Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

on inclusion of Anne Frank

I believe that Anne Frank is completely out of place in the photo montage, and to me her inclusion feels disrespectful to the great people in it. 188.4.32.125 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What?Evildoer187 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the concensus on Anna Frank is to strong. She became an important cultural figure due to the fact her diary which was written in a very good way despite her age became one of the most famous books in history, and that without even mentioning the fact she represents the victims of the holocaust. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Orientalism

See this diff: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=533020007&oldid=532325314

Eligible for inclusion, or not? Discuss.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As i know if some born as jews who practices Christianity, is not a Jew. Then the picture of Lise Meitner as Famous Ashkenazi Jews should be removed since meitner converted to Christianity, following Lutheranism,.Jobas (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

She was not a practicing Protestant (b) in conformity with Nazi law she documented that her four grandparents were 'non-Aryan' and (c) after Kristallnacht, her lawyer arranged to have her identity papers changed from those of Lise Meitner, to Lisa Sarah Meitner, Sarah being the code term to indicate Jewishness. You can be a Jew in many ways. She should remain as a great Ashkenazi Jew unless evidence comes up that she disavowed her cultural and ethnic origins afterwards, which I don't believe she ever did. You can be both a Christian and a Jew, in your own terms, whatever Christian or Jewish orthodoxies might argue.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• • she was baptized in the Protestant Church, which mean she not jew's by religion and she is Protestant Christian at least nominally, why i saied my point is because in previous debates has been defined Jews based on religion and ethnic, and it's includes atheists and agnostic jews, While the Jewish who changed his religion is no longer considered to be jews. anyway i understand your point.Jobas (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many ways of being Jewish. Descent, religion, self-identification, conversion etc. Alain F. Corcos is a distinguished biologist, a Holocaust survivor, persecuted as a Jew, who never converted to any other religion. Yet neither he nor his brother, who is Jewish, say he is a Jew. He doesn't self-identify as a Jew, though of Jewish descent. Many Jews, in his memoir, insist he is Jewish. To repeat, it all depends on what Lise's personal statements say about her own beliefs. If, as opposed to the official documents she undersigned, she explicity denied, without being under constraint, that she was Jewish, you have an argument. If she never made such a free declaration, then you have no case. That Meitner converted does not, ipso facto mean she was not Jewish in her own view. It simply means she was a Jew who subscribed to Protestantism, like Karl Kraus or Simone Weil (who obviously suffered from something vastly abused by polemicists, the symptoms of 'Jewish self-hatred') to Catholicism. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro

What exactly is the problem with the new intro, which was reverted? as the article says, Ashkenazi Jews are people who trace themselves/parents/grandparents to the Jewish communities in what is today Poland, Germany, Romania, Lithuania etc. But the intro doesn't say it - it says "who trace their origins to the indigenous Israelite tribes of Canaan in the Middle East, and probably began settling along the Rhine in Germany, from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north, during the early Middle Ages." Well, the Rhine and Middle Ages parts should stay of course, what do Judea and Ancient Israel have to do with anything? it belongs maybe to the history section, not the lead. It is about Ashkenazi Jews, not Jews in general. The first line should say shortly who this group is, but was reverted: "who trace their ancestry to the Jewish communities of Eastern, Central and Western Europe, from Jewish communities who probably began settling along the Rhine in Germany, from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north, during the early Middle Ages." This intro tells more what this article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvn86 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to consolidate the information in the article and summarize it. Your proposed edit would be to arbitrarily omit a key part of who they are i.e. where they originated. I see no reason to leave it out, other than for POV purposes.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Evildoer187, Ashkenazi Jews do not "trace their ancestry to the Jewish communities of Eastern, Central and Western Europe" they are the Jewish community of Eastern, Central and Western Europe tracing their origin to Middle East.--Tritomex (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you Google "Ashkenazi Jews" and you'll see mostly "Jewish communities of Eastern/Central/Western Europe. Ancient Israel, Judea, the Temple in Jerusalem, the Diaspora etc all belong in the history section if you want, not intro. Just like the Sephardi Jews article says "is a general term referring to the descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Jews who lived or live in the Iberian Peninsula". You don't see biblical stuff in the intro there.Yuvn86 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be fixed too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yuvn, the ties are not "biblical", and none of the citations here have made use of the Bible to ascertain their origins. In fact, it was only a few days ago that you tried to remove material on this article that was reliably sourced. Anyway, your recommended revision would be misleading as it would (inaccurately) insinuate that they are a native Central/East European group. They lived in the Middle East for many thousands of years prior to this, and in Southern Europe for several centuries before making their way to the Rhine.

Shrike, good point. I will get on that right away.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably didn't Google or looked in an online dictionary, because then you'd read that the meaning is, more or less, "Jewish communities who were formed in Eastern/Central/Western Europe and their descendants", and something like these lines should be in the intro. Whether they came to these places centuries ago from Middle East or locals or Alaska or anywhere else is irrelevant to the first lines because it doesn't explain who they are. Yuvn86 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because neither of those things are relevant to what we do here. Besides, what often comes up in Google searches is based on info taken directly from us. As it stands, your revision would be misleading and omit an important part of the context for the formation of the Ashkenazi Jewish communities. The intro paragraphs do an adequate job of explaining who they are.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion to replace 2 people in the collage

I suggest to replace Heinrich Heine with Marc Chagall and Gustav Mahler with Natalie Portman for 2 reasons: 1. Heine and Mahler people converted to christianity, and as much as I understand Jews are an ethnic group we must not forget that they are actually labled as an ethnoreligious group, which means an ethnicity which formed around the religious identity. 2. We need to give more representation to women! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Under the Jewish religious law people converted to other religions from Judaism are still Jewish. Under secular common understanding Jews are ethnic group. However there are atheist Jews, agnostic Jews and even Christian Jews. So Heine and Mahler should be back. Natalie Portman is a great person, yet if you want woman in the section add Rosalind Franklin or Hedy Lamarr.--Tritomex (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not important what the Jewish religios says for anyone else except those who actually believe in it. If Heine and Mahler didn't consider themselves Jews then in their head they are not Jews and I don't see why we need to "force" them to stay with us. Natalie Portman is one of the greatest Jewish actresses ever and will be the only living person in the image (the rest are dead and it's kind of embarassing no one else there is alive). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a lack of political philosophers and theorists in the collage, and of course a lack of women, so why not Hannah Arendt? AzureClique (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If the space for this persons are limited, clearly Jewish inventors and people with great contribution to humanity have to be priority.--Tritomex (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to give representation to all fields Jews made an inpact in. "Contribution to humanity" is a very relative thing. Culture always gave people as much as technology, and in fact, while techology makes life easier to live physicaly, culture makes life worth living for, otherwise people would be robots. Marc Chagall is the greatest Jewish artist ever and one of the greatest artists in the 20th century and it's a joke he wasn't in the image before (his "contribution to humanity" if you like is the pleasure people get from looking at his images), while Portman is an academy winning actress and one of the best Jewish actors ever (her "contribution to humanity" if you like is the pleasure people get from watching films she takes part in). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering Natalie Portman and Chagall they are already presented at Jews article. No need to duplicate it here. Jews are an ethnic group, with common origin and if I would propose change I would add Niels Bohr and Leonard Kleinrock Borh mother was Jewish, he went to exile because of his ethnic origin. Also Spinosa, Proust, Robert Koch even Heinrich Hertz or Von Neumman should be considered too- -Tritomex (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought Spinoza was Sephardic, not Ashkenazi? AzureClique (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding the criteria for selecting individuals to be added to the collage. The only specifications that are made clear are that they must be significant in their fields and that not too many individuals from a single field monopolize the collage (lest we have half the Manhattan Project on there). So then why, for example, is Botvinnik on the list rather than Fischer or Kasparov, or Chagall over Rothko? Another thing that puzzles me is the omission of possibly the most famous, influential Jew (along with Einstein and Freud) in the modern world, Karl Marx. AzureClique (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One clear criterion should be that some of those in the collage should be Yiddish authors. The article boasts that Yiddish is the traditional language of Ashkenazi Jews; however, the only Yiddish writer in the collage, Scholem Aleichem, is continually being removed form the collage. There should be more Yiddish authors added to the collage, for example Nobel Prize winning Yiddish author Isaac Bashevis Singer. The collage actually currently displays a bias against Yiddish, by only showing those assimilated, German speaking Jews - Einstein, Herzl, Freud, Heine, etc. etc. - and totally ignoring Yiddish speakers/writers.Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Avaya1, stop removing Sholem Aleichem

Looking at the talk page I see there was definitely a consensus to include Sholem Aleichem. The collage with Sholem Aleichem lasted here for many month, until you came and started your revert war.

Very nice that there was a consensus years ago you were a part on, but stop being so sensitive about it. The old consensus was not the Holy Bible and clearly there is a new consensus in place so stop your pointless revert war. Sholem Aleichem has place in this collage!

Yes, and more Yiddish authors should be added to the collage in addition to Scholem Aleichem. In particular, Nobel prize winning Yiddish author Isaac Bashevis Singer.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to the claimed consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So the modus operandi is edit warring while refusing to respond. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't there be any famous Yiddish writers (Scholem Aleichem), represented in the collage, when the article states repeatedly that Yiddish was the traditional language of Ashkenazi Jews. Including Scholem Aleichem is fixing an obvious omission, and fixing an obvious mistake. There should be more Yiddish authors added. Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yiddish, German, Other languages

I added these subtitles on the collage: "Representatives of Yiddish, Representatives of German, and Representatives of other languages". Please consider leaving these sub-titles, as it hopefully will keep the Yiddish representation in the collage intact. It will also emphasize the significance of Yiddish and German as a factor in Ashkenazi Jewry. Remember that Yiddish and German are similar dialects of the same language.Jimhoward72 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the sub-titles are a good idea because it leaves all Jews which are not German, English or Yiddish out. I think it makes sense to keep it like it is but simply add German to the languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.99.144.141 (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of the Ashkenazis in the "Collage" spoke and wrote in German

Freud, Herzl, Einstein, Noether, Kafka, etc. are famous German writers, as anyone knows. My edit adding German as a language was reverted by Evildoer187 who writes "They spoke Yiddish, not German." This is completely false, and anyone who examines the list of persons in the collage will find the following:

• Spoke and wrote German

Sigmund Freud, Theodor Herzl, Gustav Mahler, Albert Einstein, Emmy Noether, Heinrich Heine, Lise Meitner, Franz Kafka

• Spoke and wrote Dutch

Anne Frank

• Spoke and wrote Yiddish

Vilna Gaon, Sholem Aleichem, Golda Meir (also English and Hebrew)

• Spoke and wrote Russian

Mikhail Botvinnik

• Spoke and wrote English

Leonard Bernstein

• Used Polish? (not clear from article)

Moses Isserles

Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think what the language section is based on is what are the most common languages among Jews Today. before the Holocaust many Jews spoke German, true, but today the number of Jews speaking German is very small and due to the fact a big part of German Jews today are immigrants from the Soviet Union they speak Russian.

Sholem Aleichem and Golda Meir were also fluent in Russian, but probably they preferred Yiddish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.60.197 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My edit adding "German" was under "traditionally", which only had Yiddish. Most originally spoke Yiddish, then more recently the more secular Yiddish speakers turned to German (which is very similar to Yiddish). Anyway, I think the collage should have a sub-title of "German", and another "Yiddish", and then maybe people will quit randomly removing the Yiddish persons in the collage (because they will see that they are in the "Yiddish" group).Jimhoward72 (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea of adding German to tranditional languages, however I think adding sub-titles will complicate it (especially because then we will have to create one for Russian speakers, and due to the fact that some of the people are Russian and Yiddish speakers it will complicate it). I do agree people should stop deleting Sholem Aleichem and other Yiddish speakers, but to be fair, the only thing we can do (and we should do) is revert them back. It's mostly a user called Avaya1 who keeps on saying it's not a part of a concensus he was a part of, obviously thinking he ows Wikipedia, and ignoring the fact numberous times afterwards a concensus was achieved on adding Sholem Aleichem (obviously, the greatest Jewish writer ever). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.99.144.141 (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In 19th-20th centuries I think as many (if not more) Ashkenazi Jews lived in the Russian Empire as in Germany and Austria. German speakers are disproportionately represented in the collage because they are better known in the English speaking world. Thus I don't think we should preference German over Russian and Polish. Fundamentally, their 'original' mother tounge was Yiddish, and that is the only one that should be written there. - BorisG (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned one of the main problems with the collage "German speakers are disproportionately represented in the collage because they are better known in the English speaking world". Basically, that is preventing the collage (and article) from being objective. A previous poster asked "what the criteria is for being included in the collage", and I think that is the problem. One of the criteria should definitely be that some prominent Yiddish authors should be included, which unfortunately they aren't. And also, Israelis are under-represented, with David Ben Gurion and Haim Weizman both missing (as another poster pointed out).Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the following is also true:

• Spoke and wrote Hebrew

Moses Isserles, Vilna Gaon, Sigmund Freud, Franz Kafka, Sholem Aleichem, Golda Meir, Heinrich Heine (a "smattering:)

-- Avi (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The above shows Hebrew to be more spoken than any other language than German for those in the collage, it seems. -- Avi (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Once and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage?

Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik had been in the collage for many month, but Avaya1 reverts it to the "old consensus" which didn't have Sholem Aleichem or Mikhail Botvinnik (it had John von Neumann and George Gershwin instead).

Lets, once and for all, answer the questions:

• Should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage (or should John von Neumann or George Gershwin be instead of him).
• Should Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage (or should John von Neumann or George Gershwin be instead of him).

Please state here what you think about who should be in the collage! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to Sholem Aleichem. Yes to Mikhail Botvinnik. The reason Sholem Aleichem should be in the image, as many already stated on this page, is due to the fact Yiddish is the language of Ashkenazi Jews, and Sholem Aleichem is the biggest name in Yiddish literature ever. Botvinnik should be in the image is to represent the Jewish achievements in chess, and to give more equal representation to Jews with east-European ancestry (who are underrepresented in this collage, in my opinion). 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I guess yes(for both). But in Wikiepdia, I think the only way this can be decided is by first establishing criteria for inclusion in the collage. For instance, currently the collage includes Golda Meir but not David Ben Gurion nor Haim Weizman, arguably two most important figures 20th century Jewish history. And what about Trotsky? Not a practicing Jew, but an Ashkenazi Jew nonetheless. Ultimately, it is impossible to compare apple and oranges, and thus the choice will always be somewhat arbitrary. Not sure how to approach this. - BorisG (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the idea to include Trotsky! I think Golda Meir was included over Ben Gurion to give more representation to women. I agree more changes should be done, but I think we should leave it for the next vote just not to confuse too many things together. I think the criteria is to give as much representation as possible to Jews in different areas. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean 'different areas' of human endevour or different geographical areas/countries? Or both? - BorisG (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Both. Sholem Aleichem is important to give representation to the Yiddish culture, Botvinnik is notable because of his achievements in chess, but he also will help increase the representation of the East European Jews. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to Sholem Aleichem to both and Mikhail Botvinnik. Strong NO to Trotsky. Sholem Aleichem is distinguish Jewish author who described in his books the Jewish life in exile with focus on the Ashkenazim diaspora in which he grew-no many other represent Ashkenazim more than he does. Mikhail Botvinnik is fantastic example for the distinguish achievements of Jewish people in chess, mainly of Jews from east Europe, Trotsky was by no doubt Jewish, by no doubt Ashkenazi-but like Marx he alienate himself from Judaism, therefore not the typical successful candidate to be included in the collage. We need candidates that can easily attract large consensus. --85.64.90.2 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• No and I don't understand why you want to over-turn a selection that had a massive consensus behind it, from many different members, after months of discussion. It's also important to represent one mathematician, whereas we already have many writers in the consensus-selection.Avaya1 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you can't not have a representative of the Yiddish culture, and all the people who commented so far agree that Sholem Aleichem has to be in the collage. I don't agree that we have to have at least one mathematician, as long as you have representatives of the exact sciences (which we have plenty) its fine. I think it's more important to have a representative of the Yiddish culture (Sholem Aleichem), and of the Jewish achievements in chess (Botvinnik). I looked at the archive, and the old selection had far from "massive consensus behind it". In fact, you can see numerous times after that "consensus" many people brought up and objected the fact Sholem Aleichem wasn't there. For close to half a year Sholem Aleichem was in the collage, and so was Botvinnik, but then "suddenly" you decided it's "against the consensus" and started reverting it. So here we are, trying to find out what the real consensus is. People have a right to reach a new consensus, and decide to change things. Wikipedia is not "few guys in 2008 decided on something and from now one nothing can be done". Also, it's not about changing the whole old selection, but it is about doing two modifications to improve the collage (modifications which are not even new because they lasted here for half a year). 90.196.60.197 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to include a Yiddish writer, then it makes sense to replace him/her with another writer. I don't understand why you wish to remove the only mathematician. There also has to be a consensus before you change the current selection. This selection was reached after months of discussion between many members. The main criteria we found was to represent a range of different occupations. Avaya1 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you don't have much writers here, and the writers here are too notable and from different genres to replace. The exact science are represented well enough. Besides, I wasn't the one who decided to do the change, it was here for around half a year, resulting in a situation we have two different collages with a revert war (with you reverting to the old version). After that discussion we will understand which is the correct one, and then you are welcome to suggest other changes, that's what talk pages are for. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrate? That's what you don't get, just because you were here long doesn't mean you have more authority then others in the group. It's not about you and your friend "arbitrating" the others, it's about a constructive discussion meant to make the collage better. You didn't answer the question, does it seem reasonable Sholem Aleichem is not in the collage, after his name was brought up so many times on the talk page in that context? It's not about "arbitrating", it's about discussing and finding the right consensus. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

He's the admin who usually monitors this article. It's fine to include Aleichem, but first you need a consensus for including him. You also have to explain why you're choosing the other photos to remove, rather than just deciding who you wanted to remove on your whim. As for mathematicians, von Neumann is the only one there. I don't understand why you are talking about exact sciences, since mathematics is not an exact science or part of science, although von Neumann also contributed to the sciences. Avaya1 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but to be fair isn't it better to call a neutral admin who never picked a side in such debates on this page? I agree about the idea to achieve a consensus, that's why I started this discussion. I wasn't the one who decided who to remove and who to put, I started the debate here between the 2 collages which were "competing" in the first place. Whenever you look at revert wars here, it was always between the old version and the new version which had been here for half a year. I think after we decide which one of those 2 collages to use, then we could discuss other changes. Right now it's about deciding which collage is the consensus one, and afterwards if you or anyone else wants you can discuss other changes. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to Sholem Aleichem. For all the talk about Yiddish in the article, Yiddish authors are - noticeably - almost completely absent from the collage (the collage shows mostly German writers). More Yiddish writers should be added, including Nobel prize winning Yiddish author Isaac Bashevis Singer. The priority of the collage should be to represent the "traditional Yiddish language of Ashkenazi Jewry" that is talked about so much in the article. (and perhaps to show such world-renown geniuses such as Freud, Einstein, and Marx)Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't say much about Botvinnik and his contribution in Jewish culture, but can definitely confirm that Sholem Aleichem not only greatly contributed into development of the Jewish literature, but also was an inspiration to many other Jewish people of the Russian Empire among which is Mark Warshawski. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's so true! Sholem Aleichem is THE Jewish writer, and for many when thinking about Jewish literature his name will be the first to come to their head. At the end of the day, I can't think of any other writer who was writing entirely about Jewish themes, but his plays were shown all over the world in different languages and people of different races and religions going to see them. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to Sholom Aleichem, for the reason mentioned by all, that he is the Yiddish writer. No to Trotsky for the reason mention by 85.64.90.2. Perhaps have George Gershwin instead of Botvinnik, and that would be a compromise version. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As much as I prefer Botvinnik to von Neumann or George Gershwin, if I would have to choose between von Neumann and Gershwin I would also choose Gershvin. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that you can choose that we have to replace either Gershwin or von Neumann. I don't see the justification for removing these two particular figures, except your arbitary preferences. Why are we supposed to remove them? My view on Aleichem is that given that Aleichem is already in the infobox for Jews, I don't think there is a need for him to be in another infobox. However if we want him in, it surely makes more sense to replace him for another writer. Avaya1 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The key in your sentence is "my view is", and you have to remember it's your view, and as you can see from this discussion it doesn't represent the majority view. No one said if someone is at Jews he can't be at Ashkenazi Jews. The fact is, Yiddish is the language of the Ashkenazi Jews and Sholem Aleichem is the biggest name in Yiddish culture. I didn't replace them, it was done ages ago, that's what it was for half a year. People here clearly showed what is the collage they prefer, and it's the one with Sholem Aleichem and Botvinnik. After that discussion finishes you are welcome to open a new one about putting Gershwin on von Neumann instead of someone else. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• In the past, editors here have generally tried to include well-known individuals (and typically exemplary ones), and also tried to ensure a broad cross-section of professions. By those standards, Gershwin would likely be the most famous, and von Neumann would remain the only mathematician. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's far from being "most likely", when you see what others commented here :-) As you can see, people don't really care about having or not having a mathematician in the collage, which makes sense because why a mathematician? Why not chemist? And about Gershvin... people outside America don't know him. As it was said before, you can't not have Sholem Aleichem in the image, and so far most people were favorable of Botvinnik. It's not a dictatorship so you have to except a consensus. As I said before, we need a neutral administrator to arbitrate the discussion and not one which the archive pages clearly show has strong personal opinions which prevent him from being neutral. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a dictatorship, which is why I recommend you wait for a consensus to develop, rather than trying to edit-war in your preferences. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's funny now you have something to say after not showing up at the dispute resolution discussion. The consensus is already clear from the discussion. Big Yes for Sholem Aleichem (want to argue with that?), and most people supported Botvinnik in. Very few supported Gershwin in, and even less supported Von Neumann (in fact, only you and Avaya1). 90.196.60.197 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sholem Aleichem should be the first one to enter the collage. No one will argue with the fact von Neumann is a great scientist, but he is not as known as other scientists in the selection. He is quite controversial for his part in developing the atomic bomb and for his call to use it against the Soviet Union and any country which wasn’t an ally of the US. Von Neumann is a bad selection just like Trotsky because of his controversial views. About Botvinnik I think it’s good to have him in because Jews achieved a lot in chess and he was very famous at the time. Gershwin is great but we already have Mahler in the selection so the musical field is already represented. PC poet robot (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Avaya1, can you please stop your silly revert war? The consensus is clear from this discussion, Sholem Aleichem obviously stays, Botvinnik also stays. Also, after your party didn't show up to the dispute resolution I would expect you to keep your head down a bit (and please don't try to say you didn't see the invitation, from your "contributions history" you were clearly editing other articles at that time on Wikipedia). Be decent and respect the consensus. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly support for Sholem Aleichem, but not for removing the other choices, and certainly not for Botvinnik. As for the new user above called "PC poet robot", he is surely a sock-puppet of yours (from looking at his edit-history - what are the chances that a new editor would register to wikipedia especially for this page, and then in less than a dozen edits support you on both the talk page of this article and the 1895 World Championship article)? A request for comment would be better - but the question has to be neutral as to who we want to swap for who, rather than being arbitrarily decided by you that two figures have to be swapped for another two (that you arbitrarily chose for removal). Avaya1 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Most people clearly said they want Botvinnik in. If they would want Gershvin or Von Neumann in, all those people would say so, but they didn't. All I can recommend for you is to start another discussion, asking weather to include Gershvin and/or Van Neumann, and instead of who. The fact is, Botvinnik is the representative of Jewish success in Chess, and Sholem Aleichem is a representative of Yiddish culture and got ultimate support. Seriously, start a new discussion on the topic and it will be much more effective. People do respond to those stuff at the end of the day and results are achieved. "Should Gershvin and Von Neumann be in the selection, and instead of who?" I personally wouldn't mind replacing Bernstein for Gershvin, though don't think Von Neumann should be in it at all, but it's not up to me to decide! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show which editors have "clearly said they want Botvinnik in", using diffs? I haven't seen that here yet, but perhaps I have missed the posts. Also, regarding your statement that "If they would want Gershvin or Von Neumann in, all those people would say so, but they didn't", please review argument from ignorance, argument from silence, and Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Look up and read. How many people said Botvinnik in? Not how many said Gershwin in or Von Neumann in? Good, solves it. Arguments were brought up against Von Neumann being to controversial here in the first place. I suggested to Avaya1 on his wall to start a new discussion: Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann, Botvinnik, which 2 should be in the collage? And then see what people say. Ask Avaya1 why he still didn't do that, that would answer a lot of questions. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to Sholem Aleichem and Gershwin, and to Botvinnik if there is room.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann

Just to calm Avaya1 and Jayig ones and for all. Which 2 people out of the following 4 do you think should be in the collage (after we already established Sholem Aleichem is definitely in in the previous discussion):

• Mikhail Botvinnik
• Leonard Bernstein
• George Gershwin
• John von Neumann

Please write which 2 should be in the collage and write a comment explaining why you think so! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to Botvinnik, as a representative of Jewish success in chess and to give more representation to Jews from Eastern Europe. Yes to Bernstein simply because him and Gershwin are composers but in my opinion Bernstein is better known. Big NO to Von Neumann, as it was pointed out in the discussion on top the guy advocated use of nuclear weapon, or in other words supporting mass murder on innocent people. He was proud of the atomic bombs dropped over Japan and he wanted the same done to the Soviet Union, so big No to Von Neumann. Besides, we already have representatives of the exact sciences. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also choose Bernstein over Gershwin. No opinion on the other two. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is so much difficulty to be found in choosing Bernstein vs. Gershwin, perhaps an alterative Ashkenazi musician may serve as a compromise. Would any one of the following garner more acceptance:

• Vladimir Horowitz
• Emanuel Ax
• Victor Borge
• Yehudi Menuhin
• Itzhak Perlman
• Jascha Heifetz
• Pinchas Zukerman
• Bronisław Huberman
• Arnold Schoenberg
• Aaron Copland
• Billy Joel (for what it's worth :) )
• Beverly Sills (I don't think Robert Merrill rates as highly, personally)
• Jacques Offenbach
• Georg Solti

-- Avi (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you there are musicians which deserve to be in the collage more, like Bob Dylan or Vladimir Horowitz. I think though we should stick to those name which were already discussed extensively in the past, simply to avoid the discussion becoming to big. But common sense is with you in this one. PS Great taste in music! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I vote for Sholem Aleichem, Leonard Bernstein (certainly over Gershwin), and Mikhail Botvinnik. Definitely no to von Neumann. This is a matter of historic sense and aesthetic balance, and both are subjective opinions. But this is my vote on this dispute, in any case. warshy^¥¥ 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sholem Aleichem is for sure already in per previous discussion, but I agree with you 100% about all the rest said. I don't see how anyone can seriously promote Von Neumann, that's one guy that if you would give him to rule America for a day would cause more death and destruction that anyone before him in human history. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't really care if Gershwin or Bernstein are in, though Bernstein is more famous. I am against von Neumann even being considered as one of the people representing Ashkenazi Jews. As it was said earlier, the guy is not that famous for most people and those who do know about him usually have a negative opinion due to his support of nuclear weapons (which if anything is embarassing for us Jews). I think Botvinnik is a good idea to represent Jews in chess. 81.171.159.172 (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is the voting here restricted restricted to the four individuals at the top? Botvinnik would be fine, as far as I'm concerned. As for musicians, I think Mahler and Schoenberg are head and shoulders above Bernstein and Gershwin. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to consider someone new, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about Mahlr and Schoenberg (Mahler is already in). I wouldn't say it's restricted to those 4 individuals. I just named those 4 because their names were brought up in previous discussions and to keep the discussion simple and not to too wide, though obviously if many people will suggest someone whose not on the list he'll be in. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING please

I'm probably not involved enough and could lock this page myself, but it will be pretty easy to get m:The Wrong Version locked until y'all can come up with a decision. I'd rather not need to have this locked, but… -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there should be an issue, the two discussions above clearly show what people support and what is "the right version". I don't think there should be more reverting. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lise Meitner

Why Lise Meitner picture is in the articale As an adult, she converted to Christianity, following Lutheranism, and being baptized in 1908.

It doesn't change the fact she was ethnically Jewish, and the article talks about Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group and not as a religion (for that go to Judaism). 90.196.60.197 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The openning was written by antisemites. It contradicts the main article.

The Ashkenazim(the use of Ashkenazis is a slur) trace themselves to the People of Israel not to the mystorious Kzhars. 132.64.218.139 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree! I reverted it, but I find it a joke it survived here for so long. I read a lot about the Khazars and I personally wish Ashkenazi Jews did have some Khazarian blood, but the fact is, genetic studies proved Ashkenazi Jews came from Israel and have nothing to do with the Khazars. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The edits he made were quite disgusting. He will be brought before an administrator if he restores the content in question.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at his edit history, I don't think the guy is mentally stable. He deletes known proven facts and puts made up stuff which don't make any sense. He did the same thing on Saladin where he deleted the fact he's Kurdish and wrote he's Turkic. It's just weird! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed this weirdo keeps on deleting Anne Frank from the collage. I think it's a classic frustrated Jew-hating-holocaust-denier. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The most recent edit was to blank out the entire article, which was reverted by the bot User:ClueBot. Should something be done about this? TomS TDotO (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This ClueBot is smart! It reverted this guy in both Ashkenazi Jews and Saladin articles. I think what should be done is an admin should block the user and block his IP (I have a feeling he is a sock of an account which already existed and probably was blocked), but to be honest I'm not really sure how to do it. Hope people will give ideas here! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism has no place on Wikipedia. I will speak to an admin about Sonici later.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rothschild, Brandeis to collage?

Per WP:BRD: I wanted to add Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Louis Brandeis to the collage. Rothschild is obviously an incredible important figure in world history (named the seventh most influential businessperson of all time by Forbes). And Brandeis is arguably one of the most important legal scholars of the 20th century, and also the first Jewish US Supreme Court Justice. His 1890 Harvard Law Review article—the 2nd most cited legal article all-time [1]—established the right to privacy, now commonly regarded as a human right. Because space is limited in this infobox, I replaced Heinrich Heine and Gustav Mahler. Both are, in my opinion, less important than Rothschild and Brandeis. Plus, since we already have Franz Kafka and Leonard Bernstein, we'd have an undue weight on writers and composers, while there are no bankers and lawyers in the infobox at all. Yet, in both professions Ashkenazi were overproportionally represented throughout the past two to three centuries. Of any banker from Samuel Oppenheim to Marcus Goldman, Rothschild is arguably the most important. So is Brandeis for legal scholars. So should these two be added to the infobox? --bender235 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see above, any change requires a consensus which follows a discussion. No one says those figures are not important, but the fact is, in the history of the Jewish people there were many important people and without discussion we will have a lot of revert wars here.

I am against adding Brandeis to the collage because he has no meaning for Jews outside of America, that's why he is a must in the American Jews article but in this article I think it would be weird to have him. We might as well have Russian, Polish and English Jews try and stick Jews to the collage which are known only in their countries.

I am against adding Rotschild because he is simply too controversial due to his financial activity and the dodgy reputation his family has. I don't see why we need to have a banker in the collage, especially after 2008 when it became clear the system they created is corrupt.

Mahler is probably the most famous Jewish composer ever and Heine by many is called the greatest German poet ever, so their importance is definitely bigger. 2.216.71.85 (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

PS does anyone know why my IP changed? I used to have 90.196.60.197 and suddenly it changed. 2.216.71.85 (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If we leave Mahler and Heine in, then why also Kafka and Bernstein? Why two writers, and two composers, but no banker or lawyer at all? I agree that Brandeis is mostly important only to the United States. Then lets drop him. But Rothschild clearly is of immense importance. Not including him because he is deemed "controversial" due to weird conspiracy theories sounds fishy. And even if true, "dodge reputation" is not a reason not to include a person of such influence on world history (compare Josef Stalin on Georgian people, and Adolf Hitler on Austrians). I'd say replace either Mahler or Bernstein with Rotschild. --bender235 (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Kafka and Heine are the most famous Jewish writers, and it's extremely hard to choose between the two. As much as diversity in occupation is good (for example I personally thing Chagal should be in the collage, known world-wide and representing Jews in art), we don't really have a rule of "only one person per each occupation" (or from the other hand, we don't have a rule of "every occupation on the planet needs to be represented"). Mahler is probably the best performed Jewish composer ever. To be fair, if I would take anyone out of the collage it would be Bernstein, but it would be for someone like Chagal, but not for Rotchild or Brandeis.

"Why two writers, and two composers, but no banker or lawyer at all?" Yeah but by that logic you can say but why two writers but no Jewish sports-people, plumbers, hairdressers of chefs? I'm taking it to an extreme, but who said we have to have a banker or a lawyer in the first place? I personally don't see the need to have a banker or a lawyer because we are talking about people who usually are known only among people of the same profession or only in their countries. Some of the theories against the Rothschild are conspiracy, maybe, but many are based on facts. At the end of the day, you are talking about a family which always wanted one thing which is profit, and they very often did things which were not moral or honest to achieve it. Despite the fact I support Marx and Trotsky, I opposed them entering the collage for the same reason - to avoid controversy. That's the same reason why Germans didn't put Hitler in (even though some suggested it, as you can see from the talk page). Different pages can have different criteria's about who to put in or not. For example, Russians and English put people only of their ethnicity in the collage, while Poles and French do the selection on the base of nationality. The fact is, on the Ashkenazi Jews page Trotsky and Marx had a lot of people supporting their inclusion, but at the end it was decided not to on the basis of controversy. I believe the same rule applies to Rothschild.

PS My IP changes every time I restart the computer, any advice? 2.222.179.252 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My advice against changing IPs would be create an account.

Germans didn't add Hitler because Hitler wasn't German. He was Austrian, that's why you find him on Austrians.

Why bankers but no sportspeople, hairdressers, etc. in this collage? Because the Jewish influence on banking is greater than in any other profession. Finance and money changing was one of the few professions Jews were allowed to excert from the Middle Ages to early modern times. I find it disturbing that this fact is neglected in this infobox, with none of the countless notabe, famous, and influential Jewish financiers in this collage.

And finally: yeah, the Rothschilds were in business to make profit. But name a business that isn't. --bender235 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

At the time most German speakers in Austria identified as Germans and it was only after world war 2 that many Austrians started trying to separate their identity from the German one in the ethnic sense. On the German talk page they considered Hitler for the collage, and they declined him on the basis of being too controversial (and not on the basis of being Austrian, because they know that at those time the difference was in terms of citizenship but not identity).

Yeah but don't you think the Jewish control of the banks is an anti-Semitic conspiracy? It's nothing I would be proud of, nor something that I would try to adopt as a fact. I'm Jewish, and just like any normal human being I am more then fed up with the corruption and control that is connected to the banks, and I personally don't like to be blamed for it. Some of the richest families in the world are Jewish, but at the end of the day, the vast majority are not. It's true finance was one of the only professions Jews were allowed to do in the middle ages, but the Rothschild's don't really have much to do with the middle ages. I think those you talk about were the court Jews of European kings and princes. Also, it's something hard to represent in a collage. For example, until the 19th and 20th century most of Europe were peasants, but I don't see much peasants in the collages of Russians, Belarusians, English people or Scots.

True, all business are set up for profit. But you can't compare for example someone setting up a company to provide electricity, who makes money from that, to the Rothschild's, who literally would do anything for money (including selling weapons to all sides in a war).2.222.179.252 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not about "Jews controling banks" (which is a conspiracy theory), but about banks founded by Jews which are now still of immense importances, such as Goldman Sachs, Lazard, or N M Rothschild and Sons. --bender235 (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but there were many Jews founding different things in different areas, including major sports clubs (by the way, some of the greatest managers in football and basketball were Jewish), I don't think banking is something that needs to be represented in the collage, and I think it will just draw negative fire (we all know the role Rothschild and Goldman Sachs played in the last crisis, and especially how the money-government connection got them bailed out instead of going to jail). I don't see Irish people putting people who founded banks in America in the collage and they had quite a few to. 2.222.179.252 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Elhaik 2013 and Khazarian hypothesis

There is currently no consensus on whether to include or exclude mention that Elhaik 2013 supports the Khazarian theory [2]. Elhaik 2013 is [3], the overview of the article and its context is [4].

Should Ashkenazi Jews mention that Elhaik 2013 supports the Khazarian hypothesis?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OF course. It's a minor position, but significant. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

* Comment: My reaction echoes Nishidani's. I don't know the details, but if there is substantial citable material and it is relevant, then why the question? JonRichfield (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the fuss is because the "Khazarian hypothesis" is viewed by some as a code word for anti-Semitism. The Khazarian connection has been promoted by some people who want to argue that present-day Jews are not true descendants of the ancient Israelites, and therefore have no valid claim to the land of Israel, etc., etc. For background on this, see Khazars#Genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews; Genetic studies on Jews (search for "Khazar" throughout the article); The Thirteenth Tribe; The Invention of the Jewish People#DNA analysis; and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Genetic studies on Jews. Personally, I find myself torn between not wanting to enable or encourage anti-Semitism on the one hand, and feeling an obligation (per WP:NPOV) to support the mentioning of an apparently valid scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal on the other hand. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The theory and its minor antisemitic spin (huge noise over little) has been fairly thoroughly covered in the Khazar article so far. Too many distinguished Israeli and Jewish scholars have treated it as a possibility to be examined openly for it to be dismissed as antisemitism, or reduced to a slur, which is what politicized screeds invariably do in the face of its quite reasonable place in the scholarly world. This place has to be disintoxicated from obsession with the loud-mouthed political spinning of everything, which only, rather deviously, cancels a variety of interpretations in order to allow one (a political tale) to be left standing.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mention it carefully. It warrants mention insofar as it has been described by reliable sources. It seems like there is a lot of room for POV pushing, but there are enough editors watching the article to find consensus. Andrew³²⁷ 17:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

* Comment: The argument seems logical. There is no reason to avoid mentioning both theories in a balanced way. I do not feel it is anti-Semitic, it seems PC as presented. But because the claim will offend some people who will feel their very identity is being challenged, be careful to mention it as a theory. User:Eyestoseeandearstohear (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mention it carefully since it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, and be sure to include any peer-reviewed criticism of the Khazarian theory, as well as a representative sample of commentary and criticism of the theory (i.e. "code phrase for anti-semitism," if there's a notable person who says that) from non-academic sources, such as opinion columns in major newspapers. Anyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography should be notable enough to be used as a representative of the critics of this theory. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Yes. . .Well, tiptoe round it as though it were real dangerous. Look. This is not a taboo. Elhaik's academic paper is there, and will get peer-review. In a year or two, other papers (except the only paper that matters - a DNA analysis of the 1500 Lachish skeletons conserved in museums, dating 700BC, which would give an extremely clear picture of the genetic constitution of an Israelite population at that time), other papers will emerge. To hedge something like it with several quotes about antisemitism overlooks the fact that Khazar theory has played almost no role in antisemitism: all the evidence for that comes from the lunatic fringe. Secondly, Koestler wrote his book when he heard that the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory was taboo, an area to be avoided for scholars who want an untroubled career, not because it was antisemitic, but because it troubled a myth of origins. I don't see why people are so nervous about mentioning a simple straightforward piece of research by a fine young Israeli-American geneticist who happens to disagree with a standing consensus. It's a minority view to be mentioned as such, and all the stuff about antisemitism is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that the information should be included in the appropriate proportion and that nothing more delicate than the normal neutral voice is necessary. We are writing an encyclopedia and our obligation is to present the facts in a neutral voice using encyclopedic prose while letting the reader decide what the summary means.&nbsp:) John Cline (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani brought Khazarian theory with tremendous amount of biased one sided unverifiable claims in many articles sistematically destroying their neutrality and presenting a fringe theory as historically verified fact. What happened to Khazars artickle is outrages. The same he did in Genetic Studies on Jews, The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand etc. He is pushing the 3 marginal scientist Shlomo Sand a political activist, and a marginal linguist Wexler with Elhaik everywhere, denying dozens of historians, geneticists and linguists who consider this trio fringe.

I see people using one source by Elhaik to argue a whole bunch of points, whereas there are numerous other studies and sources which directly contradict him. Sounds like a case of WP:UNDUE/WP:Minority POV to me.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And to say that the Khazar theory has only a minor antisemitic component to it is just flat out ridiculous. First of all, I'd argue that anything pertaining to Jews and "race" is highly sensitive and should be treated with care, especially when it comes to a theory which is primarily used to attack Jews. Until there is a consensus for this theory, I say we treat it as fringe and call it a day.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

All the scholars mentioned by the anon above, are Jewish. They have no problem discussing the hypothesis with equanimity. RS say the antisemitic component is minor. Screaming 'antisemitism!' simply to shut down an idea or argument or quash a source is extremely tedious, not to speak of tendentious. Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So because someone is Jewish, that somehow makes them immune to antisemitism? I guess Gilad Atzmon, being the Holocaust denier that he is, gets a free pass then? I did not try to silence anyone. I am simply partaking in discussion, like you are. Evildoer187 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify; where I said "nothing more delicate than the normal neutral voice is necessary" I did not mean to imply that the subject is not a delicate matter within an otherwise sensitive topic, it certainly is. My intention is to suggest that proper use of a neutral voice is sufficient to accomplish the desire not to inflame. I stand by this opinion. :) John Cline (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just briefly returning to see what is happening and what is happening is really sad. Agree with Evildoer187. The stupidity of claim that AJ are 90% of Jewish population should be immediately removed.--Tritomex (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No. adjusted, ranging from 83-85% (90% was the round figure before the Holocaust), to take into account:-

• Gershon Shafir, Yoav Peled Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship, Cambridge University Press ‎2002 p.324 'The Zionist movement was a European movement in its goals and orientation and its target population was Ashkenazi Jews who constituted, in 1895, 90 percent of the 10.5 million Jews then living in the world (Smooha 1978: 51).'

• The Encyclopedia Britannica, 'Today Ashkenazim constitute more than 80 percent of all the Jews in the world, vastly outnumbering Sephardic Jews. In the late 20th century,'

• Asher Arian (1981) in Itamar Rabinovich, Jehuda Reinharz, Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, pre-1948 to the present, UPNE/Brandeis University Press 2008 p.324 ‘About 85 percent of the world’s Jews are Ashkenazi,’

• David Whitten Smith, Elizabeth Geraldine Burr Understanding World Religions: A Road Map for Justice and Peace, Rowman & Littlefield, ‎2007 p.72 'Before the German Holocaust, about 90% of Jews world-wide were Ashkenazim. Since the Holocaust, the percentage has dropped to about 83%.'

In lieu of precise figures, write 83-85. The Holocaust altered the earlier figure cited.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to remind that the RfC is only about whether to mention that Elhaik supports the Khazarian hypothesis, not whether to use him as a source for demographics, or anything about Wexler, or even for any further expansion of Khazarian theory issues. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Khazarian theory is a fringe theory mostly used in Antisemitic polemics. Almost all historians to name just some (Bernard Levis Israel Barthal Moshe Gil Anita Shapira Simon Schama) geneticists like Hammer Behar, Ostrer, Shen, Nebla etc do not consider this theory to be valid. Elhaik is already mentioned in genetic section and giving undue weight to his genetic analysis compared to 23 other genetic studies which came out with opposite conclusions should not be an option. Therefore there is no need to add more of this into article.--Tritomex (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of which is correct. See the article Khazars and its talk page. Elhaik is a new source, claiming that the minority input (Behar, Ostrer, Nebel (note spelling, and Levis = Lewis) hypothetically possible for Khazar genetic flow into the Ashkenazi was far more extensive. One cannot refuse a new piece of work simply on the specious grounds that it challenges a paradigm. You register it, and wait for peer-review. Not to do this is to push a POV that holds that the truth is known. (WP:V) as all editors know, is against truth-pushing claims, and demands only quality RS and verifiability. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said on other pages, include it, but do not exaggerate its importance. It is one study, in a sea of studies which contradict it.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It contradicts several studies which say a Khazar input, if existent, is minor. Logically, earlier studies of a subject do not contradict more recent ones. That's like saying Aristotle contradicts Kant. More recent ones contradict the earlier studies, and later peer-studies will no doubt challenge or contradict or support Elhaik. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You'd have a point if Elhaik's study wasn't criticized by other geneticists (I will provide the links later, when I get out of class). In addition, Haber's study, which came out in 2013, does not support the Khazarian hypothesis. We're going to need much more than just one or two studies. Otherwise, it is giving undue weight to a minority opinion.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's minor. Hitler never spoke about any Khazars. Some random Neo-Nazi / Hamas member / other extremists are not going to hate more than they already do because of this strange theory. Also, it's obvious that most historians on Judaism clearly dismiss it. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Claim that Elhaik home made analysis is the "most recent study" or revolutionary finding is misleading. It is not the most recent, Haber and all 2013 findings in many aspects contradicts Elhaik (shared origin of all Jews-shared Jerwish clusters, the Caucaisan genetic component in all native Middle Eastern people, as well as Arabian component in modern day Palestinians. Also Elhaik does not used any new standard technique so that his analysis (which are not even full studies as he used samples from other authors whose conclusions were opposite to him,) so that he deserves some more privileged place than 23 (with Haber 24) studies whose findings are well known. The techniques of all genetic studies are standardized much before Elhaik. It was in fact Elhaik who used non standard procedures in his analysis. --Tritomex (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also I suggest the most recent analysis of famous Russian scientist Anatole A. Klyosov. He explains in detiales the errors of previous Elhaik analysis. [5] His study was published Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Moscow, in Russian.--Tritomex (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. You should find the proper link to the Proceedings of the Academy

of DNA Genealogy:Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba, rather than use Klosov's homepage.

Look, it's quite simple wikiwise. Elhaik is RS, the topic is Ashkenazi genetics. It's a minority view. Other considerations, like the 'truth' (the 23 figure you repeat is nonsensical WP:OR , as I have told you many times) are irrelevant. Per WP:Undue as a minority thesis, it must be mentioned in no more than a line or so, which may also contain some phrasing of the kind '. His analysis is challenged by Klosov'. We've been asked a technical wiki issue, not to discuss the merits or 'truth' of these papers (the 'truth' consists in an analysis of the DNA of Israelite skeletons, nowhere else, and no one appears to wish to do this). Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The correct numbers of Ashkenazi Jews

The numbers stated in this article are based on outdated and incorrect sources and do not represent the real situation. I found 2012 Israeli CBS data where 53% of Israeli Jews are of Mizrahi and Sephardic origin, which means about 3,3 million people or already more than 20% of world Jewry. More so most of French Jews, 10% of American Jews and huge number of former Soviet Jews, Italian, African, Asian, Arab Jews are not of Ashkenazi decent. Nowhere in Israeli publications and almost nowhere in "non Jewish" publication, beside few genetic articles (which claim 8 million Ashkenazi jews or about 60% of world Jewry) I found the numbers of Ashkenazi. It is very likely, that based on indirect numbers that they represent about 70% or less of world Jews. I suggest looking in to this numbers and correcting the errors of this article.--Tritomex (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an open invitation to WP:OR. Find a book with proper census figures contradicting those given in the numerous excellent sources that state 82-86% and we can reconsider. That is the only evidence that counts, not personal calculations.Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:OR, but with correcting outdated tertiary sources. Also this is not intended against you, or anyone ales but I wished to open a dialogue on this question as this in not hypothetical but solely demographic question. According to Jewish virtual library Mizrahi and Sepharadic Jews are currently half of Israeli population [6] this means about 3-3,3 million non Ashkenazi Jews just in Israel. The same is evident from Israeli CBS.[7] In Clarke, Peters "Religions of the World: Understanding the Living Faiths", Marshall Editions Limited: USA (1993); pg. 132. I found this quote "The Sephardi-Ashkenzai division still exists to a lesser degree in Jewish life today, with Ashkenazim forming more than 70 percent of the Jews in the world." In Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook By David Levinson I found that Ashkenazi Jews are minority among Israeli Jews. However while wrriting this I found the most important source, namely Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews : Vol # XXII: Vol # XXII By Department of Political Science Institute of Contemporary Jewry Peter Y. Medding Dr. Israel Goldstein Professor Emeritus of Zionism and the State of Israel, Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel. On page 14, the demographic table precisely identifies 26% of world Jews as non Ashkenazi.(3 403 000) compared to 9 789 000 Ashenazi Jews. (or 74%) --Tritomex (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on this sources I will revise the numbers, leaving Britannica estimates inside the text.--Tritomex (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• The 'outdated tertiary sources' happen to be later (2008) than the source (2000 data reported 2007/2008) by Sergio DellaPergola.
• The 'most important source' you found nowhere mentions Ashkenazi Jews, and technically it is WP:OR to use a source for this page that does not mention them on pp.13-14, which you regard as crucial.
• Those pages deal with Sephardic/Oriental Jews, giving 26%, and you infer that Ashkenazi must therefore be '74%'. This is a good example of WP:OR.
• Srgio DellaPergola there is one demographic authority basing his calculations on a 2000 study that he admits is 'rough', 'subjective' and also based on some guesses from 'objective data'. Fine. He is an authoritative source, but you presented the inference as the WP:Truth.
• I have absolutely no passion about how the figures play out. What does concern me is that wikipedia's rules be adhered to, and that no one push a POV.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks that the only demographic expert used as a source is Sergio DellaPergola, Asher Arian was a famous political scientist but not a demographic expert. His book, as I see, was written in (1981) 32 years ago. The demographic changes during this period were extensive.:Concerning WP:OR claims, per Wikipedia rules, rational, logical facts do not even need sourcing. So If non Ashkenazi Jews are 26% of overall Jewish population, Ashkenazi Jews are 74%. This is not WP:OR.--Tritomex (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

IT is not a fact. It is an expert guess using a series of subjective and objective parameters, and based on data from 2000. It may well be true, but that is not the point.Nishidani (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I do n0t claim that DellaPergola numbers are "fact". I said that if non Ashkenazi Jews would be 26%, based on this numbers, it is fact that Ashkenazi Jews are 74%. Logically, this is not WP:OR.--Tritomex (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have demographic dates from 2010 onward. Also, the current estimates mentioned in the article should be dated, as demographics is a dynamical subject. We cant just say "today" for 1981 or earlier sources, not even for 13 years old estimates.--Tritomex (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

From whom and from which year Asher Arian estimates come from? Also, you missed another source "Religions of the World: Understanding the Living Faiths", Marshall Editions Limited: USA (1993); pg. 132.

I did not want to use this source as it comes from 1993, however if we include source from 1981, maybe this source should be in also.

logical facts do not even need sourcing. So If non Ashkenazi Jews are 26% of overall Jewish population, Ashkenazi Jews are 74%.

I do n0t claim that DellaPergola numbers are "fact".

I said that if non Ashkenazi Jews would be 26%, based on this numbers, it is fact that Ashkenazi Jews are 74%. Logically, . .

Logically you are all over the place like a dog's dinner. If clauses don't admit facts, logical or otherwise. You start a sentence with an if-clause, then follow through with 'are' when you mean 'would be', and hence we are dealing with an inference based on one model. For God's sake please read J.J.Goldberg, 'How Many American Jews Are There?[ in The Forward,February 18, 2013, which makes it eminently clear DellaPergola's figures are contested, are considered POV-pushing, and methodologically dubious by his peers. He is pushing an agenda to underestimate Ashkenazi, and for you it is the truth.

The first is that the best scientific estimate of America’s Jewish population is 6.722 million, although that’s probably wrong, mostly because of double-counting college students and snowbirds.

The real number is probably between 6.0 million and 6.4 million. (So 6.722 million is scientific but wrong? Go figure.) The second is that American Jews actually number 5.4 million, and anyone who thinks the total is above 6 million doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The first total, 6 to 6.7 million, appears in an article titled “Jewish Population in the United States, 2012,” written by the book’s editors, Ira Sheskin of the University of Miami and Arnold Dashefsky of the University of Connecticut. They reached their figures, they explain, through a mixture of methods, mainly combining local surveys from scores of communities around the country, along with informed estimates by local leaders in hundreds of other communities, plus some U.S. Census information. Their article includes charts and maps showing Jewish population by state, region and in each of some 900 communities around the country.

They note that their total is much higher — by 1.5 million — than the widely publicized 5.2 million total published in the 2001 National Jewish Population Survey, conducted by what’s now called the Jewish Federations of North America. To understand the gap, they refer readers to an article in the 2006 American Jewish Year Book by the respected Israeli demographer Sergio DellaPergola.

The second figure, 5.425 million, appears in the new book’s next article, “World Jewish Population, 2012,” by the same Sergio He explains that his total for the United States, part of a worldwide total of 13.7 million, is based on that 5.2 million figure from 2001, corrected for known errors and then adjusted for a decade of births, intermarriages and more.

He notes that the 2001 total was lower than the 5.5 million found in a 1990 population survey. That means Jewish numbers are declining. He cites several other national surveys with similar results. Studies with higher estimates, including Sheskin-Dashefsky and an innovative Brandeis University study, are “implausible,” “unreliable” and “not tenable.”

Here’s what neither article tells you. First, the 2001 population survey was a fiasco. It was conducted in 2000 but not released until 2002, following a series of inside and outside investigations into its known problems. These included lost data and flawed questionnaires.

The outside investigation, by the head of the prestigious American Association for Public Opinion Research, found at least two dozen serious methodological errors, most of them pointing toward an undercount. The published survey said the actual total was probably closer to 5.8 million. It also noted that its methods were different from those used in 1990, and therefore no comparison was possible — meaning no decline should be read into it.

He is Israel’s leading expert in Jewish demography, universally liked and respected by his peers, and is a central figure in virtually every major discussion or decision on relations with the Diaspora. Colleagues decribe his dead-end commitment to a discredited doctrine of American Jewish decline as an eccentricity, but some are beginning to express alarm over its impact. “Sergio,” Sheskin told me, “wants to be able to say that more Jews live in Israel than in America.”.

i.e.DellaPergola is criticized for a POV commitment to pushing for Ashkenazi US decline by colleagues, one that leads him to endorse a figure that removes several hundred thousand Ashkenazi from his calculations. I'vce told you time and again, to stop cherrypicking data that suit your idea of the 'truth'. These things are hypotheses, and the edit I made entertains no idea of the truth, it simply shows the variation in clashing figures, as wikipedia demands.Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the official US census of 2008 there are 1,7% Jews or 5,1 million Jews in America, lower than DellaPergola estimates. Sergio DellaPergola is widely considered an expert on this field and newspaper articles based on " Sheskin told me," do not qualify for academic criticism. His numbers are used by Jewish Virtual library. [8] Its clear that the higher number estimates include people with Jewish origin who don't consider themselves Jewish (as explained in forward article) I do not say that I object additional sources, different results, revision of current data etc however I object using thr numbers from 1970s, (whose origin is questionable)in a manner that imply that they represent current demographic situation. Maybe DellaPergola is criticized but Asher Arian "by the way" numbers from his 1981 book are not reliable source regarding the seize of Ashkenazi Jews today.--Tritomex (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, and the reference cited, and respond specifically to it. This is not a talk shop for airing one's personal beliefs. (a) That DellaPergola is challenged for his underestimations and defective methodology means, for wikipedia, he cannot be taken for facts, but for attributed estimates. (b) You clearly have not read the article I referred to, because you insist on citing a US census (2008), and Pergola (2000/2002) when the article is a 2013 critique of all of these data. So stick to the point and stop waffling, or whiffling through the tulgy woods of WP:OR .Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No. I'll do your homework for you.

Ira M. Sheskin, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Geography and Regional Studies Un iversity of Miami

(Ohio State University, 1977)

Ira M. Sheskin, Arnold Dashefsky Jewish Population in the United States 2012, ' Berman Institute – North American Jewish Data Bank, University of Connecticut, 2012 p.4

• Recent Estimates of American Jews
• National Jewish Population Survey 2000-021: 5,200,000
• American Jewish Identity Survey 2001: 5,340,000
• Survey of Heritage and Religious Identification, 2001-02: 6,000,000
• Steinhardt Brandeis Meta-Analysis 2011: 6,400,000
• North American Jewish Data Bank 2012: 6,722,000 p.19

The figure 6,721,680 based on www.census.gov (2011 estimates). So, as I have had to repeat, your WP:OR deduction from one expert, who used old figures, and is criticized for faulty methodology and POV pushing, clashes with the results by an American Jewish expert in demography (Sheskin). Given this, you cannot rewrite the page according to one authority, using an inference about non-Sephardim, and old data, when his results are subject to peer-challenge. Is that clear? Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If DellaPergola is widely cited authority in Jewish demographics and his numbers are used by Israeli CBS, Jewish virtual library, so his numbers are certainly WP:RS for Wikipedia. If his work has been criticized,(indirectly effecting this question, as the alleged criticism regarding American Jewry does not equals the criticism of the number of Ashkenazi Jews. Not to mention that this is again based on newspaper article) so what, most of academic works used in Wikipedia, have some degree of criticism. Again, he is well respected demographer and his numbers are used by numerous high ranking Jewish and Israeli institutions. That means he is WP:RS.

Contrary to this, a claim of unknown date and origin, written in book from 1981, maybe or may not be a reliable source for Ashkenazi jewish population in 1981. However, certainly 30 years later, it is not reliable. Especially it is not reliable regarding the seize of Ashkenazi Jews today.--Tritomex (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Just in Israel, the demographic changes regarding the scope of population between 1981 and today exceeded 100%. --Tritomex (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you blathering on about. Answer the specific point, on 2012 data hosted by the North American Jewish Data Bank. Who gives a flying fuck for a 1980 non-RS, and what on earth has that got to do with the price of fish? Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer the point. Don't engage in WP:OR. DellaPergola's data are not about Ashkenazi. His results are strongly queried by competent peers. If he underestimates by 700,000 to 1,6 million the American Jewish population, then the inference from Israeli statistics on Sephardi wouldn't allow any inferences to be made about the percentage of Ashkenazi, as you have done.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I already answered, If DellaPergola numbers are cited by Israeli CBS, Jewish virtual Library and numerous other high ranking Jewish and Israeli authorities his numbers are also WP:RS, for Wikipedia. Its evident that the gap between population numbers arise from the way who is counted as Jews (all with Jewish origin, or just self declared Jews) this issue has been discussed many times in Israel and there is a huge literature on this question. (The 2008 US census claimed only 5,1 million Jews, than the methodology of counting who is Jew was changed and one and half million additional Jews were counted only 3 years later) That does not mean that if more accurate, newest data our found, this numbers shouldn't be revised. Unfortunately I did not found more precise and more updated numbers. Again you failed to respond to my point namely that a claim of unknown date and origin (83-85%), written in the book from 1981 is not reliable source regarding the seize of Ashkenazi Jews today.--Tritomex (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I.e. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Don't sidestep the point, answer it. Ira M. Sheskin is, like DellaPergola, a demographic export, and comes out with figures that vastly exceed the latter's implied figure for Ashkenazi. Why, then, is DellaPergola pertinent, and Sheskin not? Neither are pertinent in fact, since neither in the texts cited, speak of the Ashkenazi percentage. You insist on making your own calculations. That is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheskin did not made any calculations regarding Jewish ethnic groups, nor he anywhere discussed the seize of Ashkenazi Jews. He is certainly reliable (as academic demographer) if such calculation would exist. Claiming that I made original research by presenting that if non Ashkenazi Jews are 26% of world Jewry, than Ashkenazi Jews are 74% is non sense. DellaPergola is the most cited Israeli demographer and his numbers are used almost by all major Jewish and Israeli institutions. You still failed to give ANY answer regarding the 1981 book, you have added to the text. --Tritomex (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheskin did not made any calculations regarding Jewish ethnic groups, nor he anywhere discussed the seize of Ashkenazi Jews.

In the paper you cited by DellaPergola on which you base your calculations,'DellaPergola did not made any calculations regarding Jewish ethnic groups, nor he anywhere discussed the seize of Ashkenazi Jews.'

Wake up.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for reading :American Jewish Year Book 2012: The Annual Record of the North ..., Book 2012 edited by Ira M. Sheskin P:248, explanation for the difference in calculation of American Jews (core Jewish population-self declared Jews, people with Jewish origin ) Also P.247,246.

Suggestion for reading:A.B. Yehoshua Defining 'who is a Jew’ Haaretz, September 4, 2013

A Jew is anyone who identifies as a Jew. .. this is exactly the definition that served as the basis for the State of Israel’s Population Registry in its earliest years, when it absorbed more than one million immigrants. That was the definition of “Jew” in the Israeli Population Registry Regulation (July, 1950): A person is a Jew by his own declaration (provided he is not a member of another religion). Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this definition, however it is rarely used in statistics. For example Israel counts as Jews only those who are born from Jewish mother, in countries like Hungary there are 10 000 self declared Jews although often the numbers between 40-120 000 are used. This number reflects extended Jewish population (all with Jewish origin). The 6 million + numbers for American Jewry also reflects extended Jewish population, as explained in the book I cited. The same problem exist everywhere outside Israel (difference in numbers between those who identifies as Jews and those with Jewish origin) Based on my personal survey, statistics often by pass the official census numbers and cites the extended Jewish population numbers (US, East Europe, Russia, Argentina, etc). Based on Jewish religious law, and the laws of the State of Israel a person with Jewish origin (mother) who follows another religion, or is atheist and agnostic is also considered Jew, while a person who is considering itself Jewish, but do not have Jewish origin is considered non Jewish. (Problematic definition but widely used)--Tritomex (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

'Israel counts as Jews only those who are born from Jewish mother.' No it doesn't. In the census are included 'Jews' who emigrated after the post-war period, many of whom were not born of Jewish mothers. I'd like to see evidence that the 1,000,000 Jews from the ex-Soviet block emigrating in the 1980s-90s were all born from Jewish mothers. Inca Jews and Falasha Jews are exceptions as well. Qaraites are Jews, by patrilineal descent and number 30-40,000 in Israel. So, all of these statistics tell us the modern religious principle you cite is crap in definitional and practical political or statistical terms. Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No Nishidani, it does not count them as Jews. There are 350 000 people (ex Soviet immigrants) who are unclassified

[9] Qaraites are classified as Jews, but this 350 000 family members of Jews and paternally Jewish persons are simply classified as "others" The extended Jewish population of Israel would be about 80% (with E. Jerusalem and Soviet immigrants) Yet Israel maintain that there are 75,1% Jews, (official result) as Soviet immigrants without Jewish mother are not counted in. (including East Jerusalem Palestinian population and the Druze of Golan.)--Tritomex (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

its interesting that based on Israeli law of return, they have the right for Israeli citizenship but are not classified as Jews.--Tritomex (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish population of Israel

• 75,1% (with E. Jerusalem Palestinians and Golan Druze and without extended population called " Jews and others"-official result
• 79,5% (with E. Jerusalem and with extended population called " Jews and others")
• 80,5% (without E. Jlem and without extended population called " Jews and others" aka Soviet immigrants)
• 82,5% (without E. Jerusalem and with extended population called " Jews and others")

Statistical abstract of Israel, Hebrew university of Jerusalem--Tritomex (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Is an abstract of an unpubished paper referring to a conference delivery a reliable source? Subject Khazars and genetics)

There is currently a debate at RS noticeboard, regarding the genetic study presented by American Society of Human genetics ins September 2013 and made by some of the most prominent geneticists. This genetic study can be red in this article as well. Please participate in the debate.--Tritomex (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

unsigned message

The origins of Ashkenazi Jews remain highly controversial. Like Judaism, mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line. Its variation in the Ashkenazim is highly distinctive, with four major and numerous minor founders. However, due to their rarity in the general population, these founders have been difficult to trace to a source. Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. 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.http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html=http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html= Removed the little tidbit under ethnicity ==

Under "Recent genetic studies show more diversity in Ashkenazi".

This "study" was debunked, its just a recirculating article and not actually recent, and as the article states it was far more ideological than scientific. Its based on a debunked Khazar myth and it actually has no scientific data of genomes to support it. I thought wiki would have researched this more before allowing it on the page. But i'm guessing someone with an agenda snuck the info on here as just below it was information under Khazar that debunked the article as well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/16/israeli-researcher-challenges-jewish-dna-links-to-israel-calls-those-who-disagree-nazi-sympathizers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:A506:A4D1:E66:8BC9 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the paper is not 'recirculating' nor has it been debunked. The study is flawed, and the support for the Khazarian hypothesis is overstated, but it also shows that there is, inarguably, substantial non-Levantine genetic contribution. I'LL also note that the author you link to is not reliable, is a religious Zionist, arguably a Jewish supremacist - and generally not an authority on these, matters. In fact, he is more religious zealot and ethnocentrist than anything.

Leaving aside the substantial support in the historical record for the K hypothesis being *partly* true - I recommend adding a sectuon on the matrilineal evidence - Ashkenazi are primarily European.

This was an paper in Nature. If you ignore it, or cite to Zionist crackpots, or rely on the absurdly overused 'antisemite' card to protect this cherished myth, you're not being a fair and considerate editor - you're being a Zionist troll. Period. The science has nothing to do with absurd purported genetic claims to land, let alone chosen people myths. Leave that stuff in the religion articles. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html

Due to your attacks on Zionism, the Jewish liberation movement from Islamic apartheid, it is obvious you are an Islamic supremacist anti-Semite. By the way, you precious "Palestinians" are actually illegal colonists from Arabia.

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism

Cant read the entire article but: "The genetic analysis traced the lineage of many Ashkenazi Jews to four maternal founders in Europe." "Most Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of European women who converted to Judaism, possibly around the time of the early Roman empire, concludes a new genetic study that casts doubt on many prevailing theories about the origins of Ashkenazim." http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

I'm gonna ad this to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

See the last few sentences of the "Female lineages" subsection. You can read the scientific article for free here. Our text needs more detail. Zero^talk 11:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)