| Revision as of 00:42, 18 July 2014 editAl Khazar (talk | contribs)1,615 edits →Who is the "genius" who put instead of Mikhail Botvinnik? Richard Feynman instead of Anne Frank?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:01, 26 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,669,863 edits Removing expired RFC template. |
| (813 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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 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) |
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
@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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
::: 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: 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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
::::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, genetics are very unreliable and can often lead to contradictions. ] (]) 10:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Genetic studies == |
|
|
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) |
|
|
:] would certainly be useful in this regard, if he could manage to spare the time, a big if.] (]) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I realize that it's asking a lot for editors working on science articles to involve themselves here but it's exactly their perspective that could improve this article immensely. There is a great deal of questioning right now about the validity of DNA tests that concern ethnicity and I hope the subject would interest some editors. And I figured, nothing ventured, nothing gained! <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) |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
The link at Reference 101 is dead. If it's intended to be to the article mentioned in 100, http://nymag.com/news/features/ashkenazi-jews-2011-11/ works. ] (]) 08:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 14 June 2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I'd love to know about these ethnic group articles without genetics sections. Almost all the ones I've seen do. The only ones I've seen that don't are ] and ]. ] (]) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm talking about Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians specifically, ]. The only information about the Rus' is 'proving' that the Ruriks were 'Swedish'... er, I mean Norse/Nordic, so that page is patrolled by a particular interest group. There's only generic information about the predominant haplogroup extending across the regions (including Poland). It's not worth the grief because there has been anti-semitic nincompoopery from fanatics finding spurious 'proof' that Ukrainians are essentially Khazars (to which the answer is 'big deal', no doubt there's a lot of Jewish blood in the population considering that intermarriage/interbreeding has been going on for a couple of thousand years). If any DNA info is springing up anywhere about Russians (er, Slavs), you can be certain it's focussing on the predominant haplogroup and avoiding admixtures. Speaking of which, have you read the ] article? I'm anticipating an article proving that Atlantis existed and was inhabited by the Norse. --] (]) 23:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Good mentions. I'm well aware of the unfortunate twist of events that caused the ] to lose its FA status. As for this article a paragraph per sub-section of genetics should be the best option. One for Y-DNA, one for mtDNA, and one for aDNA. The Khazar theory and Medical Genetics are in much better shape. ] (]) 18:45, 12 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
*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) |
|
|
:: I agree with you on both counts: there is too much detail about genetics studies, and Khazar theories are given undue weight. ] (]) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think there is consensus on this (re Khazars, I took most of the material accumulated out, and created or rewrote pages where anyone interested can consult. It is not quite fringe, borderline, because it had considerable support within Israeli and Jewish scholarly circles at one time). I'll cut it back further, but perhaps, if he can find the time, we should delegate Maunus to do the general edit he suggests, esp. since he is above this particular fray?] (]) 10:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I notice you did some pruning, ]. But I agree that some editor uninvolved in this topic should go over that section (heck, maybe the entire article) and make sure it is readable and user-friendly. When I started this section on genetic studies, I naively didn't know that this had been such a subject of contention in the past. If I'd taken the time to go into the talk page archive, I'd have seen the conflict that has already occurred around genetics. Of course, maybe this dispute most needs is a set of new eyes! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Just for the record. I took out much of the Khazar stuff because I did most of the work on that section and the articles growing out of it. I've read all of the genetics papers, but am not sufficiently familiar with the discipline, except to recognize the inappropriate uses to which its highly provisional results have been put, and the inadequacy of the reportage that dies on its feet as each research bulletin is published. Analogically, it looks like a the so-called clutter of junk in the genone, with the difference that this junk has reproductive powers that kill off or crowd out the parts that represent the function parts of an evolving tale. There quite a lot of poor material (on this very rich subject) that could be removed without loss. The problem is, do that, and, given the neglect of Ashkenazi history and the extraordinary fruits of the sons and granddaughters of the ], you find almost nothing. That is the dreadful thing about POV fixations: they don't write to the subject, they obsess about one or two details in the lead, and overblow trivia. Let's hope some editors can come in and clean up.] (]) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Spent some time reading up on the controversy of this particular article, how fights over it have lead to several editors socking or ending up at ARE, getting blocked or just leaving the entire project. I realize that was about 5 years history compressed into one afternoon but it does make me marvel that your edits have gone uncontested for a few hours. I think temporary protection from IP editing has helped. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I've checked in again and the changes are ''still'' holding up! It certainly seems to indicate that, without unnecessary antagonism, contributors are fairly much on the same page (metaphorically and literally) as to what the priorities for creating a good and edifying article are. --] (]) 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== New source == |
|
|
|
|
|
''The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology (Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning)''.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it is directly relevant. ] (]) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is.I used it several times, particularly to get through to editors how problematical the use of genetics is, and got tired of checking whether my citations from it survived the endless editwarring by the old group.] (]) 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bohemian Jews and Czech Jews == |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to invite editors to express their opinions about ].--] (]) 09:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bohemians and Czechs of the Jewish faith? That's what comes to mind when I think about Bohemian and Czech Jews, kinda like Bohemian and Czech Catholics or Protestants I reckon. ] (]) 13:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: No, of Jewish descent. Guy355 seems to be unable to get that into his head. ] (]) 17:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, the debate appears to be focussed on Kafka rather than Bohemian Jews and Czech Jews in general, and is taking place on the ] page. There appears to be a misunderstanding about what Czech and Bohemia meant in relation to other ethnicities at the time Kafka was alive as opposed to the current definition of Czech. Someone is under the impression that Czech has meant an immutable ethnic group/territory inhabited by a single and predominant ethnic group throughout the history of empires. --] (]) 22:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What do you want from me Debresser? I can't get what into my head? ] (]) 10:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Care to be more polite mate? I don't even know you. ] (]) 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Changing "Ethnic groups in Europe" to Europe, or possibly putting them both in there? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that in the related ethnic groups section we replace in the "Other Europeans" which links to "ethnic groups in Europe" simply to "Europe" just like the "other Levantines" simply links to "the Levant", is it perhaps possible to include both "Europe" and "ethnic groups in Europe"? |
|
|
If there's any opposition please reply to this section, I know that such subjects are like explosive barrels and that specifically in this article one needs a consensus on just about everything. :-P |
|
|
If there will be no opposition until Sunday then I guess it'll be fine? ] (]) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: I don't think that would be an improvement. Rather the other way around: if there were an article ], we should have linked there instead of to "the Levant". ] (]) 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no ]? That's a shame. Well okay, I won't touch it. ] (]) 13:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Who is the "genius" who put instead of Mikhail Botvinnik? Richard Feynman instead of Anne Frank? == |
|
|
|
|
|
] is a chess champion and needs to be in the collage to represent Jews in Chess. ] was proposed in the past and for a good reason there was a lot of opposition to him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone also put ] instead of ]. Fist of all, damaging the balance between men and women. Also... don't we have enough exact science people in the collage?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking through the talk page, I can see whoever did those changes didn't actually discuss them first. I will leave this message here for two days to see responses, and will revert it back to the original tomorrow. ] (]) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:First of all "genious", it's spelt GENIUS. Secondly, Anne Frank's picture was removed due to copyright violations so I added ] to fill the gap and complete the collage. Lastly, ] is a genius and was ranked as the by the journal ]. ] (]) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I can see you really have an issue understanding you can't decide on your own who to put people in collages without a discussion, so that is getting reverted. Feynman is a genius, no doubt, and was ranked high... but what does he add to the collage? We already have people representing exact sciences, so what is the point in another one? Again, before you get involved with collages you have to understand the logic behind them and principles like "representation" etc. There are free pictures of Anne Frank here with no copyright issues, do you want to revert it back yourself to the original and start a discussion? ] (]) 23:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You're the one who wants to see him gone. It's your responsibility to convince the other editors that he is redundant because you're the one who supports the change. I just wanted to address the faulty point of him not being a notable Ashkenazi Jew. As for me not "understanding issues", understand this: his addition to the collage was left unobjected for more than 2.5 months when I added him . It's amazing what sock puppets can do. I don't have a problem with getting rid of Feynman. However, I have a problem when clueless anti-intellectuals attack his intelligence and notability. Present good points or don't present them at all. ] (]) 00:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Richard Feynman == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is he included? he specifically said he did not want to be included in racial lists. |
|
|
|
|
|
"He routinely refused to be included in lists or books that classified people by race. He asked to not be included in Tina Levitan's The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize, writing, "To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory" and adding "...at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views, but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way 'the chosen people'"" |
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Richard_Feynman#Education <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: And do we have to care about his wishes? ] (]) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, we do.] 16:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Please bring some proof from Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that this is so. ] (]) 17:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] is a chess champion and needs to be in the collage to represent Jews in Chess. ] was proposed in the past and for a good reason there was a lot of opposition to him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone also put ] instead of ]. Fist of all, damaging the balance between men and women. Also... don't we have enough exact science people in the collage?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking through the talk page, I can see whoever did those changes didn't actually discuss them first. I will leave this message here for two days to see responses, and will revert it back to the original tomorrow. ] (]) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: You mean "will revert it back to the original tomorrow" '''if''' there is consensus to do so. ] (]) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I can't think of any compelling reason to include them - is there really one? If not, then we should remove him. He's made his wishes very clear and I think to include him would be a BLP violation. ] (]) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I do agree that others might be more notable, especially Anne Frank comes to mind. I do know that religion is a problem according to ], but ethnicity is not, per that same guideline, and if his ethnicity is sourced, we can have him. Although I agree that it might be nicer to respect his wishes. ] (]) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't have opinion about this issue but BLP is not an issue here as he already dead.--] (])/] 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Wow. A sock puppet can cause this much havoc? Unless there are policies by Misplaced Pages that demand the enforcement of people's wishes, then removing him is irrational. After all, he is one of the greatest physicists who ever lived. ] (]) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::BEing a great physicist does not make anyone an ashkenazi jew I am afraid.] 22:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Your point? He's Ashkenazi Jewish. That's an undisputable fact and failing to recognize that violates ]. Misplaced Pages has no policy that enforces people's wishes to be identified (or not identified) with a certain ethnic group. Why don't you bring Misplaced Pages's policies into your arguments rather than your false beliefs? There are at least two good reasons to remove ] and you haven't even mentioned them. Instead, you believe the his wishes should be respected. ] (]) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Was there a consensus to change it in the first place or did someone just decide it on their own? Exactly, so I will revert it back, and if the discussion says to keep the new version THEN we will. ] (]) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Where's the controversy in adding him? It's not a crime to be ] and when the sock puppets like you get banned, the whole thing will blow over. As for your proposition, a consensus must be established before the edit, not vice versa. ] (]) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Picture of Jews who convert to Christianity == |
|
|
::Why the pictures of Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner? all of these figures convert to Christianity and according to the halacka and Jewsih laws when a Jew convert to anthoer religion he is not Jew any more, Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner they are not any more Jew. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Quite the contrary, according to Jewish law, a person with a Jewish mother will always be Jewish, even if he becomes the pope. ] (]) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: This is actually a complex issue in Halakha, and not that simple. ] (]) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, pardon me, I was wrong, I suppose such a subject would never be a simple issue. ] (]) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If Judaism is a religion, then someone who doesn't believe in the religion should be no longer Jewish. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
True, but Jews are also an ethnicity, they're an ethnoreligious group, and Ashkenazi Jews are a Jewish ethnic division. Just like the Druze are a religion and an ethnicity (the difference is that while Judaism is open for people who truly wish to become Jewish and convert, the Druze religion is completely exclusive to those born into it, but, you get my point.) ] (]) 18:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Precisely. :) ] (]) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yep, it should therefore depend on whether the people continued to identify as Jews after converting to christianity.] 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 == |
|
Yes my point sound Christianity also a religion of some Ashkenazi Jews. so it's possible to add here {{Infobox ethnic group: |rels = ], some ], ], ]?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Ashkenazi Jews|answered=yes}} |
|
*Then we should also add Christianity in the part of religion: (Religion: Judaism, some secular, irreligious, Christians) During the history many Ashkenazi Jews convert to Christianity we have here Example of Three notable "jews" figures as Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner. |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also Heinrich Heine and Karl Marx. ] (]) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <p style="color:Orange"><code>]]</code></p> 01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Khazar theory == |
|
*The ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' gives some statistics on conversion of Jews to ], ], and ] (which it calls erroneously "Greek Catholicism"; Greek Catholics are under Rome, unlike the Orthodox Church).<ref></ref> Some 2,000 European Jews converted to ] every year during the 19th century, but in the 1890s the number was running closer to 3,000 per year, — 1,000 in ], 1,000 in Russia (Poland, ], ], and ]), 500 in Germany (]), and the remainder in the English world. |
|
|
|
{{hat}} |
|
|
<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> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
* so if a Ashkenazi Jews who convert to Christianity will stay as Ashkenazi Jews then we should add Christianity also, not a small number of Ashkenazi Jews convert to Christianity (as ], ], ], ] and there arec movement of Jews converted to the faith of the Catholic Church called ] most of them are Ashkenazi Jews and the ] many of Ashkenazi Jews memeber of it) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC 26 November 2024<span class="anchor" id="26 November 2024"></span> == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ] 08:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735632070}} |
|
I reckon it would be accurate, if there's a consensus then go ahead, although I think you should wait for at least 24 hours to see if anyone opposes that. ] (]) 19:18, 17 July 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 === |
|
:Good there are sub Jewish-Christian groupes as ] and ], many figures that mentioned in the articale are Jewish who convert to Christianity, there are many sources supporting my cliams, in United States where many Jewish (most of them Ashkenazi Jews) marry Christians there is not small Groupe of Christian Jeiwsh and according to Pew Study there are 1,600,000 Christian from Jewish background live in the united states .so if no one opposes that i can add Christian in the religion line rigth? the only problem it's i can add anything in the articale since it's protected! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
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. |
|
The article is about Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, for the article about Jews by the religious law go to the article on Who is a Jew. Converted to Christianity or no is irrelevant to your ethnicity and your origins, so even if Mahler converted he is still an Ashkenazi Jew by ethnicity. By the way, by the Jewish law conversions out of Judaism don't mean anything. Also, those conversions can't really be taken seriously. Many who converted were simply atheists (not true Christians) who simply didn't want anti-Semitism to block their way in society. ] (]) 23:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Thanks. ] (]) 11:31, 26 November 2024 (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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Indeed. ] (]) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Yes the article of Ashkenazi Jews here as an ethnic group, not as only religious group, so if ] and ] and ] and ] pictures will stay in the article, bseide Judaism some Jews (not a rare or small number) convert to Christianity, some of them who simply didn't want anti-Semitism to block their way in society and some of them convert becouse they are simply found them self in Christianity as ] and ], in USA alone there are are 1,600,000 Christian from Jewish background . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''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. |
|
My point if you want to consider Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, then you should add in Religion Christianity too, Becouse some we added here pictures of at least 4 Jewish who convert to Christianity, If we consdier Ashkenazi Jews as a religious group, Then you should remove Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner and Heinrich Heine, they convert to Christianity and they didn't practced Judaism anymore. But Ashkenazi Jews are both rigth? If we added some secular, irreligious, What the problem to add christians? Christians Ashkenazi Jews they are not small group. Many of the notable Ashkenazi Jews were Christians as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and others so we are not talk about small and not visible group, These figures consider important and respocted among Jewish. Besides there are two movements of Jews (mostly Ashkenazi Jews) with large numbers and they are Jewish who converts to Christianity and still identify themselves as Jews and still maintain their Jewish traditions, thes are: ] and ]. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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) |
|
|
:{{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. |
|
|
:{{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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
What i want to say is since Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, as you said and some Jewish (not rare and not small numbers) convert to Christianity why I can't add Christianity it's truth some are Chrsitians : {{Infobox ethnic group: |rels = ], some ], ], ].?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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'm not saying to add this and making a paragraph about it and i don't think it's irrelevant, it's only small word adding this here {{Infobox ethnic group: |rels = ], some ], ], ]. as i explaind befor the Majority of Ashkenazi Jews practice Judaism but also some are secular, irreligious, and some are Christians (in the USA alone there are 1.6 millions).<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
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)
