Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Controversy

This article is a hot bed, added sources from national and international agencies which target the premise of this article and identify it as bigorty. The author is disseminate propaganda which was already discredited multiple times and identified as Nazism by an international agreement making the article by definition neo-nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:10BF:1859:43BD:585E (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Last pull made no edits to talk nor gave cause for removal of accredited sources. Readded the changes as well as improved the section a bit with a full scope of the history involved as well as various religious references that served as a basis for discrediting the content of the article as a whole. Going through what I could find in the removal notes not entered into the talk log.

Citing Ncholas Wade - A ton more was cited that just Nicholas Wade. You should have only removed that source but instead you intentionally removed everything and furthermore denied the Holocaust in this rant as a "conspiracy theory". It was mentioned in Wade's article which you claim was discredited but cite not sources at all opposite of my edits which have more than one source from places like the Human Genome Project and National Institute of Health and Science etc. So, ignoring all other sources and only considering this one from Wade I gotta now ask you, "What proof do you have that this is bogus?" issuing you the same challenge. The only difference is unlike me you didn't provide any proof instead you just vandalized an article because you personally believe the Nazis had it correct and not because you have any proof of that. If it is a bad source then alright educate me and I'll grab a different source, but pulling the entire thing because one source which isn't even a primary source unlike those discredited in the research you support isn't a solution. Better yet find me a blanket statement that discredited the edits I made across all sources like I did with the reset of the article by posting the related Human Genome Project article and the apology open from the American Society of Human Genetics.

On Verification Methodologies - Endogamy is detectible at the 6th generation. For the study cited to be considered scientific the verification methodology would need to establish that the test subjects were descended from 6 generations of practicing Jews on both sides. Without this included we are assuming that the genetic markers being associated came from within the Jewish community and not from an external source such as a family which was Catholic three generations ago and then converted to Judaism bringing the genetic markers being identified. We're talking science so this shouldn't be assumed but instead must be included in the studies. So, what I can and will assume about all your sources is that they were compiled from studies taken at a Mormon Summer Camp. Since the source of the test samples was never verified you will not be able to refute this claim because the study fundamentally lacked the standard documentation that any other scientific study must have to be considered factual. Opposite of your claims of Bokonos being Jews now because some scientist went around thinking Bokonoism was the same as Judaism are claims from higher authorities that the studies provided in the article are bias for the same reason I provided (lack of verification of Jewishness) as well as a lack of blindness in the studies coupled with the inherent racism of the authors. To further clarify for these studies to be blind they cannot have sought a Jewish gene they can only compile data and those administering the studies couldn't be linked to Judaism as then the researcher involved would present a bias and the study would be subjective. Kevin Alan Brook claims to be Jewish and a Chabadnik at that so all the citations related to him would present a clear subjective bias.

On How Far Back Must We Go - Far enough to prove it with science. This isn't a religious question although religion is involved. This is a scientific one and if this is science then I shouldn't have to ask the authors here several times over what the verification methodologies were or re-post the same condemnation from the Human Genome Project or the American Society of Human Genetics or any of the other citations you completely ignored in favor on a single one. Well I got a single one pointed out in the above section, by the same logic you should remove this entire article as you did my entire edit because you personally don't believe something and weren't able to cite any supporting documentation of your claims. Look it is simple if this is science and proven then quote me from any one of your sources the non-bias double-blind verification methodology employeed to establish that test samples came from Jewish people who inherited them from Jewish family members and not a family that converted several generations ago or from a source which was only ever assumed to be Jewish rather than proven.

Before making edits lets hash it out in the talk and discuss sources because this will be an edit war otherwise. I can already tell because it took a war for the Nazis to realize they were wrong about this too just like I assume it will be with the original author of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

- I wanted to add that in medicine we should seek to treat the patient as an individual instead of dehumanizing them into an impersonal category which could and has in practice led to misdiagnosis. Genetics is much more nuanced than the rhetoric present by the Wikipedia article's proponents. Additionally leaking patients demographic information by linking disorders to personal associations which some may want to keep private raises serious PHI concerns. Just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:ED1C:F660:AB2:47CE (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

- Added more sources especially to the section related to the religious dogma. My Torah portion at my Bar Mitzvah was Achrie Mot/Kedoshim which deals with all this specifically. I remembered reading about the Nephilim but had to discuss it with the Rabbi for a refresher before I felt comfortable adding it due to how harsh of a term it is. I added a source pointing to the Merneptah Stele as it supported a line in the Torah related to dissolution of any genetic component to Judaism. Finally a friend of mine in genetics published a discreditation of one of the studies previously mentioned in this article outside this section and so I added it to the sources in this section. I could continue to refute this on religious grounds because there is a lot more expanding, I can do especially on outside Torah stuff but that would be it's own article. Instead I have a backlog of studies that I need to get through and then I can add more published science to this section instead of just religious stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This article concerns the genetic histories of various Jewish populations. I don't see how that entire field can be discredited let alone on religious grounds. Religious dogma and doctrine is a separate subject. And calling the entire field bigotry, antisemitism, or Nazism is inflammatory and WP:FRINGE. The fact that ideas of "race", ancestry, and genetics (as understood at the time) were abused by the Nazis and other racists, eugenicists, and anti-semites (e.g. scientific racism) does not invalidate the very WP:MAINSTREAM field of population genetics. Skllagyook (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to each objection independently.

This article concerns the genetic histories of various Jewish populations.

Actually. This was the original objection and you have not amended that by providing it. Once again, I ask you to quote the section of any study done which included the methodology employed to determine the Jewishness of test subjects. This article is about what you assume Jewish genetics to be based on discredited pseudo-scientific studies and historical forms of antisemitism. This was cited in my section, if you would like to refute it in the section on controversy then you should but the fact is there were roughly 50 citations in the section and while I understand that you personally do not feel like the World Health Organization, Human Genome Project, and American Society on Human Genetics to be accredited organizations I assure you the scientific community does which is why there were roughly 50 citations.

Religious dogma and doctrine is a separate subject.

Normally I totally would agree and less than a 1/4th of the citations was religious dogma the majority the article comes from scientific authorities. The reason I went into the Apostasy of this type of experiment was because it furthered the point made by Dr. Falk, Dr. Berger, and Dr. Brandt-Rauf that any participant in these experiments would inherently not be Jewish due to their volunteering for the experiment. That means these experiments contain no information related to the Jewish people but instead a litany of historical antisemitism and assumptions. Essentially what those who performed these tests did is walk into a Catholic Church or some other non-Jewish religious place of worship and test them for these genetic disorders then called them Jews. That is why the religious dogma was brought up because it isn't part of Judaism and it was made clear that it was the direct opposite of Judaism ergo antisemitism.

The fact that ideas of "race", ancestry, and genetics (as understood at the time) were abused by the Nazis and other racists, eugenicists, and anti-semites (e.g. scientific racism) does not invalidate the very WP:MAINSTREAM field of population genetics.

Actually, I did not the Human Genome Project, American Society on Human Genetics, and World Health Organization did. Today's edit also included the paper from Dr. Israel Berger in Australia who set out to begin discrediting the sources in this very article (it is how I found his paper actually) and found it became a game of wack-a-mole because like all the sources in the article they are based on a previously discredited career of work. For example, James D. Watson was called out. Almost every article supporting these experiments either cited him or cited someone else's work which cited him as the primary source.

The fact that ideas of "race", ancestry, and genetics (as understood at the time) were abused by the Nazis and other racists, eugenicists, and anti-semites (e.g. scientific racism) does not invalidate the very WP:MAINSTREAM field of population genetics.

Except it does because eugenics is not genetics, and it was called out by the authorities who regulate this field as ignorant racism devoid of any factual basis and only ever used to progress hate crime activity. Look I understand that you personally believe the Nazis has a point, as you just admitted, but they were wrong. There was a trial and documentation of that was provided. I am sorry and I do understand how it can be hard to have all of a sudden realized that maybe you're a racist neo-nazi because you didn't bother with world history or whatever I don't know your situation but every source provided was more recent and from a higher authority. Your being intentionally ignorant and intentionally bigoted at this point.

Take up your argument in the controversy section as that is why it was written to discuss and display the heaps of controversy around this subject which was for a fact defined as Nazism. That trial transcript was included don't conflate your personal opinions as fact and cite the verification methodology from the antisemitic experiments you support if you really believe them to be accurate. I've literally put quotes from my citations into this article. Laziness is not an excuse if I can you can. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote:

"...it doesn't in no citation other than my own was the proof of the Jewishness of the subjects involved included within the experiment's methodology"

If you are claiming that the many studies in the article investigating the ancestral origins of Jewish populations (the Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi groups, Jews of India etc.) do not distinguish Jewish samples from non Jewish ones, that is an extraordinary claim and seems fairly implausible. I have seen no reliable source claiming that. The statement that studies such as those of Ostrer, Behar, Costa, Xue and Shai Carmi (and many others) are Nazism is also extraordinary. Your sources criticizing genetic studies seem mostly to concern studies of Jewsish medical genetics (i.e. diseases), which is a separate area of genetics that this article does not cover. That is why I added some of your material concerning that to the relevant article. Your hostile personal attacks in the form of the accausations that I am "a racist", "bigot", and "a neo-nazi" and believe that "the Nazis had a point" are not only false but egregiously inappropriate and offensive, as is the claim in your edit summary that I reverted you because I was upset and personally offended by being "proven wrong by experts". I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith such as you have made, in addition to being hurtful and an impediment to communication, are against Wikipedia policy. The accusatory inflammatory language you have used there and elsewhere is concerning. Skllagyook (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

To repeat my last edit summary , your additions seem like somewhat of a straw man and thus not really relevant here. The study of the genetic histories/compositions of various Jewish populations (several of which which many believe have an element of shared ancestry) is not the same as eugenics or the idea that Judaism has a genetic requirement (which are proscriptive/ideological attitudes) nor the same as ideas of racial inferiority/superiority. Nor is it the same as the idea that Jews are a unique and perfectly endogenous race that are necessarily distinct or unconnected from all others. The latter ideas are not being endorsed in this article. Your additions might perhaps be better suited to a new article covering Jewish attitudes to things such as eugenics and endogamy for example. Skllagyook (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added incorporated some of the material you added here that seemed into another page, Medical genetics of Jews, that seemed relevant there, under a new section, "Controversy and Criticism". Skllagyook (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Skllagyook that this manufactured controversy that was single-handedly added by the censorship-supporting anonymous editor 2603:7000:4600:358a:ed1c:f660:ab2:47ce doesn't belong in this entry and that the editor's revision comments are off base and inflammatory. The person who added the controversy section even lied about several people's ideological affinities, including by calling the page's creator Boutboul "a neo-nazi" who's supposedly "motivated by an effort to deny the scope of the Holocaust", and by calling Kevin Brook a member of Chabad-Lubavitch, neither of which is a true statement. Boutboul created this page on 8 February 2010 and it has never constituted "neo-nazi propaganda" or a "hate crime".172.56.217.228 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to both here.

To repeat my last edit summary , your additions seem like somewhat of a straw man and thus not really relevant here.

This is how I feel. I've asked in the talk several times for any verification in the studies to be provided and no one can provide that. This entire article is a strawman and should all together be removed instead of just having a controversy section with better sources than the original article could provide. The world and Jews said that there was not a genetic component to this, defined that ideology as Nazism, and then here you are attacking that by saying 'Oh we have the science now.', but then you are completely unable to back that up by quoting the verification methodology in the citations supporting your personal pseudo-scientific belief system. I mean if you want to shut me up and shut me down then just quote that and I am on my way. The fact is that you haven't, no one has, and you cannot, no one can. This is why generally the entire field was discredited as pseudo-scientific racism with several public releases from the genetic community about it and not some independent lab with some hack that lost their degree and Nobel prize a decade ago for being a racist. You claim that I have no ground for adding a controversy section to highlight the issues myself and others have brought up here. I mean this entire talk is people posting discreditations and being denied the ability to because so and so doesn't like it but cannot actually refute it. I mean I've asked several times, get me the verification methodology otherwise you're just being an ignorant racist.

The study of the genetic histories/compositions of various Jewish populations (several of which which many believe have an element of shared ancestry) is not the same as eugenics or the idea that Judaism has a genetic requirement (which are proscriptive/ideological attitudes) nor the same as ideas of racial inferiority/superiority.

Except it is and that was cited as well as quoted. I'll re-quote it to you, "The Nazis defined Jews by race, not religion. They claimed that Jews belonged to a separate race. They also claimed that Jews were inferior to all other races. The Nazi definition of Jews included people who did not practice Judaism." (...) "The Nazis tried to use science to prove their racial theories. They recruited doctors and other scientists to help them. These officials tried to categorize people into races. They measured and described people’s physical features, like noses, skulls, eyes, and hair.

These attempts at categorization failed to prove Nazi racial theories. In fact, their efforts revealed that human beings could not be scientifically categorized into races. Humankind is simply too naturally diverse. However, this reality did not stop the Nazis." - [1]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-racism

So are you both like denying the Holocaust happened or what? No offense but I am sort of confused as what this quote from the Holocaust Museum reads is that you're being neo-nazis and here I am (a Jew) posting the same discreditations that my grandparents did when the Nazis murdered off my ancestors thinking their "science" was also correct. I know it is a charged term and a hard one at that and so I am really not trying to call it out here, but there just isn't another word for it other than maybe Nephilim which is honestly worse and why I hesitated as well as spoke to a Rabbi before I went down that rabbit hole today.

Nor is it the same as the idea that Jews are a unique and perfectly endogenous race that are necessarily distinct or unconnected from all others.

Yet you claim you are able to track my family and I through our genetics like herd animals so well that you can identify someone who has 30% of my DNA on a machine which is only at best 70% accurate? Bogus! The point my section made is that we are not a race at all. We're a religious community and thus people convert to and away from this community bringing their genetics to the community and taking them out of the community just like every other religious community. Yet you're posting citations claiming that the Jewish people are homogenous enough to identify genetically. Flat out if that was the case you or someone else would have quoted that verification methodology to me a long time ago in this talk and shut me up. You all haven't because you're passing off neo-nazi propaganda as scientific fact and it isn't. The scientific community has already come out against this.

Your additions might perhaps be better suited to a new article covering Jewish attitudes to things such as eugenics and endogamy for example.

I did think about this and it is warranted but it would need to be linked and referenced in this article. There is most definitely enough content for it's own article and this article without the controversy has no actual sources since there were all based on self-verified data and bigoted opinions.

I have added incorporated some of the material you added here that seemed into another page, Medical genetics of Jews, that seemed relevant there, under a new section, "Controversy and Criticism".

That is good I was thinking of adding it there too but I didn't want to over do it. Look you're a better writer than I am when it comes to this all so I am not opposed to taking input on how to frame it so that it is clear the majority of the article is neo-nazi propaganda, because it is that is just a fact and one I sourced and cited. But this cancel culture on the topic is what the Nazis did under the Nuremberg Laws too so you're really coming off that way. Now I don't really feel like you are but I don't know you and you appear to be very supportive of that.

I agree with Skllagyook that this manufactured controversy that was single-handedly added by the censorship-supporting anonymous editor 2603:7000:4600:358a:ed1c:f660:ab2:47ce doesn't belong in this entry and that the editor's revision comments are off base and inflammatory.

A couple of things here. First I pulled sources from prior edits and talks to this page. Yeah I was making the edits but I am not the only one here. There is an entire talk worth of others who feel the same. As for being anonymous I chose to do it this way so Wiki would have my IP. I figured it was actually less anonymous and so moderation would have an easier time identifying me than if I made a junk email to make an edit. I mean I can see your information like you can mine and so I know you aren't just Skyllagyook but its the internet people spoof and I am trying to be legit here.

The person who added the controversy section even lied about several people's ideological affinities, including by calling the page's creator Boutboul "a neo-nazi" who's supposedly "motivated by an effort to deny the scope of the Holocaust", and by calling Kevin Brook a member of Chabad-Lubavitch, neither of which is a true statement. Boutboul created this page on 8 February 2010 and it has never constituted "neo-nazi propaganda" or a "hate crime".

Yeah, and the documentation of Chabad's apostasy goes back to the beginning and is cited by their own organization as was the involvement of some of their membership via the National Association of German Jews in that Wikipedia page. There are bad actors in every organization and understanding this is a Jewish concept - [2]https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.19.16?lang=bi&aliyot=0 - There are parts of Chabad I like but there is a lot to unpack with them. I have a feeling though that you're into them? Its all good I went to one once and left when I saw the idols to the Rebbe and here in NYC they have all these posters up to their idol. The Jewish community went around and scratched them all up, but you know how Chabad is.

Tell you all what. Let's make this very simple and you can prove now you are not antisemites. Link in this talk the same sort of article related to a Protestant Christianity or Catholism or some other non-semitic religion. I said non-semitic so don't go linking your racist ideologies about Muslims. Wikipedia doesn't host those articles because you all only picked on the same people the Nazis did. I mean it is same with skintones too there is an article about how defective the genetics of black people is too but none on white people or if there is then it is about a very specific type of white person from a very specific region unlike Jews, Muslims, and Blacks who apparently get lumped into a giant category despite Ashkenazi Judaism spreading from France to Korea, Muslims from Morocco to Thailand, and Africa is the most diverse continent on the planet so how that all gets treated as one genome is beyond me. So go on prove you're not a bunch of racist neo-nazis and just post either that verification methodology or link an article that picks on the majority like it does the minorities. I seriously mean you all no offense and I would seriously love to work with you to make this a good article but it is very hard to avoid using the terms that are the ones uniquely defined by the ideologies you're advocating. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote:

"Except it is and that was cited as well as quoted. I'll re-quote it to you, "The Nazis defined Jews by race, not religion. They claimed that Jews belonged to a separate race. They also claimed that Jews were inferior to all other races. The Nazi definition of Jews included people who did not practice Judaism." (...) "The Nazis tried to use science to prove their racial theories. They recruited doctors and other scientists to help them. These officials tried to categorize people into races. They measured and described people’s physical features, like noses, skulls, eyes, and hair."

The idea that the groups that have historically been Jewish have their own histories and in many cases have a partial shared ancestry, that may come from the middle East, is not the same as the claim that Jews are a unique and homogeneous race. The various Jewish groups have functioned as cultural groupings, with periods of relative isolation as well as varying intermixture (both part of their histories). They have tended to be distinct from their host populations but also not entirely separate from them. And a certain degree of general endogamy often was maintained.

The Jewish identity has had both a religious basis and, historically, ethnic and cultural components. In the diaspora, Jewish culture and religion often spread by migration (along with varying degrees of intermarriage with non-Jewish groups) rather than mass conversion and conquest (with few exceptions. (There have been many ethnic groups, tribes, and cultures that have allowed for the adoption and assimilation of outsiders while at the same time, as a group, associating their identity with a particular place of origin and/or lineage or heritage. Prior to the rise of mass proselytizing religions, religion tended to be linked to national, tribal, and ethnic affiliation but sometimes could also allow adoption.)

Studying the genetic origins of Jewish groups, or people whose heritage traces to those groups, is no more strange or bigoted than studying the genetic origins of Zoroastrians (an ethno-religious group who survive in part of Iran and also have a small diaspora in India - the Parsi community), Egyptian Copts, Roma people (a group with an extensive diaspora and much diversity and differential admixture as well as some shared ancestry from India), Irish travelers, Overseas Chinese, or Greeks, to give a few examples.

Religions like Catholicism and Protestantism (or indeed Islam or Buddhism) have tended more to spread widely by mass conversion and and thus it might make less sense to cover the genetics of Catholics or Protestants as a whole. But when a Catholic or Protestant group exhibits some characteristics of an ethnic group the case becomes more comparable. And to study the genetic population histories of specific Catholics or Protestant groups might make sense. The Amish and Mennonites of the US for example (concentrated in Pennsylvania, Ohio and parts of New York and Canada), the Mormons of Utah and nearby areas, or even people of Quaker heritage in Pennsylvania, certainly do not primarily define themselves by genetics, but have, as a group, a unique population and migration history and often have significant amounts of shared ancestry from certain places (and substantially varying degrees of isolation from others). To give another example, Catholicism and Protestantism in Northern Ireland are religions, but have also been linked or correlated with ethnic and national identity. Many Protestants derived from the north English and Scottish settlers of the Ulster Plantation. But conversion of the Native Irish also occurred (along with intermarriage over time). To investigate how much people of Catholic and Protestant heritage there tend to descend respectively from those respective groups could be a historically informative pursuit. (The various sects of Eastern Orthodox Christianity tend to be ethnically and nationally associated - e.g Greek, Albanian, Russian etc.)

Studying the history and geographical origin (or origins) of a group (whether defined by culture, religion, nationality, lineage, some combination of these, or other things) is not inherently tantamount to nazism or bigotry. No sources here are claiming that Jews or any other group are inferior or superior. That belief is WP:FRINGE and rightly classed as pseudoscience. Your seeming insistance that genetic histories of populations (an interesting and important part of human history) should simply not be studied and that mainstream science should be treated like Nazism and removed and censured from Wikipedia is extreme to say the least. Skllagyook (talk)

- You're still unable to cite the verification methodology employed by the studies you're advocating on behalf of? It is a very simple ask and you're frankly unable to quote your own citations here opposite myself who can because I actually read it. Additionally, time and time again you've double down on your ignorance of Jewish history.

They have tended to be distinct from their host populations but also not entirely separate from them. And a certain degree of general endogamy often was maintained.

There were roughly what 17 sources from the Torah and Jewish scholars throughout history that disproved this. Look I know according to Christianity this is the case because the Catholic Church did have the Purity of Blood doctrine, also cited, but within Judaism that is just not the case and there was even an entire encyclopedia article linked. This statement you made his historical antisemitism as it was the premise for the Inquisition as well as the Holocaust. So no a certain degree of general endogamy was not maintained and both the scientific studied I liked from sourced like the Human Genome Project and the Torah proved otherwise. You're clearly making this up and you haven't even been able to quote from any source your defending the verification methodology employed to verify the authenticity. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research as your research is completely unverified and based on self-reported findings. Specifically, "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." which is something you have never been able to provide despite being asked several times to.

In the diaspora, Jewish culture and religion often spread by migration (along with varying degrees of intermarriage with non-Jewish groups) rather than mass conversion and conquest

Well as a Jew I'm not going to lie about the sins of the People as recorded by the Torah. 32,000 Midianites were forced to convert in the Diaspora and that was cited read Numbers. There are also the Edomites who were forced to convert and the Samaritans also. The Khazarians also converted but they weren't forced to. The prohibition against proselytizing comes from specifically these case instances which is why they are well documented within the Jewish religion. Once again you have issued a bogus statement made without any proof but based entirely on assumptions and opinions. The hard proof is in the archology for this there exists I mean Josephus documented it as did others.

Studying the genetic origins of Jewish groups, or people whose heritage traces to those groups, is no more strange or bigoted

Except it is when you target just us for these studies and dehumanize us into a completely fabricated demographic based on the genetic sequencing of someone else who probably isn't even Jewish. I mean it wasn't verified in the study and the practices which would create the genetic markers being identified as belonging to the Jewish people are completely forbidden by the Jewish people and there were roughly 17 citations supporting that. Moreover, it was identified as a bigoted by several organizations both nationally as well as internationally and also by the Holocaust Museum itself. I mean I just quoted it to you. You are making Jews out into some genetic race and that is why by definition you're being a neo-nazi. Sorry, I mean you as little offense as possible but word for word you are.

You make this silly claim that targeting just Jews for genetic studies in the same capacity that the Nazis, Spanish Inquisition, Assyrians, etc all did is not bigoted but again where is the article you took time to write on the genetics of Atheist? How about Buddhist who were cloistered in Tibet for so long? You got no posts on any of that but when it comes to picking on Jews and forcing them into some stereotype of a demographic, you'll unleash all your assumptions and opinions. Should someone come along and ask you to show the verification of your research you're unable to. Should someone come along with better and more recent sources you cannot. You're literally picking on just Jews here.

Religions like Catholicism [...] certainly do not primarily define themselves by genetics

Literally had a purity of blood law and literally committed genocide against tons of converts known as Conversos during the Inquisition. That is just a historical fact. Yet you'll ignore the religious which actively forced people into incest to stereotype the Jewish community who wouldn't with this practice. It is completely antisemitic and bigoted. I mean I hate to point to another religion here but the fact is you don't pick on them like you do the Jewish people. Also, I cited the Book of Matthew in relation to the Christians identifying themselves by genetics. It is what that book is about recording the lineage of Jesus Christ to substantiate their claims based on their genetics due to the fact that Jesus Christ obviously did not practice Judaism, they abolished it hence the New Testament.

Native Irish also occurred

That is racist on another level. You do know that there is no 'Irish genetics' and that the country naturalized everyone like a decade ago no matter their genetics and that Article 2 doesn't recognized hereditary connections as substantiating someone as Irish. You have to actually be from Ireland or one of it's islands. So not only do you pick on Jews but I can see you have a hate for the Irish too. Like the Irish people are pretty darn cool and they passed that naturalization law because of ignorant people like yourself who go out on St. Patricks Day get drunk call themselves Irish but have absolutely no connection to Ireland outside being a drunk who cognates the Irish people with leud drunkeness. Its a country that people can migrate to and from and have been since before the Roman Empire.

No sources here are claiming that Jews or any other group are inferior or superior. That belief is WP:FRINGE

"The medical genetics of Jews are studied for population-specific diseases.", the first paragraph identifies Jews as a diseased population.

"In the 1960s, more success was made in tracking the distribution of genetic diseases in Jewish communities.", the sixth paragraph does and cites a paper which expresses the exact opposite as well as never says this anywhere. In-fact it literally identified it as antisemitism and asked the same question of you I am, "But how did they sample them? What were the criteria for Jewishness of the sampled individuals?". So basically, you pulled some random paper and made up a bunch of hate. This statement is literally what that paper targeted to discredit.

You know what we now need to remove that entire section now because the citation was about the exact opposite of what it was used to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

- Reported for content warring and Original Research as well as blatant misrepresentation of cited work and bigotry. Let's let the Wiki Admins handle it from here eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to slow down on the WP:TEXTWALL. Try to consider that we don't consider the Bible a reliable source here for factual information, just scientific papers, journal articles, news articles, books, etc. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is reliable and verifiable. Not truth. People who come here to right great wrongs are encouraged to stop or face editing restrictions. Andre🚐 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand your position and I am sorry for the wall of text but there is a lot to this article that should be covered and wasn't as well as several citations which were clearly never read. The entire History section for example is based on misquoting source 18 the Falk paper which discredited almost all the statements it is used to cite and article from an Einstein researcher who lost their accreditation in a scandal. Literally this article looks like low effort antisemitism rather than something researched, no offense intended.

There are a number things to consider which have not been at all considered and I will try to section it off and provide TL;DR for each point to make it easier. The Shabbat is tomorrow night to so I won't be making edits for the next couple of days too which should allow people to read. Again, sorry I am so verbose it truly is my flaw.

1: This is a religion, and the citations were from the Torah which is the record of practices and beliefs of that religion. A religion is by definition a "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion which is based upon a document known as the Torah, not the Bible which is a Christian (completely different religion) document arising from the Greek biblos. The distinction may seem trivial but since they represent two completely different religious communities and since this is an article which has assumed the position that there are genetic connections to that religion it is imperative that we are discussing the correct religion ie Judaism rather than Christianity. Which is why the Torah is relevant to this article because it is the document which defines the belief system of the Jewish people in much the same way as the Bible does Christians. [4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Judaism Furthermore in the USA, which this specific page addresses (this is why I didn't post Hebrew quotes but only chose sources already translated) there is a legal definition of what constitutes a member of the Jewish community just as there is for all other communities including Atheist. It is part of the Lemon Test.[5]https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion For the Jewish community the definition was provided by the Jewish Federations of North America, at the time the United Jewish Appeal, for the purpose of accepting refugees fleeing the ideological rhetoric this article current affirms as well as for tax purposes, see the IRS documentation on 501C.[6]https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Mumar or in Greek Apostasy ie non-Jewish practices which count as an act of conversion away from the religion are a part of the religion and defined within the Torah and conversion is recognized by law in the USA. If someone conducted a form of Mumar and did not atone or that act was permeant, then they are hence forth no longer considered Jews by the Jewish community as well as legally by the Courts and IRS but instead are Meshmuad or an Apostate. They cannot be buried with other Jews, they cannot receive funds from the credit unions that were formed for the Jewish community, they cannot have a recognized Jewish marriage, their children will not be recognized at birth as Jews, they cannot claim to be a community member for the purposes of taxation nor in court when providing testimony. Endogamy is an act of Apostacy within Judaism and that wall of Torah text and citations from extremely well recognized Torah scholars from history all illustrated that fact. Any family which had practiced endogamy would have become mumar in the act and so their children wouldn't be Jewish nor would their children's children etc unless they converted to Judaism through the same process any other non-Jew would. Those who committed the meshmuad wouldn't be accepted back in the case of this sin as under Jewish Law ie within the scope of the religion they murdered their children by knowingly and willfully endangering their lives by conducting coitus in a non-kosher way which would result in medical harm to the child. The cited Torah sections and discussions upon them indicated that even Abraham was aware that endogamy would result in unhealthy children.

TL;DR - Thus, the subsection on the non-Jewish nature was there to demonstrate that the content within the article was based on assuming someone who wasn't actually Jewish was Jewish in order to fabricate a prevalence of genetic disorders and markers which could be used to identify people as Jewish ie antisemitic rhetoric. This was the point the Human Genome Project, American Society on Human Genetics, and the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine all had when they discredited the entire body of research into this topic generally after realizing that targeting each individual claim wasn't working. Also the majority of citations in the section were from what Wiki considers verified sources for medical information unlike the majority of the sources in the article without the reverted section.

2: There were several more scientific citations than Torah citations. All of which from higher authorities and all of which I actually read. It is clear that the rest of the citations in the article were not and were low-effort additions. See source 18 - The paper was cited to substantiate the claim that genetic markers can be used to determine the Jewishness of a genetic marker. "From the mid-1970s onwards, RNA and DNA sequencing enabled the comparison of genetic relationships, and during the 1980s, it also became possible to examine genetic polymorphism across multiple sites in DNA sequences.", open paragraph four of the History section of this article. The very next sentence in the citation is, "Once again the presumed relationships among Jewish communities, as well as their relation to non-Jewish communities were examined.", whereafter the paper goes on to discredit the arguments made by the rest of this paragraph in the Wikipedia article. The person who made that commit completely made up what the Wikipedia article says to fabricate their point. Later in the same section, "Both the early studies on blood markers and later studies of the monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes revealed evidence of both Middle Eastern and local origin, with indeterminate levels of local genetic admixture. The conclusions of the diverse studies conducted turned out to be "remarkably similar", providing both evidence of shared genetic ancestry among major diaspora groups and varied levels of local genetic admixture.", is addressed in the paper in the last paragraph of the section "Who is a Jew?" where he identified it as Nazism and provided citation of it being legally considered Nazism. He then explained the citation in Footnote 3 - "It is noteworthy that even the Nazis, after mobilizing the most advanced means and methods of science of their time for identifying Jews, reverted to using the yellow star patch attached to the garment as the identifying device." and it was from this that I learned that Nazism was defined during the Potsdam Conference as what the content of this article is. The same thing happens in paragraph five "In the 1990s, this developed into attempts to identify markers in highly discrete population groups. The results were mixed. One study on the Cohanim hereditary priesthood found distinctive signs of genetic homogeneity within the group. At the same time, no unusual clustering of Y-haplotypes was found relative to non-Cohanim Jews." is quoted but the paper said the exact opposite of this. The very next sentence, "However, such studies did show that certain population groups could be identified. As David Goldstein noted: "Our studies of the Cohanim established that present day Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim are more genetically similar to one another than they are to either Israelites or non-Jews."" has the same issue. This citation does not say that anywhere in-fact it said the exact opposite of this.

Additionally this source from Falk did receive a triple-blind peer review by the NIH which does it's own three third party departments as part of a triple blind review process. The Office of Extramural Research, the Office of Management Assessment, and the Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy comprise the Center for Scientific Review. You can learn more about it here: [7]https://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-19-00160.asp The citations which affirm the content of the article, not those that discredit the article, did not have this same rigorous review process. I made sure to pull my sources from actual medical databases which I have access to as a Department of Health employee.

TL;DR - Please see Wikipedia:No original research section Reliable Sources for what is required for a medical citation, the article as is does not satisfy the requirements for citation and many citations are blatantly misused and quoted out of context in order to create propaganda and it is propaganda because one of the quoted sections is literally the author of the paper (Dr. Raphael Falk) stating what the citation is being used to support is Nazism and what the Nazis did to him personally.

3: The idea that this is somehow mainstream and that is all well and good, but so was slavery before people abolished it and in fact Populism was part of Nazism and the content of this article currently has within it papers which established it as Nazism being used to support the very concepts those sources were published to discredit. Dr. Raphael Falk is not the only source who was abused here. There were other citations misused in this way not just that one paper. It is blatant and clear to anyone who takes even a few minutes reading each citation. See the revision made by @Skllagyook on 15:18, 7 June 2023‎ they claim the article said something it did not. The section related to Figure 5 of the source (and Fig. S4, Tables S4 and S5 of supplement) reads as follows "The results show that since the Bronze Age an additional East African-related component was added to the region (on average ~10.6%, excluding Ethiopian Jews that harbor ~80% East African component), as well as a European-related component (on average ~8.7%, excluding Ashkenazi Jews who harbor a ~41% European-related component).", and last I checked 80% is much higher than 41%. If it helps the figure shows it too in that nice bargraph. Granted this paper is bogus as it is missing any verification methodology proving the samples used to formulate the study came from members of the Jewish community instead the paper makes the assumption that their test subjects are members of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption whom they consider to be Jews despite the legal fact that members of that religion are not (its a 501C so it files as a non-Jewish religion). This paper was also recently reported as pseudo-scientific to ELSI for endorsing hate crime and neo-nazi propaganda.

TL;DR - Whom ever wrote the majority of this article clearly did not read their sources and have been reverting the article to remove sources which received triple blind peer-reviews and are both nationally as well as internationally recognized as the highest authorities in the medical field. They've been doing it intentionally in order to create a bias in the article and generate what even their own sources have claimed to be antisemitism if they took the time to actually read them.

4: I haven't really mentioned this yet but it is a last minute point I wanted to make. This entire article raises some serious PHI concerns as it is leaking patient demographic information. The content associated a patient demographic with several genetic disorders as well as other medical information and then released it publicly without abstracting that information. In the scant few sources where testing was identified as being done the physical address of the testing site was identifiable which means patients in that area who identify as Jewish now have their PHI spread all over the internet. Employment, Insurance etc all review prior addresses and while it is a HIPAA violation to discriminate based on the PHI leak it is also on those that distribute medical information to do it in a manner which complies with the law. See The Privacy Rule is located at 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164.[8]https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html I don't think Wikicorp is a covered provider? Have those other than myself who are making publications to this article been HIPAA certified? Or is Wikicorp publishing medical data with associated demographic data without any coverage and certification?

TL;DR - There are PHI violations in the current article which need to be addressed immediately.

To conclude the article and the related ones should come down until it can be completely re-written from scratch using sources which meet the standards Wikipedia requires for medical sources. It should also actually be about Jews if it is concerning the genetics of Jews with proof of that within it's citation such as a clear statement about the verification methodology employed. It clearly is not. Instead, we have an article which is based on studies done in I guess at Mecca on members of the Islamic community who were assumed to be Jewish by the author of the study in order to generate the content they desired. It also contains a lot of neo-Nazism, I am sorry if it is offensive to call it that but the citations which were abused in the current publication call it Nazism (and that was quoted in this talk post so it cannot be denied) so it is even by it's own citations so far without my section. If the article is not removed then it should be reverted to include the section I was working on as all those sources had merit as well as explained the controversial nature of the article. Yes even the Torah citations as well as the several more scientific ones.

I'll probably be offline until Sunday, but I may not have time on Sunday to review this and might have to wait until I get back to work. I have a vested interest in correcting this article as a healthcare worker with a background in genetics. I have seen some really bad misdiagnoses occur because of the content in this article as well as known one person who was murdered in a Synagogue I went to a lecture at and a congregation I grew up with before they built their own Synagogue in the neighboring town attacked inside their Synagogue (thankfully they disarmed the gunman and ran) because of the content in this article. The content generated in the article has been proven to have this hate induced effect on society, we know it does for a fact that was proven at the end of the Holocaust and then again recently. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

- Edit: Wanted to add before I go home the Bible Torah verbiage distinction I didn't mean as a jab. Reading it I may have come off badly. I wanted to make the distinction because I used the Bible for one citation to show the genetic quality comes from that religion opposed to the rest of the religious citations coming from the Torah. Sorry again if it came out poorly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:546E:2D7B:2474:288E (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have legitimate points to make within Wikipedia policy, it's hard to wade through in your message. Instead of accusing of bad faith antisemitism, let's just improve it together. Can you respond with a 3 sentence message, not a text wall, of what the specific antisemitism allegation is. All of my great-grandparents are Jewish so I think I would qualify as a sympathetic responder. Just be really targeted and specific about the small and iterative changes that you want to advocate for rather than all this stuff that you're writing. The HIPAA argument doesn't make sense. A publicly published paper can't be a HIPAA violation. And that would be considered a WP:LEGALTHREAT so please drop that line and focus on the sources and the article text. Andre🚐 16:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey there Andre,

Thanks for replying and I wanted to let you know that I took what you said to heart about being concise. I spoke with a Rabbi who told me to try to do the same and then saw your reply today so by happenstance I was ready:

The citations which affirm the opinions of this article lack verification methodology and third party, triple-blind testing as required under Wikipedia's policies regarding medical citations. Exemplifying this is the lack of concrete definition for what constitutes a Jew: Orthodox Jews do not consider Reform Jews as Jewish, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews do not consider Modern Orthodox or Chassidim to be Jewish, while the State of Israel has a definition through law not everyone considers it Jewish ie the PA, and the IRS only considers Synagogues to be Jewish depending on how they generate funding. The fact is that everyone has an opinion on what Judaism is which naturally makes the topic subjective in nature, furthermore by the Wikipedia's own citations the definition the research has used to define who is and who is not Jewish for the purpose of these studies has been the same one the Nazis used. The article is based on opinions, not medical facts, and those opinions have been proven to time and time again to be hate inducing.

There you are and I want to add personally that these ideologies are extremely pervasive and so it was never my intent to call anyone out. I do not doubt your sincerity as a sympathizer, maybe when I was younger and knew less, but anyone can fall for this particular form of pseudo-scientific rhetoric. Anyone, I mean entire nations have been convinced of it as they set the world to fire in a war.

Thanks Andre for working with me on this. 2603:7000:4600:358A:C4CA:BA3C:3130:BB87 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's true that there are many definitions and opinions of who is a Jew. For example, the synagogue that I attended as a child through my Bar Mitzvah, my rabbi was a woman. She actually has a Wikipedia entry. Helene Ferris. A number of Orthodox people would probably not even consider her a rabbi, but we do, because reliable sources describe her as such. Similarly, we consider all Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, etc Jews to be Jews even though Orthodox would not. Because reliable sources describe them as such. The topic is decidedly not subjective. Our goal is neutrality and objectivity, basically our goal is regurgitate in a digestible summary the balance of opinions from qualified writers and experts in reliable sources, and to describe neutrally any disagreement of opinion or controversy. As far as the question of Nazis, it's true that the Nazis had Nuremberg laws, but those same ideas formed the basis of the Jewish right of return. So simply using a genetic or familial ancestral definition of Jewish (e.g. the traditional definition, a Jew is any child of a Jewish mother, or 1/4 Jewish grandparents), isn't inherently antisemitic. Regardless, your argument lacks grounding in Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV. The existence of different sectarian opinions is not a disqualifier for content being here. Wikipedia covers scientific topics using scientific sources: not religious ones. Andre🚐 19:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly right. Scientific sources are what we must use here, not religious sources. As for disease-causing variants in Jewish populations, the fact that later studies showing certain diseases to be present in certain Jewish populations replicated earlier studies using independent study participants is a good indication that they are valid studies for medical use. This also was successful in comparisons between living participants and Jews from the 14th-century Erfurt, Jewish cemetery, who carried some of the same variants that cause these afflictions. Such as, for example, particular variants of Familial Mediterranean Fever.172.56.217.228 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets break this down... What study made this claim:

As for disease-causing variants in Jewish populations

And can you copy and paste in a reply how the study identified the population as Jewish they assumed to have disease-causing genetic variants?

... we'll go from there once you directly quote that and if you cannot quote it then the study doesn't say it which means you just lied, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt by asking you to quote it. 2603:7000:4600:358A:50D6:7845:CD94:45CB (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's documented to be a Jewish cemetery in medieval Germany, which was solely used to bury Jews, where they found in the genes of the deceased's teeth the same disease-causing variants as in modern Ashkenazi Jews, as well as the same paternal and maternal haplogroups as modern Ashkenazi Jews. You're the only one here who's been lying. The paper is titled "Genome-wide data from medieval German Jews show that the Ashkenazi founder event pre-dated the 14th century" and the most relevant section is Table 1 which lists "pathogenic variants detected in Erfurt" (the medieval cemetery) and then says "Frequency in modern AJ [Ashkenazi Jews]" for those same disease-causing variants: for Factor XI deficiency, Familial Mediterranean Fever, Gaucher disease, and other diseases.107.77.224.159 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question.

"Copy and paste in a reply how the study identified the population as Jewish they assumed to have disease-causing genetic variants?"

What you posted was that they identified the population as Jewish not how they did or by what definition. The paper assumes the subjects were Jewish by comparing samples to those which were similarly assumed to be Jewish and concluded that the samples in their study must be Jewish because someone prior to their study did that verification, but it isn't cited in the paper you quoted. The source made assumptions and defined Jews using the same assumptions and methodology as the Nazis party.[9]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939

There is a way to link the citation here btw, just use the link button or href inside <> then /href inside <> to close the citation. Then we can just click on it. :D 2603:7000:4600:358A:AD4D:F147:B55C:B45E (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous argument. They went to a Jewish cemetery and they dug up under graves with people named Yitzhak Cohen and so on. There's really no dispute it was a Jewish cemetery. Andre🚐 07:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't be ignorant, the cemetery's own website states that they purchased the cemetery in the 5100s (1300s by the Christian calendar), that even they are unsure of how long it existed and that the Jewish population was forced from the town meaning non-Jews would have been buried there also.[10]https://juedisches-leben.erfurt.de/jl/en/middle-ages/medieval_jewish_cemetery/index.html

The defilement of Jewish cemeteries and their co-option was not uncommon throughout history especially in this region as in the late 5500s (early 1800s by the Christian calendar) the Prussian army sacked the town, used the headstones from the Jewish graves for defenses, and buried their own dead there when the haphazardly replaced the headstones later.[11]https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/erfurt

Furthermore, not only did the Nazis conduct the apostasy of disinterment of Jewish bodies for the purposes of their medical experimentation, but also as shocking as it is the Head of the SS Heinreich Mueller was buried in a Jewish cemetery.[12]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24757044

This citation exemplifies the bad practice of disrespecting the historical account of the archeological site used as the foundational or concrete proof in a scientific study. It is very common for graveyards to get really disorganized, defiled and co-opted as well as purchased by other. The Jewish Cemetry in Ireland for example was purchased and before that it was the graveyard for the homeless, criminal, and insane. Jewish law forebodes disinterment of their bodies so in that cemetery there are also non-Jews buried; and in Funbo Sweden the local Church dedicated a portion of their cemetery to a family of Holocaust survivors (I left stones on their graves there) - meaning it gets registered as one and Jews can be buried in that section.

==================================

If you don't mind, I'll handle this here to keep it all in one thread?

Citation needed for a lawsuit in which an Orthodox group got an "Ultra-" or "Modern-" Orthodox group to stop using that name? That sounds like a myth, and I doubt you'd be able to find an example of that. Anyway, our own articles call them, for example Chabad is an Orthodox Jewish group. And I assure you that on Wikipedia, Jews are Jews even if they attended public school or use the Gregorian calendar or don't practice. Because we follow what RS say - not your own opinion. So your argument holds very little water, and is once again too long, meandering, ignoring Wikipedia policy and your own original research and thought. And it's still not the case that any genetic analysis is Nazism. The Erfurt study refers to Jewish people and we take their word for it if they are reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find a Jewish cemetery if it has gravestones with Hebrew inscriptions that refer to great teachers and so on.

The Modern Orthodox were founded by Azriel Hildesheimer and his thirty-five followers, he counted them in letters which makes them members of his religion. The Jewish Hungarian Congress was formed and they declared him and his followers Neologs ie another religion and forced him to close his Yeshiva in Oedenburg. The same week it was re-opened with the assistance of Christian bureaucrats.[13]https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Hildesheimer_Esriel [14]https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7693-hildesheimer-israel-azriel

Chabad is a Chassidic group. The Baal Shem Tov was an orphan adopted into the Jewish community and later also declared the practitioner of another religion ie Chassidism. They Chassidim will say his birth mother was Jewish, but they will be unable to cite record of that, whereas the Orthodox community will say the nature of his birth mother was uncertain but accept his converted status as an adopted orphan. Nonetheless he created the schism which created the Chassidim by issuing prophies of the Moshiac (Messiah) to come in the same manner the Frankist and Shabtai Tzvi had. [15]https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1208507/jewish/The-Baal-Shem-TovA-Brief-Biography.htm [16]https://www.jewishhistory.org/spread-of-the-chassidic-movement/

The Haredi movement spawned from the anti-zionist autonomous philosophies of Simon Dubnow.[17]https://archive.jewishagency.org/leaders/content/25852/ who called the movement Ultra-Orthodox in letters to express the opinion that to be a zionist without a Moshiac (Messiah) is not something an Orthodox Jew would do as well as separate themselves from the Chassidim who kept announcing Moshiacs (Messiahs) due to Zionism.[18]https://archives.cjh.org/repositories/7/resources/19972

I am not debating whether or not any of these groups are Jewish or not, but defining the parameters of an experiment is part of the scientific method, so a definition must be provided in the citation for the purpose of the study. Specifically the Wikipedia article on the Scientific Method states this in the Elements of the scientific method section and uses DNA testing as it's example wherein it defines the experiment and it's parameters.Scientific method

Finally, "And it's still not the case that any genetic analysis is Nazism.", source 17 in the article as well as others claim it is.

Now, can I add a paragraph section to cite the controversial nature of this discussion and link an independent page including the several citation I provided as well as many more? There is no reason a section on the issues with this sort of article should not be included or referred to somewhere, there have been more than enough citations to prove that. 2603:7000:4600:358A:AD4D:F147:B55C:B45E (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And where is the information that Erfurt cemetery had others buried in it? You make such a statement and then link to a source which does not contain any support for that assertion. Yes, headstones were taken in the 1800s it says, but not that someone else was buried there. You continually make statements and cite sources that don't support it. Then you go on to make wild Nazi comparisons. Sources do not say "genetic analysis is Nazism." yes, the Nazis were proponents of genetic theories. That doesn't therefore mean someone making a 23andme test is a Nazi. No, you have not demonstrated a reasonable argument to make the change you want to make for this article. Andre🚐 23:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is in there. You should really read this stuff.

The first paragraph on the cemetery's webpage (linked) says it was there from the beginning of the community and Erfurt was founded well over 11,400 years before that graveyard was sold to the Jewish community. The second paragraph goes on to explain it was razed and built over twice and so on. Also the page linked is for the new cemetery, the old one says that the cemetery was given to the town during the Holocaust. Take a wild guess at what a bunch of Nazis in Germany would have done to a Jewish cemetery and the bodies inside?

Actually, I do have that statement about Nazism quoted in this talk twice from Dr. Raphael Falk and I gave you the source and linked the source. As for the 23andMe yes that is called out as Nazism by Danielle White in Dr. Leah Grynheim's paper "Jewish” DNA: The Influence of New Technology Reflecting Race Ideology" which was linked. I'll quote the Holocaust Museum as well which no offense defines you explicitly as a neo-nazi and your rhetoric neo-nazi propaganda.

"The Nazis defined Jews by race, not religion. They claimed that Jews belonged to a separate race. They also claimed that Jews were inferior to all other races. The Nazi definition of Jews included people who did not practice Judaism."[19]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-racism - You're ignoring the religion and only looking to DNA to define Jews as a race. Per you're own words, "And I assure you that on Wikipedia, Jews are Jews even if they attended public school or use the Gregorian calendar or don't practice.", and I can do that with almost every reply because every reply you have provided has been laced with the same rhetoric the Nazis had.

Now I won't call you a neo-nazi personally because it wouldn't really help here, but you're being obviously willful, and I mean you no offense at all, but you do not seem to know anything about the subjects involved. I assumed you were the moderator I requested. I would at this junction request a moderator who is familiar with the subject and who hasn't been verbatim identified by the National Holocaust Museum as someone who ascribes to Nazi values and ideologies. Again no offense but.. well what else am I supposed to say I mean...? It is literally the name for it.

I'll create an account sometime this week make the separate Wiki and then link to this one. There is more than enough evidence and that sounds like the best solution for all parties concerned. 2603:7000:4600:358A:D5DA:3680:FF33:DC27 (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

One question then, what identified the genetic markers as belonging to Jews? Does the DNA recite the Torah while being analyzed or wear a kippah? No, that is preposterous! It is DNA and cannot do either. So, then I have to ask by what method was the DNA verified as Jewish? All I am reading in the citations is that DNA was compared and labeled as Jewish by some arbitrary method without any explanation as to how they arrived at the conclusion the DNA was Jewish.

You claim that reliable sources describe them as such but reliable sources that are present within the article also call this ideology Nazism and those that consider it scientific neo-nazis because of this lack of proof of Judaism in testing. See citation #17 Footnote 3, ""It is noteworthy that even the Nazis, after mobilizing the most advanced means and methods of science of their time for identifying Jews, reverted to using the yellow star patch attached to the garment as the identifying device."", which was citation used completely out of context to support an article that the paper completely disproves as science but does prove it is neo-nazi propaganda.

While I may not favor the State of Israel myself the Law of Return is vastly different in that it doesn't consider DNA evidence as proof of Judaism unlike the Nazis and unlike what you have just assumed. To quote Israeli Supreme Court Justice Cohen on the matter from when they crafted the Law, “Judaism is a matter of religion for one and culture for another. I completely ignore the genes and biology. I respect the spirit that I received from my parents, and from my parents' parents.”, and that is from citations in the article that were misrepresented to support an ideology that they don't at all.

I provided scientific sources:

1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15090288/

2: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/birth-defects

3: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301023 (recited, already in article but misrepresented)

4: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15015916/

5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7087058

6: https://jewishstudies.indiana.edu/docs/2015_16/Bern%20Essay%202016%20-%20Grynhein%20Leah.pdf

7: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257716891_Jewish_Eugenics

8: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism

9: https://www.ashg.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ASHG-Facing-Our-History-Initiative-Statement-and-Press-Release-NOT-EMBARGOED.pdf

10: https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/use-of-race-ethnicity-and-ancestry-as-population-descriptors-in-genomics-research

As well as historical ones for context:

1: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/nov/06/i-am-ashurbanipal-review-british-museum (has citations in it)

2: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0101.xml

3: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-racism

4: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/science-as-salvation-weimar-eugenics-1919-1933

5: https://www.nature.com/articles/37848

6: https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2021-07-20/california-eugenics-reparations-sterilization-essential-california (has citations in it)

7: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/mein-kampf

8: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939

9: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/potsdam-conf

10: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/potsdam-conference

As well as other contextual citations directly related to this subject:

1: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000128291

2: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/declaration-race-and-racial-prejudice

And news articles about suites over misdiagnosis occurring directly due to the content of this article being passed off as factual when it for a fact is not. I added the Torah sections to further clarify the history of this subject with the intention of adding more scientific studies than what was already included. I was reading through those but wanted to fully flesh out the history. I made an edit and my prior edit with all this science was removed as well, if you must then remove the Torah citations and restore the section back to before 13:44, 5 June 2023‎ which is when I amended the section to include Torah citations as well for context. 2603:7000:4600:358A:50D6:7845:CD94:45CB (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"For example, the synagogue that I attended as a child through my Bar Mitzvah, my rabbi was a woman. She actually has a Wikipedia entry. Helene Ferris. A number of Orthodox people would probably not even consider her a rabbi, but we do, because reliable sources describe her as such.", I wanted to handle this separately. This statement is factually incorrect. The Modern Orthodox, Chassidim, and Haredi may but those groups are not Orthodox and be legal definition in some regions of the world not even Jewish. Read up on the Hungarian Jewish Congress, the First Jewish Synod in Berlin, and Women rabbis and Torah scholars refers to female Orthodox Rabbi from throughout history but there is also Commandment in the Torah to this effect. I know you won't accept that though... 2603:7000:4600:358A:50D6:7845:CD94:45CB (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, it's too much info and not proposing anything for Wikipedia. "The Modern Orthodox, Chassidim, and Haredi" would qualify as some Orthodox would they not? Those are the main groups that I've come into contact with who are Orthodox, Satmar, Chabad, etc. As our article reads, The formal ordination of women rabbis in Orthodox Judaism began in the 2000s, however its acceptance within Orthodoxy is still a highly contested issue. They are certainly Jewish, they are all Jewish, anyone who is described as Jewish in the reliable sources will be described as Jewish here. That's the lesson to learn there. Andre🚐 00:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Before getting off topic I wanted to put forward the following idea for the article and this section. This might get a bit long, sorry but I wanted to get it in one go. Controversy exists, that is a fact. I have been all over this talk as have others in the other sections and there are 10 citations to that affect which explain this is pseudo-scientific bigotry as well as another 10 which cite it as a historical form of antisemitism and even more which cite it as a form of anti-Jewish apostasy. I say we should create an article dedicated to the controversy and link it to this one along with a very short section explaining the controversy in this current article as follows:

The citations which affirm the opinions of this article lack verification methodology and third party, triple-blind testing as required for medical citations. Exemplifying this is the lack of concrete definition for what constitutes someone as Jewish: Orthodox Jews do not consider Reform Jews as Jewish, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews do not consider Modern Orthodox or Chassidim to be Jewish, while the State of Israel has a definition through law not everyone considers it Jewish ie the PA, and the IRS only considers Synagogues to be Jewish depending on how they generate funding. Defining the parameters of an experiment is step one of the scientific processScientific method#Elements of the scientific method, but is seemingly a step always missed in the experimentations conducted on the Jewish community. To quote Dr. Raphael Falk, "It is noteworthy that even the Nazis, after mobilizing the most advanced means and methods of science of their time for identifying Jews, reverted to using the yellow star patch attached to the garment as the identifying device.". The fact is that everyone has an opinion on what Judaism is which naturally makes the topic subjective in nature. Furthermore, the definition the research has used to define who is and who is not Jewish for the purpose of these studies has been the same one the Nazis used to define Jews. The article is based on opinions based on arbitrary assignments of genetic markers to social demographics, not medical facts, and those opinions have been proven to time and time again to be hate inducing.[20]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301023 [21]https://jewishstudies.indiana.edu/docs/2015_16/Bern%20Essay%202016%20-%20Grynhein%20Leah.pdf [22]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939

I'd say more and add additional citations to this but if we go this route then I feel it would be better to do that in the article? The above paragraph says what the controversy is about and is cited to that affect. I don't think it really needs more and it is something the citations in the current article say because of the several misrepresented citations. I can then do what I was planning on doing and beefing up the section to include the apostasy or recognition that these are not Jewish genetic studies but studies of an entirely different religious demographic, the history of antisemitism which is what I was hoping to beef up over this week, and then modern controversies as well as discreditation as neo-nazi pseudo-scientific ideologies. Then both sides of this is up instead of just the antisemitic opinion which is what it currently is?

Additionally, we'll need to do something about misrepresented citations. It is obvious a lot of stuff got cited in the current article without reading it. All of the section on history is without proper citation. Source 17 literally says the exact opposite of what it is being cited as. Dr. Raphael Falk spent his entire life after the Holocaust fighting the neo-nazi ideologies of this article, and he did call it that, only to have some arrogant person who apparently didn't take the time to read his work use his paper completely out of context to support an rhetoric he was persecuted by and resisted with every fiber of his being?! This is disgusting and seriously something is messed up with whomever did that to his memory. Pardon the language but it is just really F-ed up.

So that is my idea, we still get a controversy section but the meat of it can be off loaded into it's own article which can be linked back? That is in line with the citations and all after all.

----- On to the personal dialog -----

"The Modern Orthodox, Chassidim, and Haredi" would qualify as some Orthodox would they not?

Actually no, even by their own standards and I can talk Jewish history with you forever. I was studying for a degree in Jewish Musicology with the goal of writing a curriculum and text book on music history from a Jewish perspective before I got into Bio-Medical IT and Genetics at ThermoFischer then Illumina and now the State DoH. It is totally strange how I got dragged into this. I just wanted a visa to tour internationally on and an IT visa was better than a music visa so I got a job in this industry. So this history is really my passion the genetics thing is just my job as well as basic survival this stuff has and continues to physically threaten my life. I mean I was nearly murdered by a 18 year old three years ago who read this specific Wikipedia article and decided to go shoot up a Synagogue in order to cleanse the world of the 'disease' etc.

Anyway, The Haredi broke away intentionally and consider themselves Ultra-Orthodox due to following Simon Dubnow's philosophy of Jewish Autonomy that got him killed. I actually really like Dubnow, but Kook just had a better way forward. Anyway, Chabad has it on their own site they aren't and proudly discuss their history of being issued Harem (excommunications) from communities as well as imprisonment for impersonating Jews in the Pale of Settlement ie Eastern Europe. The Modern Orthodox are legally not allowed to claim to be orthodox as the actual Orthodoxy sued them for defamation and impersonating a public entity, then the Reform and Conservative did the same. Their leadership denounced the Orthodox as a cabal who controlled the Kosher industry and created their own Kashrut so the Orthodox formed the Hungarian Jewish Congress and it was discovered that in their Yeshiva (Hebrew schools) they were teaching history using the Gregorian Calendar ie teaching children Christianity. This was different from the Reform who were similarly labeled as Neologs by the Orthodox because they sent their children to public schools and then also had then enrolled in a separate Hebrew school to combat the Christian indoctrination they'd experience at public schools. The short is Modern Orthodox integrated Christian education into the Hebrew school whereas Reform didn't but did send their children to public schools which enforce Christian education. Then because they weren't legally Jewish anymore so they moved to the USA where the Jewish community here attempted the same but the Holocaust happened and Adolf Hitler considered all these groups to be Jewish as well as anyone else with disorders. Basically the reason for the pre-fix Ultra or Modern or simply saying Chassidic is done because these communities legally are not Orthodox Jews and if they publish that they are they would, as an organization, be liable as well as open to law suites which do actually happen from time to time wherein these groups often lose. Jewish history is pretty cool stuff and knowing just a shred will debunk unproven rhetoric like the opinions of this article. Also nothing against these groups outside religious stuff but generally good people typically just not going to claim a Chassid who thinks the Rebbe is a Messiah is a Orthodox much less Jewish nor would any of those who tore down the posters on the back of the crosswalks in Manhattan. 2603:7000:4600:358A:AD4D:F147:B55C:B45E (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for a lawsuit in which an Orthodox group got an "Ultra-" or "Modern-" Orthodox group to stop using that name? That sounds like a myth, and I doubt you'd be able to find an example of that. Anyway, our own articles call them, for example Chabad is an Orthodox Jewish group. And I assure you that on Wikipedia, Jews are Jews even if they attended public school or use the Gregorian calendar or don't practice. Because we follow what RS say - not your own opinion. So your argument holds very little water, and is once again too long, meandering, ignoring Wikipedia policy and your own original research and thought. And it's still not the case that any genetic analysis is Nazism. The Erfurt study refers to Jewish people and we take their word for it if they are reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find a Jewish cemetery if it has gravestones with Hebrew inscriptions that refer to great teachers and so on. [23] Andre🚐 07:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to the allegation of the wanna-be censor, population genetic studies and medical studies, such as those concerning Tay-Sachs, never "assume" somebody's ethnicity and never pass off a Muslim as a Jewish Ashkenazi in order to meet some preconceived hypothesis. Another point I'd like to make is that Gaucher Disease and even Tay-Sachs are recognized to be non-exclusive to Jews and there are few truly Jewish-specific diseases.172.56.217.228 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Gaucher Disease and even Tay-Sachs are recognized to be non-exclusive to Jews and there are few truly Jewish-specific diseases", that is nice that it is being recognized, but they'll apparently pull anything that says it isn't Jewish down.

I still see nothing in the citations which specifically indicated how the study concluded the samples were from Jewish populations other than by comparing samples to other samples in which case the citations are still missing something which indicated how the study concluded the samples being used to verify other samples against belonged to Jewish populations.

Pulling DNA off a vase along a very highly trafficked roadway in a region which has consistently switched hands between Jews and non-Jews, even during the periods in which the Jewish people were in control, doesn't concretely prove anything. The vase could have come from a family of Bedouin traders or Vikings on the way to Damascus. We just don't know, and no one has provided quotation that would prove we do. Instead, they cite a paper that is too long for they themselves to read as proof without realizing the paper is saying the exact opposite of what they are using it for. 2603:7000:4600:358A:50D6:7845:CD94:45CB (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Orthodox Jews do not consider Reform Jews as Jewish, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews do not consider Modern Orthodox or Chassidim to be Jewish" — this is misleading at best. All these groups accept as Jewish those people who inherited Jewishness from their mother. Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews absolutely do consider Chassidim as Jewish; I wonder where that misconception comes from. The main points on which these groups differ are on the validity of different conversion ceremonies and whether Jewishness can be inherited from the father. Most of this is anyway irrelevant to the article, as genetic studies are (supposedly) restricted to people with long Jewish heritage and don't care about religious subgroups. Zero^talk 03:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I answered this above Zero where I tried to bring this all back into one thread. That is factually incorrect.

The Modern Orthodox were founded by Azriel Hildesheimer and his thirty-five followers, he counted them in letters which makes them members of his religion. The Jewish Hungarian Congress was formed and they declared him and his followers Neologs ie another religion and forced him to close his Yeshiva in Oedenburg. The same week it was re-opened with the assistance of Christian bureaucrats.[16]https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Hildesheimer_Esriel [17]https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7693-hildesheimer-israel-azriel

Chabad is a Chassidic group. The Baal Shem Tov was an orphan adopted into the Jewish community and later also declared the practitioner of another religion ie Chassidism. They Chassidim will say his birth mother was Jewish, but they will be unable to cite record of that, whereas the Orthodox community will say the nature of his birth mother was uncertain but accept his converted status as an adopted orphan. Nonetheless he created the schism which created the Chassidim by issuing prophies of the Moshiac (Messiah) to come in the same manner the Frankist and Shabtai Tzvi had. [18]https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1208507/jewish/The-Baal-Shem-TovA-Brief-Biography.htm [19]https://www.jewishhistory.org/spread-of-the-chassidic-movement/

The Haredi movement spawned from the anti-zionist autonomous philosophies of Simon Dubnow.[20]https://archive.jewishagency.org/leaders/content/25852/ who called the movement Ultra-Orthodox in letters to express the opinion that to be a zionist without a Moshiac (Messiah) is not something an Orthodox Jew would do as well as separate themselves from the Chassidim who kept announcing Moshiacs (Messiahs) due to Zionism.[21]https://archives.cjh.org/repositories/7/resources/19972

Also if you lived in NYC last year then you'd have heard about the Park East scandal? There was a Haredi intern but Park East is Modern Orthodox so the Rabbi made the intern sit in a children's chair with a broken leg and all this other humiliating stuff. Then there was some alleged illegal activity by the board and the intern opened his own Synagogue Alteneu or something like that. There is the "Orthodox Union" which they are all a part of but the Orthodox aren't nor are the Reform or Conservative and none of those groups were included in the Jewish Federations of North America didn't recognize Chabad until roughly six years ago, the State of Israel still doesn't but it is shifting in that direction.

Most of this is anyway irrelevant to the article, as genetic studies are (supposedly) restricted to people with long Jewish heritage and don't care about religious subgroups.

This part I agree with, but the issue is they don't look into anyone's history. There is no evidence than multiple generations were investigated to confirm Jewishness prior to accepting test samples. Most or all subjects could have been converts from non-Jewish houses we don't know because it wasn't covered. The reason why I mentioned that they all have different definitions is because the experiments would need to provide the definition, they are using for who they are determining as Jewish in the study. Where they recognized as Jews by all movements? If so then how was that confirmed? Were they considered Jewish to the Haredi but not the Modern Orthodox like the Rabbi at Altneu or were the considered Jewish only by the Reform? We don't know because that information was never provided in any of the studies.

The experiments would need Proof of Judaism letters and Ketubah going back six generations because endogamy isn't detectible until about six generations of practice. Then the studies would have to prove the family did not practice endogamy for those six and that no identifying genetic marker is present because endogamy is a major sin and those who practice endogamy are no longer considered Jews they aren't even apostates the Torah calls them abominations. [24]https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.18.6?lang=bi&aliyot=0 [25]https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8100-incest This was better cited in the section I added, but Ibn Ezra even went so far as to say that anyone with whom you share food with is ineligible for relationships and in the Talmud someone rips their eyes out for having gazed at their third cousin. So, in order for any of these experiments to be valid they would have to prove the Jewish people aren't Jewish and then prove that not being Jewish makes someone Jewish because Judaism forbade the practices which form the basis of the study. In other words it isn't possible which is what source 17 from Dr. Raphael Falk in the current article says. 2603:7000:4600:358A:D5DA:3680:FF33:DC27 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Re Recent unexplained removals

User:Chafique regarding your recent removal of information here, [[26]], it was sources and made with explanations in the notes. In my opinion, my additions helped to add explanatory context, without which, your additions were potentially misleading and not entirely accurate. For instance: it is not the case they Ashkenazi Jews have closer fst to Europeans in general than the Levantine populations. In the same study your edit cites, they are shown to be significantly more distant from a range of European groups(e.g., Swedes, Russians, Basques) than to Levantines. The same study also states that they are clearly a southern (Mediterranean/. Population. I think the fact that they have been found to show Levantine affinities (cited with a quote in the edit notes), despite their clear European affinities, is also certainly relevant, as is the fact that they are a mixed population. Skllagyook (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In the same study your edit cites, they are shown to be significantly more distant from a range of European groups(e.g., Swedes, Russians, Basques) than to Levantines.

swedens, russians are europeans, but also italians and greeks are europeans too !, i wrote the “other european groups” to avoid using too much examples in reference to spaniards and tuscans rather than writing five examples, regarding their affinities with middle easterners, this is already clearly stated in the phrase right before it. Chafique (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That is why I thought it better to write, as I did, that they cluster closer to some European groups (like Italians, Greeks, etc.) than to Levantines, than write that they cluster closer to Europeans in general or all European groups (which would be misleading and inaccurate). I agree that there is no need to list the European groups they are not closer to (hence I did not list them). I have made an edit per your topic post to address the issues you raised here [[27]].Skllagyook (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)