| Revision as of 08:14, 10 May 2014 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,237 edits clean up← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:01, 26 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,669,863 edits Removing expired RFC template. |
| (883 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importabce=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany| importance = Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject France| importance = Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=Low |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=High}} |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Mid}} |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=High|oral-tradition=yes}} |
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |author=Jennifer Senior|title=Are Jews Smarter |org=] |url=http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/ |date=October 24, 2005|quote= |accessdate=October 21, 2012 |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |author=Jennifer Senior|title=Are Jews Smarter |org=] |url=http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/ |date=October 24, 2005|quote= |accessdate=October 21, 2012}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{page views}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 27: |
Line 26: |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Portion of lead paragraph removed, despite consensus == |
|
|
|
|
|
See diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fast forward to this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=606528036&oldid=606523912 |
|
|
|
|
|
To my knowledge, consensus did not change between then and now. Unless Debresser and Nishidani are suffering from collective amnesia, this is a deliberate violation of consensus, and the former version should be restored forthwith.] (]) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Debresser and I worked out that lead in edits and talk down to Feb 12, 2014 as you can see at the top of this page (). I haven't gone back into the archives, but they should show the same. That was indeed consensual. whatever changes took place after that date were not, as far as I can see, consensual. They were unilateral. I gather Debresser's 17th March alteration, which reintroduces precisely what I found objectionable, to be a slip of memory, for our discussion ruled out making that assertion. To repeat, these articles will always be a POV mesh until we stick to leads that no one can challenge for their neutrality. Partial theories, however widespread though contradicted widely in the academic literature, and not taken seriously even in the Jewish virtual library sister article to ours, should not be toyed with.] (]) 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've checked archive 10 December 2013 to Feb. Debresser, seeing the intractability of the earlier lead with its balancing statement about genetics and European origins, suggested as a compromise that all this genetic origins stuff be elided and left to the relevant section. I agreed to that, as did others. Put in the theory, or legend, or belief, that all Ashkenazim come from the Israelite tribes, and you get, per logic and WP:NPOV, someone wanting a balancing statement ( the most recent genetic paper says that the matrilineal side is strongly of European/Neolithic origin. All Ashkenazis come from, it would work out, the Middle East on the father's side, and mostly Europe from the maternal side. No one was happy with that, and Debresser's suggestion was acted on, as was the compromise on Yiddish, which, as I have repeatedly sourced, is a complex problem about which assertions of just one of several theories (MHG origin) complicate editing because they require, again, nuancing for balance. As a result through the edits from December to Feb Debresser trimmed and we found the compromise you get on February 12 above. Do we really need to rehash this again? The lede ignored the most important thing of all, the huge contribution of the Ashkenazi to modern Western society and culture. The most important things were neglected for POV pushing.] (]) 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You clearly missed (or ignored) this part (). Scroll to the bottom, where we worked out an agreement on the passage restored (then removed again, today) in the diffs above. This happened after the February discussion, and from what I can see here, you (and Liz, IIRC) are the only one who disagrees with that particular passage (albeit vehemently so). ] (]) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Moreover, it does not matter if every single Ashkenazi has ancestors tracing back to Israelite immigrants. It is clear from genetics that the vast majority do. No nation/ethnic group can claim blood purity, and it's nonsensical to hold Ashkenazim to a clearly impossible standard. The contributions of Jews to Western culture is undeniable, but that has absolutely nothing to do with their ethnic origins, and including it in the lede doesn't take away from said contributions.] (]) 22:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I think Evildoer is right, and Nishidani and I made a mistake today. My last edit of a few minutes ago restores that part of the Middle Eastern origin. Nishidani, I hope I am not confused again, and we did agree on ? ] (]) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There were two consensuses. One which took two months at least, in which I argued on the talk page at great length, and you examined things from both sides, and edited. Watching your editing over that period, I took your work on trust. It was fair, and non-ideological and reflected the talk page. Both you and I state that we don't have time to keep up with the page after Feb 12, when these things had been tidied, and the page was stable. Unbeknown to me, in a brief riff a month later, several editors, with little participation by people like myself who participated in the former consensus, said that remark could be reinstated, and you did it, without explaining why this capsizing of the consensus you and others had reached was invalid. As I show below, even the source used to support the statement does not support it. Weinryb analyses pp.17-22 many theories of the 'ethnogenesis' of Ashkenazim and after dismissing the Khazar theory writes:'''the rest of the hypotheses and speculations have little or no basis in reality and lack any factual value for dealing with the early settlement of Jews in Poland.'''p.22, i.e.,I.e., at least there, addressing precisely this issue, he says nothing is known, all we have is speculation and legends. This means (a) the source belies the statement being pushed into the text (b) those who have used Weinryb, never providing the precise page for this putative statement, never even looked at the source. They are convinced of the statement's veracity but have had not a skerrick of evidence to support it while edit-warring, and haven't troubled to examine the source while pushing for its reinclusion. Therefore, thisd is ] and has been for the several months in which edit-warring has taken place. I am disappointed that you now support its reincorporation. Consensus cannot override scholarship, ] (]) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
I must agree with Evildoer. The removal of the paragraph despite consensus is a breach of trust, ethics and Misplaced Pages policy as commonly understood. Moreover, genetic studies point to the existence of four identifiably European matrilineal lines in the Ashkenazi genome. These lines account for not more than 40% of Ashkenazi DNA. The remaining 60% is of Levantine origin. This is the consensus, not an outlier. Other interpretations of the data are efforts to propagandize the data. The paragraph should be replaced as soon as humanly possible. ] (]) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 |
|
|
|
|
|
:], you are welcome to add, redact and POV push as much as you like, but you are ''not'' welcome to call it ]. How did you come to the conclusion that, per the ] you, Gilad55, Debresser and IP user 84.111.196.56 VS Nishidani, Khazar, When someone tells a story, plus 2 genuinely neutral editors in Liz and myself = consensus? Are you counting (an absence of) votes? Are you counting objections based on policy and guidelines? Perhaps it is you who is suffering from a very singular form of 'amnesia' when assessing consensus. Even the title of the thread, "Staying on topic" (which was started by me) provides a clue as to what the discussion was about before it was turned into a convoluted discussion regarding details as to how best to continue getting off topic culminated in some form of quick decisions to call 'consensus' on something which was being identified as a tendentious. The only point you are correct on is that "this is a deliberate violation of consensus" with you at the heart of it, and ]. The thread did not come to any conclusions as regards consensus. Tacking on, "I think we have consensus." with a response of, "Yeah." while no one else is looking is tendentious. |
|
|
|
|
|
:You seem to have overlooked the fact that many, many editors/contributors have been tied up in the recent events in Eastern Europe and holding down the fort on any article vaguely attached to the regions in question. Check the edit warring noticeboard. Check the ANI. Check the DRN. Check the Jimbo Wales talk page. You may interpret this as ''carte blanche'' to do as you will to this article, but please don't be surprised or offended when others return to this article and transfer the bulk of the ] and ] content still accounting for half of this article into the ] article where they belong per ]. --] (]) 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: @Gilad55 1. Please don't cry "breach of trust". We are all here on the talkpage to discuss it, and there seems to have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding (from whatever side). 2. There is definitely consensus that your genetics babble is overdone in this article, and that nobody really wants to go there with you. ] (]) 06:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, Debresser. Please reintroduce the paragraph as there was no consensus for its removal. Also, genetics is not babble. It is science. If you're unfamiliar with the language of this science, then google the terms. One cannot intelligently discuss Ashkenazi ancestry without understanding the science of genetics. ] (]) 19:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 |
|
|
|
|
|
@Iryna, no I am not counting the absence of votes. I am referring to the dispute made when an IP editor removed a chunk of the lead passage (see above), which we have long since resolved and agreed that the passage belongs. Your objections appeared to be with the preponderance of genetics in the lede, not that particular passage which had absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Up until now, Nishidani (who isn't exactly an unbiased editor, as his editing history shows) is the only one (to my knowledge) who disagreed with that line. Now that you are here, voice your concerns instead of blowing up in other people's faces. By the way, nobody on this site is completely free of personal bias, and as far as I can tell, that includes you too. Jewish articles are a magnet for politically (and/or racially) motivated editors, and you have thus far done little to prove that you do not belong to that category beyond loudly asserting that you are neutral.] (]) 09:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking back at the previous discussion, neither Khazar or When someone tells a story objected to this passage. The latter actually disagreed with you. That leaves just you, Nishidani (see above), and possibly Liz. You also forgot to include Kitty on our side, as per his/her comments in here demonstrating that he/she clearly shares our views on Ashkenazi Jewish origins. Either you are not reading carefully, or you are being tendentiously dishonest. Which one is it? ] (]) 10:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Could I remind you that wikipedia asks of editors to write not what they think or believe, but to devote time to reading through the best relevant sources in order to write, in a neutral fashion, what the state of learned or informed opinion says about any topic or detail which editors may decide to include. The consensus negotiated by Debresser involved extensive arguments based on book evidence over two months. As the text stood when I thought the lead was stabilized consensually (12 February) we had consensus. What occurred a month later, was the same editors returning, without notifying people like myself, and, via Debresser, reintroducing that contested sentence. Consensus implies a mediation between opposed parties, in which agreement is reached in this case to overturn a prior consensus. I see no evidence of that for March, but only several editors agreeing, without notification, to overthrow what was a rational, evidence-based decision. The sentence violates ] since it represents as a fact what is one of several theories, as any familiarity with the literature will immediately show. As to not reading carefully, neither you, nor Debresser, nor Gilad or others supporting it, seem to have checked the source ostensibly supporting it. No sentence can stand which is not supported by a reliable academic source which presents, not the author's opinion, but the known lay of the land about which there is no dispute. In these several months, no source has been provided which states that it is a fact that Ashkenazis ''trace'' their origins to the Israelitic tribes. ''Trace'' here is, as I said months ago, deceptive. It may refer to a belief among Ashkenazis that they hail from Israelitic tribes (to be demonstrated) or that Ashkenazis have traced their origins via a chain of documentary and archaeological and genetic proof back to the Israelitic tribes (the requirement if this sentence is to be understood as a fact. Either work with sources, or please refrain from reintroducing what is a mytheme without objective grounding in the relevant reliable sources. Please respond to the point below. I could only access that source today, though I tried several months ago, to no avail, and it clearly does not justify the sentence is it supposed to corroborate, which means objectively that all editors pushing for that sentence over several months never even checked the source. That therefore is patent proof that the standard protocols for editing here have been ignored or neglected. ] (]) 11:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just because I didn't object to that specific passage doesn't mean that I can't see anything wrong with it. I've already added support to the fact that this article is off-topic and emphasizes to much on prehistoric and genetic origins and not historical culture. ] (]) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Too much emphasis? It's '''one''' brief sentence. It does not detract, in any way, from the rest of the article. I will respond to Nishidani later.] (]) 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It has nothing to do with emphasis. It has everything to do with wikipedia's insistance that editors use reliable sources to state facts, and stick scrupulously to what RS say. The sentence in question is not a fact, but a concocted ('Israelitic') ] spin on one of several hypotheses, according to Weinryb. ] (]) 19:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That was for Khazar, not you. His argument was different. By the by, you take this position only ''until'' we use genetic sources, and then you reject them. If I provide other scholarly sources (and I can) you will reject those as well. The Ashkenazim self-identify as Israelites, and this is supported by genetic scholarship, linguistics, and cultural evidence. The Romani have no documentation whatsoever of their descent from South Asia, but we don't doubt that they are from South Asia. Only Ashkenazi Jews are expected to provide thorough and intricate proof that they are who they say they are, which is hypocritical and reeks of politics.] (]) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Come to think of it, I do recall giving you scholarly sources (non-genetic) and you rejected those too, right after citing a book from a relatively unknown Palestinian anti-Zionist writer whose credentials were called into question and could not, under any circumstances, be used as a definitive source for anything. That said, I am willing to compromise somewhat on the language. Perhaps we could take the "Israelite" part out (while mentioning their self-conception as Israelites) and just put "originating in the Middle East". ] (]) 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Stop chatting and stop making personal insinuations about what I might do in this or that imaginary scenario. Stick to the gravamen of the evidence in the section below. You have consistently reintroduced weinryb and the attached sentence saying it is 'consensus'. I have examined Weinryb and found no statement in his text that would support your sentence, to the contrary, he dismisses all such arguments as speculative. Therefore you have one ineludible task: show where in Weinryb is a statement supporting that generalization. Please keep your evidence succinct and respond in the section below. You are required to do this because numerous times you have reintroduced this sentence, and the source, and therefore must know where in Weinryb the justification for that formulation can be found. If you don't know, the implication would be you developed the sentence without even looking at the source, which would be disturbing evidence of editorial bad faith. ] (]) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Read my comment again. I said the article itself, not the sentence. That sentence itself violates ] because it contains a misinterpretation caused by original thought without reliable sources. No current mainstream scholar, historian, or geneticist deny the Ashkenazim's Middle Eastern origin. However, they didn't directly migrate from there. Going by your logic, maybe we should include that they originated from Africa since all humans do. ] (]) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Actually many mainstream scholars have held that the origin of the Ashkenazi is unknown, 'shrouded in mystery', 'probably indeterminate' etc. All of this is speculative, since there is no documentary evidence for 1000 years, during which European Jews were a minuscule population among world Jewry. Many scholars, geneticists included, take seriously the idea that mass conversion, or incremental intermarriage of a few travellers with local women, might have taken place, and it is widely accepted that there is a strong possibility that the founding population has its roots in Italy, where there was a long established Jewish community and where conversion is attested. The POV being pushed here is part legend, grounded in relatively recent folksy speculation (as Weinryb shows, the Eastern Ashkenazi, if asked would often say they came from Spain), part political (Jews everywhere descent from ancient Israelites and are only returning to their ancestors' homeland) and part ideological (denialism re conversion as a Jewish practice in the past). If Richards and de Costa are correct, there was a huge input from the European matrilineal genepool, which is the one which counts in terms of the religious definition of a Jew, something which also would entail the conclusion that Ashkenazi are as much of European descent as they are of Levantine descent (meaning that sentence would be partial and partisan in tactically privileging the Levantine descent for a polemical thesis etc. The sentence cannot stand because it is a meme replicated the lower down the literacy scale you go, and gets rare the higher the quality of the scholarly source, where it is almost absent, as empirical scruples command.] (]) 21:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Okay. Back to sources. No gabble or chat please, only scholarship. == |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>whose ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews traces back to immigrants originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East</blockquote> |
|
|
This has long been sourced to Weinryb. The link gave no page. I've provided it now. See Jewish Publication Society of America 1973 pp.17-22. |
|
|
Please read that very closely. There is absolutely nothing in that source which justifies the WP:OR Evildoer and Debresser have reintroduced without examining the source. To the contrary Weinryb is quite clear that no documentary evidence throws light on the problem of origins, and we have only several theories all speculative.] (]) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Debresser, an editor who usually argues against the points made by Evildoer and myself, admitted to the oversight (the paragraph was removed unilaterally). The paragraph is not speculative and is well sourced. The paragraph should be replaced as soon as humanly possible and the brinkmanship of editors like Nishidani should be recognized as just that. ] (]) 20:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 |
|
|
|
|
|
:Let's agree that reopening this subject for debate would be a kind of double jeopardy. ] (]) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 |
|
|
|
|
|
::It had only one source. Admittedly, it could use some extra sourcing, but my hands are somewhat tied at the moment.] (]) 21:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In other words, Debresser, Gilad and Evildoer included a sentence without examining the source that putatively justified the formulation and therefore its inclusion. The process was rotten from the start. |
|
|
:::Unless someone can come up with the precise passage in Weinryb which is presumed to support that statement within the next 12 hours, I will take the silence as a failure to find it, and remove the passage (which several sources at my elbow would challenge as a factual statement) as ] based on a fraudulent abuse of sources. Given that no editor reintroducing this, consensus or not, seems to have looked at the source, its reinclusion was ''ipso facto'' invalid. As to adjusting the language: that is out of the question. One does not tinker with minor stylistic fixes creatively when the source is found to not support the sentence, but indeed to assert a position diametrically opposed to the original statement it was supposed to provide textual warrant for. One seeks a source before writing any sentence, and, on controversial pages like this subject to editwarring vices, one presents the evidence to the community for assessment and consensus before proceding to insert it. This is how wiki works: and one does not toss in ideas, and then search for a source to justify them here. That is tendentious ], if not magical thinking.] (]) 21:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The passage was introduced into the body of the article some time ago, and I merely added it to the lede. Nevertheless, I have an addition source. There's more coming. I will also work on extracting a quote from Weinryb. "The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe." https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Diaspora.html ] (]) 21:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And just a forewarning, if you removed the passage before consensus is reached on this topic, you '''will''' be reverted.] (]) 21:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Don't make silly threats. I have shown you, Debresser and Gilad kept introducing a statement which was contradicted directly by the source you all used. This constitutes, perhaps unknowingly, falsification of wikipedia, and it was done repeatedly. As others have reminded you, you can't get away with sticking crap into a page, and, when shown it is crap, threatening to revert the scrupulous wikipedians who, following the rules, remove abusively constructed edits. Consensus is mandatory in introducing material that is under challenge. Absolutely no consensus is required to remove material that has been decisively shown to be misleading or a gross caricature of the source. Clear? (Take that as a warning. If you go through with your threat, I will consider the behaviour actionable) ] (]) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And finally, if you wish to make a fresh proposal (the kind of material you add from the JVL has been discussed and dismissed in archives 8-9-10), then open up a different section (''Proposal for an origins statement in lead'' etc. This section is exclusively for the issue on Weinryb, and has concluded. Thank you.] (]) 21:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Same thing can be seen at ] - been sometime since I looked here. -- ] (]) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::At the least that should have a citation needed tag. The fact that the line is almost identical to the one crafted here shows we have a meme splashing problem here, for ideological purposes. I won't deal with that however, since, apart from some poetry and books on the 12-14 centuries, I know little of Sephardim, whereas half of my intellectual and cultural formation owes debts to Ashkenazi culture, and I am familiar with the scholarly literature.] (]) 08:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Academic sources provided, with more coming. Please do not make changes without consensus first (and you do not have consensus).] (]) 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Proposal for an ethnogenesis statement in the lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please supply your suggestions accompanied by quality RS (academic works abound on the Ashkenazi) below. Be careful not to recycle material amply studied and dismissed in Archives 7-10 on this issue. Thanks.] (]) 07:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I suggest that Doron Behar's newest 2013 study be added as a source next to "other Levantines" and "other Europeans" in the "related ethnic groups" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that this link: "http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints" be added to "other Levantines" and "other Europeans" in the related ethnic groups section. The reason I think this link should be included is because Doron Behar's newest study concluded that: "Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region." |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any opposition? ] (]) 10:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't see why not.] (]) 13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No. It is a preprint, and we have, with other similar preprints (Elhaik etc.) regarding this argument, always waited for the actual publication. There is anoher reason for delay: Behar's preprint was made in October before the Richards and de Costa study came out. Since Richards and de Costa arrive at different conclusions and emphases to those made by Behar's team, Behar said he would answer them (possibly in the revised version of that preprint). So far, 7 months have passed and, unless I'm mistaken, the preprint hasn't been published. Behar's teams work is, by the way, identified as working within an ideological context and aim, well described ] (]) 13:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So... I suppose there is opposition... Alright, but Nishidani, if Behar would have had a political aim, wouldn't he only conclude a European/Middle Eastern/Caucasian origin? I mean, his conclusion was that Ashkenazis derive their genetic ancestry and heritage mainly from Middle Eastern and European origin, he wasn't exclusive on anything. ] (]) 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::This place is supposed to be rule-guided. Evildoer has just inverted WP:Burden (for which I am preparing a report) and now you first ask permission, find an objection, and then go ahead anyway. The objection is technical. We don't use preprints here usually, and Behar's preprint is taking an inordinately long time to get formally published. There may be problems with it, I don't know. The objection therefore is technical. I don't care one way or another about the content. You should revert yur addition to the article, and exercise patience, like I, for one, do.] (]) 15:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nishidani you're right, I'll revert it. ] (]) 15:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's both proper and courteous. I might add that most of the DNA stuff is too provisory to take, at this early stage, seriously. Apart from the pressure to get the 'right results', the science is so rapid and changing that research is overthrown, contradicted, challenged from years to year (if a philosopher looked at the logic of these kinds of inferences, he would be horrified: the science is one thing, the logic of interpretation another, and that is where POVs obtrude.). Cheers.] (]) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
I agree, I hope that in at least a decade results will be more permanent than ever changing. ] (]) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 == |
|
== three major Jewish subcultures == |
|
|
(a) Why 'subcultures'? |
|
|
(b)I assume we are speaking of (i)Ashkenazi (ii)Sephardi (iii)Mizrahi? if so, the problem is that often (ii) and (iii) are used interchangeably when ethnic denominators. Cf. |
|
|
<blockquote>'There are two main Jewish ethnic groups:Ashkenazi and Sephardi; Ashkenazim are Jews of European origin; Sephardim, also known as Mizrahim ("Oriental" Jews=, have North African and Middle Eastern roots.'Marina Niznick, in Eliezer Ben Rafael,Yosef Gorni,Yaacov Ro'i (EDS.) ''Contemporary Jewries: Convergence and Divergence,'' BRILL 2003 p.240</blockquote> |
|
|
:There's a large literature on classifications in this regard, and the page perhaps could do without it, because it just complicates things. But if we retain it, it's best to have it sourced.] (]) 20:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Ashkenazi Jews|answered=yes}} |
|
:: I did a partial revert of Beyond My Ken's edit, and removed the "subculture" phrase. Main reason: I think the previous wording was good. Minor other reasons: revert introduction of ambiguous term "subculture" and newly introduced "cn" tag. ] (]) 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. I hate introducing cn tags. The solution now is as you drafted it in mid-December. I hope the lead is now stabilized. The real work here should be done below, on the article, and, once that is carefully revised, one can look to the lead to see if anything down below should be summarized there. ] (]) 12:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
In section "Notable Ashkenazim", add an "and" in the last sentence, making it "Though Ashkenazi Jews have never exceeded 3% of the American population, Jews account for 37% of the winners of the U.S. National Medal of Science, 25% of the American Nobel Prize winners in literature, and 40% of the American Nobel Prize winners in science and economics." ] (]) 04:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
I guess this can't be considered a sub-culture, however I wanted to share my 23&me genetic results with you-all. I am identified as a sub-group of haplogroup K. "Haplogroup: K, a subgroup of R - Age: 35,000 years - Region: Near East, Europe, Central Asia, Northern Africa - Example Populations: Ashkenazi, Druze, Kurds Highlight: One branch of haplogroup K ties about 1.7 Ashkenazi Jews living today to a single maternal ancestor." It also says: "K branched off haplogroup U8 about 35,000 years ago. It continues to have a strong presence in the region today, reaching levels of 20% among Druze Muslims and about 10% among Kurds, Palestinians and Yemenites. It is also found among the Gurage of Ethiopia, who are thought to be descended from Arabian invaders." It seems to show that Ashkenazi Jews are really local with Druze and Kurds, no? ] (]) 19:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Ashkenazi Jews are Jews, and as such they have at least some Middle Eastern origins. There has been much mixing of peoples over so many millennia, of course. ] (]) 20:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Nope, and it's irrelevant because it's a rotten syllogism (a) Jews are people of ME descent (b)Ashkenazis are Jews (c)ergo, Ashkenazim are of ME descent. You'll never get that past your sophomore logician. But I'm bored by that. |
|
|
::It's 'coalesce' in your revert that worries me. I'd never heard it used that way, and I'm a native speaker, so I checked the net and realized it appears to be sociologese of recent American manufacture. I don't know what 'coalesce' is supposed to mean here precisely. In the good old days, when prose was less affected by jargon, the metaphor would have been 'crystallized'. 'Coalesce' I suppose means that we have to harp on the unity theme. I can vaguely see what that is meant to mean, but it is a dumb metaphor, and implies that suddenly, all the disiecta membra of Jewish communities from Northern Italy to Paris and over to Trier and Cologne miraculously 'got together'. History is never that simple. 'the ethnic division coalesced' is, further, a play on words, because 'coalesce' (come together) contradicts 'ethnic division', and that, in Shakespeare, is acceptable, but not in normal prose usage, because it stops the alert reader in his tracks, as she pauses to puzzle out the joke. Trivial, I know, but . .] (]) 20:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I don't think it is trivial. "Emerges from the Holy Roman Empire" implies that the Ashkenazim, as a community, grew out of different groups of Jews, living in different areas, coming together AFTER the Holy Roman Empire. "Coalesces in the Holy Roman Empire" implies that the Ashkenazim came together as a group during the period of the Holy Roman Empire. So, it's a matter of timing. I didn't think Ashkenazim came to be until after 1000 CE so it didn't make sense to me to say the group came together centuries earlier. But my university studies didn't cover this period of European history in depth so I will leave up parsing this distinction to other scholars. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::By 'trivial' I was trying to be polite (the 'but'). But you are quite correct, and I shouldn't have trivialized the point. Thanks for the acuity - you are quite correct, and said what I meant to say, but apart from age, it's been a long day. Over to you, Debress.] (]) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Much of this depends on whether its first registered use is an ethnonym or an exonym. If the latter, then Ashkenaz is how the disparate communities were seen from outside. If the former, then 'coalesce' even if jargon, is acceptable. I think it is an exonym, but that may be memory playing me false, and Debresser's in a position to verify the facts. ] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Given the context, whether ethnonym or exonym, I'd consider 'coalesce' as being acceptable if ] can address the issue of how unified they actually were before emerging. Logic would dictate that the burden of proof is on demonstrating that more than the trappings of a unified identity had already been formed, as opposed coalescing at later date (outside of the empire and finally formed during the process of migration, for example). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <p style="color:Orange"><code>]]</code></p> 01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::Could I also ask that Debresser refrain from discourteous behaviour towards other editors? While it is understood that you are passionate about the subject, and that the main content contributors have been exhausted by yet another bout of stress, {{diff2|607230812|snapping}} at those you know to be constructive editors is unacceptable behaviour. Thank you. --] (]) 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Iryna Harpy, I am simply not up to your standards. Moreover, your standards are too high for Misplaced Pages, as I understand them after actively editing Misplaced Pages continuously some 5 or 6 years. I understand that there is no upper limit for "good", and on can always be even more polite, but you can not obligate me to it. In this specific case, Liz was changing something that had already been reverted at least once, and she could have discussed it first. Therefore, a little "snapping", as you call it, was not completely uncalled for. Please refrain in the future from asking me to be overly polite or courteous, as I don't appreciate your "I am so holy" attitude. ] (]) 11:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Nope. I provided the phrasing and the source for 'emerged from the Holy Roman Empire' and, unless my memory fails me, in mid-December, '''you''' adopted that. Months later, it was fiddled with. Liz happens to have reverted back, whether she knows it or not, to that stable December version, which minutely reflects the language of the source I introduced. When you speak of reverts, 'coalesced' was a challenge to the original sourc in the first place. Furthermore, her analysis is quite acute, and has not been addressed. Petty, trivial? Well, ''Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail,'' as ] might say.(He comes to mind on this also because of his self-describing motto:'Amburghese di cuore, ebreo di sangue, d'anima Fiorentino' (My heart lies in Hamburg, my blood is Jewish, my soul is Florentine).] (]) 13:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Well, thanks, Nishidani, I should have known that any edit to the lead of this article could be challenged. But what I saw, when I looked at the edit history is, yes, "emerged from" was the original paraphrase of that quote and it was changed to "coalesced in", I thought by Evildoer. The new phrasing seemed to change the meaning of the quote referred to. So, I understood I was not introducing a change but reverting the sentence back to what it originally was. As such, I didn't believe it was controversial. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::My apologies, ]. On re-reading my comment, I acknowledge that it came off as being high and mighty. That was not my intention. I merely wanted to point out that, as an edit summary, it seemed disproportionately hard nosed considering that you were dealing with Liz, and not an unknown quantity. --] (]) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Khazar theory == |
|
@Ridingdog, The maternal and paternal haplogroups make up a fraction of ones ancestry, the real info is in the Autosomal DNA, for example, my maternal haplorgroup is K1a9, most agree it has a Middle Eastern source (though some claim a Western European one), but my Autosomal DNA shows that I'm more of a "native" European than I am a "native" Middle Easterner, and I form a cluster not with Druze and Kurds but with Italians and Greeks, and on the world map, I'm not in the Middle East but in Europe, the Italian peninsula specifically. The average "Native" European ancestry among individual Ashkenazis ranges between 35-55%, I score 45-52%, about 30-38% of my ancestry is "native" Middle Eastern and the rest seems to be Anatolian/Southwest Caucasian.] (]) 09:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat}} |
|
::Genetic identity is a nascent 'science', whose results vary to the point of contradiction depending on the criteria used: as one worldranking scientist told me, pump in the criteria that will guarantee the result you're looking for, and you'll get it somewhere along the line, or spiral. Secondly, in this area, the politics are obvious, and the teams most active in it are reserved about sharing with the wider world their data. A huge amount of WP:SYNTH or jumbled stacking of ill-digested results has pervaded wiki articles, and a stop should be put to it until we have strong secondary sources which can provide us with some interpretative stability. We have few, I know of just one, book providing a general overview so far (]), and it is strong on showing how the paradigm is subject to interests in identitarian politic. Identity is either a matter of self-description (individual ) or the sum total of all constituent elements in one's DNA: the bizarre practice of wanting to see one component here, and then saying that is what the group or person's identity is, has uncannily worrying antecedents in 'racial' (pseudo-)science and we know where that got us. As to the autosomal results, look at the way Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin's work (2010), which broke the emerging 'commonsense' was received.] (]) 11:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<s>The sources I cited for the Khazar theory are a genetic testing company https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jewish-q/about/results and a study that's in the National Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595026/. The author of the study, Eran Elhaik, is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Lund University in Sweden and he also works for Johns Hopkins University Medical School, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world. Would Johns Hopkins hire some crackpot? '''Hell''' no! The idea that the Khazar theory (as distinct from the Khazar hypothesis) is a fringe theory is patently absurd. The Khazar hypothesis is fringe because it says that the Ashkenazi Jews are '''exclusively '''descended from the Khazars, which all genetic studies have shown to be false. The Khazar theory says the Ashkenazi Jews are only '''partly''' descended from the Khazars. Not only do other studies besides Elhaik's support the theory, the fact that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic haplogroup Q lineages diverged 3,200 to 5,100 years ago (definitely before the Jews left Israel for Europe and quite possibly before Judaism was even established) is consistent with it. ] (]) 03:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)</s><small><comments by ] ] of banned user {{user|Ultrabomb}} removed. Per ], all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)<!-- Template:Banredac -->></small> |
|
::: I think that the word "coalesced" can be used here, because whatever may have been their origins ethnically and geographically, they developed a common culture, language and body of religious laws and customs. That is called "to coalesce", I think. It seems to me that this word, which has been in the article some time, is actually the best word possible, but I am open to objections and suggestions. ] (]) 12:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Well, I think there is agreement that the Ashkenazi community coalesced, my point was the changing meaning had to do with when that coalescence happened, during the Holy Roman Empire or after. I'm sure this is also a subject of dispute but my laywoman understanding was that Ashkenazi emerged after this period. But, as usual, I defer to the reliable sources. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I too defer to sources, and the source I had used 'emerged'. Debresser is the only active editor who prefers 'coalesce'. I've checked and there is a source for this Jehuda Reinhara & Yaacov Shavit, UPNE, 2010 p.239 n.3, which reads: |
|
|
:::::'The Polish Ashkenazi world '''began to coalesce in the tenth century''', Ha! Eureka, the 'coalesce' coalition of one might shout? But our new source speaks of one division of the Ashkenazi (I think from Weinryb's book that the statement is rather light-headed and inaccurate for the Jews in Poland 900-1,000 CE), namely the Poles and (b) the Polish territories did not form part of the Frankish Empire that we call the Holy Roman Empire after 800 CE. So here 'coalesce' doesn't fit because we say 'Holy Roman Empire', to which the Poles don't belong, and the Ashkenazi referred to are French and German. This, Debresser, is the sort of problem you get into, or cause, when you change the language of an article from the generative source, without thinking to find an alternative source for the new usage. It means some editors vote and hold opinions, and others are constrained to keep working on books. That is why I think 'emerge', the original solution, is warranted.] (]) 19:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
@Nishidani I completely agree, in the end of the day humans are 99.9% identical genetically and we all share a common ancestry in east Africa about 50,000 years ago, the 1-100% that you get from autosomal tests represent about 0.010-0.015% of the Human DNA, every individual identifies himself in his own way, and genetics obviously can't make someone identify in this way or that way, and yes it's true that DNA tests are in their infancy, I just replied to a person who used genetics to make his statement. It's very unfortunate that politics have managed to make their way into subjects that are none of their concern, and I've stated time and time again that genetics should be secondary and that one person cannot speak in the name of everyone. ] (]) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:No. FamilyTreeDNA groups are never a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, certainly not a user-contributed project written by non-experts and vetted not at all, which doesn't even say anything similar to what you want to add. The Elhaik study is widely discredited and ]. It's absolutely a ] study. Elhaik was affiliated as a postdoc with the Department of Mental Health at the School of Public Health, and ''not'' the medical school, genetics or biology department. He may be an associate professor in bioinformatics at Lund University, but that doesn't make his study any more authoritative or worthy of any weight, when contrasted with the extensive body of research that shows the possible Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi gene pool is negligible, by actual genetics researchers, who generally agree that the majority of Ashkenazi Jews are European and Middle Eastern in their genetic heritage. While it is true that some amount of Khazar ancestry might be found in some populations, that doesn't mean the main article on Ashkenazi Jews should give any credence or airtime to what is fundamentally a discredited theory being pushed by dubious sources and often along with antisemitic conspiracy theories. It should be afforded practically no weight and certainly not any more than it already does, which is covered in the ] article and possibly a bit elsewhere such as ] and ]. This is the main article for Ashkenazi Jews. Elhaik shouldn't be cited here. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Why are there some editors who, ''whatever'' the question, always start talking about genetics? In any case, I though the subject was if we should use the words "subculture" (it seems that consensus is we should not) and "coalesced" (on which the verdict is still open). ] (]) 21:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
::Dunno. By the way, the genetics stuff is all wrong, in the lead and elsewhere. The sensible thing would be to inquire on wiki for an expert on the subject who is neutral, to sum up the evidence by examining the sources of the page. No one who is not thoroughly at home in the field should touch this stuff.] (]) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC 26 November 2024<span class="anchor" id="26 November 2024"></span> == |
|
Nishidani and Debresser, the genetics came up because Ridingdog said that his maternal haplogroup was common among Druze and Kurds and he was an Ashkenazi Jew therefore "It seems to show that Ashkenazi Jews are really local with Druze and Kurds, no?" To which the IP editor replied that haplogroups make up a fraction of ones ancestry and that most of the ancestry is found in the Autosomes and that Ashkenazis individually can come out more Middle Eastern or more European. ] (]) 13:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Quite right, but the last passage in the lead is still false, and we need an expert to rewrite it. This could be excerpted into a new section for neatness's sake if anyone is worried that we are handling several points in the wrong section. Any of us could rewrite that manipulative twisting of a complex subject we have now, if they can parse straightforward scientific prose, but I suggest an outside hand to avoid tendentious manipulation of genetics which is (a) characteristic of many papers themselves (b) characteristic of many editors in this area.] (]) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree. ] (]) 14:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ] 08:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735632070}} |
|
::A point of method. Leads summarize the body of the article, and the DNA last paragraph should summarize what we have, or should have, in that DNA section. If anything, rather than tamper with the lead, editors interested in the subject should try to get some source-correlated order of presentation in that section, and once, that is done, the lead summary of it is simple, because it would require not autonomous sourcing (faute de mieux) ] (]) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree. ] (]) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
Should this article have a lead image? If so, which image should be used? ] (]) 07:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Gallery of suggested images (feel free to suggest others if you think this article should have a lead image) === |
|
|
<gallery> |
|
|
File:Ashkenazim.jpg|'''current image:''' ] image circa 1900-1920 in what appears to be Palestine |
|
|
File:Maurycy Gottlieb - Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur.jpg|'''image used in the ] and ] versions of the article:''' '']'' |
|
|
File:Juden 1881.JPG|'''another image used in many versions of this article:''' map of the distribution of the Jews in Central Europe from Richard Andree, Ethnography of the Jews (1881) |
|
|
</gallery> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Discussion === |
|
::: My opinion about all of this genetic material is not about its content or comparing DNA test results (which is not an area I have expertise in), I'm just critical of the amount of space it takes up in this article. There exists the ] article and I think this subject should be discussed in depth in that article, not here. I'd argue that readers who come to the ] article want to learn about the rich history and culture of this group and not face paragraph after paragraph of contrasting genetic information. This section should be simplified and if readers want to parse through all of the contrasting studies on DNA and ethnic lineage, they can go to the article on genetic studies which is devoted to this. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Where is the deadlocked discussion that has made a full-blown thirty-day RfC necessary? See ]. --] 🌹 (]) 08:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes - please read the info in the link Redrose64 has provided. |
|
:::What they said <small>'''AKA'''</small> ditto. This has been ''the'' prominent sticking point from which other problems have emanated. If I have to invoke ] one more time, I'll probably have an apoplexy. Nevertheless, the article's topic is "Ashkenazi Jews", not ]. This article contains enough DNA content to constitute a separate article on the subject. As to whether lay-people are qualified to be able to interpret such specialised studies, and whether it constitutes ] is an issue unto itself. Whatever the stance on matters pertaining to DNA, it is ''not'' the focus of the article. --] (]) 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Thanks. ] (]) 11:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::The edit history will show that two editors are responsible for the damage of overcramming, both driven by a POV that uses DNA 'evidence' (often totally contradictory as old research is challenged by newer evidence). The editors who do this don't edit the articles' history: they edit the lead and the genetics sections, and, try to drive out generalists who are endeavouring to fix the article overall. The same chaotic revert-stuff in-ignore-the-article-but-use-DNA-for-just-one- point approach, made the ] article almost impossible to draft. If you opposed them, they raised cries of 'antisemitism'. It took several months to fix to a minimal standard the Khazar article. Probably what one needs here is some wider ruling or at least an admin appeal to see if we can get genetic material experts to review and rework the relevant sections of articles damaged by this practice. In any case, as that section stands it is a violent violation of WP:Undue, and I suggest that the proper interim solution would be to clip it out, put it into a draft section on the work page here, for revision and discussion, preferable with a RfC notification? ] (]) 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
'''Comment''' {{sbb}}, despite the label, it does seem odd to have this picture ''(presumably taken in Mandatory Palestine)'', when the article is about a ''(mainly European?)'' diaspora group ] (]) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, genetics are very unreliable and can often lead to contradictions. ] (]) 10:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
:Indeed. ] (]) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment''' General considerations—In 1920 when this was taken there were some 10,000s of recognizably ethnic Ashkenazim in Mandatory Palestine—far more than there are in all 2024 Europe. The overwhelming majority of modern Ashkenazim (both generally and who wear ethnic clothing) live in Israel and the US, and that's been true since the 1940s. |
|
== Genetic studies == |
|
|
|
Another problem is that the "Ashkenazic" identity only really exists in contrast to "Sephardic"—a picture of 1920s Warsaw wouldn't be normally described as "Ashkenazic" because everyone in it would have thought of themselves as "Polish Jews", prayed using "Polish rite" prayerbooks etc., didn't consider themselves part of a pan-Ashkenazic identity group. The historical exceptions where you found specifically "Ashkenazic" identity are Venice, Amsterdam, London, Mandatory Palestine, where half were Sephardic Jews so the Ashkenazim grouped together. This presents a challenge because until 1945 or so, almost everyone who thought of themselves as specifically "Ashkenazic" necessarily lived far from Ashkenazic cultural centers and was unrepresentative of the median Ashkenazi Jew. |
|
Just a head's up, I posted a request for assistance at ] for help determining how much weight to give the variety of genetic studies included, hopefully with the result that this section is reduced in size but, at the same time, reflect whatever scientific consensus exists at this time. I'm not sure of the response this request will receive but I think this article could use the expertise from some editors who have more knowledge and experience editing in this area. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Since the Holocaust, physical displacement and cultural contamination from Israel (which is 50/50 Ashkenazic/Sephardic) has meant the death of all sub-Ashkenazic identities in the US, even though 99% of Jews here are Ashkenazic. ] (]) ] (]) 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:] would certainly be useful in this regard, if he could manage to spare the time, a big if.] (]) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{tq|In 1920 when this was taken there were some 10,000s of recognizably ethnic Ashkenazim in Mandatory Palestine—far more than there are in all 2024 Europe.|q=y}} What point are you trying to make in comparing Mandatory Palestine in 1920 with Europe in 2024? Changing the variables of both the time ''and'' place corrupts the comparison. |
|
:: I realize that it's asking a lot for editors working on science articles to involve themselves here but it's exactly their perspective that could improve this article immensely. There is a great deal of questioning right now about the validity of DNA tests that concern ethnicity and I hope the subject would interest some editors. And I figured, nothing ventured, nothing gained! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{tq|Another problem is that the "Ashkenazic" identity only really exists in contrast to "Sephardic"—a picture of 1920s Warsaw wouldn't be normally described as "Ashkenazic"|q=y}} So should the article not discuss Ashkenazi history until the community came into contact with other Jewish groups? |
|
|
:{{tq|almost everyone who thought of themselves as specifically "Ashkenazic" necessarily lived far from Ashkenazic cultural centers and was unrepresentative of the median Ashkenazi Jew|q=y}} so is this a disapproval of a lead image to represent all Ashkenazi Jews? ] (]) 22:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Bad RFC''', no ]. I see no problem with the lead image though. A better one could be proposed, but it hasn't. Filer the image citing the nonexistent WP:ethnicgallery, and the real policy under ] doesn't actually say not to illustrate an ethnic group with an image, it says not to use a ''gallery'', which is very different. Unless someone has an argument why the image is bad based on an actual policy or guideline, it seems fine and certainly better than ''no image''. I'm open to proposals for a higher quality image on the basis that it's a black and white, kinda shadowy photo. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Pincrete pointed out the issue with the current image above. It's not representative. There's also no such image of ]. ] (]) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I'm not sure I understand the argument. It's a photo of Ashkenazi Jews. It's not the best picture ever and like I said, a better one could be found, but it is a representation of Ashkenazi Jews, so yes it is representative. I think we could find a better photo like one in color and with better focus and contrast, or other aspects of the photo, but as far as I can tell, unless we have some other reason to suspect the people in the photo aren't Ashkenazi Jews, that would be definitionally, representative of Ashkenazi Jews. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Bad RFC''' per the arguments by Andre, but I agree that this image is fine and that an image is desirable, not hard preference regarding a specific outcome. ] (]) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Discussion of the appropriateness of the RfC itself === |
|
|
For the four editors so far who have chimed in to express their dissatisfaction with the RfC—the objective was to invite a wide community of editors to opine in what is an inherently contentious endeavor: discussing a lead image for an ethnic group. Although I skipped the phase of back-and-forth on this article, there have been robust conversations on lead images for ethnic groups or groups of people elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:African_Americans/Archive_23#Should_this_article_have_a_lead_image?, so an RfC felt appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, this article would only benefit from editors who actually have experience on the subject of genetics who would be able to make some order from the mess and bias that found it's way into this article via biased inexperienced editors, I hope those experienced editors would agree to help, that's their choice, but I'm sure their work would be only beneficial and greatly appreciated. ] (]) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
For the sake of organization, I've started this new section for anyone else who would like to give their opinion of the appropriateness of the RfC itself so as not to clog the discussion of the actual RfC question pertaining to the lead image. ] (]) 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I'll lend my voice to this plea for experienced editors to involve themselves, even though it is a big ask. From my experience of articles dealing with ethnicities, DNA research has been ruled out by consensus for lack of scientific comprehension and POV push reasons. As we've all noted, it's too new a science for lay people to try to interpret, and findings are changing at a rate impossible to stay on top of. There are enough articles in Misplaced Pages with time sensitive information that are terribly dated. Appending such a dimension to an article which should be dealing with culture, history and contemporary issues has already served to distract from expanding the primary areas of interest for readers for long enough. --] (]) 00:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'd love to know about these ethnic group articles without genetics sections. Almost all the ones I've seen do. The only ones I've seen that don't are ] and ]. ] (]) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You need to look at some more ethnic group articles then.] 22:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Already did. The overwhelming majority mention Y-DNA and mtDNA chromosomes. You should keep your uneducated comments to yourself. ] (]) 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I very strongly doubt that. The majority of European ethnic groups perhaps. But not the majority of all ethnic group articles by a very large margin - simply because the vast majority of ethnic groups of the world have not have any thorough genetic research done one them. Regarding uneducated comments I dont think I am likely to be well served by taking advice form you.] 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
True, every year a new study turns up that contradicts or confirms several previous studies, this science is still in it's infancy and shouldn't be taken as fact. ] (]) 10:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Which is (only) one of the reasons I feel strongly any genetics section should only highlight the major and less controversial conclusions of genetics research. ] (]) 12:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The problem is that the results of the genetics testing don't actually contradict themselves but rather, the conclusions of the authors do. Both Baher and Costa found a major finding lineage among Ashkenazi Jews. The former placed this origin in the Levant while the latter placed it in Europe. ] (]) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:An appropriate response to the members of the community all chiming in that this is a bad RFC could be to withdraw the RFC so we can have a proper discussion. You "skipped the phase" that is actually the important part. People are open to compromise, but you jumped right to creating a new RFC, which the guidelines advise against. It's also not typical to create a section to segregate out different types of responses "for the sake of organization" on the appropriateness of the RFC, which don't clog the discussion but in this case ''are'' the discussion, or to claim that a discussion on African Americans could serve as the RFCBEFORE on an article about Ashkenazi Jews. Consistency is not a mandate on Misplaced Pages for good reasons, as different things are importantly different. I note that you also modified the RFC prompt after it was already underway. These are all, relatively soft, violations of the guideline. We don't stand on ceremony in general, but you also have exhibited a pattern of starting RFCs without much discussion, in at least one other instance that I can recall. Not every revert needs to start an RFC, there are other ways around this. I'm open to changing the image. However, that doesn't make the RFC or the rationales above valid. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*I think that probably the recent literature on Ashkenazim have had sufficient focus on genetic studies that those studies need to be represented in the article. Currently however it seems that it is very heavily overrepresented. I would suggest cutting the section down to a single section with a "main" link to the two articles on medical genetics of Jews and Genetic studies on Jews. PArticularly the section on the Khazar fringe theory is given undue weight and by sectioning the criticism out in a subsection it is also not in line with how WP:FRINGE suggests fringe theories should be represented - namely from the mainstream view.] 00:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
In section "Notable Ashkenazim", add an "and" in the last sentence, making it "Though Ashkenazi Jews have never exceeded 3% of the American population, Jews account for 37% of the winners of the U.S. National Medal of Science, 25% of the American Nobel Prize winners in literature, and 40% of the American Nobel Prize winners in science and economics." Maxyyywaxyyy (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
For the four editors so far who have chimed in to express their dissatisfaction with the RfC—the objective was to invite a wide community of editors to opine in what is an inherently contentious endeavor: discussing a lead image for an ethnic group. Although I skipped the phase of back-and-forth on this article, there have been robust conversations on lead images for ethnic groups or groups of people elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:African_Americans/Archive_23#Should_this_article_have_a_lead_image?, so an RfC felt appropriate.
For the sake of organization, I've started this new section for anyone else who would like to give their opinion of the appropriateness of the RfC itself so as not to clog the discussion of the actual RfC question pertaining to the lead image. إيان (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Done 
current image: American Colony image circa 1900-1920 in what appears to be Palestine
image used in the Hebrew and Yiddish versions of the article: Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur
another image used in many versions of this article: map of the distribution of the Jews in Central Europe from Richard Andree, Ethnography of the Jews (1881)
