Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Population Figures

Can someone provided citations for the Ashkenazi Jewish Population in countries other then the USA and Israel?--Krotx (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Last talk edit was over a month ago. See Archive 1 for info on Ashkenazi intelligence. DanielC/T+ 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

by 70.23.207.66

This entire article is filled with bias promoting one view point trying to pass it off as truth. I am going to be doing some serious rewriting to this article promoting a second view point (without bias). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.207.66 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to (and encouraged to) edit the page in any way that you feel contributes to the article. Please read Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability, [Wikipedia:No original research]] and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, to understand what kind of article Wikipedia strives to create. While you are permitted to edit the page, I would strongly recommend that you first talk about your prospective changes here on the talk page to prevent any disputes with other editors. It can be very frustrating to work hard on an article only to have your edits rejected. Jon513 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed your edits ("The second states that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a Turkic tribe that converted to Judaism in the 8th century in Southern Russia (See Khazars" etc) pending a discussion here on the talk page. I have kept your criticisms of the article ("NOTE TO READERS: This article is currently heavily biased...", "[citation needed for entire paragraph]") but changed it to a templates made for that purpose.
The reason I removed your additions it is because you do not cite any sources that Ashkenzi Jews are descended from a Turkic tribe. There had been significant talk about this subject in the archive. You are welcome to read them and add any insight here which has not already been said. Jon513 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I will rewrite parts of this article to include the alternative theory on the origins of Jews in Eastern Europe (See the Wikipedia page on Khazars). This article deals only with the popular theory (commonly excepted as fact) that the Jews who were expelled from Jerusalem in the year 70 ended up in Germany and then in Eastern Europe. The second theory should be included as well.

Also, the article is biased in terms of the DNA evidence. It only talks about the Middle Eastern contributions to the genetics of Ashkenazi Jews, but there is evidence linking them to other groups. There has also been heavy criticism of current genetic studies linking Ashkenazi Jews to the Middle East as well as to other Jewish groups.

I think the article should include sources for both theories for linguistic, historic, cultural, and genetic evidence.

I do believe in the alternative theory, and will include credible sources in the rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.117.237 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior to starting a rewrite, you should examine the talk page archives, where this subject has come up quite a few times. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] for a few of the specific discussions.
You should know that previous editors trying to insert the material that you refer to into this article have had little to no success. Most of the regular editors here are very well-versed in the details of both arguments and haven't found much reliable modern scholarly support to the Koestler theory. Of course you're very welcome to contribute anything that you can on the subject that's rigorously supported by neutral sources, but it would be unfortunate for you to put a lot of work into a rewrite when it would include a lot of material that's been found by editorial consensus to have little merit.
Maybe to save conflict and wasted effort it would be better to discuss the subject and any changes you'd like to introduce here on the talk page before editing the article? I'm sure there are plenty of others who would be happy to contribute to an examination of any new evidence you could bring. DanielC/T+ 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I only find 70.107.117.237 to be highly uncivil and biased for himself, it is both funny and sad in the same time that no one notice it till now. What kind of evidence does he have for his firm claims against the extensive body of genetic evidence which isolated the Ashkenazi Jews from the gentile Europeans...absolutely non! more than that-what kind of evidence he have for the theory of link between the Kazhars, an empire that been ruined by the Vikings, and the Ashkenazi Jews? again, non-only pseudo scientific evidence, at best. It is disrupting for him that Ashkenazi Jews are linked to Jerusalem-meaning to Israel (no body assumes that all the Jews came from the same city in Israel)-if he have Anti-Zionist agenda it's his own matter, but if he will continue to fit this article to his own POV than this is a pure vandalism and will be treated as such. He didn't even recognized himself by user name-and it is highly unaccepted. More, being familiar with genetic studies I can tell that "heavy criticism" wasn't there at least not for the vast majority of dozens of up to date articles that been published by many independent research groups, from all around the world, in A-class journals ( Like: New England Journal of Medicine, Human Genetics, Nature, Science, JAMA and etc) not only that, but even the variety of genetic diseases that Ashkenazim have are unique for them only, at most, having specific alleles for them and many times connect them with Jews from the Middle East and North Africa which suffer from the same illnesses for smaller extents - there is also one allele which explains why Jews are not good at Alcohol drinking while non Jewish Europeans only rarely have it- it is actually non Ashkenazi Jews (Ethiopians and too much smaller extent Yamani's, Georgians and Libyans) that have significant amount of non Jewish markers. There is no place for changes as 70.107.117.237 suggest- hence I remove the POV tag.--Gilisa (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The section "Achievement" is disputed

This section actually reads like propaganda. I tagged the statements that needs to be checked; if no sources can be found to support the claims, I suggest the entire (yet small) section gets deleted, or thoroughly rewritten. And the link to the so-called "Main article": Ashkenazi intelligence ? A controversial theory, indeed... Facts please, neutrality please. --Protagon (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC), signing off.

the article Ashkenazi intelligence has a huge amount of references. There is a great difference between unsourced, and unverifiable. Tagging the section as unsourced, then trying to delete it is inappropriate when there are so many references just an article away. :This section is not controversial at all. Unlike Ashkenazi intelligence which cite academic sources theorizing a link between Ashkenazim and intelligence, this section only notes achievements. Do seriously believe that Jews haven't won a disproportionate amount of noble prises?! Also the link isn't a "main article" it is a "more article" (as in this is a related issue).
I have sourced it myself and removed the "disputed tag". Jon513 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What I (or you) believe or not is not of significance - only verifiable facts are. Very good you've sourced it, but please assume good faith here; I did not try to delete it, I merely tagged the section. Well, since the so-called "Main article": Ashkenazi intelligence handles a controversial theory (as that article describes it as), this small section might be controversial as well, and this needs to be addressed. Don't worry, I will read the entire (single) source you have referred to, and I will get back here and address the matters. In the meantime, I recommend renaming the "Main article" to "More", and I thus do so. --Protagon (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC), signing off.
I think we basically agree. The {{disputed}} is used when "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed" which does not now seem to be the case. I agree the sourcing can be better. In the references to Ashkenazi intelligence there were plenty of sources but one just had better quotes. Jon513 (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox: Populations and Images

First, I "fixed" the population section of the infobox. The bloated EU figure has gone long enough without citation that I blew it away in favor of a far more reasonable guesstimate. Yay. That brings me to the images. This image nonsense has been carried to its logical conclusion. In the process, the infobox has been rendered almost completely worthless. Pick one image (a family or group at a festival or something) or two images of individuals (no more collages), and stick with them. The infobox is not an image gallery. I think one week is long enough for whoëver's baby this image fetish is to fix the mess they've created. You know who you are. If you haven't, I'll be back with my bandsaw on Silvester. Ciao! 68.117.102.237 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to revert your edit. Guesstimates are not allowed. Y'know, for somebody who just started editing wikipedia yesterday, you seem very adept at using edit summaries and referencing wikipedia guidelines. You're not a sockpuppet are you?--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not a sockpuppet (do you even know what a sockpuppet is?), nor do I feel particularly inclined to log in. Your revert was silly, since you reverted my guesstimates in favor of clearly incorrect figures. Way to try to obfuscate the issue by talking about me tho (btw, where do you come up with the bizarre assertion that I started editing WP "yesterday"?), instead of the issues at hand: the incorrect population figures and the photofetish outrage. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of images

I removed the following images from the infobox Image:Anne Frank.jpg, Image:milton-hand.jpg, and Image:Grouchomarxpromophoto.jpg. All of them are copyrighted, and I don't think we can claim fair use (replacability). Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I really think the use on this page falls under fair use. All three images are being used to illustrate the subject in question and they cannot be reproduced through any other means.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The subject in question is Ashkenazi Jews, not Ashkenazi celebrities. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK... I removed all the images. I'm glad we could come to a conclusion on this copyright issue without getting sidetracked into something completely unrelated.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic I went ahead and put the images back because use on this page counts as fair use of images. They are being used to illustrate the subject in question and they cannot be reproduced through any other means.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, but what is the subject in question? Ashkenazi Jews. This means that any image of Ashkenazi Jews could be used, and free images of such certainly exist. Therefore, the copyrighted images are hardly irreplaceable. 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkynusayri (talk • contribs)
I agree with Funkynusayri, there are other images of Ashkenazi Jews that could be used to illustrate the article (such as the other ones). It would be best if we could get a high quality and full colour photograph, preferably one that would show the whole body as opposed to a head shot. For example, I recently peer reviewed the article Hazara people. The image, Image:Boy in Mazar-e Sharif - 06-16-2005.jpg, gave me a good impression of the physical features of the Hazaras. Is there any chance of obtaining a similar photo of an Ashkenazi Jew?
However, I still believe that we can't claim fair use for the copyrighted images, will anyone mind if I remove them again? Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Funkynusayri is correct. There is no justification for fair use here, as it is not impossible to find or create a freely licensed photograph or illustration of an Ashkenazi Jew. -- Schaefer (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK...Funkynusayri make a good point (now that he's on topic)... I'll remove the 3 copyrighted images.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


New image

As it has been pointed out in the above sections, a collage isn't a desirable way of illustrating the subject. Here's my vision of a perfect photo:

  • Free licence
  • Full body shot
  • Good light, high quality
  • Not taken sporadically, the subject was looking into the camera
  • One or two people

I did a flickr search for the word "ashkenazi". I quickly sorted through them, looking for those that portray people (as opposed to synagogues and food). [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], I didn't make any judgements about quality or suitability. This is just a list of flickr photos of Ashkenazi Jews. It isn't even complete, it's just a quick draft. Most of them are copyrighted, but flickr users usually don't mind changing the licensing. So review the ones above, and let's pick some good ones. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it becomes a little Darwin esq (in the bad way) for us to start debating what a Jewish person should look like. Somebody will say something like "but those people's noses aren't big enough".. after that we my as well put up a picture of a guy with horns and just get it over with.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, I didn't see those examples. So scrap my idea. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to avoid an edit war over the genetic studies

I want to reach a consensus over the genetic studies on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry rather than reverting back and forth. I feel that the wikipedia article as written before was misleading as to the results of the study on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry, because it described the academic pov prior to the research described in the article. The article explicitly contests that view, so I want to know why my description of the article was reverted.--Lastexpofan (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)



YES The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%) Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K. 60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.30.67 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Khazars - 1 part reality and 99 parts fairy tale!

In Jewish genealogy and genetics, finding evidence of the Khazars is a bit like sighting Elvis Presley in a shopping mall. It is certain to get attention.

The existence of the Khazars, and the conversion of their King Bulan to Judaism around 740 CE, is verifiable, by a letter written by the Khazar king that survives to the present day. Whether all of the Khazars actually converted to Judaism is debated. Whatever the case, the Khazars had been conquered by other peoples and had vanished from history long before a significant number of Jews migrated to eastern Europe after 1200 CE, and to southern Russia much later.

The popularity of the Khazar story owes much to a mystical and philosophical book by Yehuda Halevi, written about 1100 in Muslim Spain: Kuzari: The Book of Proof and Argument in Defense of the Despised Faith. Halevi's book is structured as a moral tale, a dialog with the king of the Khazars, in which the king examines and accepts the philosophical truth of Judaism. But Yehuda Halevi's book was actually written well over a century after the Khazars had vanished, and Halevi lived thousand of miles away from where the Khazars once lived. Yehuda Halevi and people living in his time had no actual contact with the Khazars.

According to Diana Lobel, Halevi's book is actually noteworthy for its use of Sufi Islamic religious concepts. Think of the Khazar story as being analogous to the fascination that many Jews had with eastern religions in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ever since Halevi's time, Jews have had a romantic infatuation with the Khazars. Halevi's fictionalized account of how the king examined three monotheistic religions and chose Judaism has been turned into children's books for religious Jewish children. In other words, this is about 1 part reality and 99 parts fairy tale!

Nobody actually knows what genetic markers were common amongst the Khazars, a Turkic people who lived on the steppes of Ukraine and Russia around 700-950 CE. Presumably, they shared a number of markers, some of which are shared with other central Asian or Middle Eastern peoples. There is no way to reconstruct the Khazars and test them.

The M126 marker is the marker that defines the haplogroup R1B1c, which is common at different frequencies in populations throughout Europe, and is also present in central Asia and the Middle East. It is the most common subclade of Haplogroup R, which is the dominant through much of Europe. See Wikipedia's article on Haplogroup R (Y-DNA). There is no evidence of what frequency this marker had among the Khazars, a people who ceased to be identifiable as an ethnic group before 1000 CE. A more likely explanation of the presense of M126 and other R1a and R1b markers in Ashkenazi Jewish populations is that a small but not insignificant number of male Europeans converted to Judaism over the centuries, and for that there is historical evidence. (See David Max Eichhorn, editor and author. Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis, published by Ktav Press in 1965).

It wasn't until hundreds of years after the Khazars vanished that significant numbers of Ashkenazi Jews migrated to southern Russia and the Ukraine. The brief paragraph in the Nebel article is wildly speculative at best, and makes no scientific or varifiable claims at all. The authors of that paper must have known that such a speculation would be a good way to get their paper read. Would anybody object if I removed this chazerei about the Khazars from this article? This stuff is barely above the level of legend and myth, and is truly not encyclopedic. --Metzenberg (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No its you living fairy tales

The Khazars "vanished" huh? why don't you explain that further. and then why dont you admit that the reason you try to deny ashkenazim's true heritage is part of a conspiracy to resettle european jews in the middle east. Anything to give them legitimacy huh? Anything to make them "authentically middle eastern." I got news for you, son. No matter how many "holyglops" and "polipops" you lie about, it doesnt change the fact that you dont need a microscope or genitic studies to tell that european jews have no middle eastern heritage. They exhibit all the traits of a frequently intermarried turkic-eastern european group, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.120.99 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my guess, based on the available evidence.
  1. Most Jews are descended from Near East/Mideasterners. Thus, they have Mideast heritage.
  2. A few Jews (including a disproportionate number of Ashkenazi Levites) have some Khazar or Central-Eastern European ancestry as well, along the strictly patrilineal line (this would presumably account for that pesky R1a1 haplogroup among that small portion of the Jewish population).
  3. More Jews are probably of mixed ancestry, due to conversions and intermarriage, and the Ashkenazi Jews are likely a largely Mideastern stew with some European (Slavic, West European maybe) and Khazar elements.
  4. There may be Muslims/Kurds in the Mideast descended from the 10 Lost Tribes, so some Muslims might actually be descended from long-lost Israelites/Jews. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • and what makes you think the ancient greeks have something to do with today's greek people? if they don't, does this mean greece shouldn't exist anymore? Yuvn86 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you what. If you think that Joseph Lieberman and Alan Greenspan are related to most Arabs, fine, I won't argue that point. Barkmoss (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean "vanished" so much as that they were conquered and merged into other peoples. They disappear from the historical record well over a century before Halevi wrote his book. The territory occupied by them is roughly the territory occupied by the Scythians, whom Herodetus described, and subsequently by many other peoples. Since the Russian steppe has no natural boundaries and barriers other than rivers, there has been a steady flow of peoples through the region, and many short-lived kingdoms over thousands of years. Geographically, the area is thousands of kilometers away from where well documented Ashkenazi communities existed around the time that the Khazars vanished. --Metzenberg (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DNA Haplogroup R-M17 and Khazars:

There is virtually no evidence that R-M17 comes from Khazars rather than interaction with host populations in Eastern Europe. The Khazar theory in general has been widely discredited by Doron Behar and other genetic genealogists who have studied Ashkenazi populations. Furthermore, R-M17 may also in some instances be a Middle Eastern lineage that is not attributable to admixture. For example Sephardic Jews carry the lineage R-M17 at a rate 1/3 that of the Ashkenazis, also Kurds and Persians carry this lineage. Therefore I suggest a significant revision of the unfounded "Khazar" component of the Ashkenazi DNA section, which is generally used as fuel for New Anti-Semitism and racist forms of Anti-Zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.153.30 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

DNA Haplogroup R-M17 has no significance for the Ashkenazi's genome as it is not very common among Ashkenazim (actually only 5 to 12 % of the Ashkenazi males have it) and the major part of the paternal Ashkenazi genome is of middle eastern origins (so can be R-M17 which is very common among Turks as well).--Gilisa (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You guys didn't note the Ashkenazi Levite R1a1 haplotype that is supposedly closely related to the Sorbs and Belarusians and which might have come from Khazars, although this is controversial. Why not put that in as well? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
R1a1 most likely comes from Eastern European admixtures (i.e. Belarusians, Sorbs, Russians, etc.) and not from Khazars, who were Turkic nomads from a different region. --194.72.81.141 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%)
Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K.
60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in europe.

POV

This article seems slightly POV towards the view that Ashkenazim are of middle eastern origin. This is far from clear, a quick google search gave me this result. http://download.ajhg.org/AJHG/pdf/PIIS000292970763626X.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Karl Marx is not Ashkenazi Jew but a Sephardic one. He is decented from the Horowitz family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.101.7 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Marx was Ashkenazi but I'm not sure about Einstein. Does anyone have a source about both? Yuvn86 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note, many German Jews located in Northern Germany were descended from Jews who fled Spain after 1492, but they did not retain their Sephardic heritage and were accepted by and married with the rest of the German Ashkenazi Jews with whom they blended in completely. So while some familes may have histories or ancestry going back to Spain, as for example many Jews in Galicia in Poland, but by the eighteenth century and even earlier they no longer considered themslves nor were regarded as "Sephardic" by anyone. IZAK (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews → Ashkenazi Jew — Naming conventions prefer singular nouns - see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns. In this case, it would also make a whole lot more sense and consistent within Wikipedia given the article Jew is singular, as are other article titles highlighting a religion's followers, like Christian and Muslim. I have also concurrently proposed that Sephardi Jews be moved to Sephardi Jew for the same reason (discuss both here). —Bssc81 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom and per the above arguments. Is consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, and makes most sense given the article title Jew (not Jews). Bssc81 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Primarily written as a survey of an ethnic group, so plural is permissible. Consider English people. Besides "Ashkenazi Jew" sounds terrible to my ears. Relata refero (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The term "Ashkenazi Jew" in the singular appears a number of times in the article, so clearly it isn't "wrong" or "awkward". While it's true that articles like English people exist, the difference is that those articles rarely if ever talk about the people in the singular (the word "English person" doesn't show up in that article). However, Ashkenazi Jews has plenty of references to the singular individual, like "There is currently a debate regarding "Who is a Jew?".[attribution needed] This makes it especially difficult to define who is an Ashkenazi Jew..." And as mentioned, the most relevant precedent is not English people but rather Jew. It's not clear to me why there should be a difference between Jew and Ashkenazi Jew. Bssc81 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this is an example of how using ill-advised applications of Wikipedia self-made "rules" then wish to trump standard most commonly accepted Jewish and scholarly terminology and usage. Few talk of the "Sephardic Jew" or the "Ashkenazic Jew" but rather of the "Sephardic Jews" and "Asheknazic Jews". Should Wikipedia now change all such "Jews" references in ethnic and religious Jews' groups? Such as Yemenite Jews to "Yemenite Jew" or Bukharan Jews to "Bukharan Jew" or American Jews to "American Jew" or Arab Jews to "Arab Jew" or Azerbaijani Jews to "Azerbaijani Jew" or Category:Black Jews to "Category:Black Jew" or Lists of Jews to "Lists of Jew" etc etc etc, and the answer is a resounding NO because Jews are mainly and most commonly known as "Jews" for being part of both an ethnicity, sub-divided into smaller ones as above, as well as a religious group (see the Jew and Judaism articles for more on this.) While the Jew article seeks to define the term and its meaning so that is ok, but then to INCORRECTLY apply the singular word "Jew" as an appendix to the most commonly accepted usages of the way the term "____ Jews" is used would be a travesty of accepted scholarly, academic, ethnic and religious usage. Whoever is suggesting this change should also have done a simple Google search for both versions and seen that while Ashkenazi Jew scores about 16,700 Google hits but that Ashkenazi Jews scores about 340,000 Google hits over TWENTY times more! Likewise with Sephardi Jew scores about 3,570 Google hits but Sephardi Jews scores about 42,200 Google hits over ten times more. This should be so self-evident that this ill-advised "Survey" should be stopped dead in its tracks now and the suggestion WP:SALTED. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Because the articles are about a group of people and not one person. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm sure this is well-intentioned, and I can see the reasoning behind the proposal, but it doesn't work simply because Ashkenazic and Sephardic are used primarily as descriptions of ethnic groups rather than of individuals. The singular forms wouldn't be incorrect, but they're much less preferable than the current titles. DanielC/T+ 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This proposal is inline with the naming convention. There can be a redirect from the plural to the singular. Bstone (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Vary rarely are these groups refered to in the singular Epson291 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC
  • Oppose:After Epson291. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) [14]
  • Oppose: Per IZAK and others. Self-evident. Keyed In (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Bssc81's reasoning and again the article Jew (not Jews), I think the neutrality of this vote is in question here too, how many people here opposing are Jewish? Would it not be better to get an impartial grammer guy to settle this? Terrasidius (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Terrasidius's comments influenced me greatly to oppose the change. A Sniper 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Question. Is the fundamental unit one Jew? Yes, although there are twice as many Google hits for Jews as Jew. The question is, is the article about one person who is a Jew, or is it about the Jewish people as a group? Is the fundamental unit Ashkenazi Jew? No. You wouldn't create a category if there was only one. You would use their name. Therefore I would say that the correct grammer would be plural. Google has 16,800 hits for Ashkenazi Jew and 181,000 for Ashkenazi Jews. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutral

Is it not the duty of the editors to present the facts and let the reader decide ? All these concepts of race and or religion break down on this page.

Perhaps if the article some how explained that whole construct is artifical then we could have less heated debate. Evadinggrid (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust

An editor has changed systematically murdered to killed, which I've reverted. I would appreciate some discussion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A dictionary defines 'murder' as 'the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law'. Do you have evidence that the systematic killing was specifically covered by German law of the time? I was under the impression that the holocaust was authorised and carried out by the state, not the actions of rogue individuals - something adding to how horrific it was. Calling it murder is like calling a legal, state-ordered death penalty murder, which is very much POV. 213.121.151.206 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I found these three dictionary definitions of The Holocaust:the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006); The killing of some six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II (The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, 2005); and the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime from 1941 until 1945 (WordNet, Princeton University, 2006). I have therefore edited the statement to read systematic slaughter, although systematic murder or systematic killing would be equally appropriate. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Systematic killing is fine. Systematic murder isn't fine. Systematic slaughter is a bit iffy, considering the dictionary suggests 'of animals' or 'in a brutal or violent manner' for slaughter... 213.121.151.206 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the methods employed do qualify as brutality (although that is indeed a relative term, one can't go around living avoiding making even the least bit of judgement). see for example Babi Yar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More Khazars!

An editor is attempting to re-insert the spurious Khazars theory with an unreferenced paragraph, perhaps unaware that this is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why lie about jewish DNA!

The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%)
Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K.
60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in europe. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.30.67 (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Using dubious sources and inserting them in bad English and a badly written, sloppy fashion isn't very clever - it it vandalism. A Sniper (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my bad english, but the sources that that you are using is also dubious! 40% comes from 4 woman, may I ask which haplogroups these 4 woman belongs to? To write that its absent from non jewish european population is lies!! Prove me wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.30.67 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Swedish IP user: PLEASE STOP. if you continue to vandalize the article, you'll find yourself banned. Your work is not reliably sourced, and on the other hand you're making outlandish claims that verifiable science is dubious. This simply isn't at Wikipedia standards. A Sniper (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


But I must be able to continue the discussion right??

Please don't remove the links to proof:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/JewishDNAProject/index.aspx?fixed_columns=off
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2003-06/1056317904
http://www.britam.org/Questions/mtDNA.html#3

Most important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K_(mtDNA)

here you see my claims about the haplogroup K that also is common in the alps.
The phrase "virtually absent" is wrong because more then 10,000,000 non jewish Germans got the same haplogroup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.30.67 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is accurate; http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380291 . If you wish to argue with the writers of the report this is not forum to do it. Jon513 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)



Of course not, but why don't you quote you're own sources:
"A close inspection of Jewish mtDNA results refutes any argument for lack of maternal admixture with European populations. According to Behar (2004a), only four mtDNA groups account for approximately 70% of Ashkenazi mtDNA results. These haplogroups are K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%) and J1 (7%). However, Behar indicates the origins of three out the four groups (H, K and J) are unknown." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.30.67 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

quote from:http://jogg.info/11/coffman.htm

What I mean is that the wiki article is biased!

Can i publish this chart in the article?
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wrhurst/mtdna-k/kms750europemapsubs.jpg

I have no idea what you are saying. What are "haplogroup" and what do those percentages mean? how do you think the article is biased and how do you think your paragraph corrects it? What sources are you quoting in the change you made to article? You have a quote but not reference who you are quoting.
I am strongly inclined to revert your changes and stop talking to you. Not because I disagree with your changes, as I said I have no idea what you are trying to say, but because of your failure to communicate effectively, especially your proclivity to attack anyonething you disagree with as lies and bias. If you have no respect for other editors and the community in general, why should others respect you.
I hope that in your future communication will keep in mind that everyone here are volunteers that are interesting in making a great article. If you want others to accept your changes you have to explain how these changes make the article better and conform to wikipedia guideline (wp:v, wp:npov, wp:or), simply saying that you are right and everyone else is bias is not a way to form a consensus. Please take this a strong warning to stop being incivil. Jon513 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Most images found on the internet are subject to copyright and cannot be uploaded to wikipedia. Also as the image is from just one study it may not represent a general consensus of researchers. By displaying the picture it would give one study undue weight in the article. Jon513 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)



Ok, what do I do when the statement "mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations" is wrong. Even if you look at you're own sources it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can enquire on the talk page all you like, and perhaps other users will engage with you in discussion, but as soon as you start to vandalize the page again, you'll continue to be banned - even if you move from your home Telia IP to using the computers of the Örebro kommun. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, who will change the errors about DNA in the page?

Legitimate edits by users citing reliable references, abiding by Wikipedia guidelines and policies, are encouraged. Fringe or original research is not. Vandalism will end up getting a user banned. If you'd like to be legitimate, I would suggest you create a Wikipedia account and cite references as per policy. A Sniper (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


"...This dubious theory holds that Ashkenazim should be hated for pretending to be "real" Jews, instead of because they are actually Jewish. In any case, most scholarship on the subject dismisses the Khazar-Ashkenazi relationship, if not rejecting the portrayed Jewish golden age of Khazaria altogether..."

Who says that this theory holds that they should be hated because of it?! What a bad sentence and it got reverted right back when I changed it. 91.153.225.169 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was reverted back because it is correct, even if the phrasing/language needs tweaking, and it certainly requires a reference. Dubious = incorrect, false, fake, spurious...and the theory has certainly been used to discredit, and as part of antisemitic hate campaigns (in Arab countries, for example). A Sniper (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not add europe to the list

Somebody keeps adding Europe and the EU to the list of Jewish populations. There are Jews on every continent with sizable populations in North America and Africa, should we add the NAFTA flag or the African union flag? No, we should not. We should list the countries on those continents with sizable populations, which we already have with Russia and Germany. France should be added too since it has one of the largest jewish populations on the continent. Further more, not every country in Europe is an EU member or on the coucil of Europe, therefore if the EU and Europe should not be listed. Also, if Europe were listed it should not be represented by the EU flag as it does not represent all European countries. The EU flag represents a political organization, not a geographical area. Russia (Already listed), Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan all have sizable (More than EU countries) Jewish populations and they are not EU members but they are on the continent of Europe so they should not be represented by the EU flag. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that Europe itself is a region but I take your point that the EU is a political entity that doesn't fall within either a state or regional sphere. Besides, it doesn't really matter without a proper citation, and at the moment most of what is there lacks references. The folks who keep adding the EU flag should have at least taken the time to verify the population number that appeared out of thin air. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Asimov, no Ben Gurion

Guys, can we agree it makes no fucking sense to have Asimov in the Ashkenazi infobox, and not Ben Gurion? The founder of Israel isn't there, and a pulp writer is? Asimov is by far the least significant figure there, so, with no objections, I'll replace him with Ben Gurion.

209.6.146.225 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vilna Gaon authentic portrait.JPG

The image Image:Vilna Gaon authentic portrait.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DNA... and ethnicity

"Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors." This statement is so ridiculous, I have no clue what those DNA analysts smoked. Only a person without eyes could blieve something as absurd as this. There is too much emphasis on these dubious DNA tests in the article. In addition ethnicity is mostly used completely wrong, as it's a cultural phenomenon and not a question of genetic origion.--193.171.131.238 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Population Statistics"

Someone might want to check the population statistics listed on this page. I noticed the figure given for Ashkenazi Jewish popultion in Australia is 120,000 which is about 30,000 more than the total Jewish population of Australia as given by the Bureua of Statistics. Im not sure if any of the other figures are incorrect. --118.208.51.189 (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pictures"

The choice of pictures at the side of the page are mostly arbitrary and a poor representation of Ashkenazic Jewry. There is a striking imbalance between religious and non-religious Jews in the collection, being that there is only the Vilna Gaon, despite there being hundreds of other people to also show pictures of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.50.125 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Germany"

From the article: "Ashkenaz is the Medieval Hebrew name for the region which later formed the country of Germany." I think it is more accurate simply to say "Ashkenaz is the Medieval Hebrew name for Germany," although perhaps the link for "Germany" should go elsewhere. Ashkenaz in that time meant pretty much what Germany meant in that time: a slightly vague region defined by language. We are, after all, referring to a period before the rise of nation states. - Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The full name of the Holy Roman Empire was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. It was, in a way, a nation-state. --Humanophage (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In the "Origins of Ashkenazim" section it says "Although the historical record itself is very limited, there is a consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East. Jews have lived in Germany, or "Ashkenaz", at least since the early 4th century. When they arrived in northern France and the Rhineland, the Ashkenazi Jews brought with them both Rabbinic Judaism and the Babylonian Talmudic culture that underlies it. Yiddish, once spoken by the vast majority of Ashkenazi Jewry, is a Jewish language which developed from the Middle High German vernacular, heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic. (By comparison, the Greek or Latin influence on Yiddish was much less significant)."

There's some big claims in that paragraph but no sources to back them up. Why won't whoever wrote that provide some sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.102.176 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what you consider big claims... Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, pretty much the whole paragraph. Where are the sources in that paragraph for the 'consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East'? Where are the sources for Jews living in Germany since the early 4th century? That Yiddish developed from Middle High German vernacular heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic? I am sure that at other parts in this article there could be links to such sources (or perhaps at other wiki articles related to this subject) but why aren't there any sources cited in that particular paragraph?

A. Sniper, I just want to say a big FUCK YOU for taking out my comments that challenge your holy dogmas and not addressing the above issue. Oh yeah, wikipedia the open encyclopedia anyone can edit..as long as you don't say something that Jews don't like.

it is no wonder that whiny racists like you get blocked from editing. Go crawl back under your rock if you can't edit properly. A Sniper (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Khazars once again

An editor has inserted a bold reference to Arthur Koestler's disproved Khazar theory, which I've reverted - the subject is already mentioned in the article and has been discussed several times already. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A Sniper, I am wondering why you have reverted my edit which removed the Khazar stuff. You made this comment several months ago and earlier this month a fact check template was added to many statements in it. I don't think (esp. when you add population genetic studies) the Khazar theory held up in the 70s let alone now! I mean the Khazars, from what I understand, converted to the religion, but does that make them Ashkenazi? Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why you made your edit. The point is that the Khazar theory has been discredited but is now used by antisemites to make the claim that Ashkenazic Jews are somehow not really Jewish (connected to ancient Israel). This deserves mentioning. A Sniper (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the unsourced material with sourced material. I hope this helps. Jayjg (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Jayjg - well sourced and well written. A Sniper (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The section looks pretty good now. I took it out because it seemed to me to be giving a little credence to the theory but am now glad that it doesn't. Good work!Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some recent studies have been ommitted from this article and which give some balance, particularly regarding the Khazar theory: Please include:

By the way, I notice heavy bias in this article towards the exclusive semitic origin of Ashkenazi jews. The Khazar theory is only mentioned in order to deny it and no mention is made, for example, of genetic marker R-M17 present in 12% of Ashkenazim and one of the genetic traits which distinguish them from sephardic jews and other middle eastern populations. I see there has been alot of edit wars in this page. Im not getting involved, but someone should fix this article.

--86.129.180.152 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In my edits I have written Arabic-speaking instead of Arab since a number of arab speaking people in the Middle East do not consider themselves (and arguably are not) ethnic Arabs including many Lebanese, Druze and, of course, Mihrazi jews.

--81.152.206.183 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've properly summarized them now. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with part of your edits but I don´t agree with your general attitude of ensuring that all studies follow the official line which has been set for this section, arguably for political reasons. These articles point to important differences in genetic make-up between sephardic and ashkenazi jews and that should not be minimised. There is alot out there which points in this direction which has been overlooked or, seemingly, censored here.

In any case looking at the history of this and other articles, I am quite baffled. Are you an administrator? I am really surprised that you are using your position to engage in advocacy. Does wikipedia not have any rules against this? --81.152.206.183 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Contested statements removed to talk

  • Ashkhenaz is also recorded as being an ancient Armenian kingdom,{{Fact|date=October 2007}} and Armenians speak of themselves in their literature as “the Ashkenazi nation” as putative descendants of Noah’s grandson Ashkenaz.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} Jewish literature, too, sometimes equates the geographic place Ashkenaz with Armenia.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
  • The "Ashkuza" have also been linked to the Oghuz branch of Turks including nearly all Turkic peoples today from Turkey to Turkmenistan.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 02:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"# Ashkenazi Jews freely mix and eat fish and milk products; some Sephardic Jews refrain from doing so." Really?? I've met Jews (in USA) who refrain from this and I am pretty sure they were Ashkenazi. -David, Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.185.242 (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

POV section

The theory that the majority of Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists and antisemitic sources in the late-19th and 20th centuries, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe.[1][2][3] Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[4] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support,[5] this belief is still popular among antisemites.[6][7]

This excerpt from the article needs to be radically revamped. I have rarely seen this lack of neutrality on a wikipedia article.

  • Genetic studies which point to non semitic ancestry in Ashkenazi jews (possible Khazar, according to the studies) and considerable differences between Ashkenazi and other jews are ignored. All of these are part of mainstream academic scholarship.
  • The article argues that belief in Ashkenazis being anything but semitic in ancestry is restricted to Nazis, racists and antisemites. This is not only an untrue and politically-charged statement, but also an insult to a segment of the academic and scientific community.
  • The title of the section is relationship between Ashkenazi jews and other jews worldwide. What follows is a defensive rant about antisemitism.

--81.152.206.183 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. The article accurately summarizes the scientific and historical consensus, as the sources used show.
  2. Genetic studies which indicate a possible Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews in any event note that it does not exceed 12%. These studies are careful to note that the theory of Khazar ancestry is speculation, and that the 12% could well come from other sources.
  3. The reliable sources used explicitly state that the Khazar theory is used by Nazis, racists and antisemites.
  4. You seem to be able to capitalize all sorts of words correctly - you capitalize the first words of sentences, peoples' names, userids, the terms "New York Times" and "Fertile Crescent", and even the words "Nazi", "Kurds", "Turks", "Armenians" and "Arab".[15] The only word you consistently seem unable to capitalize is "Jew", on this article, this article's talk page, and, indeed, on every page you've ever edited. This, combined with your persistent attempts to promote this discredited Khazar theory, means I can no longer accepts that your edits are made in good faith. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The section ignores any differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews and does not cite any scientific articles which focus on this, despite the name of the section being "Relationship to other Jews". It pushes the clearly politically-motivated view of a racially "pure" jewish nation originating in the Middle East.
  • Ok, then that should be included in the article, thus denying the statement that belief in the theory is restricted to antisemites
  • I´m sure antisemites and nazis have a whole range of opinions. But this article implies that belief in any link between ashkenazi jews and khazars is paramount to antisemitism. This is false as proven by a number of sources.
  • Ok Jaygg, I forgot to capitalise the word 'jew' in 'Ashkenazi jew'. (It happens to me often in composite words). That proves I'm a racist, doesn't it? If I make gramatical errors, just correct them. As I have said previously, English is my third language.
  • On another note, correct me if I´m wrong but I was always under the impression that the work "jew" was slightly derogative and the correct term should be "jewish".

--81.152.206.183 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole subject is getting boring. We have already hashed out the discredited Khazar theory in the past, and the writing of the current article is by consensus - many back & forth edits to strike a balance. Time to move on now... A Sniper (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Studies pointing out the similarities and differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardi DNA would be an interesting addition; however, the POV-pushing of those who wish to only focus on the "differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews" are unwelcome.
  2. The article doesn't state that "that belief in the theory is restricted to antisemites". However, it does point out that, for the most part, the theory is promoted by antisemites. And, by the way, the studies you refer to do not "believe" in the theory either, and do more to debunk it than support it.
  3. No, that won't wash. You have no trouble capitalizing "composite words" - you managed just fine with "New York Times", "Fertile Crescent", "Middle East", even "Levy-Coffman". It was only "Jew" you had trouble capitalizing, whether as a standalone word, or as a "compound noun".
  4. Jew is not a derogatory term, any more than Christian or Muslim is. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are these two articles not cited ?

  1. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180600
  2. http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/mt&yDNA/Wade2002.pdf

--86.155.231.129 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to cite from each, and why? Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Ok, I think the section is fine now as it is. I hadn´t noticed that the Wade bit had already been quoted. With the Levite study I think nothing is missing. --86.129.183.174 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


What about the Khazar Turkish Jews? Where the Ashkenazi Jews actually the Khazars, who choosed the Judaism, and moved to towards the West - Europe ?

Let's keep the "Ashkenazi Intelligence" theories off this page!

These theories are touted by fringe and pseudo scientists who are fascinated by racial theories. They send out a lot of press releases, and they sometimes manage to get articles published in the mainstream media, as in a recent Los Angeles Times article, but Wikipedia can do better. The authors of this so-called scientific paper are lionized by racial separatist groups, who appear to have decided that Ashkenazi Jews are bona-fide white folks (while Sephardic Jews are not). Henry Harpending (the lead author of the paper, the so-called "distinguished scientist" who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences) was recently a featured speaker at a conference called Preserving Western Civilization organized by Michael H. Hart. See the | List of Speakers. Please see the | Statement of Purpose of this conference, which speaks for itself. Metzenberg (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is still your opinion and is therefore POV. Whether or not it has any shred of merit, it still needs to be mentioned. As long as there are acceptable references, it still needs to be included. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Revert. Here is an extremely well balanced response to the "Ashkenazi Intelligence" theory. Just because some wacko theory is published somewhere doesn't mean that it has enough credibility that it has to appear on Wikipedia. R. Brian Ferguson makes clear right from the beginning of this paper the connections that the paper and its theories have with avowedly white supremacist publications and theorists. Metzenberg (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Measures of intelligence are, in general, extremely controversial, their application to ethnic populations even more so. The history of the measurement of the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews in America is actually one of the great illustrations that what is measured is clearly something other than what we might intuitively think of as "intelligence". Early 20th century studies showed numbers so low as to raise questions about whether the newly arrived Jews would ever be able to support themselves, let alone contribute to society. (Ditto for other recent immigrant groups of the time, such as Italians and Poles.) Two or three generations later, the descendants of these same people were chart-toppers, rivaled only by certain East Asian ethnic groups that also (surprise!) put a premium on education. Which is to say, unsurprisingly, a lot of what IQ tests measure is something other than raw, innate intelligence. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of "jews" pictured on the page needed.

I have been looking at a bunch of them, and already removed some. Why people whose grandparents on fathers side were Jewish while their father converted and their mother was not even Jewish, is beyond me. These people are not Jewish by halacha and not by their own believe, the only ones who might have classified them Jewish were the nazis with their eugenics. --Keeper of the Keys (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's revert back to the set of pictures that I put up several years ago, which had a fairly even representation of scientists, academics, universally respected rabbis, political figures, cultural figures, and an almost even ratio of men to women, all of whom were self-identifying Jews. Right now, the only woman is a 27-year-old movie starlet who is known mostly for her pouty face when she was 16. (She is a very good actress, but she doesn't make major films anymore.) Metzenberg (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Almost all the people I removed were neither classified Jews in Jewish law nor did they identify as such. They may be listed by organizations with agendas as Jews, but that is very shaky proof I think. To go through them quickly:
  1. Georg Cantor - Possible Jewish ancestry that no one has real proof for, lived like a Christian and preferred it that way.
  2. Ludwig Wittgenstein - Jewish paternal grandparents, lived and died a Christian.
  3. Wolfgang Pauli - Again Jewish grandparents, did not live like a Jew or identify himself as such, only when asked said that under German (Nazi) law he was 75% Jewish.
Only Alicia Silverstone might identify herself as Jewish though the article about her does not confirm this, as it stands she is the only female I removed.
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone should remove Albert Einstein from this page ( I don't know how to do it). He wasn't Jewish. He just didn't denie it when the Nazis "accused" him. TheHungryMan (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the article on wikipedia about him, he was born into a Jewsih family, so by Jewish law he was Jewish, other than that in 1954 he wrote "And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong", so he also identified himself as a Jew. If you read the article about Einstein you will see plenty of things about his Jewish identity (even if it wasn't religious). This is very different from Wolfgang Pauli who once wrote "I guess I am 75% Jewish according to German (Nazi) laws" (not the exact quote but rough from memory, sorry), but was neither Jewish by Jewish law nor by his own admission/identification.
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow halacha. This is about Ashkenazi Jews, which is about ethnic heritage and not religious association. Also, Wittgenstein had more than just Jewish paternal grandparents. TheHungryMan - Einstein was Jewish, and even devout in his teen years. Maybe you should read one of his biographies. - Cyborg Ninja 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, his Jewish maternal grandfather was hiding...
Still I would not call him a Jew, I realize wikipedia does not follow halacha but does that mean we call people who - no offense to all the Jews - themselves would most likely have been insulted if you called them a Jew (and were in fact also not Jewish by halacha) Jews?
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My complaint is that only 1 out of 15 representative Ashkenazi Jews is a woman, and that the only woman is a teenage fashion model/actress (even if she is a good one). Fine, let's have a Jewish actress, but make it one who has a long lifetime of achievement, like Lauren Bacall. Many Ashkenazi Jewish women have made outstanding achievements in science, the arts, politics, philosophy. Metzenberg (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you all might need to stand back and take a breath. There have been some wacky edits lately. The photo box was created by a consensus of writers and stood the test of time. It includes folks of Ashkenazic background and heritage, regardless of their religious belief. Contrary to political correctness, the inclusion of two women against a greater number of men is simply reflective of notoriety. Inclusion of a woman whose notoriety is supermodel is too ridiculous to argue against. Finally, the editing out of the info on the entire intelligence issue is vandalism - regardless of merit, it is still an issue of note and wholesale purging of referenced material is verboten. Please stick to Wiki rules and put up citations if you have issues. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sniper. Editing is a redactive process. We decide what information is of a quality and relevance that it belongs in this article. There are entire library shelves filled with books about the history of Ashkenazi Jews, and we have to come up with an article of maybe 50K-100K words. The "Ashkenazi Intelligence" theory is considered pseudo-science by everybody in medical genetics. It is frankly an embarrassment to Wikipedia.Metzenberg (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you re-learn the rules of Wikipedia. You can start with your uncivil behavior and attacking an editor instead of the edit. Wikipedia is about what can be referenced, not about your own opinion or feeling of self-importance. A Sniper (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Back on the topic of this section:

This article is about an ethnic group, not a religious group, so someone not being a practicing Jew should not be an issue in whether we use their image in a montage. To some extent (for me at least), this comes back to Hannah Arendt's "When you are attacked as a Jew, you must defend yourself as a Jew." On that basis, Einstein and Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, seems excellent choices. If someone wants a contemporary actress, by the way, we might seek a picture of Romanian Jewish actress Maia Morgenstern, whose ethnicity has been (both favorably and unfavorably) a factor in her career. Among other things, she is a mainstay of Romania's State Jewish Theater, where she performs in both Romanian and Yiddish. (By the way, given having both Emma Goldman & Trotsky - both of whom I think are good choices - we might want to balance that with someone who is identified with commerce and industry. The ironist in me says Walther Rathenau, but probably someone like Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild would be a better choice. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a representative of finance, and also the idea of more females like Lauren Bacall. Adding Bar Rafaeli wasn't a good move, in my opinion. Also, I don't believe that those added who aren't halachically (sic) Jewish were actually anti-Semitic or didn't identify that way. If they did reject the Jewish part of themselves, then I'd agree to take down their pic. - Cyborg Ninja 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I for one do not want to work on this if it's going to be trivialized by every new person who comes along and wants to add own favorite actress. Maybe it would be better to just have non-living persons. Part of the whole point of this article is that, while "Ashkenazi" is today the name of a religious nusach within Judaism, there is no longer a distinct Ashkenazi Jewry. We moved away from Ashkenaz (those of us who were lucky) and blended our genes and cultures. Let's go back and make a list of people born between 1800 and 1930, who lived before maybe 1980, who are distinctly Ashkenazi. It is easy to come up with such a list. And if those are the rules, the template doesn't have to change every week, with people having silly edit wars. That being said, I would like to see a balance of fields of accomplishment, and at least some balance of the sexes. Metzenberg (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Metzenberg and I are actually on the same side of the page on this one - the reason I changed the boxes back to what they were six months ago is that I found it rather ridiculous having photos of models and changes to fit a person's weekly taste. Now I just removed Fran Drescher, so we've actually reached our nadir. A Sniper (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The box in it's current form is perfectly acceptable I was unaware of the older version as I only stumbled accross the article recently, just keep it like this.
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the photo-box, which was truly unacceptable before. How on earth did Trotsky get on there? This is a man who was, at least indirectly, responsible for the deaths of many innocent people? You might just as well have Hitler on the Austrian page. The over-representation of politically-radical & divisive ideologues almost made the photo-box appear as if it had been created for some obscure anti-semitic purpose. I further removed the putative portrait of Baal Shem Tov since, as is explained in the relevant photo file, it was not in fact a portrait of Baal Shem Tov, but merely a painting of another rabbi with the same name. I've improved the occupational representativeness of the selection & included people in fields where achievement is measurable by objectively recognised criteria (such as grand-master Susan Polgar and prima ballerina Maya Plisetskaya). The inclusion of Mahler, Heinrich Heine, Kafka and Felix Mendelssohn is, of course, essential for anyone with any acquintance with high culture (these are commonly considered the most successful Jewish artists in history) - again, how on earth were these four ever excluded? To improve the male/female balance, I've added actresses Rachel Weisz (a recent oscar winner) and Lauren Bacall (a hollywood legend). The only somewhat questionable inclusion is Bar Refaeli. On the other hand, it is a good idea to represent at least one model. And, among the young people who constitute the majority of wikipedia's readership, she is extremely famous, apparently being the most searched for Israeli on google. It's also good for the gender balance. Avaya1 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009

I honestly don't know how to react. After just finishing wrangling with other users to agree on keeping what was there six months ago, I simply don't have the stomach for battling it out edit-for-edit without more user involvement. Thoughts from others before we begin to dissect the newest edit and remove the model, etc? Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't want to give anyone extra work. But almost all the photo-box reversions were, I'm afraid, utterly absurd. For example, the inclusion of a comparatively minor economist like Stiglitz at the expense of the inventor of game theory himself John von Neumann. What we have now is a vast improvement by any standard.

(In support of my point, the photobox for Russians, for example, chooses not to include Trotsky or Lenin (because it would simply be slanderous to put forward a man like Trotsky as a representative of any group). I agree, perhaps we should get rid of the model. But, in another example, the British people box does choose to represent a diverse set of occupations. I don't think actresses, at least, should be automatically barred from these pages.) Avaya1 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You might scan this discussion to see that editors had favored using no contemporary folks, since it is difficult to pinpoint whether a person is 100% Ashkenazic and instead including those persons with established careers or notoriety before WWII whose Ashkenazic background are beyond challenge. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I scanned it. This has been suggested by one user. It seems a slightly bizarre desire, as it does not concur with the format used in other photo-boxes for other ethnic groups on wikipedia. I don't understand why this photo-box should have different selection criteria to those in the other comparable articles on the website. We should, presumably, be in accordance with the rest of the encyclopedia in our selections? Moreover, the fact that someone was famous before some arbitrarily selected date (like 1945), in no way makes it easier to "pinpoint whether a person is 100% Ashkenazic". In fact, as anyone who's had to study history will have experienced, it very often makes it harder. Secondly, the concept of being able to pinpoint whether "a person is 100% Ashkenazic" sounds like fantasy. You rarely have the ability to pinpoint whether someone is 100% anything. And doing this doesn't agree with any mainstream definition of what being an Ashkenazi means. It's also inconsistent with the rest of the info-box, as there certainly are not between 8-11 million 100% ashkenazi people in the world. All the statistics in the infobox would have to be drastically downsized. The source used in order to come up with the figure of Ashkenazi in Israel, for example, simply counts which countries people immigrated from! (http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_24.pdf) Avaya (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The point being that prior to WWII, established communities in parts of Europe were 100% Ashkenazic, but today - even in Israel - people have intermarried...especially in North America. Ashkenazi Jewry is very different from the other ethnic groups you've mentioned. This is why it isn't as easy as it seems. A Sniper (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am like A Sniper a bit tired of this whole business and starting to regret leaving the 'safe' heaven of articles that only deal with technical issues ;).
Concerning the photobox: it is sad I think that even though this is an article about a 'subset' of the Jewish people the people pictured do not show or reflect anything about this Jewish identity, the articles about them may mention it, but the few major figures as far as Jewish history that were in there were removed. The Baal Shem Tov because his picture was replaced by a picture that was not him is there no way to use the previous version which does claim to be him? The Vilna Gaon was removed why? And the same for Herzl. I understand people want a balance of M/F and all kinds of other politically correct goals to be met, but when dealing with a group that is so closely related to it's religion how can not a single figure that played a big role in either the groups history or it's philosophy/religion/thinking be shown?
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no free use image of Baal Shem Tov on wikipedia. Vilna Gaon was re-added. Theodor Herzl has been swapped for Bernstein (since you're right, we need at least one political figure - even if he is a slightly controversial one). The issue must be nearing resolution at least, even if the gender balance is really far off. Avaya1 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The arrangement changed again without anyone arguing his case on here? Like stiglitz for von neumann? Anyway, at least the names underneath are a good idea Avaya1 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I explained the needed changes below - please scroll down. In all of the recent edits to the photo boxes, the link names meant to appear below disappeared. This is why I started with a re-insertion of the boxes as they appeared previously. I then asked for consensus on which boxes should remain vs. be replaced. I now feel we have enough boxes at 18 and no more should be added, though we can all still discuss who should appropriately be placed within the 18. Good Shabbos. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I understand, it's confusing but I think we're nearing some kind of consensus, it's definitely an improvement anyway (goodbye Trotsky!). Avaya1 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Population Statistics

Is there a source? I believe the number of about 30000 Jews in The Netherlands, however this - to the best of my knowledge - includes the at least 20000 Sefardi Jews that emigrated from Israel.

--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Including the 'hidden' (people who know they are of Jewish decent but have assimilated and decided not to mention their decent) Jewish population of the Netherlands the figure of 30000 might be realistic, however does the 'hidden' population have a source that can be used?
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is only a C article now

This article really has deteriorated. It used to be a much better article. I'm rating it a C now. Metzenberg (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is your opinion. A Sniper (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of prolix, factual errors, inconsistencies, and unrepresentative information and material, the result of a long period of drift. Metzenberg (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Examples? A Sniper (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a good example of prolix. Does anybody really want to read an article that is this badly written. This kind of prolix is the result of a large number of well-intentioned edits that make what was originally a short, and well-written summary into a long and impenetrable mess. Metzenberg (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact definition of Jewishness is not universally agreed upon -- neither by religious scholars (especially across different denominations), nor in the context of politics (as applied to those who wish to make Aliyah), nor even in the conventional, everyday sense where 'Jewishness' may be loosely understood by the casual observer as encompassing both religious and secular Jews, or religious Jews alone. This makes it especially difficult to define who is an Ashkenazi Jew, because they have been defined by different people using religious, cultural, or ethnic perspectives. Since the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazi Jews no longer live in Eastern Europe, the isolation that once favored a distinct religious tradition and culture has vanished. Furthermore, the word Ashkenazi is being used in non-traditional ways, especially in Israel. By conservative and orthodox philosophies, a person can only be considered a Jew if their mother was Jewish (meaning more specifically that they descend from a female down the matrilineal line who was assumed to be present at Mt. Sinai when the ten commandments were given or one of their female matrilineal ancestors underwent what is considered to be a valid conversion before the birth of her children), or they themselves have undergone conversion. This means that a person can be Ashkenazi but not considered a Jew by some of those within the Jewish communities, making the term "Ashkenazi" more applicable as broad ethnicity which evolved from the practice of Judaism in Europe.

OK, Metzenberg - for the first time I can see a valid point made. You gave a detailed reason instead of simply making a sweeping generalization while slashing. A Sniper (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"DNA"

The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%) Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K. 60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in Europe. So how can the article state that the jewish mtdna is almost absent in European population? http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html

It is a lot of very dubious science all done at the behest of the State of Israel, which should be removed in my opinion. Similar to the nonsense spouted by some in prewar Germany for altogether different reasons. Both intend to show that Ashkenazi Jews are not a European people. =82.36.94.228 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture box questions

Perhaps we should come to an agreement on the list of people included in the box on Ashkenazim. Should these people be famous or notorious, respected or maligned, religiously Jewish or atheist, etc? Please keep it within 8 sentences. Perhaps this needs to be mediated with an administrator. - Cyborg Ninja 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think any change should just be discussed before applied...
Some of the edits done by an IP user recently were good I propose adding Hedy Lamarr or replacing either Rachel Weiscz or Lauren Bacall who both are 'merely' actors while Hedy Lamarr was an actor and an inventor so more significant. Some of the others are also good.
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you see this IP user's last edit? An addition of over a dozen new photo boxes. Ridiculous. For now we should keep what is there and not mess with it until the latest flurry of activity ceases. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello A Sniper, I was the one who added those images, because I felt it didn't represent Ashkenazi Jews well enough. For example, as is often the case, no inventors were being profiled. Which is a shame because that is one of those fields where Jews excell at but don't get any recognition for, due to shallow stereotypes. But if you feel it's ridiculous let us discuss it, and we'll work it out. Oh and I did not delete any of the old images. Thanks, and hope to hear from you and everyone else!

Hello Keeper of the Keys, I just saw your post, and you're right, that's exactly why I added Hedy. What is really sad is that there are no Israeli songwriters featured, whom every who knows Jewish culture should have added first on, like Naomi Shemer to name but the most obvious! Do you agree?

First off, you need to figure out whether you will continue editing under a user name or as an IP - it appears you're using both. Second, changes to existing boxes are fine if there is consensus. I believe there is already consensus that we do not need additional boxes - what you did was silly as it made the article look ridiculous with so many photo boxes. Third, read about how to sign your talk page additions using four tildes (~). Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice: I am reverting to the previous set of boxes so that we retain the descriptions below - this somehow got lost with one of the edits. The photos boxes can then be changed by consensus to whomever are decided upon, without necessarily adding to the numbers. My edit is not an attempt to challenge any of the folks included in previous edits but a question of format. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's excessive. I'd prefer 3 rows x 4 or less. BTW, I don't agree with the notion that Lenin or other controversial figures don't belong. - Cyborg Ninja 05:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn does not qualify to appear in the picture box. His grandpa may have been an Ashkenazi Jew but he was born to Christian parents and baptised. Could you find a more worthy exemplar - there are lots!82.36.94.228 (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Aaaagh! Karl Marx too! He was not Jewish and not a convert. His father converted to Christianity and was a Lutheran priest. His mum was a Christian. Can we have pictures of proper Ashkenazi Jews please?82.36.94.228 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture box vote

As of August 5th, the picture box has become excessive and cluttered. It can easily be trimmed down. Apparently we need a basic idea of what should be included and no more, and come to a consensus. I suggest a 3x3 box with standard-sized images (meaning they must be equal in dimensions), with names below the box, each line reflecting the images up top. I suggest at least three academics (scientists, philosophers, etc.) be included, and also accomplished people of the arts. Please give suggestions and we will vote on it in a week perhaps. - Cyborg Ninja 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Three days will be allotted for the introductory suggestions. The images should have the same dimensions - or aspect ratio since you can change the size through Wikipedia. If you can't find an image, make one yourself and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. I know that some articles have a single image that consists of several pictures, but I personally prefer separate images. It's easier for other editors to change it and readers can see a higher resolution image if they click on it. Also, readers can see where the picture comes from if they click on the image and read its description. I suggest that persons included in the picture box be famous to all cultures, as opposed to some Jews who are mostly only known to other Jews, like Maimonides. - Cyborg Ninja 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about including Jewish atheists or Jews of other religions, including Christianity? I noticed some friction on Felix Mendelssohn. - Cyborg Ninja 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the picture-box in general

Why are the images in the picture box all of famous people? Aren't there available any images of Ashkenazi Jews who are not famous? Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but why would we put up a picture of someone NOT famous? Should we put up a picture of some random person? - Cyborg Ninja 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is about Ashkenazi Jews. It doesn't say anything about only those Ashkenazi Jews who are notable. I certainly do think any image of a person ascertained to be Ashkenazi should be considered on equal standing with someone noteworthy. I am just suggesting that the pool for potential images should not be limited to the famous. I think editors should as well be considering images of common, everyday people, as long as they can be ascertained to be Ashkenazi. Permission for use of such images might have to be part of the requirement for such inclusion. But that hurdle is probably not insurmountable. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems no one else has agreed with that viewpoint while I've been on Wikipedia. You can see other articles about different peoples which include people who are notable. Considering we've been arguing about this issue for months, if not years, the picture box is prime real estate. It may in fact be a wiki standard to have only notable people for these types of articles. Please type in any nation + people in Wikipedia, and see for yourself. - Cyborg Ninja 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have brought back the photoboxes to the state they were in before all of the arbitrary additions. I believe we had reached some sort of middle ground consensus and the additions cluttered up the section to outrageous proportions. The notion of adding unknown or non-notable folks might be with good faith, but it simply is not consistent with other similar pages. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I believe it is an error in thinking that assumes only people of renown warrant inclusion in the photo-box of the Ashkenazi Jews article. Whether that thinking constitutes an error on "similar" pages is not really known to me, and so I am at a loss to address that particular counter-argument. In this article there is discussion of and at least partial definition of Ashkenazi Jews based on genetic type, which has known expression in various physical and photographable characteristics in real human subjects, and that is not limited to those of celebrity status or those noteworthy in any other way. I am not saying that "famous" Ashkenazi Jews should be excluded from our photo-box. The depiction here should be for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the article and it seems to me that is accomplished by depiction of those of known inclusion in the group of people that the article is about, including those lacking in fame. Nowhere in the article is fame, accomplishment, or other out-of-the-ordinary achievement indicated as a defining trait, yet the photo-box as presently construed implies otherwise. This is an inconsistency that can be reconciled by the inclusion of non-notable people of the Ashkenazi identity. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear you're certainly in the minority with your view. What exactly are you implying: that we require genetic models to illustrate an Ashkenazic type? The fact is that this is an encyclopedia, and every article about ethnic/cultural/religious groups have photoboxes of well-known folks from that particular group. If this was an article about a disease, perhaps we'd have stock photos of unknown people with the physical characteristics of that disease...is that what you're stating should be the case here? How on earth would we reach a consensus on whose photos should be used if it was determined that unknown subjects of "genetic type" (your words) would be used? It sort of boggles the mind. In any event, that's not what is done at Wikipedia with these type of articles. A Sniper (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's assume that we do include those who are not notable in the picture box. If we include them with people who are notable, it would cause confusion. The reader would see pictures of Einstein next to an anonymous person. Most certainly the reader will think, "Who is this person?" If we have two sections for notability, then it would defeat the very issue we're trying to fix, which is clutter. Here at Wikipedia, we have standards that we try to adhere to. If other articles do it a certain way, we don't claim they're in "error." To be fair, I've seen other encyclopedias and books that have shown generic images in articles about people, whether it's an ethnicity, gender, or humanity as a whole. However they are always short articles and only for articles about a group who don't have well-known people, like the Bedouin. I've noticed that this was used in older encyclopedias but not often today. We should see if anyone else agrees with you, but perhaps you can bring it up with a Wiki standards forum here at Wikipedia until then. - Cyborg Ninja 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't titled "Famous Ashkenazi Jews." It's titled "Ashkenazi Jews." As such its scope is wider than just notable Ashkenazi Jews. I'm doubtful there is a strong need for a photo-box. If there is to be a photo-box it should not be filled solely by those with articles on Wikipedia. To do so would be to skew the meaning of the term Ashkenazi. Are all Ashkenazi Jews "notable?" Obviously not. Then why would only notable people be depicted? I think a paragraph should be set aside for exploration of well-known Ashkenazi Jews if that is seen as being important by some editors, but I think that fame is of low importance to the article. By the way, some of the famous people presently in the picture box are not even mentioned to be Ashkenazi in their Wikipedia articles. Others have only category affiliation indicating this at the bottom of their bio page and/or a note in a photo-box on their bio page. I hope other editors can weigh in with an opinion or two besides just the three of us. Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New picture box

This is the image that I created: [16]. It contains eight famous Ashkenazi Jews (all confirmed, btw) in a 4x2 box. Wikimedia Commons has been incredibly unhelpful with uploading the image, so I have not been able to do so. Is there any other way I can upload the image to Wikipedia, within protocol, without using Commons? If you wish to see different people in the picture box, let me know here. - Cyborg Ninja 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that I haven't received any help so two hours of work has gone down the drain. But I suppose only the article suffers. - Cyborg Ninja 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cyborg Ninja. What help do you need in uploading to the Commons? Also, who is in the picture? Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I also value your work, Cyborg Ninja. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I just thought, "Oh goody, a trivia competition on name that photo" but I see that they are in the rather large composite photo currently in the infobox. Cyborg's one is better, more refined and simpler. The one currently in the infobox makes the 'box look overloaded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Towards GA?

There is alot of information here which is laid out okay. I have little knowledge of the subject matter, but maybe folks trying to push to a GA version (or even FA) which is at least a step towards working towards a stable revision is worthwhile. The article is big enough to bring some kudos to GA/FA and gainsay the idea that FA is full of esoterica, and I think well-cricumscribed wnough that it wouldn't end up as a train wreck (like some broad or controversial articles do). The controversies that could be associated are also fairly well circumscribed I'd a thought.

Anyway, I was musing on the Usage of the name section going to the top under the lead and getting renamed Etymology (which is what it is) and buffed with some more linguistic information. My only reference would be the OED but I am sure some folks have some more relevant secondary (rather than tertiary) sources.

I am happy to help with copyediting when the time comes. Good luck....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The mosaic picture

Bar Refaeli is not an important character in the history of Ashkenzik Jews, take her out of the mosaic please.Also, I can tell that all Rabbanic figures were taken out, it's certainly a work of an Israeli with POV--217.132.37.77 (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 24 year old models aren't appropriate for the box. For that matter, there's no reliable source indicating she's an Ashkenazi Jew. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It make no sense that Bar Refaeli, which is not an historical figure by no doubt and not well familiar to Ashkenazi population around the world (Even in Israel she's considered to be a very unpopular figure by many Ashkenazi people, and Israeli newspaper articles can prove it) is in the Mosaic, but the Maharal for instance is not as well as Rashi and Ralbag who had hugh influence on the formation of the Ashkenazi people in Europe as well as on their entire history are not included. Well, no one have the exact portrait of them but it make no difference as it shouldn't be a restriction. The present mosaic is only weakly representing Ashkenazi Jewry and history. Also, too many of the people who are in the mosaic are from the same time and place (germany-austria, the early 20CE/late 19CE). It should include more Jewish people from Russia, Poland and etc and to make as equal as possible cross time and community representation.--Gilisa (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture box again

Which of the people in the picture box are reliably sourced as being Ashkenazi Jews? From a Wikipedia perspective, that is undoubtedly where we need to start, rather than simply voting on who we think is an Ashkenazi Jew. I've removed all the living people from the box, per WP:BLP. If reliable sourcing is found for any of them being Ashkenazi Jews, then we can consider restoring. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire premise of a "picture box" for this article is problematic. What is its purpose? Is its purpose to give a visual representation of what Ashkenazi Jews look like? If so, then anonymous but verifiable examples qualify equally well, as examples derived from those who are well-known, or famous. If its purpose is to highlight the famous of the Ashkenazi Jews then the article is probably misnamed, or its premise is incorrectly stated within the article. My hunch is that many of us do not really know what purpose the "picture box" is serving, or should be serving. My own primary feeling is that it should be eliminated. My reason for that is that this article should concentrate on being scholarly, and on the flip-side, this article should be avoiding boosterism, which is what I think most of the choices concerning visual representation of Ashkenazi Jews in the picture box is about. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Picture boxes about ethnic groups generally show famous members of the group; it is of interest to the reader to discover that people who they have heard of are members of this group. I realize that, above, you were arguing for adding "non-famous" pictures to be added. Aside from the fact that all other editors disagreed with you, it would likely be impossible to find reliably sourced pictures of "non-famous" Ashkenazi Jews. Anyway, there will undoubtedly be pictures in the infobox, as with all other ethnic group articles, and they will undoubtedly be famous people, as with all other ethnic group articles. Please focus on reliable sourcing for the pictures. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
My primary feeling is that the picture box should not be there. Only secondarily would I argue that anonymous people should fill the picture box. "Ashkenazi" is a loosely defined term. People migrate, intermarry, reproduce. We are not talking about an objective designation. Depicting "examples" of something undefined undermines scholarliness. (Or at least disclaimers should be placed both in the article and accompanying the picture box that a lot of information on individuals being Ashkenazi is merely anecdotal.) If you wish to enumerate some famous people "said to be" Ashkenazi that is more properly done in one paragraph in the article. I think the implication of visual representation is an enhanced sense of certainty. I highly doubt that any biographical information identifies, with a high degree of certainty, that any of the people considered for the picture box are reliably known to be Ashkenazim. I think this is merely hearsay, that unfortunately we are passing along. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think for the first time in my years of editing I am disagreeing with user Jayjg, in this case over the issue of the five women pictured. I believe that there is no dispute that the five women whose photos are used in the article are in fact Ashkenazim, including Lauren Bacall, Rachel Weisz, Bar Refeali, Judit Polgar and Maya Plisetskaya. The latter two are Eastern European Ashkenazic Jews, Lauren Bacall's parents Ashkenazic European immigrants, Rachel Weisz's folks Ashkenazim from Austria and Hungary, and model Bar Rafaeli known throughout Israel and the modelling world as part of the Israeli Ashkenazim community. Many users debated about the photo boxes for some time until we painstakingly reached some sort of consensus, balancing living with dead, men with women. Without bringing up the issue of using unknown people, which did not have any supporters other than the individual proposing it, that we reached a rather broad, interesting group of Ashkenazim to feature is something I hope we don`t mess with. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, based on Wikipedia's Bar Refaeli article, how we know she is an "Ashkenazi Jew". Then, given that it's unclear if Weisz's mother is even Jewish, please explain how we know, based on Wikipedia's Rachel Weisz article, that she is also an "Ashkenazi Jew". Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Rachel Weisz apparently identifies as being Jewish and I've found references that both her parents are: [17]. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's great. And here's a reliable sources saying that her mother is "Catholic Viennese". Did you find any reliable sources saying she's an Ashkenazi Jew? Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that nobody in the picturebox - whether living or dead - has been directly sourced on this website as Ashkenazi (excepting Rachel Weisz incidentally and ironically), although all the people pictured are Ashkenazi. Removing all the women from the page on the basis of WP:BLP seems slightly tenuous: you should really remove all the men, not to mention the content of the article discussing, for example, Marx or Anton Rubinstein (as they haven't been sourced as Ashkenazi either). Please counter this point before reverting what was a pretty painstaking and widely surveyed consensus.

It should be added that Ashkenazi was never a clearly defined category, so much as a description of a set of groups of Jews who lived in a certain geographic area. By way of comparison, how many people in the African American photobox have been reliably sourced on this website as being of African descent? Avaya1 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "remove all the women" from the infobox, I removed all the living people. Understand? Living people. That's what WP:BLP is about living people. Whether or not they were women is irrelevant. And if Wikipedia editors continue to add unsourced material about living people to the article, WP:BLP says I can protect the article or block them. Rather than violating policy, and risking sanction, please comply with WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Most African Americans (if not all) in the African American photobox, refer to themselves as such and it definitely make a reliable source for this matter. As for Ashkenazi Jews-there are many accredited and varied sources that refer to Freud and Einstein as Ashkenazi Jews. The same is true for Maharal or Baal Shem Tov or to Israel Aumann for example, There are no references what so ever that cite Refaeli or her family identified themselves as Ashkenazi, and there are no other reliable sources to do it for them.--Gilisa (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It make no sense that Bar Refaeli, which is not an historical figure by no doubt and not well familiar to Ashkenazi population around the world (Even in Israel she's considered to be a very unpopular figure by many Ashkenazi people, and Israeli newspaper articles can prove it) is in the Mosaic, but the Maharal for instance is not as well as Rashi and Ralbag who had hugh influence on the formation of the Ashkenazi people in Europe as well as on their entire history are not included. Well, no one have the exact portrait of them but it make no difference as it shouldn't be a restriction. The present mosaic is only weakly representing Ashkenazi Jewry and history. Also, too many of the people who are in the mosaic are from the same time and place (germany-austria, the early 20CE/late 19CE). It should include more Jewish people from Russia, Poland and etc and to make as equal as possible cross time and community representation.--Gilisa (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that is an entirely separate point to the one of present contention.Avaya1 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've a question now: I can tell that the number of women and man is fairly equal in the PB. If I'm not mistaken I once read in the discussion page that it was made intently -and if so than it represent a POV and not a wroth and decent representation. Still, I've no problem with this issue. If you want to include a similar number of Jewish women you could find better candidates then Bar Refaeli or celebs that lived back in the begining of the 20 CE and no one remember any more. Judit Polgar is indeed deserve to be included, but what about the greatest women matmatician ever Emmy Noether?? Please, make a big favor to the common-sense and change this sloppy and undeserviable PB a.s.a.p. --Gilisa (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bar Refaeli and the Picture Box

Jayjg has made the point that there is no reliable source to indicate that she's from an Ashkenazi origin. If a reliable source that directly indicates Ms Refaeli is Ashkenazi will not be given, as well as for all other people in the PB for which a source wasn't been given yet, than they we will have no other option but to remove them from the PB with a big and honest heartache. However, just to make it clear, even if such sources will be provided by other users it still make no difference for me (and I guess that for other as well) in objecting to the present mosaic and to the inclusion of this young model in it.--Gilisa (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo Boxes now look silly

Since user Jayjg insists on his interpretation of the rules related to living people, the picture boxes now look ridiculous. Beyond this, though the deceased are held to a different (lesser) standard than the living, I am concerned that no more or no less evidence exists that can support that some of the others are actually 100% Ashkenazic (if that is the supposed standard). Please let us either fully scrutinize all the folks featured in the boxes for proof of fully Ashkenazic origin (and start replacing) or we need to discuss this further and bring this debate to a higher level so as to challenge to admin. In either case, what is there now looks lame. Let's perhaps turn our attention to finding only photos of people where the word Ashkenazic is used in bona fide refs for ALL photos. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I recommended above, when I first removed the living people. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A Sniper, If you are not pleased with what you have refered to as "Jayjg interpretation" (I believe it's also Wikis' one) you are invited to suggest new candidates for inclusion in the photo box. As there are two empty slots you may suggest two. I here to suggest Rashi and Ralbag. These two had influenced the history and development of Ashkenazi Jews more than any other in the present photo box. In fact, at least hundreds of thousends of present days Ashkenazim are also directly descendent from them but that's another issue. Not only that, but it will also give as a photo box that reflect more than the last 150 years, at best, of Ashkenazims' history.--Gilisa (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The interpretation I refer to is as to contention - I differ in that I do not believe it is contentious to have the photos of living folks who are obviously Ashkenazic Jews, whether or not (like the deceased folks) there is actually a reference that specifically uses the word Ashkenazic. At present I believe we have one woman, which is not acceptable - this goes against consensus, and I think the consensus formed for the previous set of boxes (that included Weisz, et al) was long-coming & strong...and that it out-trumps Jayjg's contention issue (despite his threats of locking the article)...but that's just my opinion ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A sniper, consensus never trumps policy, and WP:BLP is one of our strongest policies. If you're looking for famous women who may be Ashkenazi, and who have pictures on Wikipedia, they're easy enough to find: Rosalind Franklin, Gertrude Stein, Betty Friedan, Anne Frank, Hannah Arendt, Estée Lauder (person), Sarah Bernhardt, Judy Holliday, Stella Adler, Rosa Luxemburg, Golda Meir, Ayn Rand - there's a dozen, and that didn't take long. I'm sure there are lots more. Now, of course, none of them have sources confirming they are Ashkenazi, but at least they don't fall under the very strict rules of WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, A Sniper I agree that one women is not enough and I believe that it will be changed soon, but lets wait for other users to comment and suggest more logical ideas than Bar Refaeli. I'm in favor of returning Judith Polgar, it would also be fair to add one women Nobel winner, an important artist/leader and/or philosopher (I'm in favor of Golda Meir, which represent Isreali Ashkenazi women) and one celeb women (but she should be better known and successful than Bar Refaeli).--Gilisa (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The editing decision seemed a bit contentious just because it's inconsistent. Jayjg's main point is fair enough: that nobody in the photobox (or for that matter, in the whole article) has a source directly mentioning the word "ashkenazi", whether they're living or dead. Yet the only person in photobox who does have such a source - Rachel Weisz - was removed? The living person criteria is secondary to the problem of being directly sourced. Either we insist on a reliable source directly mentioning the relevant person in connection with the word "ashkenazi", or we don't. If we insist on it, then, until we find such sources, we should remove everyone. Surely the most plausible solution here is to remove the photobox (as well as the references to Marx, Anton Rubinstein and Pasternak in the article, who also lack sources directly mentioning the word "Ashkenazi").

(I would also suggest that an admin enforce the same rules on the photoboxes in other similar articles, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic) Avaya1 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, reliable source don't have to include the exact word "Ashkenazi", only to tell that the person or his ancestors came from countries in the time where Ashkenazim were the Jewish people who lived there. For instance, there is no problem with Marx as we know that he was born in Germany in times where all Jewish people in Germany were considerd Ashkenazim and that his family as well, at least 2 generations back, were born there. The same is correct for Einstein, or Shmuel Yosef Agnon and etc. On the contaray, there is no single one source that indicate that Refaeli ancestors were Ashkenazim or indicate from which community in Europe they came from (if any at all, she may be Sepharadic as well). Asking for specific citation that indicate one is an Ashkenazi leave as with no candidates at all as for Jews, especially Jews who lived outside Israel, being Ashkenazi is nothing more than being Jewish, as large majority of Jewish are Ashkenazim, and especially outside Israel, and they identify themselves as Jewish and not as "Ashkenazi"(however, references are easy to be found for great Rabbanical figures for whom there always sources as they stated the special Ashkenazi Jewish religious laws in entire Europe. But somehow you didn't find it worthwhile to include them in the photobox, aside for the Vilna Gaon, serving more as a cover)-however, if we know that someone was born in Hungary and he/she is Jewish (e.g., Judith Polgar)than it make no original research to count him/her as Ashkenazi. But in the case of Ms Refaeli there is no indication that she or her ansectors were born in Russia/Poland/other countery in which Askenazi Jews lived. --Gilisa (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Coming from Eastern Europe is no guarantee that an individual is an Ashkenazi Jew, since Sephardim lived there too (albeit in small numbers. As examples: Sephardi Jews immigrated to Hungary in the 1620s, Romania was famous for its Sephardic community, Sephardi community of Vienna, Austria, Sephardi Jews in Poland. Even in Germany. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is the reliable source indicating that Rachel Weisz is an Ashkenazi Jew? Please quote it. As far as I know, the only sources we have indicate simply that she is Jewish. Regarding various other articles, on this article you've seen the rather stubborn and persistent insistence of various editors that they are allowed to violate WP:BLP with impunity. I only have so much time and energy available to expend on Wikipedia, so I'm taking things one article at a time. Jayjg (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, the photobox on Sephardi Jews looks well laid out, and is a good comparison style-wise. No idea about the sourcing however. Was also puzzled by Rachel Weisz removal too (ec) aah, I get it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
One problem is that you only discuss the references and paying no attention to more essential issue: how to make photoboxes to be more representative ones. I didn't check it out yet but it seems like there are no clear guidelines for inclusion of people in ethnic groups photoboxes. The Sephardi Jews photobox is actually another prove that by poll or through a process that yield similar outcomes you can get even the winner of August 2009 "American Idol" (if there is any) into a photo box. This photobox include many unknown ex-celebs that already passed away but missing the portraits of many great scholars and rabbanical figures of Sephardic Judaism as Abraham Zacuto; Chaim Joseph David Azulai or Solomon ibn Gabirol and Nobel laureates as Claude Cohen-Tannoudji , Baruj Benacerraf or Rita Levi-Montalcini and etc. I also had criticized the Sephardi photobox before once. A good photobox should include a vertical time section of people who represent their ethnic group in different fields. It also should give priority to those who influenced humanity and/or their community espcially and to keep on upper limit of available slots for living celebs(and celebs at all)/sportsman. Also, if it have celebs in it so those who better represent/ better known should have priority in inclusion. This way, Bar Refaeli wouldn't get to the photobox from the first place. Of course, these are only recommendations, but if Wikipedia adopt them than it would save a lot of time that is spent on polemicses and will help to keep on stable photoboxes.--Gilisa (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We-ell, you could have a poll - the prerequisite for entry would be a Reliable Source confirming the appropriate ancestry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The all point is that I'm not interested in a poll under the present conditions. I think that we should apply to Wikipedia board and ask them to make a clear rules of inclusion in photoboxes. After that polls will have a meaning. I'm only a passerby in Wikipedia and it would be technically difficult for me to do it on my own.--Gilisa (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I slept on this overnight and wondered how widespread this practice was (i.e a bunch of famous people in an infobox as representative of a particular group - we don't do it for Scientologists or Mormons I mean. Who do you choose? eg same numbers of men and women? Old and young? Or does this not reflect famous ones or what? Maybe a better image would be something from tradition, and old 19th or early 20th century of a traditional ashkenazi family or scene from appropriate locale appropriately vetted or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are on far more solid ground as far as the certitude of someone being Ashkenazic if we choose from among people from centuries ago. That a photograph or other visual representation of such people may not be available should be seen as of minor importance. The scholarliness of the article is not compromised by merely referring to such a person or such people in a paragraph or two in the article. In fact such article construction is in keeping with the imprecision of the term itself: Ashkenazi is not clearly enough definable to be applied to twentieth century people in many instances. The above suggestion (by Casliber) of a photographic representation of an approximately nineteenth century family that can be ascertained to be Ashkenazi is a very good idea in my opinion. Such a depiction strays little from the simple illustration of a group of people loosely representative of the subject of the article. In point of fact most Ashkenazi Jews are not distinguished on the worldly stage. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa your argument about the notability of the people in the photobox is fine, but it is a separate issue to Jayjg's. Can we deal with Jayjg's points in this section, and then we can make a different section to talk about who you think we should include (if they are directly sourced). (On that issue, we should also include Felix Mendelssohn)

Ok, but who decide that we should include Felix Mendelson? My priority follows common sense: we shopuld include more Rabbanical figures who shaped and formed the Askenazim-such as Rashi and Ralbag. It's also estimated that large part of Ashkenazi Jews are Rashi's descendant and by no means does Mendlson had even closer cultural or genetical effect on Ashkenazi Jews. There are enough 19 and 20 CE German born Jewish intellectuals and artists in this photobox, we don't need one more and I will insist on this.--Gilisa (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg: (i) Correct about weisz, as the assertion in the article doesn't seem to match the sources; (ii) the issue of WP:BLP is clearly secondary to the question of direct sources mentioning the word "Ashkenazi", the lack of which apparently constitutes its violation. Given that fact, I can't see how we can include the dead either. Either we insist on direct sourcing or we don't. If we insist on it, then the dead also have rights not to be misrepresented (even if these are less likely to be legally enforced). The reason wikipedia has a section stressing WP:BLP is because rights to do with misrepresentation are more likely to be acted upon by the living than they are by the estates of the dead; not because the dead have less rights. It seems to make far more sense to remove the photobox in this case. Avaya1 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is mostly about affecting living people. Dead people aren't really affected this way. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem to source many of the death people being Ashkenazi. There are more than enough to do it for Einstein as well as for many other notable figures.--Gilisa (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are they now? The tribes. Pov

Bablyon scattered the northern country 2600 years ago. Many people moved away from any nearby nation to avoid this. Many moved back to Judea once they got a decent enough king, but plenty had set up new lives for themselves, and some had made it far enough away to not hear news of their old homeland.

Israel/Judea is literally in the middle of the eastern hemisphere. It is reasonable to think most of the eastern hemisphere has a limited amount of ancestors from all 12. Even if no genes are shared with an ancestor, they were still a necessary part of that person's heritage. Also Issac was not promised to be the 'father of nations', Abraham gets that name. Genesis chapter 25, he got a second wife after Sarah died, and she had sons, and the sons of his concubines were given wealth and sent east, about 3900 years ago. I'm pretty sure the spiritual revolution they brought with them made it in part to the Americas, along with their 'seed' no doubt. Autist Pendragon (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Michael Barkun, Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement, UNC Press, ISBN 0807846384, pp. 137-142.
  2. ^ Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan cults, esoteric nazism, and the politics of identity, NYU Press, 2002, ISBN 0814731554, p. 237.
  3. ^ Paul F. Boller, Memoirs of an Obscure Professor and Other Essays, TCU Press, 1992, pp. 5-6.
  4. ^ Behar, Doron M. (2006). "The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event" (PDF). The American Journal of Human Genetics. 78 (3): 487–97. doi:10.1086/500307. PMID 16404693. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics." Lewis, Bernard. "Semites and Anti-Semites", W.W. Norton and Company, ISBN 0-393-31839-7, p. 48.
  6. ^ "Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants/owners." Morris, Benny. The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003, ISBN 1860649890, p. 22.
  7. ^ "Arab anti-Semitism might have been expected to be free from the idea of racial odium, since Jews and Arabs are both regarded by race theory as Semites, but the odium is directed, not against the Semitic race, but against the Jews as a historical group. The main idea is that the Jews, racially, are a mongrel community, most of them being not Semites, but of Khazar and European origin." Yehoshafat Harkabi, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Helen Fein, The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 311010170X, p. 424.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews/Archive_3&oldid=1136533253"