Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 25 December 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ashkenazi Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jennifer Senior (October 24, 2005). "Are Jews Smarter". New York Magazine. Retrieved October 21, 2012.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ashkenazi Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days

DNA test confirm Jews are not from the middle east

Problematical lead definition of origins

a Jewish ethnic division who trace their origins to the Israelite tribes of the Middle East.

This is an historical claim, and is ambiguous. 'trace one's origins' can refer (i) to a myth or belief about origins underwritten by Ashkenazis (subjective) or (ii) the result of a successful inquiry into one's origins which documents one's real ancestral roots (objective). (d) as it stands 'who' should be 'which'.

The three sources are (i)a university typescript of a lecture given by the anthropologist, Jared Diamond; (b) Nicholas Wade reviewing genetics research; (c) a genetics paper.

• A university lecture typescript fails RS
• The genetics papers are not valid for historical questions (source:Tritomex).
• Whatever Nicholas Wade wrote earlier, he now states:

the origin of one of the most important Jewish populations, the Ashkenazim of Central and Eastern Europe, has remained a mystery.' Nicholas Wade, 'Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree,' New York Times, 8 October 2013.

• The contrary could be stated therefore using the same order of sources. Namely,

The origins of Ashkenazi Jews are wrapped in controversy,ref name=CostaM. D. Costa and 16 others (2013). "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages". Nature Communications. 4. doi:10.1038/ncomms3543.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). See sources 1-11. /ref and their history before the Middle Ages remains a mystery.refNicholas Wade, 'Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree,' New York Times, 8 October, 2013:'Still, the origin of one of the most important Jewish populations, the Ashkenazim of Central and Eastern Europe, has remained a mystery./refref ‘(Was the great Eastern European Jewry of the 19th century preponderantly descended (as is normally believed) from immigrants from the Germanic lands further west who arrived as refugees in the later Middle Ages, bearing with them their culture? Or did these new immigrants find already on their arrival a numerically strong Jewish life, on whom they were able to impose their superior culture, including even their long (a phenomenon not unknown at other times and places – as for example in the 16 century, after the arrival of the highly cultured Spanish exiles in the Turkish Empire)?) Does the line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry of today go back to a quasi autochthonous Jewry already established in these lands, perhaps even earlier than the time of the earliest Franco-German settlement in the Dark Ages? This is one of the mysteries of Jewish history, which will probably never been solved’ Cecil Roth in Cecil Roth, I. H. Levine The World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, Jews in Christian Europe, 711-1096,. Editors, Volume 11 Jewish historical publications, 1966 p. 379./ref

Since, therefore the lead statement is both poorly sourced and contradicted by other sources, it is POV. It must be removed, and remodulated in terms of a statement either using 'controversy' or 'mystery'.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I already argued here months ago that this intro is bad, because it should start with explaining who they are before going into most details, just like most articles on groups do, such as Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians, Georgians, Welsh people and so on. These articles don't start with genetics, and it shouldn't start here either. Different historical and current opinions on origins and formation of this group should come in later sections. The core of the intro here, in my opinion, should explain the narrow meaning (Jewish communities formed in medieval German and French areas and their descendants) and the wider meaning (all Jewish communities formed everywhere in Eastern and Central Europe and their descendants). Plenty of sources for that. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in specifying their origins in the lead section, because that IS part of who they are. We do have confirmation and reliable sources (which keep getting deleted) that Ashkenazim are Levantine in origin. Evildoer187 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer Recent studies also show that Ashkenazis are related to Italians, why then in related ethnic groups, only near easterners are mentioned? No mention of the obvious mixture with italic peoples in early antiquity, confirmed by the Romano Jewish historian Josephus Flavius. It's obvious that Ashkenazis are of near eastern origin, shouldn't it be obvious that they're of Latin origin as well? Please reply as I'm very confused about this issue. Thanks in advance. Guy355 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, it's because the Related Ethnic Groups section pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common, but also common geographic origin, culture, language, traditions, etc. I do agree that more sources on those should be added.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Public announcement about the article

Hi to all, I just want to make something clear for everybody. This article is currently undergoing a historical revision and the main user responsible for this is above Nishidani. He attempts, quite successfully and for his own reasons, to completely change the origins of Ashkenazi Jews, to manipulate their DNA studies (on genetic studies on Jews too) as he slowly removes sources on researches that contradict what he promotes. It's okay to add new sources for citation and such but what he does is different: He's scientifically establishing a few specific theories as facts (some of which are considered nothing but conspiracies, like the Khazars one) while deliberately deleting all other inputs/theories, a clear POV pushing and violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. What I just said can be easily confirmed by checking his contribution and recent writings. This is not the first time I bring this up and I'm definitely not the only one who thinks this way. Intended to whom it may concern, I believe this message could lead to a positive outcome. Yambaram (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Another plaintiff without the courage to act on what she believes are a dossier of huge violations of policy. Report me. If you don't, you are just a blowhard, wasting digital space. By the way, this article can't be edited seriously, because it's sat on by monitors who revert any sign of serious editing.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would I ever make such claims about someone if there was no truth to it? What would I possibly gain from doing that? There are other users who agree that you're POV-pushing articles while trying to conceal and deny this fact, as they simply notice it. Whether or not it's a result of your left wing views (a quote of you: "the fact I read Haaretz instead of Arutz Sheva"...), your personal interest conflicts and WP:BIAS occurs too often. A perfect example that proves this happened yesterday as I added some criticism about the sections you extensively edited and transformed, Khazars#Conversion and Khazars#Ashkenazi-Khazar theories (both theories are often used as a tool to indicate the "these Jewish converts" have no claim to the land of Israel and other serious accusations). The new section, criticizing the alleged theory, was reverted by you over and over again while many users insisted it should stay. Why were you removing this information? Because (and I quote from you again) it has "to be discussed first", it's "pushing the article out of reasonable limits," "The page simply cannot support extra material" (what about all the material you have added?) it has "no reliable sources" (really?!) and others claims. Finally, I am saying this solely because there's nothing I like more than justice, or in this context: real, balanced, neutral, and good Misplaced Pages articles. And as history shows, awareness brings change. Yambaram (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I edit alone, and hope good editors approve or help the article I work on. No one has shown in several months that I have distorted any source, and they are almost all high grade scholarly sources, on that page. Several of you see Israel's interests, and Israel's enemies everywhere, and work articles when something about Jewish people is mentioned as if everything outside editors write is 'suspect', 'anti-Israel' or 'antisemitic'. You want the true message about this Israel to be hammered home. On the Khazar article all this was covered. It was not enough. The 'truth' (we are dealing with an antisemitic smear or lie or untruth) had to be hammered home. And that is what you edit did. You did not join the discussion. You just rammed in the edit, and 'friends' who have never done anything to work on, or improve that article over the last several months, rushed in to back you. It's politics for you guys, and it threatens to ruin a good page. In any case you have chosen to write this complaint on the wrong page.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani is know to me for a long time now as a POV editor, and as an editor who easily take up edit wars. All editors please take this into account, and watch his edits closely. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This egregious and unsupported personal attack against an excellent editor, who was recently selected as editor of the week in recognition of his "irreplacable conscientiousness and depth of knowledge in contentious areas, despite adversity faced in them", has no place on this talk page which is for content related discussion. In any case, I very much doubt your inappropriate comment will have the results you intended and only reflects poorly on yourself as an editor. Dlv999 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can easily support it, since it is the truth. Other editors with the same POV have earned my respect (I would like to mention User:Zero0000), but this editor is aggressive. Did you even notice his usual belligerent language above, accompanied by WP:CABAL accusations? These are some of the usual signs of tendentious editors. As far as his Editor of the Week reward is concerned: I sincerely doubt the wisdom of such a reward for an editor whose talkpage shows his involvement in numerous WP:ANI and WP:AE discussions (as an involved party), not to mention a warning. Bottom line: if this is a personal attack, I am sorry, but it is allowed to give other editors fair warning. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser for saying what you think. Ironically I actually reported exactly these two users not long ago here, and yes I do acknowledge that their edits are neutral and constructive sometimes, Dlv999. Anyway I think that from this point it would be better if this issue is discussed elsewhere and not on this talk page, so let us stop it here. Yambaram (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loewsdills (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were an admin, I'd simply remove this last comment from the discussion. As I am not, I'll suffice with saying you are not contributing to anything here. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins and the introduction

I edited the introduction to take into account the latest DNA findings suggesting a European origin for Ashkenazi Jews. It would be POV to use these results to claim that Ashkenazis are of European origin, but it was just as POV of the introduction to claim that they are of Levantine origin. It's a fact that good, serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views. Our job is not to take sides between these, but to report them. If a major scientific consensus develops for one view or the other, the article should reflect that. As long as there is no such consensus, the article should report both views without taking sides.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. The whole article needs an overhaul along these lines. A good guide to an eventual revision may be found in the Jewish Virtual Library article, Ashkenazim, by Shira Schoenberg, which begins with the 10th-11th centuries.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I might add that the nonsensical lines in the lead.

Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321

nonsensical because it defines Jews in late Roman empire Europe as 'Ashkenazi' several centuries before the word 'Ashkenazi' was adopted to describe them, and needs its source verified (which is not as cited, but Steven Bowman's 'Jews in Byzantium' chapter in that encyclopedia's reedition pp.1035-1048, who consistently speaks of Jews, though I cannot google the exact page 1042). I have asked for this several times, and the tag requesting verification for an extraordinary claim has been consistently removed. Jews undoubtedly lived throughout Europe from early times: Ashkenazim are, in part or whole, their descendants.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you made a good edit, adding prespective. I only changed to order of "Levantines" and "Italians and other Europeans", as per the chronological order.

Nishidani, your point is valid. But the intention is obviously to the forfathers of those who would later be called Ashkenazi, so I don't see the big problem in using the term. Perhaps some small clarification in the article can resolve the issue. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's an anachronism. The rule is use the standard language of exemplary academic RS, where scruples exist. I'd reckon there's a fair chance of finding some good authors (Toynbee uses it vaguely thus somewhere in his 12 vols, anachronistically, if I recall) who do use it. But we have no way of knowing whether the Cologne Jewish community whose remains are being excavated were Levantine. In all this, there is the recent historic unfamiliarity with the widespread practice of diaspora conversion, which all scholars have no problems with, despite the rhetorical insistance on direct descent. (I might add that the October 2013 paper by Richards et al arguing for an Italian origin doesn't strike me as conclusive for a simple historical reason. Almost all ancient authorities (save one) argued that the Etruscan population came from the Levant. If there is something behind this, then the notable Etruscan component within the Italic/Roman republic population would have Levantine DNA elements. Just a personal observation). Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourced content restored

In a rather extreme display of POV-pushing Evildoer187 removed all references in both the introduction and the infobox to Ashkenazi Jews possibly being of European decent. Rather revealingly, only DNA studies saying that Ashkenazis are of European origins were removed, while studies saying that they are of Middle Eastern origins were left intact. In other words, the user does not disagree with presenting findings from DNA-studies, only with studies not representing his/her WP:TRUTH. POV-pushing rarely comes in more obvious forms than this. Once again: serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views. Our job is not to take sides between these, but to report them. If a major scientific consensus develops for one view or the other, the article should reflect that. As long as there is no such consensus, the article should report both views without taking sides. Deleting sourced content is considered vandalisms, and further violations will be reported.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to link directly to the studies, rather than news articles (some of which blatantly misrepresented the studies) which discussed them. Why do we need BBC, Haaretz, and Science Daily articles to be cited when we have the actual study they discuss cited? Isn't that enough? I was searching for the direct genetic study for the NYT one as well. Additionally, NONE of the genetic studies even remotely suggest that Ashkenazim are purely European in origin. One of them suggests that 80 percent of their maternal/mtDNA origins are European, and that's it. Rectifying that is not POV pushing, and I object to your needlessly inflammatory character assassination of me on this page. Besides that, your aggressive reaction in here is itself reflective of POV pushing. If need be, I will take this up with the appropriate administrators.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Further, the related ethnic groups template doesn't pertain to groups who share only genetics in common, but cultural and linguistic similarities as well. That's what I tried to explain earlier.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You did your deletions without taking part in the discussion about the intro here on the talkpage, and you removal or articles was based on content, not form. Articles that referred to a European origin were deleted by you, all similar sources referring to a Levantine origin were left intact. As you refuse to WP:HEAR, I've brought the issue to WP:ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they were removed because they were news articles pertaining to a study which was already cited. It's not necessary to go beyond that, especially when several of them arrive at different conclusions than the study itself.

And I'm here now, so let's discuss it, although there really isn't much to discuss in this case.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't only remove sources, you removed the entire conclusion , that the maternal origin of Ashkenazi Jews is mainly European.Jeppiz (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See diff here. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924

Notice how it says "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." If any of the studies (and I mean the actual DNA tests, not the news articles reporting on studies which are already cited otherwise) arrived at that conclusion, I would agree with you. But they don't. They only suggest that maternal origins are mainly European.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, referenced this study and wrote "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe." You might think you're better placed to evaluate the results than Science is, but WP:RS does not agree with you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

http://forward.com/articles/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/#

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

These are the citations I removed in my original revert (see the diff). Notice how they each pertain to the same exact study, which was also cited in the same sentence (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html). This begs the question: why are you linking to all of these news articles when the study itself is already there (and which I did not delete)? I should hope that the reason is obvious and that I won't have to fill in the blanks. Moreover, notice how the study in question does not say, anywhere, that "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin". Rather, it says that maternal origins are mainly European. If you had added the word "maternal" in the sentence, this dispute would never have happened. So once again, you're either lying, or you didn't actually read the study. The fact that you tried to pad out this one singular study with a bunch of news articles relating to the same study insinuates the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any DNA studies that suggest that Ashkenazim are purely of European origin, at most the origin is partial (maternal origins). The study does make this pretty clear. This seems like an unfortunately all-too-common attempt to disenfranchise. Also, I agree that the news sources used are unnecessary because the study is already cited. Kitty (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here has said they are "purely European", nor does the article. Science said "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.". If you disagree with Science, well, then we go with Science. Kindly read WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WARNING: Further editing without establishing consensus will lead to a post on WP:ANI asking for blocks and page protection. And this time the issue will not be considered a content issue, rather a behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How does one achieve consensus when the other side is not willing to listen? I think an RfC is in order.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, an Rfc is a pretty extreme measure. Give it some time (this discussion is only days old), ask for other editors to come here (by posting on WT:JUDAISM). There are other things to do before making an Rfc over this. Would you mind explaining the issue to me in short? Debresser (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The section I created just below this one should sum it up.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/UNDUE concerns + related ethnic groups

The following passage in the lead paragraph ("Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin") is highly problematic. First off, the citations provided for it only include one DNA study, with the rest consisting of secondary news articles and journals reporting on the study. Therefore, the words "Some DNA tests" are misleading since there is, in fact, only one DNA test cited. Take, in contrast, this passage which precedes it ("some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East"). The sources used here are much more varied, with more than one DNA study cited, along with a couple of historical sources. This by itself raises red flags for WP:UNDUE and WP:MINORITY.

And now for the heart of the matter. The genetic study used in support of the former passage (i.e. "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin") does not arrive at this conclusion. Rather, it suggests that Ashkenazi maternal/mtDNA origins are mainly traceable to Europe. It does not say that Ashkenazim are mainly European in origin. The passage I quoted omits any mention of mtDNA, which was the main focus of the study. So whoever posted this is either manipulating the source material, or simply did not read the study. I hope I'm not the only one who is concerned about this.

As for the related ethnic groups template, what is the criteria for inclusion? My initial impression was that it entailed sharing common geographic origins, culture, linguistic similarities, etc in addition to genetics. Some extra sources should be provided for all ethnic groups included, because the only citations are genetic studies. But overall, we need to establish some solid criteria for this, so that we may avert future disputes.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Evildoer187 makes some good points, and also some points with which I don't agree. To start with my disagreement, I thoroughly disagree that the study showing a European heritage is in anyway inferior. Quite the contrary. It's more recent, it consists of a larger sample and it's been published in a better journal than most other studies. The argument could be turned on its head to ask if the other studies are relevant. (I think they are, and I'm not making that argument, but it's a two-way street). From a scientific point of view, the most reliable study at hand is the one showing a mainly European heritage.

It's true that the study in Nature talked about maternal origins. It is also true, however, that when Science looked at the results and reported the study, they felt that the results could be described as "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.". Now Evildoer187 may disagree with that conclusion by Science, but that does not really matter. Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it's about sources. I'm not sure if Evildoer187 is familiar with the reputation of science, as he continues to disregard it. When it comes to topics such as these, there is quite simply no better source than Science. So if we look at the results and think one thing, and Science thinks another, then WP:RS is very clear and we go with Science. Thus far the disagreements.

I think Evildoer187 is absolutely right in pointing out problems with the "related ethnic groups". How should we understand this category? The sources used in the infobox all refer only to DNA studies on different populations. Evildoer187 has argued that DNA is not the only aspect that matter, and I think he is absolutely right. Aspects like cultural proximity, shared history, traditions, religion, languages etc... All of these would strike me as relevant. Generally speaking, I dislike the "ethnic groups" template precisely because it's so vague. One suggestion would be to get rid of it altogether, but I'm open for other suggestions.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Saw this at ANI. The vital point for your understanding is that maternal and paternal ancestry are two different things. You already have a source that 80% of maternal genes are from Europe, but another that there is a low rate of European admixture for Y chromosomes. What's going on here? Well, I have a guess: What does a woman have to do to convert to Judaism? What does a man have to do? Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter; you just need to recognize that maternal and paternal ancestries are two different measurements that don't have to come to the same number. Perhaps the most relevant measurement is general autosomal isoforms, which also favor European (specifically Italian) ancestry. But keep in mind that which ancestry is important is a matter of perspective: from a Biblical point of view, what matters is that someone is the son of X is the son of Y is the son of Z, but from a geneticist's point of view, whichever pattern of inheritance concerns a specific disease condition (usually autosomal) matters, and in fact the founder effects within the Ashkenazi population are more important than general racial affinity. So just sort out your data, be more specific about what you're saying, and you should be fine. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have slightly rewritten the introduction to reflect the fact which all seem to agree upon that it was only 1 test. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that saying that "Ashkenazi Jews are of European origin" is not the same as saying "Ashkenazi maternal/mtDNA origins are mainly traceable to Europe". I would like some expert opinion on the meaning of that sentence.

I would suggest to split the statement in two: one part bringing the test and its conclusion ("Ashkenazi maternal/mtDNA origins are mainly traceable to Europe"), and another bringing the more popular sources' interpretation ("Ashkenazi Jews are of European origin").

In addition, to avoid cluttering the lead with all of this, I would remove this from the lead completely and keep it restricted to the Genetics section of the article. Debresser (talk)

It's an improvement, which is much appreciated, but it still makes no reference to maternal DNA origins. That is misleading, and should be clarified. Moreover, the Science article does state that the study was carried out with a specific focus on mtDNA, to the apparent exclusion of Y-DNA and autosomal admixture analysis. And I don't mean to imply that the study used is "inferior" in any way, just that it's only one study whereas other recent tests (like Haber, also from 2013) have come out reaffirming earlier consensus i.e. Ashkenazi Jews are Levantine in origin with admixture from other sources. Overall, consensus still swings heavily in favor of Levantine/Israelite origins for Ashkenazim, with some studies differing on the details (i.e. the possibility of Caucasus ancestry, or how much European admixture there is), and the article should reflect that. As for whether or not this should go in the genetics section, I am not particularly opposed to it, although a better alternative would be to consolidate everything into one sentence, if possible.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with Evildoer and Debresser. This is blatant POV pushing, and none of this should be in the LEDE in the first place. It should be moved to the Genetics section forthwith.Ankh.Morpork 18:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In the source I read a few lines that are a kind of summary/conclusion, that removes part of the concerns raised above, and clarifies the issue nicely: "Therefore, whereas on the male side there may have been a significant Near Eastern (and possibly east European/Caucasian) component in Ashkenazi ancestry, the maternal lineages mainly trace back to prehistoric Western Europe. These results emphasize the importance of recruitment of local women and conversion in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and represent a significant step in the detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history." This text clearly distinguishes between maternal and paternal lineage. As much as that result in itself would need an explanation, it does not say that there are no Near Eastern influences, but rather says that these are stronger in the paternal lineage and that in the maternal lineage a European influence is dominant. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be some kind of statement on maternal vs. paternal genetic lineage, as if maternal lineage is somehow less pure, more muddy. Please do not rank one above the other, individuals carry genes from both parents and there should be no implication of hierarchy or judgment about father vs. mothers. There seems to be a subtle bashing of maternal lineage results because they don't say what some editors want them to say. Liz 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that maternal lineages are irrelevant, just that it should be clarified in the article that the study is referring exclusively to maternal lineages. The study does not say what the article says it does. That's the problem.Ankh.Morpork 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there consensus for removing this from the lead and keep this restricted to the genetics section? If so, would all agree if I did this, or do we want to invite some other editor? Debresser (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead must summarize the genetic section, hence it should stay. If the latest and most comprehensive study's conclusions are to be removed from the lead, this leaves the meme of Israelitic origins. Remove both and you ignore WP:Summary style. I know there is a religious and political dimension here. If in orthodox modern terms, Jewish origins are traced through the maternal line, where does that leave us, when the paternal line (except for Levites) is now privileged by science, against rabbinical authority, and science is used to contradict the religious definition? I agree with Jeppiz here, and all that needs to be done is to modulate that lead sentence in a way that conforms to the source, which while focused on maternal DNA also writes:-

The Ashkenazim therefore resemble Jewish communities in Eastern Africa and India, and possibly also others across the Near East, Caucasus and Central Asia, which also carry a substantial fraction of maternal lineages from their ‘host’ communities11, 25. Despite widely differing interpretations of autosomal data, these results in fact fit well with genome-wide studies, which imply a significant European component, with particularly close relationships to Italians3, 4, 6, 7. As might be expected from the autosomal picture, Y-chromosome studies generally show the opposite trend to mtDNA (with a predominantly Near Eastern source) with the exception of the large fraction of European ancestry seen in Ashkenazi Levites22. . . .There is surprisingly little evidence for any significant founder event from the Near East. Fewer than 10% of the Ashkenazi mtDNAs can be assigned to a Near Eastern source with any confidence, and these are found at very low frequencies (Fig. 2).'

Secondly, the same paper notes that the whole descent issue is 'controversial', and thus the other Israelitic statement or generalization is itself a gross simplification. One should not get too passionate about this. The research results change from year to year, and a lot of the papers' over the last two decades will be rapidly junk. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not clear to me what the proposal is. Is the proposal to remove all references to the origin of the Ashkenazim? That's possible, though Nishidani makes a fair point about the summary. Or is the proposal to remove just the most recent and extensive study, and leave the part about Levantine origins? That would violate WP:POV, I'm afraid, and I don't see what NPOV argument could be made for removing one particular study. So before we comment on the proposal, could the proposal be crystal clear? Perhaps even written here?Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My proposal was to remove this from the lead. A lead should indeed summarize the article, as a rule, but does not need to mention all subjects of the article. In this case, where the subject is best discussed in detail, I don't think it would be a serious issue if we would leave this out of the lead and discuss it only in a section. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for intervening but, as a genuinely neutral party, I don't even feel the need to invoke Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines as to this current version of a lead. It is off-putting to a reader to be plunged straight into an overcited discourse on DNA haplogroups (particularly as the majority of readers would only identify DNA with forensic criminology and if they have any interest in the subject/postulations at all). It does not serve an being informative: quite the antithesis. There is a dedicated section and it should stay in that section for readers who are interested (although DNA stats have already proved themselves to be problematic in Misplaced Pages for a multitude of reasons, one of which being that they are borderline OR). I sincerely hope you can work it out here amicably. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A way to summarize the genetic studies for the lede without getting into due weight for the various POVs is just to say something like "Many genetic studies have been done, arriving at a variety of conclusions"; then the details can be left to the body. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That could be a good compromise if there is consensus that it is essential that it be in the lead, but it would definitely need to go to the bottom of the third paragraph. From my reading, I'd still feel that it's UNDUE. The lead should either be brief or, if anything is to be expanded on, there are far more important historical and cultural issues dealt with in the article which should take preference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the sister pages Jews, Sephardi Jews, Moroccan Jews,etc., trace middle eastern origins in the lead. There are two points here: (a)coherence over related pages (b) NPOV, which means if there are two theories, then both must be either alluded to in the lead (easily done), or neither must be mentioned. I don't see why one line in a lead is undue, however. In any case, a large number of genetic papers use the word 'controverial' or 'disputed' for the issue of Ashkenazi origins. If it is mentioned, an adjective like those is sufficient. If it is not mentioned, then we avoid WP:LEDE summary style on this issue, though there is no good reason for it. I would argue however that it's not the lead which is problematical, as it stands, but the background or prehistory section. To repeat: our model should be the Jewish Virtual Library article, which is not obsessed about the complicated debate on origins. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with the above compromise as well. Is it "many" or "several"? Debresser (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea is not to remove the genetic study in question. It is to edit the corresponding passage so that it better reflects its conclusions. As it stands, the article does not fulfill this requirement. That's what we're concerned about.Ankh.Morpork 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all let's get the lead straightened out. Then we'll look at the "Genetics" section. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec with Debresser) Well, here's the text. Let's mull suggestions for finessing it.

Scientific studies differ on their origins, with some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East, while another DNA test suggests that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin. The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321 and in Rome in 139 B.C.

Just two points

(a) 'scientific studies'. Why mention scientific studies and ignore historical studies. Why does science have a privilege here in the lead? (b) Note 12-18. Jared Diamond's link is to somebody's typescript, not the journal. Most of the notes, for the pro and contra, are dubious (the Jewish expulsion in CE 135 is not widely endorsed by modern scholarship, since it is a canted spin on the fact Jews were disallowed in Jerusalem, not expelled in a diaspora that, for centuries had spread all over the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Much of the notes, in short, show signs of nervousness. But I must have dinner.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the author above me. All of the laws that were made against Jews by emperor Hadrian in 135 C.E were repealed when Hadrian died three years later by successor, all laws except the law which Forbade Jews to enter Jerusalem except on the 9th of Ab. hundreds of years prior to both rebellions Jews were already living in southern Europe. Guy355 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, have a pleasant meal. :) I meant that I agree with the proposal of Atethnekos! "Many genetic studies have been done, arriving at a variety of conclusions" Your proposal is no good for all the reasons mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The former wording lead although examines a solely population genetic question, includes non genetic sources as well. Regarding the population genetics, results regarding the Israelite origin of Ashkenazi Jews are clear in the case of Y chromosome and almost clear regarding autosomes. Regarding maternal origin, the debate is still going on and we do not have clear picture, as there are two opposite views. The former wording of the lead wass fully in line with the results of 20 years of genetic studies and well sourced. The lead of this article was fully in line with one of the most prestigious book of population genetics Shriver, Tony N. Frudakis D. (2008). Molecular photofitting : predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA P:383-390 which was used as one of sources. --Tritomex (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the list of genetic studies done from 2000-2012 with some quotes:

Additionally, similar results were found in Haber and all 2013 study and the most recent study carried out by M. Metspalu

Based on this studies, and secondary academic sources I propose the wording "Most of genetic studies points to an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East",

With all due respect, that's a prime example of how to cherry-pick sources in favor of one's view and ignoring sources taking an other view. It's one of the most basic errors in any scientific discussion. While I would agree that most studies on male lineage point in a Levantine direction, it's equally true that most studies on female lineage point in a European direction. There's even some genetic study suggesting an origin in the Caucasus. That's a theory I don't believe in myself, sure, but it goes to show that the situation is not at all as clear-cut as in the very selective list of sources Tritomex refers to above.Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a selective list, I did not denied that. However, when you say selective list you must show what is on the other side

In paternal Y chromosome studies nothing.

In maternal line, you said that "that most studies on female lineage point in a European direction." This is not correct. Behar and al published 2 studies, J. Feder et al published one pointing to Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews while Richards published one study pointing to predominantly European and minoritarian Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jewish females. So numerically it would be at least 3:1, although in my personal view genetics is not numerical. All maternal genetic studies found at least some Middle Eastern origin among AJ females. In line with this the maternal origin of Ashkenazi Jews is not as clear as their paternal origin and can not be concluded based on the current results of genetic studies.

Regarding Autosomes, the overwhelming majority of studies are in support of Middle Eastern origin of AJ as cited above. There are one and half exception. Zoossmann-Diskin whose conclusions are based mainly on X chromosomes believes in predominantly South European origin while the controversial study of Elhaik (which was heavily criticized in academic world) found predominantly Caucasian and to lesser degree Middle Eastern and South European origin in AJ.

Regarding comparative studies, all genetic studies found genetic link between AJ and Middle Eastern people (Shen, Nebla, Thomas)

I mentioned now all genetic studies carried out so far. When I said Middle Eastern origin, I did not mean that AJ are genetically pure. Origin does not exclude admixture, as in the case of all other people. Also, there are few academic books from population genetics which do summarize this question like: Shriver, Tony N. Frudakis D. (2008). Molecular photofitting : predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA P:383-390 which was used as one of sources. --Tritomex (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, I think I formulated myself badly and I apologize. Your list of studies is of course beneficial to the discussion and a valuable contribution. In criticizing the list as leaning in one direction, I did not intend any criticism of you and I apologize if I was unclear.

I do maintain that most (as opposed to all) studies suggest European female lineage. Though nicely written, the recent study in Nature does in fact suggest in no unclear words that the studies of Behar et al. were wrong. Already a few years ago, an academic article looking at the evidence at the time said most research on maternal lineage suggested a European heritage, and studies published after that has further confirmed that view.

While the topic of genetics is interesting, I think we should not overemphasize it. Regardless of genetics, it is clear that all Jews have a connection back to Israel rooted in several other important cultural, historical and religious aspects.Jeppiz (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, the LEDE you have proposed still has two problems. 1) the DNA test concludes that maternal origins are mainly Western European, and that's what the LEDE should say but it doesn't. 2) The number of secondary sources used, especially in relation to the previous passage concerning Israelitic origins which contain a variety of different studies and historical sources. This gives the appearance of padding and violates WP:UNDUE.Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Although I agree with most you have said, I must state that based on my knowledge most of the X chromosome studies carried out on AJ females did not suggest European female lineage. In fact, this hypothesis was first proposed by well respected geneticist David B. Goldstein from the Duke University and based on his analysis the only genetic study which supports this hypothesis is the one carried out by Richards. Goldstein on other hand claimed that regarding Richards study "estimate that 80% of Ashkenazi Jewish Mt-DNA is European was not statistically justified given the random rise and fall of mitochondrial DNA lineages". Two identical studies which used the same techniques namely that of Behar and Feder did not found support for European maternal origin of AJ females. So in my view, while the standing of population genetics on Middle Eastern origin of Y chromosome and autusomes of AJ is pretty clear, this is not yet the case regarding mtDNA, whose origin remains uncertain. I have also to agree fully with AnkhMorpork, there are WP:UNDUE problems with current wording and even maybe WP:OR problems as well. 1 ) The Israelite origin is supported (as I presented above also) with: 1) historic sources 2) academic books from population genetics 3) Y chromosome studies 4) autosome chromosome studies and 5) X chromosomes (mtDNA) studies as well. On the other hand the European origin is sourced with only one mt DNA study carried out by Richards. Actually Richards study can only be used as source of maternal and not general origin. Also Richards (as all mt DNA) studies found also a minoritarian Middle Eastern origin among AJ too.The current wording also missed to say that the majority of genetic studies are in support of ME origin of AJTritomex (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically, most of the genetics papers, if not all, are nonsense, and the same holds in terms of conceptual analysis. What does "origin" mean? An arbitrary point in time taken as a decisive starting point, and thus so because of an interpretative framework that precedes the evidence. The arbitrary starting points in this discursive field are two 600 BCE and ICE. I don't want to debate this here, but people who look at the way this stuff is presented ought to understand the problem simply on the basis of the obvious consideration that there is not such thing as pure descent, which translates into 'all origins are multiple', genetically, historically, and geographically.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork Your proposal has been rejected above on the grounds that we can not mention only one study and call that summarizing.Please try to be more constructive in your next proposal. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but is there an agreement on anything concerning this subject? Guy355 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have tried a compromise version for the lead, which - if there will be no reverts, will allow us to concentrate on the Genetics section. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

With all of these references to chromosomes and DNA, I forgot this was a discussion about one sentence in the lead. I think it's ridiculous for any sentence to have 10 footnotes on it (as seen above). Pick one or two representative references and leave it at that.Liz 01:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is one excellent, comprehensive yet succinct source, with impeccable credentials, which covers all sides of the dispute. Cherie Woodworth, 'Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes,' in Kritika, vol. 11 no. 1(Winter, 2010), pp. 105-123. This is basically a review of the evidence from linguistic studies on Yiddish (and should also be used to correct the false information in the lead on that language) but also has the advantage of being neutral, evaluating the various theses in the light of contradictions, challenges and problems in each. Something like this should cover all angles for the lead.

The origins of the Ashkenazi are disputed: the mainstream theory holds that the Rhineland was the cradle of the Ashkenazi, another argues that Eastern Europe was the hearth for the originative population. Genetics has suggested a Middle Eastern link in paternal DNA, while mitochondrial DNA, from mothers, points to a strong indigenous European base. The origins of the Yiddish language spoken by Ashkenazim are equally shrouded in mystery. ref Cherie Woodworth, 'Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes,' in Kritika, vol. 11 no. 1(Winter, 2010), pp. 105-123.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser, if there's only one study that supports a mainly European origin for Ashkenazim, and dozens in support of a Middle Eastern origin, that means the former is a minority view and the article should naturally give emphasis to the consensus view. The cited study doesn't even support that. It says maternal origins are mainly European.Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, Ashkenazim are a subgroup of Jews, who originate in the Fertile Crescent. The majority of genetic studies and historical sources support this conclusion, so it makes perfect sense to include that in the LEDE. In terms of genetics, the consensus view indicates that Ashkenazim are genetically Middle Eastern (specifically Levantine) with varying degrees of admixture from Europeans, especially Southern Europeans. Ashkenazi is Hebrew for Germany, just as Sephardi is Hebrew for Spain and Mizrahi for Eastern. Yiddish is a high Germanic language with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Slavic elements, written in the Hebrew alphabet.Ankh.Morpork 18:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

'Nishidani, Ashkenazim are a subgroup of Jews, who originate in the Fertile Crescent.' I.e. a meme, with ideological elements posing as a truth statement. The meme is wrong because, as any historian, Jewish or otherwise, will tell you, conversion was widespread in early Judaism, from which it follows that many Jews did not originate necessarily in the Fertile Crescent. It is this chronic confusion, and the insistance on popular 'doctrine' that makes editing this and contiguous pages almost impossible. As you all know, the Inca Jews of Alon Shvut, like the Beta Israel, the San Nicandro Jews, and so many others, did not 'originate' in the Fertile Crescent, and therefore these numerous contrarian instances demolish your trite generalization. As to the genetics study, all we are seeing is the meme being applied to early genetic studied conducted by interested parties. The newest study undermined the paradigm. This is inevitable in science.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, nobody has said anything about Ashkenazim being pure. The LEDE indicated, until the passage was removed, that there was a study which concluded Ashkenazim were mainly European. A cursory look at the study would show this is not the case, and some editors took issue with this, and rightly so. Lastly, genetic studies qualify as WP:RS, so we are not in a position to dismiss them as "garbage".Ankh.Morpork 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What is happening is a fudge over a very comple debate in order to assert a thesis. It is even being asserted that there is only one study, and very recent, that contradicts the spurious 'consensus'. Yet, to cite just a few:-

(1) Selden et al, 'European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations,'(2006)

'The finding in the current study that individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent are predominantly “southern” European further suggests the later migration of this ethnic group from the Mediterranean region. Regardless of the European country of origin, each of those participants with four grandparents of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage showed this predominant “southern” cluster membership.'

(2)Cochran et al

(3) Avshalom Zoossman-Diskin, 'The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms,' (2010)'According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. . The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. The reasons for the discrepancy between the biparental markers and the uniparental markers are discussed.,'

(4)Costa, P?ereira, Richards et al. 'A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages', Nature Communications, October 8, 2013 'Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The LEDE section looks fine, for now. I would revise the wording a bit ie "Consensus among geneticists place Ashkenazi Jewish origins in the Levant, although details vary". Something to that effect.Ankh.Morpork 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am happy all more or less agree with the lead now. I also think it should be improved, but I wanted to make a first step here. Perhaps we should now say "Genetic studies, researching both paternal and maternal lineage, while all pointing to certain Levantine origins, have arrived at a variety of conclusions regarding the inter-mixture of other origins and their prominence."? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although you did forget autosomal admixture.Ankh.Morpork 19:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Or even "Genetic studies, researching both paternal and maternal lineage, while all pointing to certain Levantine origins, have arrived at diverging conclusions regarding the inter-mixture of a variety of other origins and their prominence."?

Morpork this recent study which suggests that the Maternal roots of Ashkenazis can be traced mainly to Europe studied much more than previous studies. On science magazine the title was "did Ashkenazis originate in Italy?", I heard they have a reputation of knowing a thing or two about this subject. Besides, this study was not the only one, another study published by NYT suggests a varying amount of European ancestry on the Ashkenazi maternal side, from about 30% to 60%, with north Italians showing the greatest genetic proximity to Ashkenazis and Sepharadis. Also, a 2010 autosomal study concluded about 85% European ancestry in the autosomal of Ashkenazis and Sepharadis. Guy355 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and speaking of historical records, Josephus Flavius claims there have been about 6 million Jews throughout the Roman empire, with only 500,000 in Judea, and he also mentions a very large community in the Italian peninsula. Also, there was a large population of so called "god fearers", people who partially practiced Judaism, but have not went through a full conversion, if male they were not circumcised yet, and in general the god fearers did not keep the Kosher dietary law. It was rumored that emperor Vaspian's wife was a god fearer. Guy355 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no autosomal genetic study claiming 85% European origin among AJ and Sepahardaic Jews. Also, Josephus did not claimed 500 000 Jews living in Judea, he claimed 1,1 million Jews being killed in the Great Revolt of Judea Josephus, War of the Jews VI.9.3.--Tritomex (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the recent proposals of Debresser and AnkhMorpork. Although it should be emphasized that the paternal origin is indisputably Middle Eastern --Tritomex (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"A 2006 study by Seldin et al. used over five thousand autosomal SNPs to demonstrate European genetic substructure. The results showed "a consistent and reproducible distinction between ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ European population groups". Most northern, central, and eastern Europeans (Finns, Swedes, English, Irish, Germans, and Ukrainians) showed >90% in the ‘northern’ population group, while most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards) showed >85% in the 'southern' group. Both Ashkenazi Jews as well as Sephardic Jews showed >85% membership in the "southern" group. Referring to the Jews clustering with southern Europeans, the authors state the results were "consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups".". Guy355 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Debresser. you asked me for my opinion re your removal of the origins' stuff. I'm fine with not mentioning origins, if everything goes. You removed half of the problem. See the section below, commenting on the sentence which continues

before the Middle Ages from the river Loire in the center of France to the Rhineland in the north - thus the term also includes the original Jews of France from the medieval period.

This constitutes with the main sentence, an espousal of a theory, i.e. the Rhineland hypothesis, that would have the Rhineland populated from Jews along the river Loire. I don't know where all of this WP:OR comes from, but as Michael Toch's book shows, this is a thesis, not a fact and 'Loire valley' is way too specific. (Toch suggests slow settlement northwards from France and Italy (p.72) and also views the claims about Cologne with scepticism, in the sense that he argues there is no evidence for other than transient existence p.71).

So, if you remove the origins (genetic controversy) while retaining this section, you are removing page evidence for a controversy of origins, and leaving in a WP:OR pastiche which favours one of several theories while presenting it as objective history. The POV remains.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't take care of all issue at once. I think with this new sentence about genetics in the lead, we have taken care of that issue. I'll be happy to work alongside you further to remove other problems. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy355 You misinterprated Seldin findings. The AJ 85% membership in "southern group" is not explained with European but with shared Mediteranian origin of AJ by the authors themselves. Mediteranian people do have shared genetic ties do to neolithic and letter migrations. *See People* *E1b1b1 etc* "Ashkenazi Jewish as well as Sephardic Jewish origin also showed >85% membership in the “southern” population, consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups". The study did not examined other Mediteranian people who also have genetic connections with South Europeans, as Pierre A. Zalloua and al and Haber and all have found.--Tritomex (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my error. This subject is still debated, therefore I reckon we should keep an open mind, science and technology get better everyday. Guy355 (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

More rubbishy WP:OR.

The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321 and in Rome in 139 B.C.

This is a conspicuous WP:OR construction.

• Note 12. Refers to W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.

I?ve asked for over a year for this to be verified. No one has done so. My verify tag was removed

• Note 13 refers to Jews in Cologne 321. True, and they were probably there (Schuette the excavator attests this) in the Ist century CE. But it is an WP:OR construction to use this to say they were the forefathers of the Ashkenazi Jews. Note 13 source does not mention Cologne’s Jews are the forefathers of the Ashkenazi. It does not mention a ‘beginning of settlement' along the Rhine at that date either either.
• Note 14 Likewise mentions the same facts of Constantine’s 321 decree re Cologne, but there is no mention of them being thought to have settled ‘along the Rhine’ or to being Ashkenazi forefathers.
• Note 15 reads:

But how did the Jews get to the town on the Oder?

In the year 70 AD, the Romans conquer insurgent Jerusalem and destroy the temple. After further insurrections the Jews are banished from Palestine and there arises a strong Jewish diaspora - dispersal through many lands. After initial settlements in the Middle East, Jews move on into Europe. The so-called Ashkenazic Jews get through Turkey and Greece to central Europe. They settle in Germany, which is called Ashkenaz in rabbinic literature. The Ashkenazi speak Yiddish and form the largest part of the whole of Jewry. The first documented mention of Jewish life in Germany is from 321 AD in Cologne. The Rhineland forms the early centre of Jewish settlements, which sees a heyday in the 10th century.

(a) This is hackwork, full of untruths or distortions and the source is written by a certain Johanna Adrian, who turns out to be a student at the European University Viadrina at that. This is unacceptable for our RS criteria.

• Note 16 from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. The article concerns Roman Jews. There is no mention of anything related to Ashkenazi Jews. There is no mention there that 'The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling . . .in Rome in 139 B.C.'

This latter statement is stupid as well. We know that Jews are attested in Rome in 139 BCE., as already constituting a community (that implies an earlier presence.) On that date they were subject to an expulsion order.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In short, it is self-evident that Jews were in Europe from pre Christian times, amply attested in numerous places. But the above notes contain nothing about either Ashkenazi forefathers or ‘beginning to settle along the Rhine.

It would be nice if somebody could please access that Cambridge History of Judaism, page 1042.

The way you present it does sound like WP:OR original research. On the other hand, the truth of it is so obvious that I doubt we can apply that guideline to it. 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

No one has verified that Cambridge source for a year now, and it is all the sentence hangs on. There is 'no truth' to it for reasons I gave above. Jews were in Montenegro, Trier, to the East, and the Iberian peninsula, in Salonika, earlier, so we have Balkan evidence that is implicitly dismissed in order to favour the Rhineland-West theory. If you read Toch's book, after the 6th century plague there was a massive population drop throughout these areas as well. Toch argues for evidence of transient small communities north. So, we apply WP:OR criteria even if you think it obvious. It is not to many scholars. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see your reason to reject a project of a student. All professors and MAs and BAs were students once themselves. Especially since that website is a project of the Insitute for Applied History – Frankfurt. Doesn't sound that bad as far as reliable sources go. But I do agree that the other sources seem circumstantial. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Nishidani here, a work by a student is not WP:RS. It might hypothetically be the best work ever, and it still does not matter. WP is not about truth, it's about verifiable facts, and an unpublished work by a student is not WP:RS no matter how good it hypothetically is.Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

According to archaeologists and Cologne Jewish museum Jews have lived in the province of Lower Germania since the end of the first century AD. continually to Modern Times. By the fourth century they constituted a large and significant community.

In 321 Emperor Constantine the Great sent a letter to Cologne in which he assented to having Jews appointed to the Town Senate, the Curia. Only a large and well-off community was capable of providing members for such a municipal honorary position because in late Antiquity, members of the curia faced massive private financial burdens"... "the Cologne Jewish community Excavations at the Town Hall Square have, in the interim, brought evidence for the continuity of the Jewish community from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.For example, before an earthquake destroyed it end of the eighth century, the first synagogue that can undeniably be identified used a building from late Antiquity. This includes an oval basin that was utilised in all the phases of the building . Scientific investigations have proved its utilisation for a time span of 1,000 years.]--Tritomex (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the story about "W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.". To start with, it is Finkelstein not Frankenstein. Second, this is a multi-volume work so the volume number should be cited (it is volume 4). Third, Davies and Finkelstein were the editors of the first two volumes of the series so they aren't even relevant. The editor of volume 4 was Steven T. Katz, but he was not the author of page 1042. Fifth, page 1042 lies in Chapter 39, "Jews in Byzantium", written by Steven Bowman. Sixth, this volume was published in 2006, not 1984. Finally, here is the complete relevant text: "Therefore, Constantine’s general law regarding the admission of the Jews of Cologne to the decurionate 13 was beneficial at the time – note the pristina observatio perpetual exemption." with a footnote "CTh 16.8.3; December 11, 321." I don't see any other mention of the Rhineland here, which is hardly surprising given the chapter topic. In summary, whoever added this was being extremely sloppy about the citation (I'm trying to be nice) and since it is a brief mention in passing in an article on a different topic, without any mention of "forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews" or similar, it doesn't support the text. This fake citation appears in History of the Jews in Germany also. Zero 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually had read most of the Bowman 2008 article, which is on Byzantium, but couldn't access that one page.In any case, special pleading for poor sources, rather than the correct application of policy, is misplaced. Secondly, Tritomex, you don't appear to read what your interlocutors write, and give the impression you are fending off people who might in your view have something 'against Jews', not a desire to write articles on, say, Jewish history with the same close source control and textual pertinacity they customarily adopt with any other article. It's commonplace here, but extremely wearisome. What you say above about 321 is not in dispute. I and everyone else know it. What it ignores is the concrete issue of whether texts speak of Jews, transient or settled, in the early Roman Empire as 'forefathers of the Ashkenazi', 'from the Loire to the Rhine valley' etc., which is how the doctored or fudged text we have is framed. I must insist on this, we should at least have the same scruples on the Ashkenazi that Shira Schoenberg's article in the Jewish Virtual Library has. I.e., we don't underwrite speculative reconstructions of possible events. We stick to the facts or the state of scholarship.

I take it then, that it is acknowledged that the sentence has no sourcing that warrants the formulation in it? If so, then normal procedure is to remove it. It is as clumsy and artificial at least as the other sentence Debresser removed. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's say all agree that parts of that sentence are unfounded. If we remove that part, then the sentence loses part of its functionality in the lead, and the question is where to place it and in what connection. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the functionality of that sentence? Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

To show the origins and spread of Jews into the places where later they would be called Ashkenazi Jews. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(a) The origins are, by widespread scholarly agreement, obscure, so they can't be 'shown' as yet. We know that Jews were in many places in Europe under the Roman Empire. We do not know of their links, or the continuities, between these and the Ashkenazi. (b) There was a dramatic collapse of populations after the massively devastating Plague of Justinian, for example. We cannot wish to have connections when the best literature shows none. At most we can cite hypotheses, but that gets us into a swamp of conjecture inappropriate to a lead. That explains also why this is another rubbishy piece of WP:OR. Why the scruple over genetics, which you quickly removed and yet the tolerance of 'stuff' that is far more dubious? Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't answer the question: if we remove parts of the sentence, what should be done with the rest of it?

Let's keep this professional. I didn't remove anything till I established firm consensus (of which you were a part) about what to remove and with what to replace it. That is precisely what we are doing now as well. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't answer the question because (a) it wasn't intelligent (b) you are failing to respond adequately to the points I raised. Sentences are written according to sources. Passable sentences reflect the best scholarship. This has nothing of either. I have said repeatedly, good articles like Shira Schoenberg's, manage to write the history of the Ashkenazi from their first appearance and designation as such. On wikipedia, one gets the impression that one cannot follow this palmary example because numbers of editors want to invariably prove that all Jews are (a) related and (d) originate from ancient Israel or the 'Israelites' (who weren't even Jews), which gets us into all sorts of technical messes, because we stray from ascertainable facts in doctrines, ideologies, and hypotheses. The sentence needs to be removed, because it is false, incoherent and WP:SYNTH or, euphemistically, WP:OR: punto e basta. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you always have to be so unpleasant... The question is a good question, or "intelligent" as you call it. If you don't understand the question, please ask me to explain.

I have already agreed with your point, so there is nothing for me to respond to. Your lengthy text above in point (b) is off-point. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you agree, let's remove the sentence. I've got sources for it, by the way, but they are meme stuff, which anyone can grub up, and if one puts that it, one is dragged into putting all of the contrary stuff in. Your point was not 'intelligent' because if you remove the objectionable stuff (as I documented) from

The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321 and in Rome in 139 B.C.

you get

'The forefathers of the Ashkenazi' which is not a sentence, but a programmatic declaration without a verb or a predicate.

If I appear disagreeable, it's because I have to a spend an inordinate amount of time saying what is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure the Volume used here says 1984,,,but the isbn is wrong...was asked to find all the copies...many volumes..below the ones that can be seen. -- Moxy (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• William David Davies; Louis Finkelstein (16 February 1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 1, Introduction: The Persian Period. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21880-1.
• William David Davies; Louis Finkelstein; Steven T. Katz (2006). The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77248-8.
• William David Davies; Louis Finkelstein (1989). The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Hellenistic age. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21929-7.

This is a non-issue

I fail to see the point of the current discussion. It's a fact that not one WP:RS source has been presented to support what is currently being said in the lead. Quite the opposite, it is clear that the section as it stands violates WP:OR as it makes far-fetching claims that find no support in the sourced used. That being the case, I have removed the section. While I'm sure we all agree it would be preferable to have something about the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews, that's not a reason to invent a story with no support in the sources. I do think we will need to add something, when good sources are found. While waiting for that, it is obvious that it's far better to have nothing at all than a story written by someone who either did not understand or did not read the sources. If someone disagrees, I dare to say they need to read WP:OR carefully. What we do here at Misplaced Pages is to find sources and present what the sources say. We do not invent stories and misrepresent sources. For that very simply reason, part of the introduction had to go as it has been established by several users that it not only is invented, but that it also completely misrepresents the sources.Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East by Jamie Stroked directly points to the link between Jewish communities in Roman empire as forefathers of AJ, without using genetic results (which also almost without any exception are pointing to same direction) The encyclopedia states on page 337 " In 135 CE when Israel was under Romans, the Jewish people were expelled again from their homeland and scattered across the countries of Middle East and North Africa. From ninth century CE many Jews from this scattered communities began to arrive in Europe. Over the centuries large Jewish communities grew up in several European countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe and around Mediterranean, Subsequently, the Jews who lived in central and eastern European communities came to be known as Ashkenazi Jews". -

The same conclusion are clearly pointed out in Tony Frudakis academic genetic book The Hebrew university in Jerusalem article states that "The early founders of the Ashkenazi community made their way to Europe during Roman rule, but the majority of the founders of the population came more recently from the region of present day Israel, moved to Spain, France, and Italy, and then in the 10th century into the Rhineland valley in Germany. It is estimated that prior to 1096, the first Crusade, the entire Jewish population of Germany comprised 20,000 people." I do not understand why revisionist history should be promoted also here, as it was done in articles regarding Khazars.--Tritomex (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I was about to write a serious reply, then I read how you ended and realized you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Tritomex, I'm getting tired by the constant insinuations that everybody not sharing your opinion is a revisionist. It's a non-starter, and it violates WP:NPA. Let us know when you're ready to discuss without insulting others. And no, there's nothing "revisionist" about accurately reporting what sources say. Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I insulted you, this was not my intention. Also I don't believe that everybody not sharing "my" opinion is a revisionist. Revisionist history also has not necessary negative connotation and I understand the need for presenting alternative views as well as I recognize the problems with this article, but what I wished to say is that this same problems discussed in this article exists in other related articles, and I lack similar discussion of broader community there.I pointed out to one related article where I believe discussion of numerous problems raised on talk page is needed. --Tritomex (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, "revisionist" is definitely an insult, but let's move on. Nobody dispute that ancestors of the Ashkenazim lived in the Roman empire, the question is in what part(s) of the empire, at what times, how and when did they move, and when did they arrive at the Rhine. It would seem that there is a lack of academic research on this.Jeppiz (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Essentially I made a mistake by not creating new sections as my comments were totally unrelated to the concerns and questions you personally raised here at this section. My apology on that issue.I can agree with you, regarding sources Maybe this book Atlas of Jewish History By Dan Cohn-Sherbok P 82-83 can be helpful. It explains the pattern of migration following the destruction of Roman Empire and subsequent creation of AJ community.--Tritomex (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The constant problem here, Tritomex, is succumbing to the temptation to google sources which appear to corroborate one's personal views. It's the easiest thing in the world to do. Many sources say the Jewish European populations came from the Middle East after ICE. Many quality scholarly sources will tell you this is a meme in a certain variety of literature, one that has no firm historical evidence to back it. It was a widespread narrative 'assumption'. In writing an encyclopedic article however, one does not assemble source material to buttress one's opinion, or preferred view. One surveys works and articles by the field's foremost scholars or those who comment on the state of the art, and one takes particular care not to privilege a view if there is significant dissent within the academic ranks. We are not dealing with the truth here, but the state of qualified interpretations. One can find numerous declarations Yiddish is a variation on High German. One can find numerous acknowledgements that this view is under challenge. There is no scholarly consensus. To cite one of dozens of examples of this,

'It is fairly clear that the Jewish populations that first began speaking what could be called Yiddish came from various locales, such as France, Germany, the Slavic lands, and the Mediterranean. The difficult question is which of these groups contributed most to the distinctive character of the language and culture. The traditional view, which is also probably still held by the majority of scholars who have studied the question, is that Yiddish was born of eastward migrations. In other words, Jews from France (and perhaps Italy) moved into Germanic-speaking territories and adopted some form of Middle High German (the ancestor language of both Yiddish and German). More recently, several linguists have suggested that the most important migrations were of Slavic-speaking Jews who moved westward. This debate hinges in part on theoretical issues about the nature of language-contact influences.' William F. Weigel 'Yiddish', Jewish Language Research Website 2002

Debresser in his edit violates precisely editorial neutrality, by replacing a statement which indicates there is a scholarly divide about the origins of Yiddish, with a selective reference to the mainstream view, which he presents as a 'fact'. A mainstream view is not a fact. It is the considered opinion of a majority, and requires attribution, and given the dispute notice should be accorded to the dissenting view. Yiddish has two major branches, Western and Eastern, and he has palmed off the origins off the former as the origin of the latter. Scholars don't know: and we can't pick and choose. These are extremely elementary procedures on wikipedia, and compel editors who do understand the rules to revert edits that are POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You made the very same mistake you fought against above: you come of with some novel theory instead of a mainstream view and gave it prominence over those views. It was actually a bit funny seeing you falling into that very same pitfall. But I hope you will agree to let it rest. Or, if you want, let's open another section on this issue, so as not to mix two issues in one thread. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not Google for sources supporting any view, and I do not think Debresser violated editorial neutrality by sourcing Yiddish in same way as Encyclopedia Britannica did or any other Encyclopedia on earth, would source it. The problem would be if he would do the opposite. We all know P. Wexler theory, proposed something like 20 years ago. In all this years I did not see any scholar of Yiddish or linguists claiming that Yiddish is Slavic language, nor that this theory received any degree of mainstream support. So in my opinion this is is a question of WP:UNDUE. Yiddish certainly have Slavic as well as Romance, Hebrew and Aramaic elements as well. This is also well known and references regarding Slavic elements within the High Germanic Yiddish lan. should not be twisted with the theory that Yiddish was Slavic language in its origin. Tritomex (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The pages of Atlas of Jewish History By Dan Cohn-Sherbok I cited here are not controversial. The same is true for many other sources I cited here. All this sources can be&should be used in this article as they are sources of high quality regarding this subject .--Tritomex (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please learn to format your replies properly. You've been here for quite a time. It is not difficult. Opinions, the above is one, don't count. Debresser passed off as a fact what by his edit summary he admits is a mainstream view, one which I have shown to be challenged by authoritative scholars of Yiddish. WP:Undue is ridiculous as an excuse to assert as a fact what is a majority thesis while suppressing the minority view. You ought to read the policy page.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting that view as the only one in the lead, that was a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, which is why I reverted it. You should really know better, Nishidani. I would even have WP:AGF thoughts after such a strange move. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Again I don't the understand the time spent on this. Yiddish is a Germanic language according to any standard work on linguistics. I can can recommend Routledge's The Germanic Germanic languages, a standard reference. The view that Yiddish is Slavic is WP:FRINGE, having no support in linguistics. Jeppiz (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz. I didn't write the old lead. It mentioned, in a completely distorted fashion, Yiddish. I myself often read that Yiddish is a form of German in linguistic textbooks. But I also follow the technical literature which says that is a point of view, problematized, not only by Wexler, over the last decades. Therefore, to correct that I mentioned the lively controversies over the Germanic thesis in recent years. Weinrich for ****'s sake spoke of Yiddish as a 'fusion language'. See

• Max Weinreich, "Yiddish, Knaanic, Slavic: The Basic Relationships", For Roman Jakobson, The Hague: Mouton, 1956, pp. 622-632.('The four main components of Yiddish in M. Weinreich's fusion model are Germanic, Slavic, HA, and Loez.'Jacobs below p.21).
• Neil G Jacobs, ‘’Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction,’’ Cambridge University Press, 2005 pp.9-16, esp conclusion p.55.((a) there are two modern views, one seeing Yiddish as divergence from German, the other as convergence with German p.9 (b) 'Collectively, both the Bavarian scenario and the Judeo-Slavic scenario have moved the field toward a non-Loter, eastern origins view' p.15)(c) 'On purely structural grounds it can be demonstrated that Weinrich is correct in his claim that the linguistic system of Yiddish was, from the outset, never identical to the linguistic system of any variety of German, or even of any combination of varieties of German.' p.17) Jacobs's original view was that Yiddish is a creole/pidgin language.
• Cherie Woodworth, 'Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes,' in Kritika, 11, 1 (Winter 2010): 105–23
• Dan D.Y. Shapira, Dan D. Y. Shapira, “Yiddish–German, Slavic, Or Oriental?”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, Cilt: 6, Sayı: 24, Kış 2010, s.127-140.(he calls it 'colonial German'by the way)
• William F. Weigel 'Yiddish', Jewish Language Research Website 2002.(see the quote above)

The problem is technical, related to several: (a) early references to Knaanic (may be a misapprehension though see Dovid Katz Knaanic in the Medieval and Modern Scholarly Imagination in Ondřej Bláha, Robert Dittmann, Lenka Uličná (eds.) Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background, Academia: Prague 2014 pp.156-191

)(b) debates on Western versus Eastern Yiddish, with particular ref. to the apparent Slavic aspectual system in the latter (reproduced in modern Israeli Hebrew)

Yiddish as we know it is not just a Germanic language with Slavic syntax and lots of Hebrew words; it is the only Jewish language in which the Semitic elements are more than loan words and expressions; it is in Yiddish that the Hebrew-Aramaic component behaves as an independent language system of its own, and it is in the Oriental language, in the old and good Orientalistic sense, where we find such independent language systems formed of Arabic and Persian elements.Dan Shapira, above p.136.

(c) demographic patterns of Jewish settlements to the East, outside of the strictly Western Germanic areas (d) the 'demographic miracle' of suggesting that an exiguous western population's eastward expansion and growth could produce 13 million Jews from 15,000-30,000 medieval germanocentric communities, a rate unparalleled in world history. The so-called High German of which Yiddish is often thought to be an offshoot, was itself a Romance language remodulated into Germanic, as Shapira, and Meillet argue. All very complex, but if Yiddish is to be mentioned, then one should not assert as a fact what, as Debresser admits in his edit summary, is a mainstream view. My point is always that we must write with our eyes fast-set on what the best modern scholarship is saying, and that, as per Jacobs, says the old view of Yiddish as an outgrowth or jargon of German is simplistic. We have a POV parading, therefore, as a fact. Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Knowing Yiddish, German and Russian, on a practical speaking level, I can tell you that obvious loanwords aside, Yiddish is an old German dialect, which I would place closest to modern Bavarian from among modern German dialects. Especially in written Yiddish the German is very pronounced. As I said, apart from obvious loan-words. Just a side-note, to remind all of us what we are talking about. I am not relating to grammar here, although it seems close to German grammar imho. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press