Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 12

three major Jewish subcultures
(a) Why 'subcultures'? (b)I assume we are speaking of (i)Ashkenazi (ii)Sephardi (iii)Mizrahi? if so, the problem is that often (ii) and (iii) are used interchangeably when ethnic denominators. Cf. "'There are two main Jewish ethnic groups:Ashkenazi and Sephardi; Ashkenazim are Jews of European origin; Sephardim, also known as Mizrahim ('Oriental' Jews=, have North African and Middle Eastern roots.'Marina Niznick, in Eliezer Ben Rafael,Yosef Gorni,Yaacov Ro'i (EDS.) Contemporary Jewries: Convergence and Divergence, BRILL 2003 p.240"
 * There's a large literature on classifications in this regard, and the page perhaps could do without it, because it just complicates things. But if we retain it, it's best to have it sourced.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I did a partial revert of Beyond My Ken's edit, and removed the "subculture" phrase. Main reason: I think the previous wording was good. Minor other reasons: revert introduction of ambiguous term "subculture" and newly introduced "cn" tag. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hate introducing cn tags. The solution now is as you drafted it in mid-December. I hope the lead is now stabilized. The real work here should be done below, on the article, and, once that is carefully revised, one can look to the lead to see if anything down below should be summarized there. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess this can't be considered a sub-culture, however I wanted to share my 23&me genetic results with you-all. I am identified as a sub-group of haplogroup K. "Haplogroup: K, a subgroup of R - Age: 35,000 years - Region: Near East, Europe, Central Asia, Northern Africa -   Example Populations: Ashkenazi, Druze, Kurds     Highlight: One branch of haplogroup K ties about 1.7   Ashkenazi Jews living today to a single maternal ancestor." It also says: "K branched off haplogroup U8 about 35,000 years ago. It continues to have a strong presence in the region today, reaching levels of 20% among Druze Muslims and about 10% among Kurds, Palestinians and Yemenites. It is also found among the Gurage of Ethiopia, who are thought to be descended from Arabian invaders." It seems to show that Ashkenazi Jews are really local with Druze and Kurds, no? Ridingdog (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ashkenazi Jews are Jews, and as such they have at least some Middle Eastern origins. There has been much mixing of peoples over so many millennia, of course. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, and it's irrelevant because it's a rotten syllogism (a) Jews are people of ME descent (b)Ashkenazis are Jews (c)ergo, Ashkenazim are of ME descent. You'll never get that past your sophomore logician. But I'm bored by that.
 * It's 'coalesce' in your revert that worries me. I'd never heard it used that way, and I'm a native speaker, so I checked the net and realized it appears to be sociologese of recent American manufacture. I don't know what 'coalesce' is supposed to mean here precisely. In the good old days, when prose was less affected by jargon, the metaphor would have been 'crystallized'. 'Coalesce' I suppose means that we have to harp on the unity theme. I can vaguely see what that is meant to mean, but it is a dumb metaphor, and implies that suddenly, all the disiecta membra of Jewish communities from Northern Italy to Paris and over to Trier and Cologne miraculously 'got together'. History is never that simple. 'the ethnic division coalesced' is, further, a play on words, because 'coalesce' (come together) contradicts 'ethnic division', and that, in Shakespeare, is acceptable, but not in normal prose usage, because it stops the alert reader in his tracks, as she pauses to puzzle out the joke. Trivial, I know, but . .Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is trivial. "Emerges from the Holy Roman Empire" implies that the Ashkenazim, as a community, grew out of different groups of Jews, living in different areas, coming together AFTER the Holy Roman Empire. "Coalesces in the Holy Roman Empire" implies that the Ashkenazim came together as a group during the period of the Holy Roman Empire. So, it's a matter of timing. I didn't think Ashkenazim came to be until after 1000 CE so it didn't make sense to me to say the group came together centuries earlier. But my university studies didn't cover this period of European history in depth so I will leave up parsing this distinction to other scholars. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By 'trivial' I was trying to be polite (the 'but'). But you are quite correct, and I shouldn't have trivialized the point. Thanks for the acuity - you are quite correct, and said what I meant to say, but apart from age, it's been a long day. Over to you, Debress.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of this depends on whether its first registered use is an ethnonym or an exonym. If the latter, then Ashkenaz is how the disparate communities were seen from outside. If the former, then 'coalesce' even if jargon, is acceptable. I think it is an exonym, but that may be memory playing me false, and Debresser's in a position to verify the facts. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the context, whether ethnonym or exonym, I'd consider 'coalesce' as being acceptable if Debresser can address the issue of how unified they actually were before emerging. Logic would dictate that the burden of proof is on demonstrating that more than the trappings of a unified identity had already been formed, as opposed coalescing at later date (outside of the empire and finally formed during the process of migration, for example).


 * Could I also ask that Debresser refrain from discourteous behaviour towards other editors? While it is understood that you are passionate about the subject, and that the main content contributors have been exhausted by yet another bout of stress, at those you know to be constructive editors is unacceptable behaviour. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, I am simply not up to your standards. Moreover, your standards are too high for Wikipedia, as I understand them after actively editing Wikipedia continuously some 5 or 6 years. I understand that there is no upper limit for "good", and on can always be even more polite, but you can not obligate me to it. In this specific case, Liz was changing something that had already been reverted at least once, and she could have discussed it first. Therefore, a little "snapping", as you call it, was not completely uncalled for. Please refrain in the future from asking me to be overly polite or courteous, as I don't appreciate your "I am so holy" attitude. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. I provided the phrasing and the source for 'emerged from the Holy Roman Empire' and, unless my memory fails me, in mid-December, you adopted that. Months later, it was fiddled with. Liz happens to have reverted back, whether she knows it or not, to that stable December version, which minutely reflects the language of the source I introduced. When you speak of reverts, 'coalesced' was a challenge to the original sourc in the first place. Furthermore, her analysis is quite acute, and has not been addressed. Petty, trivial? Well, Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail, as Aby Warburg might say.(He comes to mind on this also because of his self-describing motto:'Amburghese di cuore, ebreo di sangue, d'anima Fiorentino' (My heart lies in Hamburg, my blood is Jewish, my soul is Florentine).Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks, Nishidani, I should have known that any edit to the lead of this article could be challenged. But what I saw, when I looked at the edit history is, yes, "emerged from" was the original paraphrase of that quote and it was changed to "coalesced in", I thought by Evildoer. The new phrasing seemed to change the meaning of the quote referred to. So, I understood I was not introducing a change but reverting the sentence back to what it originally was. As such, I didn't believe it was controversial. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Debresser. On re-reading my comment, I acknowledge that it came off as being high and mighty. That was not my intention. I merely wanted to point out that, as an edit summary, it seemed disproportionately hard nosed considering that you were dealing with Liz, and not an unknown quantity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ridingdog, The maternal and paternal haplogroups make up a fraction of ones ancestry, the real info is in the Autosomal DNA, for example, my maternal haplorgroup is K1a9, most agree it has a Middle Eastern source (though some claim a Western European one), but my Autosomal DNA shows that I'm more of a "native" European than I am a "native" Middle Easterner, and I form a cluster not with Druze and Kurds but with Italians and Greeks, and on the world map, I'm not in the Middle East but in Europe, the Italian peninsula specifically. The average "Native" European ancestry among individual Ashkenazis ranges between 35-55%, I score 45-52%, about 30-38% of my ancestry is "native" Middle Eastern and the rest seems to be Anatolian/Southwest Caucasian.84.108.30.185 (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Genetic identity is a nascent 'science', whose results vary to the point of contradiction depending on the criteria used: as one worldranking scientist told me, pump in the criteria that will guarantee the result you're looking for, and you'll get it somewhere along the line, or spiral. Secondly, in this area, the politics are obvious, and the teams most active in it are reserved about sharing with the wider world their data. A huge amount of WP:SYNTH or jumbled stacking of ill-digested results has pervaded wiki articles, and a stop should be put to it until we have strong secondary sources which can provide us with some interpretative stability. We have few, I know of just one, book providing a general overview so far (Nadia Abu El Haj), and it is strong on showing how the paradigm is subject to interests in identitarian politic. Identity is either a matter of self-description (individual ) or the sum total of all constituent elements in one's DNA: the bizarre practice of wanting to see one component here, and then saying that is what the group or person's identity is, has uncannily worrying antecedents in 'racial' (pseudo-)science and we know where that got us. As to the autosomal results, look at the way Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin's work (2010), which broke the emerging 'commonsense' was received.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the word "coalesced" can be used here, because whatever may have been their origins ethnically and geographically, they developed a common culture, language and body of religious laws and customs. That is called "to coalesce", I think. It seems to me that this word, which has been in the article some time, is actually the best word possible, but I am open to objections and suggestions. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there is agreement that the Ashkenazi community coalesced, my point was the changing meaning had to do with when that coalescence happened, during the Holy Roman Empire or after. I'm sure this is also a subject of dispute but my laywoman understanding was that Ashkenazi emerged after this period. But, as usual, I defer to the reliable sources. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I too defer to sources, and the source I had used 'emerged'. Debresser is the only active editor who prefers 'coalesce'. I've checked and there is a source for this Jehuda Reinhara & Yaacov Shavit, Glorious, Accursed Europe: An Essay on Jewish Ambivalence, UPNE, 2010 p.239 n.3, which reads:
 * 'The Polish Ashkenazi world began to coalesce in the tenth century, Ha! Eureka, the 'coalesce' coalition of one might shout? But our new source speaks of one division of the Ashkenazi (I think from Weinryb's book that the statement is rather light-headed and inaccurate for the Jews in Poland 900-1,000 CE), namely the Poles and (b) the Polish territories did not form part of the Frankish Empire that we call the Holy Roman Empire after 800 CE. So here 'coalesce' doesn't fit because we say 'Holy Roman Empire', to which the Poles don't belong, and the Ashkenazi referred to are French and German. This, Debresser, is the sort of problem you get into, or cause, when you change the language of an article from the generative source, without thinking to find an alternative source for the new usage. It means some editors vote and hold opinions, and others are constrained to keep working on books. That is why I think 'emerge', the original solution, is warranted.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani I completely agree, in the end of the day humans are 99.9% identical genetically and we all share a common ancestry in east Africa about 50,000 years ago, the 1-100% that you get from autosomal tests represent about 0.010-0.015% of the Human DNA, every individual identifies himself in his own way, and genetics obviously can't make someone identify in this way or that way, and yes it's true that DNA tests are in their infancy, I just replied to a person who used genetics to make his statement. It's very unfortunate that politics have managed to make their way into subjects that are none of their concern, and I've stated time and time again that genetics should be secondary and that one person cannot speak in the name of everyone. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are there some editors who, whatever the question, always start talking about genetics? In any case, I though the subject was if we should use the words "subculture" (it seems that consensus is we should not) and "coalesced" (on which the verdict is still open). Debresser (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dunno. By the way, the genetics stuff is all wrong, in the lead and elsewhere. The sensible thing would be to inquire on wiki for an expert on the subject who is neutral, to sum up the evidence by examining the sources of the page. No one who is not thoroughly at home in the field should touch this stuff.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani and Debresser, the genetics came up because Ridingdog said that his maternal haplogroup was common among Druze and Kurds and he was an Ashkenazi Jew therefore "It seems to show that Ashkenazi Jews are really local with Druze and Kurds, no?" To which the IP editor replied that haplogroups make up a fraction of ones ancestry and that most of the ancestry is found in the Autosomes and that Ashkenazis individually can come out more Middle Eastern or more European. Guy355 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite right, but the last passage in the lead is still false, and we need an expert to rewrite it. This could be excerpted into a new section for neatness's sake if anyone is worried that we are handling several points in the wrong section. Any of us could rewrite that manipulative twisting of a complex subject we have now, if they can parse straightforward scientific prose, but I suggest an outside hand to avoid tendentious manipulation of genetics which is (a) characteristic of many papers themselves (b) characteristic of many editors in this area.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Guy355 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A point of method. Leads summarize the body of the article, and the DNA last paragraph should summarize what we have, or should have, in that DNA section. If anything, rather than tamper with the lead, editors interested in the subject should try to get some source-correlated order of presentation in that section, and once, that is done, the lead summary of it is simple, because it would require not autonomous sourcing (faute de mieux) Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Guy355 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion about all of this genetic material is not about its content or comparing DNA test results (which is not an area I have expertise in), I'm just critical of the amount of space it takes up in this article. There exists the Genetic studies on Jews article and I think this subject should be discussed in depth in that article, not here. I'd argue that readers who come to the Ashkenazi Jews article want to learn about the rich history and culture of this group and not face paragraph after paragraph of contrasting genetic information. This section should be simplified and if readers want to parse through all of the contrasting studies on DNA and ethnic lineage, they can go to the article on genetic studies which is devoted to this. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What they said AKA ditto. This has been the prominent sticking point from which other problems have emanated. If I have to invoke WP:BALASPS one more time, I'll probably have an apoplexy. Nevertheless, the article's topic is "Ashkenazi Jews", not Genetic studies on Jews. This article contains enough DNA content to constitute a separate article on the subject. As to whether lay-people are qualified to be able to interpret such specialised studies, and whether it constitutes WP:OR is an issue unto itself. Whatever the stance on matters pertaining to DNA, it is not the focus of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit history will show that two editors are responsible for the damage of overcramming, both driven by a POV that uses DNA 'evidence' (often totally contradictory as old research is challenged by newer evidence). The editors who do this don't edit the articles' history: they edit the lead and the genetics sections, and, try to drive out generalists who are endeavouring to fix the article overall. The same chaotic revert-stuff in-ignore-the-article-but-use-DNA-for-just-one- point approach, made the Khazars article almost impossible to draft. If you opposed them, they raised cries of 'antisemitism'. It took several months to fix to a minimal standard the Khazar article. Probably what one needs here is some wider ruling or at least an admin appeal to see if we can get genetic material experts to review and rework the relevant sections of articles damaged by this practice. In any case, as that section stands it is a violent violation of WP:Undue, and I suggest that the proper interim solution would be to clip it out, put it into a draft section on the work page here, for revision and discussion, preferable with a RfC notification? Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, genetics are very unreliable and can often lead to contradictions. Guy355 (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

New source
The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology (Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning)..

Looks like it is directly relevant. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is.I used it several times, particularly to get through to editors how problematical the use of genetics is, and got tired of checking whether my citations from it survived the endless editwarring by the old group.Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bohemian Jews and Czech Jews
I would like to invite editors to express their opinions about Talk:Czechs.--Der Golem (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bohemians and Czechs of the Jewish faith? That's what comes to mind when I think about Bohemian and Czech Jews, kinda like Bohemian and Czech Catholics or Protestants I reckon. Guy355 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of Jewish descent. Guy355 seems to be unable to get that into his head. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the debate appears to be focussed on Kafka rather than Bohemian Jews and Czech Jews in general, and is taking place on the Talk:Czechs page. There appears to be a misunderstanding about what Czech and Bohemia meant in relation to other ethnicities at the time Kafka was alive as opposed to the current definition of Czech. Someone is under the impression that Czech has meant an immutable ethnic group/territory inhabited by a single and predominant ethnic group throughout the history of empires. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you want from me Debresser? I can't get what into my head? Guy355 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Care to be more polite mate? I don't even know you. Guy355 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Changing "Ethnic groups in Europe" to Europe, or possibly putting them both in there?
I suggest that in the related ethnic groups section we replace in the "Other Europeans" which links to "ethnic groups in Europe" simply to "Europe" just like the "other Levantines" simply links to "the Levant", is it perhaps possible to include both "Europe" and "ethnic groups in Europe"? If there's any opposition please reply to this section, I know that such subjects are like explosive barrels and that specifically in this article one needs a consensus on just about everything. :-P If there will be no opposition until Sunday then I guess it'll be fine? Guy355 (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be an improvement. Rather the other way around: if there were an article ethnic groups in the Levant, we should have linked there instead of to "the Levant". Debresser (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no Ethnic groups in the Levant? That's a shame. Well okay, I won't touch it. Guy355 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Genetic studies
Just a head's up, I posted a request for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics for help determining how much weight to give the variety of genetic studies included, hopefully with the result that this section is reduced in size but, at the same time, reflect whatever scientific consensus exists at this time. I'm not sure of the response this request will receive but I think this article could use the expertise from some editors who have more knowledge and experience editing in this area. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Andrew Lancaster would certainly be useful in this regard, if he could manage to spare the time, a big if.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize that it's asking a lot for editors working on science articles to involve themselves here but it's exactly their perspective that could improve this article immensely. There is a great deal of questioning right now about the validity of DNA tests that concern ethnicity and I hope the subject would interest some editors. And I figured, nothing ventured, nothing gained! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this article would only benefit from editors who actually have experience on the subject of genetics who would be able to make some order from the mess and bias that found it's way into this article via biased inexperienced editors, I hope those experienced editors would agree to help, that's their choice, but I'm sure their work would be only beneficial and greatly appreciated. Guy355 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll lend my voice to this plea for experienced editors to involve themselves, even though it is a big ask. From my experience of articles dealing with ethnicities, DNA research has been ruled out by consensus for lack of scientific comprehension and POV push reasons. As we've all noted, it's too new a science for lay people to try to interpret, and findings are changing at a rate impossible to stay on top of. There are enough articles in Wikipedia with time sensitive information that are terribly dated. Appending such a dimension to an article which should be dealing with culture, history and contemporary issues has already served to distract from expanding the primary areas of interest for readers for long enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The link at Reference 101 is dead. If it's intended to be to the article mentioned in 100, http://nymag.com/news/features/ashkenazi-jews-2011-11/ works. Mcljlm (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 14 June 2014


 * I'd love to know about these ethnic group articles without genetics sections. Almost all the ones I've seen do. The only ones I've seen that don't are Tamils and Ukrainians. Khazar (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians specifically, Khazar. The only information about the Rus' is 'proving' that the Ruriks were 'Swedish'... er, I mean Norse/Nordic, so that page is patrolled by a particular interest group. There's only generic information about the predominant haplogroup extending across the regions (including Poland). It's not worth the grief because there has been anti-semitic nincompoopery from fanatics finding spurious 'proof' that Ukrainians are essentially Khazars (to which the answer is 'big deal', no doubt there's a lot of Jewish blood in the population considering that intermarriage/interbreeding has been going on for a couple of thousand years). If any DNA info is springing up anywhere about Russians (er, Slavs), you can be certain it's focussing on the predominant haplogroup and avoiding admixtures. Speaking of which, have you read the Rus' Khaganate article? I'm anticipating an article proving that Atlantis existed and was inhabited by the Norse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good mentions. I'm well aware of the unfortunate twist of events that caused the Rus Khaganate to lose its FA status. As for this article a paragraph per sub-section of genetics should be the best option. One for Y-DNA, one for mtDNA, and one for aDNA. The Khazar theory and Medical Genetics are in much better shape. Khazar (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to look at some more ethnic group articles then.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Already did. The overwhelming majority mention Y-DNA and mtDNA chromosomes. You should keep your uneducated comments to yourself. Khazar (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I very strongly doubt that. The majority of European ethnic groups perhaps. But not the majority of all ethnic group articles by a very large margin - simply because the vast majority of ethnic groups of the world have not have any thorough genetic research done one them. Regarding uneducated comments I dont think I am likely to be well served by taking advice form you.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

True, every year a new study turns up that contradicts or confirms several previous studies, this science is still in it's infancy and shouldn't be taken as fact. Guy355 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is (only) one of the reasons I feel strongly any genetics section should only highlight the major and less controversial conclusions of genetics research. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the results of the genetics testing don't actually contradict themselves but rather, the conclusions of the authors do. Both Baher and Costa found a major finding lineage among Ashkenazi Jews. The former placed this origin in the Levant while the latter placed it in Europe. Khazar (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that probably the recent literature on Ashkenazim have had sufficient focus on genetic studies that those studies need to be represented in the article. Currently however it seems that it is very heavily overrepresented. I would suggest cutting the section down to a single section with a "main" link to the two articles on medical genetics of Jews and Genetic studies on Jews. PArticularly the section on the Khazar fringe theory is given undue weight and by sectioning the criticism out in a subsection it is also not in line with how WP:FRINGE suggests fringe theories should be represented - namely from the mainstream view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on both counts: there is too much detail about genetics studies, and Khazar theories are given undue weight. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus on this (re Khazars, I took most of the material accumulated out, and created or rewrote pages where anyone interested can consult. It is not quite fringe, borderline, because it had considerable support within Israeli and Jewish scholarly circles at one time). I'll cut it back further, but perhaps, if he can find the time, we should delegate Maunus to do the general edit he suggests, esp. since he is above this particular fray?Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice you did some pruning, Nishidani. But I agree that some editor uninvolved in this topic should go over that section (heck, maybe the entire article) and make sure it is readable and user-friendly. When I started this section on genetic studies, I naively didn't know that this had been such a subject of contention in the past. If I'd taken the time to go into the talk page archive, I'd have seen the conflict that has already occurred around genetics. Of course, maybe this dispute most needs is a set of new eyes! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. I took out much of the Khazar stuff because I did most of the work on that section and the articles growing out of it. I've read all of the genetics papers, but am not sufficiently familiar with the discipline, except to recognize the inappropriate uses to which its highly provisional results have been put, and the inadequacy of the reportage that dies on its feet as each research bulletin is published. Analogically, it looks like a the so-called clutter of junk in the genone, with the difference that this junk has reproductive powers that kill off or crowd out the parts that represent the function parts of an evolving tale. There quite a lot of poor material (on this very rich subject) that could be removed without loss. The problem is, do that, and, given the neglect of Ashkenazi history and the extraordinary fruits of the sons and granddaughters of the haskalah, you find almost nothing. That is the dreadful thing about POV fixations: they don't write to the subject, they obsess about one or two details in the lead, and overblow trivia. Let's hope some editors can come in and clean up.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Spent some time reading up on the controversy of this particular article, how fights over it have lead to several editors socking or ending up at ARE, getting blocked or just leaving the entire project. I realize that was about 5 years history compressed into one afternoon but it does make me marvel that your edits have gone uncontested for a few hours. I think temporary protection from IP editing has helped. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've checked in again and the changes are still holding up! It certainly seems to indicate that, without unnecessary antagonism, contributors are fairly much on the same page (metaphorically and literally) as to what the priorities for creating a good and edifying article are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard Feynman
Why is he included? he specifically said he did not want to be included in racial lists.

"He routinely refused to be included in lists or books that classified people by race. He asked to not be included in Tina Levitan's The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize, writing, "To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory" and adding "...at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views, but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way 'the chosen people'""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And do we have to care about his wishes? Debresser (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please bring some proof from Wikipedia policies and guidelines that this is so. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mikhail Botvinnik is a chess champion and needs to be in the collage to represent Jews in Chess. John von Neumann was proposed in the past and for a good reason there was a lot of opposition to him.

Someone also put Richard Feynman instead of Anne Frank. Fist of all, damaging the balance between men and women. Also... don't we have enough exact science people in the collage??

Looking through the talk page, I can see whoever did those changes didn't actually discuss them first. I will leave this message here for two days to see responses, and will revert it back to the original tomorrow. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.27.175 (talk)


 * You mean "will revert it back to the original tomorrow" if there is consensus to do so. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any compelling reason to include them - is there really one? If not, then we should remove him. He's made his wishes very clear and I think to include him would be a BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree that others might be more notable, especially Anne Frank comes to mind. I do know that religion is a problem according to WP:EGRS, but ethnicity is not, per that same guideline, and if his ethnicity is sourced, we can have him. Although I agree that it might be nicer to respect his wishes. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have opinion about this issue but BLP is not an issue here as he already dead.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. A sock puppet can cause this much havoc? Unless there are policies by Wikipedia that demand the enforcement of people's wishes, then removing him is irrational. After all, he is one of the greatest physicists who ever lived. Khazar (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BEing a great physicist does not make anyone an ashkenazi jew I am afraid.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point? He's Ashkenazi Jewish. That's an undisputable fact and failing to recognize that violates WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia has no policy that enforces people's wishes to be identified (or not identified) with a certain ethnic group. Why don't you bring Wikipedia's policies into your arguments rather than your false beliefs? There are at least two good reasons to remove Richard Feynman and you haven't even mentioned them. Instead, you believe that his "wishes should be respected". Khazar (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Was there a consensus to change it in the first place or did someone just decide it on their own? Exactly, so I will revert it back, and if the discussion says to keep the new version THEN we will. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where's the controversy in adding him? It's not a crime to be WP:BOLD and when the sock puppets like you get banned, the whole thing will blow over. As for your proposition, a consensus must be established before the edit, not vice versa. Khazar (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, mind fart about BLP obviously. Yes, this is an ethnic issue, and Feynman was clear about not wanting to be in such lists. Sock puppet accusations must be followed up by an SPI Al Khazar and as you haven't filed one you should redact the claim as it is irrelevant. But I would like to know what the two good reasons are for removing Feynman. Since you have two, I can't see why you would object to his removal. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reason 1: To reduce the gender gap. Reason 2: There's already a physicist (Einstein) in the collage. I'm not objecting to his removal. I'm objecting to the faulty reasons provided. I know I'm the one who added him but a free use image of Anne Frank would be the best replacement. Khazar (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Excellent reasons. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Anne Frank.jpg
File:Anne Frank.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Anne Frank.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What's so problematic about the picture's use? It isn't modified and is being used to illustrate the subject at hand. That was one of the reasons needed for the picture to be used and it's been met. Khazar (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture of Jews who convert to Christianity

 * Why the pictures of Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner? all of these figures convert to Christianity and according to the halacka and Jewsih laws when a Jew convert to anthoer religion he is not Jew any more, Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner they are not any more Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.138.140 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, according to Jewish law, a person with a Jewish mother will always be Jewish, even if he becomes the pope. Guy355 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is actually a complex issue in Halakha, and not that simple. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me, I was wrong, I suppose such a subject would never be a simple issue. Guy355 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If Judaism is a religion, then someone who doesn't believe in the religion should be no longer Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.138.140 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but Jews are also an ethnicity, they're an ethnoreligious group, and Ashkenazi Jews are a Jewish ethnic division. Just like the Druze are a religion and an ethnicity (the difference is that while Judaism is open for people who truly wish to become Jewish and convert, the Druze religion is completely exclusive to those born into it, but, you get my point.) Guy355 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. :) Debresser (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it should therefore depend on whether the people continued to identify as Jews after converting to christianity.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes my point sound Christianity also a religion of some Ashkenazi Jews. so it's possible to add here {{Infobox ethnic group: |rels     = Judaism, some secular, irreligious, Christians??


 * Then we should also add Christianity in the part of religion: (Religion: Judaism, some secular, irreligious, Christians) During the history many Ashkenazi Jews convert to Christianity we have here Example of Three notable "jews" figures as Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner.

Also Heinrich Heine and Karl Marx. Guy355 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Encyclopedia gives some statistics on conversion of Jews to Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity (which it calls erroneously "Greek Catholicism"; Greek Catholics are under Rome, unlike the Orthodox Church). Some 2,000 European Jews converted to Christianity every year during the 19th century, but in the 1890s the number was running closer to 3,000 per year, &mdash; 1,000 in Austria Hungary (Galizian Poland), 1,000 in Russia (Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania), 500 in Germany (Posen), and the remainder in the English world.


 * so if a Ashkenazi Jews who convert to Christianity will stay as Ashkenazi Jews then we should add Christianity also, not a small number of Ashkenazi Jews convert to Christianity (as Max Born, Fritz Haber, Gerty Cori, George de Hevesy and there arec movement of Jews converted to the faith of the Catholic Church called Hebrew Catholics most of them are Ashkenazi Jews and the Messianic Judaism many of Ashkenazi Jews memeber of it)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.138.140 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I reckon it would be accurate, if there's a consensus then go ahead, although I think you should wait for at least 24 hours to see if anyone opposes that. Guy355 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good there are sub Jewish-Christian groupes as Hebrew Catholics and Messianic Judaism, many figures that mentioned in the articale are Jewish who convert to Christianity, there are many sources supporting my cliams, in United States where many Jewish (most of them Ashkenazi Jews) marry Christians there is not small Groupe of Christian Jeiwsh and according to Pew Study there are 1,600,000 Christian from Jewish background live in the united states How many Jews are there in the United States?.so if no one opposes that i can add Christian in the religion line rigth? the only problem it's i can add anything in the articale since it's protected!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.138.140 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, for the article about Jews by the religious law go to the article on Who is a Jew. Converted to Christianity or no is irrelevant to your ethnicity and your origins, so even if Mahler converted he is still an Ashkenazi Jew by ethnicity. By the way, by the Jewish law conversions out of Judaism don't mean anything. Also, those conversions can't really be taken seriously. Many who converted were simply atheists (not true Christians) who simply didn't want anti-Semitism to block their way in society. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes the article of Ashkenazi Jews here as an ethnic group, not as only religious group, so if Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner and Heinrich Heine pictures will stay in the article, bseide Judaism some Jews (not a rare or small number) convert to Christianity, some of them who simply didn't want anti-Semitism to block their way in society and some of them convert becouse they are simply found them self in Christianity as Edith Stein and Simone Weill, in USA alone there are are 1,600,000 Christian from Jewish background How many Jews are there in the United States?.

My point if you want to consider Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, then you should add in Religion Christianity too, Becouse some we added here pictures of at least 4 Jewish who convert to Christianity, If we consdier Ashkenazi Jews as a religious group, Then you should remove Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner and Heinrich Heine, they convert to Christianity and they didn't practced Judaism anymore. But Ashkenazi Jews are both rigth? If we added some secular, irreligious, What the problem to add christians? Christians Ashkenazi Jews they are not small group. Many of the notable Ashkenazi Jews were Christians as Max Born, Fritz Haber, Gerty Cori, George de Hevesy, Dennis Gabor, Leopold Kronecker, Felix Mendelssohn, Gustav Mahler, John von Neumann, Lise Meitner, Heinrich Heine, Bob Dylan, Israel Zolli, Harry Frederick Oppenheimer, Jean-Marie Lustiger and others so we are not talk about small and not visible group, These figures consider important and respocted among Jewish. Besides there are two movements of Jews (mostly Ashkenazi Jews) with large numbers and they are Jewish who converts to Christianity and still identify themselves as Jews and still maintain their Jewish traditions, thes are: Hebrew Catholics and Messianic Judaism.

What i want to say is since Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, as you said and some Jewish (not rare and not small numbers) convert to Christianity why I can't add Christianity it's truth some are Chrsitians : {{Infobox ethnic group: |rels     = Judaism, some secular, irreligious, Christians.??

I'm not saying to add this and making a paragraph about it and i don't think it's irrelevant, it's only small word adding this here {{Infobox ethnic group: |rels     = Judaism, some secular, irreligious, Christians. as i explaind befor the Majority of Ashkenazi Jews practice Judaism but also some are secular, irreligious, and some are Christians (in the USA alone there are 1.6 millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.138.140 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that the practical rule is "a Christian who was once a Jew or (some of) whose ancestors happened to be Jews will be counted as a Jew if he or she is famous for a good thing". Feketekave (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope the reason that it happens is because Jews are an ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jews are a Jewish ethnic division and not because of the reason you mentioned, if it's the latter, then... :-\ Guy355 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

R1a
"The authors also report on Eu 19 (R1a) chromosomes, which are very frequent in Central and Eastern Europeans (54%–60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. They hypothesized that the differences among Ashkenazim Jews could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding European populations and/or genetic drift during isolation. A later 2005 study by Nebel et al., found a similar level of 11.5% of male Ashkenazim belonging to R1a1a (M17+), the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup in Central and Eastern Europeans."

This all refers to R1a which not only is frequent in Eastern Europe, but also in India and Mideast. Jews mostly belong to the Mideastern subgroups of R1a and not to the Eastern European subgroups. So please, someone could add this important information or even delete these misleading sentences. Similar problem with R1b and in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Y-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews Robertius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is the "genius" who put instead of  Mikhail Botvinnik? Richard Feynman instead of Anne Frank?
Mikhail Botvinnik is a chess champion and needs to be in the collage to represent Jews in Chess. John von Neumann was proposed in the past and for a good reason there was a lot of opposition to him.

Someone also put Richard Feynman instead of Anne Frank. Fist of all, damaging the balance between men and women. Also... don't we have enough exact science people in the collage??

Looking through the talk page, I can see whoever did those changes didn't actually discuss them first. I will leave this message here for two days to see responses, and will revert it back to the original tomorrow. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all "genious", it's spelt GENIUS. Secondly, Anne Frank's picture was removed due to copyright violations so I added Richard Feynman to fill the gap and complete the collage. Lastly, Richard Feynman is a genius and was ranked as the 7th greatest physicist of all time by the journal Physics World. Khazar (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see you really have an issue understanding you can't decide on your own who to put people in collages without a discussion, so that is getting reverted. Feynman is a genius, no doubt, and was ranked high... but what does he add to the collage? We already have people representing exact sciences, so what is the point in another one? Again, before you get involved with collages you have to understand the logic behind them and principles like "representation" etc. There are free pictures of Anne Frank here with no copyright issues, do you want to revert it back yourself to the original and start a discussion? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're the one who wants to see him gone. It's your responsibility to convince the other editors that he is redundant because you're the one who supports the change. I just wanted to address the faulty point of him not being a notable Ashkenazi Jew. As for me not "understanding issues", understand this: his addition to the collage was left unobjected for more than 2.5 months when I added him on May 1. It's amazing what sock puppets can do. I don't have a problem with getting rid of Feynman. However, I have a problem when clueless anti-intellectuals attack his intelligence and notability. Present good points or don't present them at all. Khazar (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, if YOU want to add someone knew to the collage, it is YOUR responsibility to convince others that adding him and removing someone else is a good idea. Just because your change went unnoticed for 2 months doesn't mean people agreed with it, it might mean people didn't notice. Here, I object, good enough? No it's up to you to justify a change you did WITHOUT discussion or consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.246.7 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidently, you're "knew" to editing. Being WP:BOLD when editing articles is not against Wikipedia's policies. You're too late anyways because Anne Frank has been re-added to the collage; something I supported. Khazar (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the intro, ""The Jews of Germany"), are a Jewish ethnic division originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East who coalesced in the Holy Roman Empire around the turn of the first millennium"

Then in the body, "The origins of the Ashkenazim are obscure,[39] and many theories have arisen speculating about their ultimate provenance.[40] The most well supported theory is the one that details a Jewish migration through what is now Italy and other parts of southern Europe."

Which is it? There is no concrete evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Semitic Israelite tribes from the Middle East, so why is the article claiming such a thing? ScienceApe (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The precise way the Israelite tribes arrived is not known, but the origin itself is not disputed. Although it is disputed, how much of original Israelite origin there is and how much was added to the genome over the ages. If you want, we could change to "The precise origins of the Ashkenazim are obscure". Debresser (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it known that they originate from Israelite tribes if they don't know how they arrived. Where is the evidence? The reference that claims they descended from Israelite tribes is also broken. Malamockq (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If I see Obama in Jerusalem I understand he flew in. If he used a Boeing 747 or 767 I don't know. Pint being, that the precise way can be unknown, without making the fact itself any less reliable. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are Buddhists in China, does that mean they are descended from people from Nepal? It just seems like a big assumption when there's no actual evidence that they are descended from semitic Israelites. In fact according to the article on Israelites, they essentially don't know what happened to the Hebrew tribes that lived there. ScienceApe (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the source used for the first sentence, "are a Jewish ethnic division originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East who coalesced in the Holy Roman Empire around the turn of the first millennium.";


 * It does not look supportive to me. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not supportive at all. At best, historians agree that ashkenazi jews came from the Holy Roman Empire. Anything beyond that is conjecture without any evidence. The line should be altered so that it states that ashkenazi jews can be traced back to the Holy Roman Empire. ScienceApe (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The disputed sentence was removed from the article a while ago after fierce discussion. Recently, it was restored in this edit. I have no problem with undoing that edit. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. ScienceApe (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The same should probably be done on Sephardi Jews. It was for consistency with that page that the above edit was made. I was surprised to see that the same sentence that was removed here, remained there unchallenged. Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing it restored, with proper sources. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's evidence, I have no problem either, but demonstrating such a thing would require extensive genetic analysis, not very easy to do. Anyway I changed the sentence at Sephardi Jews. ScienceApe (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added it for consistency. I didn't see this discussion, my apologies. I still think its restoration was justified due to scientific majority opinion, though it requires more references. Compare this to the article on Palestinians which claims they are descended from Canaanites, which is almost entirely unsubstantiated. It would be by bias by omission not to include it (it's a near consensus, as the Khazar theory is included as discredited). I don't think its a contradiction as it references the fact that the paternal line is from the Levant but the maternal admixture is unspecified. In addition the descent is clearly documented archeologically, culturally, etc. There's a lot of POV reasons to believe that European Jews are not "real" Jews and that's why it's disputed.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus right now is to remove it. Asserting that it's documented archaeologically, culturally, etc is not policy. Third-party sources. There's no POV pushing, it's a lack of credible sources supporting the claims. Assume good faith ScienceApe (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides studies on the Ashkenazi Autosomal DNA (the Autosomes represent ones overall ancestry, the maternal/paternal lineages represent only a fraction of ones ancestry) show that Ashkenazi Jews plot in the gap between Europe and the near east, next to Sicilians and Maltese, in the gap between Cypriots (who probably best represent pre Islamic Levantines) and Greeks, there also seems to have been geneflow from Greeks to AJs, there's a genetic relation there, perhaps due to admixture as far away as the late bronze age, and as recently as the Hellenistic/Roman periods. Here's the link for the latest study which shows the plots Guy355 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with keeping the two statements together is that it violates WP:SYNTHESIS. If source "A" claims "X" and source "B" claims "Y", you cannot use both sources to make a claim "Z". In this case, you need a source that mentions that they're both Middle eastern in origin and that they coalesced in the Roman Empire. No exceptions. Khazar (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how they contradict eachother. European Jews immigrated/were made refugees when the Romans conquered Judea, (documentation supports this) and an ethnic division of them coalesced in the Holy Roman Empire 1000 years later. It's 1000 years. I'll try to find both though. Genetics show Jews are Middle Eastern, look at the page on Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are Semitic. It's not well sourced that they're Israelite specifically, but they are Middle Eastern. For instance, European Jews are closely related to Kurds. Jews are objectively a Semitic people.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora... Today, Jews belong to several communities that can be classified according to the location where each community developed. Among others, these include the Middle Eastern communities of former Babylonia and Palestine, the Jewish communities of North Africa and the Mediterranean Basin, and Ashkenazi communities of central and eastern Europe" --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  16:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't contradict each other. Contradiction isn't the issue here. Combining two statements with two different sources to produce a new thesis violates WP:SYNTHESIS because Wikipedia cannot be a place for original thought/research. As for Ashkenazi Jews being ultimately middle Eastern in origin, that fact is undisputed among the mainstream. However, the issue isn't their lineage, but their recent ethnic origins. The ancestors of the Ashkenazim originated from the Middle East while the Ashkenazim themselves emerged from Europe. Unless you can provide a source stating that Ashkenazi Jews existed outside of Europe (in the Middle East) during the first millennium, then mentioning their middle Eastern origin and their recent origin within the Roman empire is unjustified. Khazar (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we say something like "coalesced in the Roman Empire", "descended from Middle Eastern ancestors", or something of the sort? --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your help.
 * I support Monochrome Monitor proposals Ykantor (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not in close proximity. Otherwise, it is considered synthesis. One thing I don't understand is why they were so close together considering the fact that the last paragraph in the introductions is basically a more detailed conclusion about the Ashkenazim's middle eastern ancestry. Take a look:

Although the copious number of genetic studies on Ashkenazim — researching both their paternal and maternal lineages — all point to ancient Levantine origins, the studies have arrived at diverging conclusions regarding both the degree and the sources of their non-Levantine admixture.[23] These diverging conclusions focus particularly in respect to the extent of the predominant non-Levantine genetic origin observed in Ashkenazi maternal lineages, which is in contrast to the predominant Levantine genetic origin observed in Ashkenazi paternal lineages. ....with a detailed paragraph like this, why is there an urge to mention this once before, and in less than six words? I'm glad I can help. Best regards, Khazar (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the lead should summarize the article. I personally am in favor of mentioning the Levantine origins in the lead, and perhaps "Levantine origin" is the best phrase to use here. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Monochrome Monitor just couldn't wait and made the edit. I would like to see comments from other editors first. If this version would be acceptable to all, then it should be implemented on the Sephardi article as well. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is there a need to mention the Levantine origins when the last paragraph in the lead already mentions it; and in greater detail? It's already in the lead of the article, why is this a problem? Khazar (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also true. Moreover, the simple word "Jewish" (in "Jewish ethnic division") already implicates it. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Monitor, the thing about your quote is that it's about the Ashkenazi paternal lineage, paternal/maternal lineages make up a fraction of ones ancestry, the overall information for ones ancestry is in the Autosomes, and according to the links Guy355 provided, Ashkenazis are roughly as European as Sicilians and Maltese, in the gap between Europe and the near east. Your link looked at the Y chromosome, which indeed most AJs belong to paternal lineages with a near eastern source, but doesn't represent their overall ancestry. BTW, the term "Semitic" is quite irrelevant, there are Semitic languages, but there's no Semitic ethnicity just like there's no Japthetic ethnicity or Hamitic ethnicity, I believe the term you're looking for is west Asian, near eastern, Levantine etc etc. 86.169.239.107 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014
Sergio DellaPergola

should be

Sergio Della Pergola

source: "Sergio Della Pergola" on Wikipedia

MEdictate (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you have a look at the title of that article, it is DellaPergola. And on his website as well. So it should stay the way it is. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)