Dark Ages? This is one of the mysteries of Jewish history, which will probably never been solved’ Cecil Roth in Cecil Roth, I. H. Levine The World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, Jews in Christian Europe, 711-1096,. Editors, Volume 11 Jewish historical publications, 1966 p. 379./ref

Since, therefore the lead statement is both poorly sourced and contradicted by other sources, it is POV. It must be removed, and remodulated in terms of a statement either using 'controversy' or 'mystery'.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I already argued here months ago that this intro is bad, because it should start with explaining who they are before going into most details, just like most articles on groups do, such as Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians, Georgians, Welsh people and so on. These articles don't start with genetics, and it shouldn't start here either. Different historical and current opinions on origins and formation of this group should come in later sections. The core of the intro here, in my opinion, should explain the narrow meaning (Jewish communities formed in medieval German and French areas and their descendants) and the wider meaning (all Jewish communities formed everywhere in Eastern and Central Europe and their descendants). Plenty of sources for that. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in specifying their origins in the lead section, because that IS part of who they are. We do have confirmation and reliable sources (which keep getting deleted) that Ashkenazim are Levantine in origin. Evildoer187 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer Recent studies also show that Ashkenazis are related to Italians, why then in related ethnic groups, only near easterners are mentioned? No mention of the obvious mixture with italic peoples in early antiquity, confirmed by the Romano Jewish historian Josephus Flavius. It's obvious that Ashkenazis are of near eastern origin, shouldn't it be obvious that they're of Latin origin as well? Please reply as I'm very confused about this issue. Thanks in advance. Guy355 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, it's because the Related Ethnic Groups section pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common, but also common geographic origin, culture, language, traditions, etc. I do agree that more sources on those should be added.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DNA test confirm Jews are not from the middle east

Don't feed the trolls. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html Just an inbreed group of Europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanatosxrx (talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) This illiterate rant should not be on the page, as it is both antisemitic and racist, with injurious terms (just . .inbred). The Ashkenazi were and are a dazzling ornament to, no, outstanding contributers to, Western civilization . Yet since removing it only leads to edit wars, we should just ignore it.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Ah, good ole JIDF shill. Hey Nishidani. I see you've managed to take the claim that European Jews are not semitic peoples as "omgz yous being antisemitics!!!". Try harder? 106.68.132.67 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Harlequin Awww look, there's even comments in here from people who thinks it's okay to call a group of millions of people "inbreds". It's funny how the poster above actually doesn't think that calling the Ashkenazim inbreds is antisemitic, I guess bigotry doesn't bother him if it's against people he doesn't like. Kitty (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC) If this study is true, then why aren't "other Europeans" mentioned in the related ethnic groups? Why are only near easterners mentioned? It's as if you'll say Latinos are only of native American origin. Guy355 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins and the introduction

I edited the introduction to take into account the latest DNA findings suggesting a European origin for Ashkenazi Jews. It would be POV to use these results to claim that Ashkenazis are of European origin, but it was just as POV of the introduction to claim that they are of Levantine origin. It's a fact that good, serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views. Our job is not to take sides between these, but to report them. If a major scientific consensus develops for one view or the other, the article should reflect that. As long as there is no such consensus, the article should report both views without taking sides.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. The whole article needs an overhaul along these lines. A good guide to an eventual revision may be found in the Jewish Virtual Library article, Ashkenazim, by Shira Schoenberg, which begins with the 10th-11th centuries.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I might add that the nonsensical lines in the lead.

Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[24]

nonsensical because it defines Jews in late Roman empire Europe as 'Ashkenazi' several centuries before the word 'Ashkenazi' was adopted to describe them, and needs its source verified (which is not as cited, but Steven Bowman's 'Jews in Byzantium' chapter in that encyclopedia's reedition pp.1035-1048, who consistently speaks of Jews, though I cannot google the exact page 1042). I have asked for this several times, and the tag requesting verification for an extraordinary claim has been consistently removed. Jews undoubtedly lived throughout Europe from early times: Ashkenazim are, in part or whole, their descendants.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you made a good edit, adding prespective. I only changed to order of "Levantines" and "Italians and other Europeans", as per the chronological order.

Nishidani, your point is valid. But the intention is obviously to the forfathers of those who would later be called Ashkenazi, so I don't see the big problem in using the term. Perhaps some small clarification in the article can resolve the issue. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's an anachronism. The rule is use the standard language of exemplary academic RS, where scruples exist. I'd reckon there's a fair chance of finding some good authors (Toynbee uses it vaguely thus somewhere in his 12 vols, anachronistically, if I recall) who do use it. But we have no way of knowing whether the Cologne Jewish community whose remains are being excavated were Levantine. In all this, there is the recent historic unfamiliarity with the widespread practice of diaspora conversion, which all scholars have no problems with, despite the rhetorical insistance on direct descent. (I might add that the October 2013 paper by Richards et al arguing for an Italian origin doesn't strike me as conclusive for a simple historical reason. Almost all ancient authorities (save one) argued that the Etruscan population came from the Levant. If there is something behind this, then the notable Etruscan component within the Italic/Roman republic population would have Levantine DNA elements. Just a personal observation). Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourced content restored

In a rather extreme display of POV-pushing Evildoer187 removed all references in both the introduction and the infobox to Ashkenazi Jews possibly being of European decent. Rather revealingly, only DNA studies saying that Ashkenazis are of European origins were removed, while studies saying that they are of Middle Eastern origins were left intact. In other words, the user does not disagree with presenting findings from DNA-studies, only with studies not representing his/her WP:TRUTH. POV-pushing rarely comes in more obvious forms than this. Once again: serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views. Our job is not to take sides between these, but to report them. If a major scientific consensus develops for one view or the other, the article should reflect that. As long as there is no such consensus, the article should report both views without taking sides. Deleting sourced content is considered vandalisms, and further violations will be reported.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to link directly to the studies, rather than news articles (some of which blatantly misrepresented the studies) which discussed them. Why do we need BBC, Haaretz, and Science Daily articles to be cited when we have the actual study they discuss cited? Isn't that enough? I was searching for the direct genetic study for the NYT one as well. Additionally, NONE of the genetic studies even remotely suggest that Ashkenazim are purely European in origin. One of them suggests that 80 percent of their maternal/mtDNA origins are European, and that's it. Rectifying that is not POV pushing, and I object to your needlessly inflammatory character assassination of me on this page. Besides that, your aggressive reaction in here is itself reflective of POV pushing. If need be, I will take this up with the appropriate administrators.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Further, the related ethnic groups template doesn't pertain to groups who share only genetics in common, but cultural and linguistic similarities as well. That's what I tried to explain earlier.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You did your deletions without taking part in the discussion about the intro here on the talkpage, and you removal or articles was based on content, not form. Articles that referred to a European origin were deleted by you, all similar sources referring to a Levantine origin were left intact. As you refuse to WP:HEAR, I've brought the issue to WP:ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they were removed because they were news articles pertaining to a study which was already cited. It's not necessary to go beyond that, especially when several of them arrive at different conclusions than the study itself.

And I'm here now, so let's discuss it, although there really isn't much to discuss in this case.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't only remove sources, you removed the entire conclusion , that the maternal origin of Ashkenazi Jews is mainly European.Jeppiz (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See diff here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924

Notice how it says "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." If any of the studies (and I mean the actual DNA tests, not the news articles reporting on studies which are already cited otherwise) arrived at that conclusion, I would agree with you. But they don't. They only suggest that maternal origins are mainly European.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, referenced this study and wrote "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe." You might think you're better placed to evaluate the results than Science is, but WP:RS does not agree with you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

http://forward.com/articles/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/#

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

These are the citations I removed in my original revert (see the diff). Notice how they each pertain to the same exact study, which was also cited in the same sentence (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html). This begs the question: why are you linking to all of these news articles when the study itself is already there (and which I did not delete)? I should hope that the reason is obvious and that I won't have to fill in the blanks. Moreover, notice how the study in question does not say, anywhere, that "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin". Rather, it says that maternal origins are mainly European. If you had added the word "maternal" in the sentence, this dispute would never have happened. So once again, you're either lying, or you didn't actually read the study. The fact that you tried to pad out this one singular study with a bunch of news articles relating to the same study insinuates the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any DNA studies that suggest that Ashkenazim are purely of European origin, at most the origin is partial (maternal origins). The study does make this pretty clear. This seems like an unfortunately all-too-common attempt to disenfranchise. Also, I agree that the news sources used are unnecessary because the study is already cited. Kitty (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here has said they are "purely European", nor does the article. Science said "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.". If you disagree with Science, well, then we go with Science. Kindly read WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WARNING: Further editing without establishing consensus will lead to a post on WP:ANI asking for blocks and page protection. And this time the issue will not be considered a content issue, rather a behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How does one achieve consensus when the other side is not willing to listen? I think an RfC is in order.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, an Rfc is a pretty extreme measure. Give it some time (this discussion is only days old), ask for other editors to come here (by posting on WT:JUDAISM). There are other things to do before making an Rfc over this. Would you mind explaining the issue to me in short? Debresser (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The section I created just below this one should sum it up.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Caracalla to Babylon down to the Carolingians

Most of the History of Jews in Europe before the Ashkenazim section has nothing to do with Ashkenazi, matter of this sort is totally absent from the sister article on the Ashkenazi in the Jewish Virtual Library. It has absolutely no function here. I removed it once. Could editors discuss why this extensive blob of irrelevancies is there? (I note that the Cambridge UP 1984 source, which we all agreed was wrongly cited with false authorial names, omitting the name of the author of p.1042 etc., should have been removed. It's still in that section.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourced removed as per consensus two sections above.

I agree there is too much information there. Some introduction is helpful though. We do need a story leading up to the more direct issue of this article. Pruning would have to be done carefully, so as not to throw out the child with the bathwater. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This section is important as there are plenty of sources claiming that AJ originated from this Jewish communities. Also, this the only place where this 1000 years of Jewish history and origin in Europe can be properly covered.--Tritomex (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We have the more general Jewish history article, where those 1000 years can and should be covered. Of course, the relevant parts should remain. But there is to much not relevant material there, imho. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, we have a nice template for this issue: {{Duplication|section=yes|dupe=Jewish history}}. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:OR unless you have good (academic specialist) sources that connect all of the points made in that section with the prehistory of the Ashkenazi. We don't have that there. My hunch is that quite a lot of this comes from people reading about the Radhanite trade network, without them being mentioned, as links between thriving Middle Eastern Jewish communities of learning and Carolingian Europe. The problem is that now regarded as shaky, since Jewish mediterranean merchants are well documented, per the Geniza material, only in the Islamic realm. (See Toch again pp.60ff). What one would require is some material on the rise of Jewish communities and their rabbinical schools, distinct from Sephardi Spain, that began to produce figures like Rashi. This means source reading and the development of new material for the page, not just hanging onto stuff that, on the face of it, no one is connecting to the rise of the Ashkenazi.

So can we agree that a background section on Ashkenazi requires, as per policy and WP:SYNTH vetoes, sources that actually write about the background of the Ashkenazi? Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need more sources to connect things to Ashkenazi Jews. But I also think, and I repeat myself now, that we should keep some general text, to set the surroundings. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My approach is that one should never edit an encyclopedic article unless one has at one's elbow, or under one's eye, a source directly bearing on the topic. The 'general text' is something usually written out of someone's belief that they, as editors, know the subject. The subject for us peons is what RS tell us. This is fundamental to wikipedia, and unless each statement can be sourced (and academic works on everything both abound and are readily accessible), we should regard it as potentially WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. In my own career here I have been, I think unfairly, hammered with WP:NOR even for citing some historical detail that is pages away from the topic of an article. I am not that stringent, and regard that kind of austere reading of policy as instrumental. But generally, the rule that one write on a topic (Ashkenazi/background) by referring to books that deal with Ashkenazi origins is both logical and a prophylactic against clichés, memes, and personal, subjective opinions.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)