Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Question

Are Russian, Turkish, Romanian, Greece or Spanish Jews considered as ashkenazi?--84.228.238.174 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian? Almost invariably, yes. Spanish and Greek? No, though I'm sure a few Ashkenazim ended up in Spain and Greece eventually. Turkey? Pretty much the same as Greece, but it's even more certain that some Russian Ashkenazim would have found there way to Anatolia. Romania? The Jewish culture there is/was Ashkenazi, but influenced by the Middle-Eastern Jewry of the old Ottoman Empire. Dvd Avins 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it a little more, any Ashkenazim in Turkey would more likely have come from Romania and elsewhere in lands that were once Ottoman than from Russia. Dvd Avins 12:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read throughout the years, there was always a notable presence of Ashkenazic Jews in Istanbul but not really in the rest of Turkey, Greece, what became Yugoslavia,etc.Dan Carkner 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

IQ

First of all, if we say "Askenazim have the highest IQ of any ethnic group," including "leading East Asians, who also perform highly on IQ" is pointless. If readers are interested in group differences in IQ, they can visit the article that is linked to: Race and Intelligence.

Second of all, saying "Ashkenazim have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group" is pointless. If ethnic groups as a whole are being discussed, including "average" is redundant; that is the same as saying "France's average GDP" instead of "France's GDP"—which no one says.

1. Including East Asians indicates that Askenazim are not the only alleged outlier.
2. GDP is a total. Unless you're talking about per capita GDP, in which case people who care about being accurate do include "per capita" in their description, making it an average. In the case of a group IQ measurement, perhaps it should be obvious that it's average being discussed. But in the real world, people may naively read it as everyone in one group having higher IQ than everyone in another group. The manner which the issue is usually discussed tends to encourage at least a mild form of that misapprehension. Whne the variation within a group exceeds the variation between groups, saying that one group is more whatever than another is completely inappropriate. Dvd Avins 17:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I did mean per capita GDP. No one says average per capita GDP, and no one "naively reads" this as meaning "everyone in one" country has a higher income than "everyone in another" country.

As for East Asians: I still think of including them as inappropriate for the reason stated above.

Per capita means it's an average. Per in Latin means the same thing it does in English. Capita means head, which is used as a substitute for person, since there's generally a one-to-one correspondance. So per capita means divided by the number of people, or, in more mathematical terms, the mean (or average) across the population. Dvd Avins 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I used a bad example. Bottom line: if you are talking about groups as a whole, including "average" is redundant, as any measure of groups as a whole has to be an average. Few people misinterpret the concept of "average" the way you think they do.

On contrary, I it was a good example. Another example: "Grevlins have larger feet than Gravlins", is also ambigous. It is not clear whether this means that all (with or without a few exceptions) Grevlins are shorter than Gravlins, like "People who buy shoe size 52 have larger feet than people whho buy 32", or is it a statistical statement: "people who are higher than 170 cm have larger feet than people who are shorter than 170 cm". The article is fine as it is. -- Heptor _talk 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Heptor and Dvd Avins. It's informative to mention the IQ details, and although it may be controversial, it is nonetheless useful to include in the article. Aldous Hooplah 00:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Ashkenazi Jewry

I am summarizing my reasons for revising the first section. In the past, before there was good genetic evidence, Ashkenazi history often tried to play down connections with the Middle East, to stress that the Jews of Eastern Europe were very European. Thus, the standard textbook we had always showed a map of Jewish communities under the Roman Empire, to stress the longstanding history of Jews in Europe.

But there is little documentation to prove that the Jewish communities of Roman Europe, such as the one that existed in Cologne around 300 CE, survived as Jewish communities. And there is cultural evidence that the Jews who settled in the Rhineland and northern France beginning about 900 CE had recent origins in the Middle East. There is abundant evidence that the Jews of the western Mediterranean in Roman times were Hellenized, that they spoke Greek and Latin, but little Hebrew and Aramaic. For example the inscriptions in Jewish catacombs in Rome were predominantly in Greek.

There is some documentary evidence that Jews from Italy were invited to come north, but were these Jews in Italy descended from Roman populations? There was a remnant of the Roman Jewish population until the 20th century, called the Romaniote Jews, who spoke a Judeo Greek dialect.

However, the Jews who arrived in the northern Europe around 900 CE used very little Greek or Latin. Instead, the Yiddish language is full of words with Aramaic and Hebrew roots. Furthermore, the early Ashkenazim were steeped in Bavli (Babylonian Talmudic) culture, to which they began to contribute almost immediately after their arrival. The works of Rabbi Gershom of Mainz (10th century), Rashi of Troyes (11th century), and later the Tosafists (12th century) attest to this.

Bernard Lewis's histories have shown the importance of Islamic influence in Judaism up to the 12th century. In the early years of Islamic society, when Europe was comparatively backward and illiterate, large numbers of Jews moved west from Babylon to Spain, North Africa, and other Mediterranean destinations. In the Middle Ages, there was a large Jewish community in Provence, which could have traded with and contributed to the Jewish population further north.

Metzenberg, 11 April 2006

Holocaust Issues

The present article states incorrectly that the only Sephardic community that suffered in the Holocaust was that of Greece. In fact, there were Sephardic communities throughout the Balkans, especially in Yugoslavia, and the Jewish populations of France, Italy, and Holland all contained a significant proportion of Sephardic Jews. I apparently do not have the privileges to edit that section. With so many un-contrite David Irvings in the world, I would rather that only a privileged few be able to edit there. Perhaps someone else can make this change for me. Metzenberg 6 April 2006.

Hi, I don't see any locks here. What makes you think you don't have the privilege? What happens if you click Edit this page tab at the top? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Could be right. I am new to Wikipedia. When I found that I couldn't edit, I just assumed, for very good reason perhaps, that the content was locked to prevent vandalism.

Usury

I have left the brief mention of usury in the Origins section for now. Unless somebody else moves it, I will eventually move it to a later section. I am going to do some reading on usury an Jewish occupations in general so that I can write a section on economic activity and economic history, particularly on Jewish occupations.

Metzenberg 11 April 2006.

Request for Comments - Remove "intelligence" issue to another page.

I would like to see the material on the intelligence moved to a different page. A brief description of it and a link belongs here here. I would also like to handle the Khazar Jews issue the same way. These are special issues and points of view, both lacking in mainstream accceptance. Underlying the POV of the people who want to talk so much about Ashkenazi intelligence is a view of Ashkenazi Jews as a racial group or a homogeneous ethnic group. But that's only one of the meanings that the word "Ashkenazi" has. I want this page to explain what Ashkenazi Jews are and where they come from.

The focus of so many people on Ashkenazi intelligence (and the racial eugenics theories they want to expound) is as offensive as it would be to have a huge section of the page on Italian Americans be devoted to the mafia.

Ashkenaz was a nation and a culture that existed for 1000 years, but that never had a state or a government. Now in the 21st century, the original communities of Ashkenaz have been liquidated and all the original inhabitants have migrated away. Even the Russian Jews that are left live in large urban centers far removed from the original shtetls. Ashkenaz is the remnant of the culture they once had.

The Cochran paper does not belong on this page, except as a footnote. I would like to see two new pages developed.

1. Jewish Achievement. I stress that it should be called Jewish Achievemant and not Ashkenazi achievement. The only reason that the majority of Jewish Achievers have been Ashkenazi is that before the mid-20th century, over 90% of all Jews were Ashkenazi. Many of the great Jewish achievers have been or are Sephardic and Mizrahi.

2. Ashkenazi Intelligence. A page to explain all of the different theories about why Ashkenazi Jews have high IQs. A page from which controversy about IQ and race can be referenced.

I have recently done quite a bit of work on this page, creating a new first section and modifying the material on origins. I have more to do here, but I will let it stand for now until others comment and have their say.

I have created a separate page called Ashkenazi Intelligence. I would invite the editors here who are interested in these theories to restore material that has been deleted here. This is obviously a contoversial and important topic, and we will hear more about it in the news this year. I've heard that a major cover story in the New Republic is pending. I have not removed any material about Ashkenazi intelligence here, but I hope others will consent to my doing so.

One more thing. I looked at the Koestler book this weekend, and I found the book fascinating. I don't happen to believe it, but the man is an engaging writer. One of my favorite books was always his novel Darkness at Noon. I am surprised there is no page "Khazar Jews" on which the theory could be discussed. It is amazing too how many people have been interested in it, and how many books and articles have been written. Why doesn't someone who is interested in it create such a page. Could start by restoring the deleted materials from here.

Metzenberg 16 April 2006.

Thanks for being so reasonable, Metzenberg, and thanks for your excellent work improving this article. This sounds good to me, but I notice Asian American discusses social and cultural trends of that ethnic group, including contribution to science, and Mexican American likewise discusses sociocultural trends. Jewish achievement seems to be a regularly noted sociocultural trend, so I think the present discussion of this in the Achievement section is appropriate. Beyond that, one sentence summarizing the Cochran et al. study and one for the Murray and Shafran papers seems reasonable, considering that these two sentences are primarily discussions of Ashkenazi history. Best, Nectar 15:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, it looks to me like Metzenberg is taking a good approach to this. The question is exactly where to strike the balance, but certainly, like many articles on ethnicities to which many Wikipedians belong, this one has tended toward being an "aren't we wonderful" piece. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Achievement

I agree that there needs to be a mention of Ashkenazi achievement because of the current controversies in the news. But the real subject matter belongs under "Jewish Achievement" in that article, and not under Ashkenazi achievement alone. So this article is really the wrong place.

A great many of the famous Jews that are so often mentioned are not of Ashkenazi origin at all. People who are interested in this subject are often interested in the relative contributions of culture and education versus genetics. If you went back to the early 19th century, most of the Jews that had made a mark on European science and philosophy were of Sephardic origin, not Ashkenazi. At the time, a great majority of Ashkenazi Jews still lived in very backwards conditions in eastern Europe. It was only when they emerged from Polish and Russian ghettos that they were able to make comparable contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metzenberg (talk • contribs) 24 April 2006.

Is this the right place for a list of diseases?

Somebody just added a new one today.

Pemphigus Vulgaris http://www.emedicine.com/DERM/topic319.htm

It is an autoimmune disease that has a higher prevalence in the Middle East and amoung Jews, suggesting a possible genetic compenent. It is not at this time known to be a genetic disease however, at least not a single-polymorphism genetic disorder. It hasn't been identified or researched in families. It doesn't belong in a list of Ashkenazi genetic diseases. For one thing, it isn't even an "Ashkenazi" disease. It appears to be common to Jews of Middle Eastern origin in general.

I have a lot of sympathy for people with diseases, so I hope nobody will be offended here, but this page should not have a laundry list of every disease that is slightly more common among Jews, whether or not it is truly genetic.

Many people have a misconception, because there is so much talk about a few Jewish genetic diseases, that Jews have more genetic diseases. The fact is that all genetically isolated groups have a reservoir of a specific genetic diseases that are found in the group, but not in the population at large, This includes the people of Finland, Sardinia, Iceland, Japan, and the other minority populations of Israel, like the Beduins, the Druze, and the Samaratans.

The reason so many Jewish genetic diseases are known is that Israel has cradle-to-grave health care, including free genetic testing, and an remarkably high percentage of the world's human geneticists are Jewish. Ever since the discovery of an enzyme assay test for Tay-Sachs, Jews have embraced genetic testing and cooperated with geneticists like no other people in the world. If comparable research were done on other peoples, a similar number of illnesses would be discovered and explained as genetic. There are entire regions of the world where practically no research into genetic disease has ever been done.

If nobody else objects, I would like to eliminate the list of diseases from this page, and perhaps put it on another page, called Jewish Genetic Diseases, which might be a place to talk about the organizations that support testing, the foundations that support research and help families, and so forth. There could be a link to that page from this page, explaining that certain genetic illnesses are commonly found in Ashkenazi populations.

--Metzenberg 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should split out the genetic ones and the ones that occur at higher rates in Jews. The testing list from Dor Yeshorim is useful here. Familial hypercholesterolemia is commoner in Lithuanian Jews, yet this is not mentioned here. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research removed to Talk: page

I've moved the following text here:

The accuracy of haplotype analysis is dependent on the selection of the correct markers. The number of markers used in studies to date has necessarily been small, since the cost of current sequencing techniques has prevented researchers from using more markers and analyzing larger sample populations. As new genetic markers are identified, and as the cost of sequencing declines, newer studies with larger sample sizes should provide more conclusive results.

The whole thing is an original research argument against the validity of the results. If you can find other people who discuss the validity of these specific tests and make these arguments that's fine, but you can't make up your own original arguments or analysis of the results. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's common knowledge about Haplotype analysis, and the paper I cite here (Forton et al. Accuracy of Haplotype Reconstruction from Haplotype-Tagging Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms) discusses the problem. The entire conclusion that is given by the Behar article is based on fewer than 15 genetic markers and fewer than 700 individuals. (I don't remember the exact numbers.) Read the article if you want to. Thus, the conclusions that will emerge over time will change. This is not saying the results are not valid. Indeed, they are. They are valid to a level of statistical signifiance that can be interpreted by a person who reads the articles themselves, and understands the reasoning behind statistical inference and haplotype analysis, which most people who read this will not. People have a way of believing too much when they read such research. I am often astonished by what people claim based on extremely limited data that is not randomly selected. Over time, the conclusions of this research will change. That's not because the original research was wrong. To indicate that there is controversy, that different people interpret the results differently, and that responsible researchers in the field itself understand the preliminary nature of their results, does a service to the reader. --Metzenberg 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, you may think it is "common knowledge about Haplotype analysis", and feel free to include it in an article about Haplotype analysis if it is, but here it is an argument intended to counteract the arguments made by the people who did those studies. As such, it is orginal research which is forbidden by Wikipedia plicy. Please carefully read the policy. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I think if you read the Behar paper and see the conclusion to that paper, you can see that it is properly qualified. It is a very good paper. It is a paper based on an evolving but very incomplete collection of data, and I am sure that the authors themselves would agree with the way I qualified the results, so that they could be intrepreted better by persons not familiar in a technical way with Haplotype analysis. --Metzenberg 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If they themselves qualified it that's one thing, but you can't qualify it. Have you read the WP:NOR policy yet? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's a Jew?

The section about religious definition needs to more clearly define just who believes that people who do not consider themselves to be Jews still are. As it reads now, the article seems to state that this is simply a matter of fact. -user:rasd

• Hi rasd: Have you read the Who is a Jew? article that may answer many of your questions here? Thanks. IZAK 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my issue is not with how some people see the definition of who is or isn't a Jew. My issue is simply with phrasing throughout that section. In many cases, it seems to say (more or less) "(Such and such) is a Jew because...";. That's a biased statement and should be reworked to something more like "According to (Jewish tradition, certain lineage methods, whatever), this person would be considered a Jew". For example, saying "Karl Marx was a Jew" is not a fact, but saying "Karl Marx would still be considered a Jew by certain people" is accurate. -user:rasd

Karl Marx may have been an atheist at one point in his life, but I have read that he was buried with a Christian service in a church cemetary. Much/most of his anti_christian reputation is anti-Marxist propaganda than truth. ( He really disliked official church attempts to oppress the masses, but he didn't dislike real religious observance.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006.

Why is Bobby Fischer listed as somebody who renounced being Jewish because he denied the holocaust. Denying the holocaust does not equal a renouncement of Jewishness or Judaism. To my humble knowledge, the holocaust is not one of the 13 principles of the Jewish religion, and a SHomer Shabbos believing Jew who does not believe in the holocaust is still a righteous individual according to Shulchan Aruch. Perhaps a silly one. Or with no knowledge of history. But righteous. 88.153.142.83 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Karl Marx and Bobby Fischer are good examples of persons who have denied being Jewish , yet are Jews under the "religious" definition that is discussed here. And that's all that the article is saying. If Bobby Fischer were to go to a rabbi and renounce his former beliefs, stating his desire to be a part of the Jewish people once again, the rabbi (on accepting the sincerity of his desire to resume being a Jew) would perform a "return" ceremony for him rather than a "conversion" ceremony.

One more point ... although the Rambam's 13 principles are often considered the best formal statement of traditional Jewish beliefs (they were originally controversial, back in the 13th century), rabbinical authorities have always agreed that there is no halakkic requirement that a Jew must believe them. Indeed, it is often said that Judaism has no creed other than the Shema ("the Lord is one"). Shulchan Aruch is considered the most authoritative manual of practice, for an Orthodox Jew (whether Ashkenazi or Sephardic). It is a guide to what a Jew should do, not what a Jew should believe. --Metzenberg 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Related Ethnic Groups"

I see folks have been going back and forth in a revert war. Maybe it would help to have a discussion here about what is meant by "related". Not counting the occasional mixing, Germans and Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically related. But they are tied linguistically, and profoundly influenced each others cultures over a period of many centuries.

Also, other Semitic groups are related to Ashlenazi Jews both genetically and culturally. One could argue that such ties should only be discussed in an article on Jewry as a whole, as the ties between the Arabs and Mizrahi Jews are culturally closer (and with more though still infrequent genetic mixing) than between any non-Jewish Semites and the Ashkenazim. Still, if this article is to stand on its own, I think the connection bears mentioning. I know that when I read descriptions of Ottoman-era Middle Eastern customs and attitudes, they seem much more akin to those of my Ashkenazi ancestors than pre-Enlightenment European customs and attitudes do. Dvd Avins 09:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no ethnic definition here. Ashkenazi Jews can be darker than dark while many are blonder and bluer-eyed than many "Aryans". Ashkenazi Jews are bound only by their historical inhabitation of Western, Central and later Eastern Europe. They are bound by a legal tradition (minhag Ashkenaz, one of the two mainstream traditions in Jewish law). But there is no ethnic common denominator. JFW | T@lk 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant to list any non-Jewish groups as ethnically related to the Ashkenazi as such. When we are up to the level of the Jews as a whole (that is, in the article Jew), mention of other Semites seems appropriate.

Yes, no doubt, there has been some intermixing of the Ashekenazi with other groups with whom they have lived in proximity, especially since the Enlightenment. But that is equally true (more so, in most cases) of every ethnic group in Europe and the Americas, and probably elsewhere but there I am getting outside of my knowledge. - Jmabel | Talk 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Population - aka more problems with the ethnobox

The ethnobox says that there are an estimated 11 point someodd million Ashkenazim, and uses an uncited reference to a study on musical pitch as its source. This is hardly what I'd call a "reliable" citation. While the UC researchers might very well have believed their number to be correct, I think a better source is needed to corroborate this number...specifically, a source that actually discusses the number of Ashkenazim and says how the number was obtained. The subject of the UC study is "perfect musical pitch", and if you actually read the article, it becomes quite clear that the interest of the article is completely unrelated to an accurate estimate of the number of Ashkenazim in the world, contrary to the implication made by saying there are 11.2M (est) and then citing that article as the source. Without wanting to step on the toes of whoever decided that constituted a good source for a population estimate, my judgment is that it's pretty shoddy scholarship. Tomer^talk 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Palestinian_people

There's a section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_people that's more suited for this talk page,if anywhere... about Ashkenazi Jews jews in "# 9 Talk page censored?". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19 July 2006 (talk • contribs) .

Apparently this is referring to Talk:Palestinian_people:#Talk page censored?. I didn't read through it: at a quick glance it looks like it contains some long diatribes on both sides, and some accusations of anti-Semitism by one participant against another. It does seem to involve some discussion of the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews. If there is some substance to all of this, and someone would like to summarize it here, that would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Hair More Common Amongst Sephardic Jews?

Does anyone know of any research that could verify my hypothesis that red hair is MUCH more common amongst Sephardic Jews than among the Ashkenazim (who often have black and/or very dark brown hair). This often applies to the beards of Sephardic men too, such as the person may not be a FULL redhead but still has some trace elements of red in their hair and/or beard. These same people also often seem have lighter colored eyes than Ashkenazi Jews (whose eyes are often brown or darker in color, like their hair). Has anyone else noticed this red-headed/lighter-eyed "trend" amongst the Sephardic population? Thanks for any info that you can provide! --172.155.32.59 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If by Sephardic Jews, you mean the Jews who lived in the Iberian Penninsula before 1492, I think you would have to reconstruct Sephardic Jewry in order to find out. Today's Sephardic Jews have moved to many places across the world to escape the Inquisition, and mixed with other Jewish communities. --Metzenberg 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a red-headed Ashkenazi (well, formerly red-headed, but still red-bearded), there are quite a few of us, too. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Personality Differences When Opposed to Ashkenazi Jews?

I've heard of Sephardi Jews being described as "fiery," "active," "angry," and even "militant" when compared to their "cooler," more saturnine Ashkenazi counterparts. Should this tidbit be included in the article or merely ignored as hearsay or stereotypes? The following text is copied/pasted direct from the "Seraph" article, and it seems to me (and is entirely logical) that "Sephardi/Sephardic" and "Seraph" are closely related words and/or concepts.

From "Seraph":

The early medieval writer called Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite included seraphs in his Celestial Hierarchy (vii), which helped fix the fiery nature of seraphs in the medieval imagination. It is here that the Seraphim are described as being concerned with keeping Divinity in perfect order, and not limited to chanting the trisagion'. Taking his cue from writings in the Rabbinic tradition, he gave an etymology for the Seraphim as "those who kindle or make hot":

"The name Seraphim clearly indicates their ceaseless and eternal revolution about Divine Principles, their heat and keenness, the exuberance of their intense, perpetual, tireless activity, and their elevative and energetic assimilation of those below, kindling them and firing them to their own heat, and wholly purifying them by a burning and all- consuming flame; and by the unhidden, unquenchable, changeless, radiant and enlightening power, dispelling and destroying the shadows of darkness" (Celestial Hierarchy, vii)

Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae offers a description of the nature of the Seraphim:

The name "Seraphim" does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. Hence Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) expounds the name "Seraphim" according to the properties of fire, containing an excess of heat. Now in fire we may consider three things.

"First, the movement which is upwards and continuous. This signifies that they are borne inflexibly towards God.

"Secondly, the active force which is "heat," which is not found in fire simply, but exists with a certain sharpness, as being of most penetrating action, and reaching even to the smallest things, and as it were, with superabundant fervor; whereby is signified the action of these angels, exercised powerfully upon those who are subject to them, rousing them to a like fervor, and cleansing them wholly by their heat.

"Thirdly we consider in fire the quality of clarity, or brightness; which signifies that these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they also perfectly enlighten others."

END --172.155.32.59 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The words Seraphim (Hebrew plural of seraph) and Sephardim are unrelated in etymology. Hebrew has several different consonants that can have that "s" sound, depending on position in the word and dialect of Hebrew. Hebrew words (that are not borrowed from other languages) are derived from three letter roots. The root for Seraphim is the same root as the verb to burn (shin-resh-peh). Sephard was the original Hebrew place name for Spain. It begins with a completely different consonant (samech). In Hebrew, foreign loan words and place names with an "s" sound tend to start with samech. Sometimes European languages have transposed consonants. Hebrew doesn't do that. Consonants stay in order. So those two words have no relationship in Hebrew.

I'm no scholar, but I just Googled, and I found that the Hebrew word seraphim appears in TANAKH (the Hebrew Bible) in only one place, but it is an important passage. The seraphim are the ones that say, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts ... " in the book of Isaiah. That passage (in Hebrew) is repeated in the daily Jewish prayers, in the amidah (the standing prayers that are the centerpiece of every Jewish service). Otherwise, the seraphim are mentioned in the Book of Enoch, which was originally of Jewish origin, but did not make the canon, and became part of the Apocrypha (the books that are preserved, sometimes only in Greek, in the Septuagent by the Catholic church).

If there is a Jewish theology about orders of angels, it is probably not canonical, like St. Thomas. Maybe next time I am at a good Jewish library, I will look up the Book of Isaiah in the midrashic texts and see if I can find anything. It would have to be translated into English. But we are so way off topic here. Please get yourself a wikipedia login so that we all can recognize each other next time we meet in the wikiuniverse, and go to work on the page on seraphim, if that interests you. Cheers. --Metzenberg 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Corn?

Observance of Pesach (Passover): Ashkenazi Jews traditionally refrain from eating legumes, corn, millet, and rice, whereas Sephardi Jews typically do not prohibit these foods.

From Criticism of Coca-Cola:

Kosher for Passover Coke is also made with sugar, rather than corn syrup, due to the special dietary restrictions for observant Jews (Ashkenazi Jews are prohibited from consuming corn during this period) during the holiday.

How could Ashkenazi Jews be restricted from eating corn? Maize was not available for any Jews in Biblical times. Maize was not even abundant in Eastern Europe where they were from. How did Ashkenazi Jews get the idea that they should not eat corn? Do they eat penguins? I guess most Ashkenazi Jews do not see penguins hopping around their igloos, or do they? -- Toytoy 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I might not be the best person to answer this, but I'll try. Kashrut (Jewish dietary law) is based on a few original passages from the Torah, mostly enumerated in Leviticus. The laws concerning the festival Pesach (or Passover) are a different subject, but also originate in the Torah. With the development of rabbinical Judaism (around 70 CE to 500 CE), these laws and the basis for their practice were developed much futher in the Talmud.

If you receive a formal Jewish education in a yeshiva, you learn not just a set of rules or a list of do's and don'ts, but the reasoning behind them. This emphasis on studying the reasoning behind the law is a part of the Talmud and of all Jewish education. It helps in making decisions when new and novel situations are encountered, like new foods not known in ancient times. Why can't Jews eat penguins? That one is easy. Birds that are birds of prey or scavengers cannot be eaten. What about corn (maize) during Passover? The laws concerning Passover prohibit eating leaven during the eight days of the festival. The sages of the Talmud went into much greater detail, but could not possibly know about every new food that Jews would encounter. When Jews began to live in Ashkenaz, they were too isolated from other communities of the time, so they were forced to make rulings for themselves. Two different traditions developed: Sepharidic and Ashkenazic. The Sephardi and Ashkenazi rabbis encountered different foods in different parts of the world, and made different decisions. However, this does not mean that Ashkenazi rabbis believe Sephardim are wrong, or vise versa. An Ashkenazi Orthodox rabbi would tell a Sephardic family to follow the Sephardic traditions, and vice versa. --Metzenberg 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an British/American difference. The British originally called wheat by the name corn. When they colonised America and came across maize they also called it corn. Then Americans then took to calling what the British originally called corn by the name wheat. Some people in Britain still call wheat by the name corn. I expect the reference to corn came from a British source or translation and refers to what Americans call wheat. Nicolharper 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Corn is a word that originally referred to a small hard particle and hence it was applied generically to grains, including staple grains. Incidentally, "corned-beef" arises from the application of "grains" of salt to beef. The English settlers having no name for "maize" yet, used the generic English word for grain. This practice later become a dominant meaning. So "corn" does not equal "maize", except by modern usage. I am not an expert on this dietary pilpul but I believe the word corn should be substituted for grains to avoid confusion. NoraBG 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vocabulary of genetics discussion

"local intermarriage with local European females"? What makes other Europeans more "local" than Jews? If they are (for example) German, they would have migrated into Europe roughly 1st millenium BCE, right? If they are Hungarians, they wouldn't have arrived until roughly the end of the 1st millenium CE, by which time there were quite a few Jews in Europe. The current wording seems to suggest that the peoples who migrated from Central Asia are somehow "more European" than the Jews, who migrated from Palestine. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes absolute sense. I will adjust the wording to accomodate nuance. NoraBG 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This has all now been anonymously removed. I'm neutral on whether this genetics stuff belongs in the article, but I don't think it should have been removed without comment. - Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It bears discussion at the very least. See the Puerto Rico-Demographics section for an equivalent set of ethnicity statements based on Y-chromosome and mitochondrial testing. NoraBG 14:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Two confusing phrases

• "…has given way to mixing with other nocultures…": I am inclined to guess just "…has given way to mixing with other cultures…", but would appreciate if whoever wrote this would weigh in.
• "religiously Ashkenazi Jews": as far as I know, and the article bears this out, Ashkenazi is an ethnic, not a religious, designation, so I can't imagine what it would mean to be "religiously Ashkenazi". Perhaps this just means to say ""religious Ashkenazi Jews"? - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article provides a "religious definition" for Ashkenazim; one is who religiously Ashkenazi would, therefore, be someone whose religious practice met that definition, without prejudice as to whether or not that person's ethnic background reflected Ashkenazi roots (under the "ethnic" definition) in whole or in part. Right? AnotherBDA 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Behar article

People who have never read the article keep changing the conclusions of the Behar article that is cited here. Please, if you don't know what a haplotype is, and you haven't actually read the article, then don't try to edit the conclusions of that article!

Behar identified four founder haplotypes that represented 40% of the maternal lineage in a relatively small sample. The fact that 40% belong to lineages that can be traced to Middle Eastern origins says nothing about the other 60%. It does not say that 40% are Middle Eastern and 60% are European. It says, 40% belonged to larger haplotype groups, about which we have enough data at this time to attribute a Middle Eastern origin, while the other 60% are partly of unknown origins because the data we have today is limited.

The analysis and identification of haplotypes is a cummulative process. Some genetic markers that could someday be used to refine the Behar paper probably haven't even been identified yet. Some of the other 60% belong to small haplotype groups for which there just isn't enough information at this time to identify origins. Some of those haplotypes are probably also of Middle Eastern origin. The smallest theoretical haplotype group has one member in the entire human population. There could be individuals in this sample who belong to such haplotype groups, and we will never be able to figure out where their maternal ancestor came from.

It's important to understand that the conclusions of the Behar article are very preliminary, and that the authors themselves qualified their conclusions quite carefully. --Metzenberg 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

that whole section needs to be removed. The data is flawed; garbage in garbage out. No reputable scientist tries to pass of population genetics via non-representative,non-randomized subjects of a population. It's absurd and down right manipulative, giving data of little to no worth.Ernham 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, have you read this article? --Metzenberg 07:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why? I've seen everything but the MP table, which isn't available in the format I got this study in, not that it's essential.Ernham 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the long posting on Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence

I have removed the last of the "IQ section" from this article. Now there is only a single paragraph about "Jewish Achievement" that does not even mention IQ. IQ is really beyond the scope of this article, and any issues about Ashkenazi Jews IQs can better be handled in a specialized article. Please go to Ashkenazi Intelligence if you are interested. --Metzenberg 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen, and the Khazar-Jew Theory

Perhaps Sacha Baron Cohen subscribes to the theory that most Ashkenazi Jews are originally from Khazaria since he chooses to base his famous Borat character out of Khazakhstan, which is roughly the same area that the Khazars/Ashkenazi Jews are proposed to originate from (see The Thirteenth Tribe). --172.151.71.190 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he does. Perhaps he also believes that Muslims are born with mustaches, since his Borat character has a mustache. Perhaps he also believes that bug-eyed Martians have invited lower Silesia, since there is no evidence that he doesn't. But, uh, all of this is utterly irrelevant, since (1) you have no idea of the contents of his mind, (2) the connection you make between part of his ancestry and his fascination with Kazakhstan is odd, to say the least, and (3) his propensity to believe or disbelieve silly racial theories is quite unconnected to their truth or falsity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnotherBDA (talk • contribs) 15 November 2006.

I agree. The proposition doesn't even make sense. Cohen is obviously very proud of his Jewish heritage and faith. Yet he couldn't possibly portray Kazakhstan in a more negative light. The whole point of his Borat character would seem to be the expose and contrast the tacit, low key yet no less despicable antisemitism that he proves the existence of in America, with its most outrageously open form in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. I'd say he chose Khasakstan to represent all these other countries due to its almost complete obscurity to westerners. Of course his portrayal of Kazakhstanis is completely inaccurate in every other possible way, and the anti-semitism is not nearly as hilarious, yet the ugly truth is that in countries such as Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, the Arab World etc..., though exagerated, the anti-semitism he ascribes to the Kazakhstanis may be exagerated, yet not nearly as exagerated as one might believe. Just take a look at the article on blood libel against Jews and you'll see the limitlessly absurd forms that antisemitism has taken in history. It would simply make absolutely no sense for Cohen to portray Kazakhstan in such a terrible light if he actually ascribed to the theory that Askenazi Jews originated there. Loomis 21:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

References to Khazaria

I removed a reference to the fact that Ashkenazis travelled from the Middle East through Khazaria. As far as I know, the current scholarly evidence is that the travel went from the Middle East through the Roman empire to Europe, if people want to bring up other theories, it would be better if they were referenced.--Lastexpofan 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The current scholarship, which is summarized in the article, suggests that while Jews were established in the western Roman Empire, their communities remained only in small numbers after the western Roman Empire collapsed. The Judaism that became established north of the Alps in Ashkenaz was heavily influenced by Middle Eastern and Babylonian Jewish culture. The early Ashkenazim were some of the greatest scholars of the Torah and Talmud, carrying on traditions established outside of the Roman Empire in Babylon. The earlier point of view that Ashkenazi Jews were from the Roman Empire is still partly true, but it is partly wishful thinking on the part of European Jews. At least up to the 20th century, many westernized Ashkenazi Jews wanted to consider themselves more European. An excellent summary of Middle Eastern influence on Judaism is the collective opus of books and articles by Bernard Lewis. --Metzenberg 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediterranean Sub-branch?

It's obvious that Ashkenazi Jews belong to the caucasoid race. But what sub-branch? Do they belong to the Nordic, Alpine, or Mediterranean race? As far as I have read, they belong to the Mediterranean sub-branch, like Arabs. Anyone know for sure? Zachorious 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zachorious, you are speaking of Ashkenazi Jews, as defined by the "ethnic definition" of course. And since this definition is vanishing before our eyes, with each passing generation, you must mean the historic Ashkenazi Jewish population before 1950 or so.

I am not a physical anthropologist, but my understanding is that modern 21st century anthropologists using 21st century scientific methods no longer accept those 19th and early 20th century classifications of peoples of Europe as being "Nordic" or "Alpine" or whatever. I don't mean that there are not consistent genetic variations from one place to another. What I am saying is, the study of genetic markers and analysis of haplotypes (which is in its infancy) provides a much better and more scientific picture of human genetic variation. Those early 20th century physical anthropologists who ran around measuring people's facial bones and things like that are all dead now.

A better answer to your questions would be that my paternal grandfather, an historic Ashkenazi Jew (who was actually about 1/4 Sephardic Portuguese ancestry), believed that he was Mediterranean and encouraged his children to fit in and look more Nordic by getting nose jobs. --Metzenberg 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Assertion

The following statement has been removed:

"Although recent research in human genetics has also demonstrated that a significant component of Ashkenazi ancestry is Middle Eastern, the majority appears to have originated from the Turkish Khazar population."

The alarming number of comments in this section that proclaim highly disputed theory as the general consensus are not only to be avoided as irresponsible scholarship, but also becuase they so often directly contradict more thorough explanations found in other sections of the article. In short, there has been no research conducted that would constitute reliable support for the above quote, and if there is, it should be cited. As another editor commented, that elements of the Ashkenazi genetic composition remain unidentified does not necessarily mean that they are neither this nor that, but simply that no conclusion can yet be reached. Only if future research confirms the contributor's suspicion, will the assertion be appropriate here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.75.16.110 (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Jewish converts to Islam

If a Jewish person is an atheist can still be considered a Jew, then how about Jewish converts to Islam (e.g. Joseph Cohen and Jemima Goldstein) - would they still be considered Jews? Just wondering, since that we acknowledge that Islam and Christianity are universal religions. Islam isn't only for the Arabs - as the movie "The Message" states that an Arab is no more superior than non-Arabs (the words of some Caliph). --Fantastic4boy 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, from a Jewish perspective, between converting to Islam and converting to Christianity. A Jew who converts to Islam becomes a Muslim, yet he remains in some sense a Jew. Judaism is universal in stressing that all righteous peoples have a place in the world to come, and that all monotheistic faiths worship the same God. I cannot pretend that I speak for anyone but myself on this, but it should come as no surprise that Judaism isn't for everyone who was born Jewish. Surely there are those who were born Jewish for whom Islam provides a better path. A former Jew who becomes Muslim and later decides to return to Judaism can do so, and a rabbi would help him through the process by performing a return ceremony rather than a conversion. --Metzenberg 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The former Joseph Cohen and his family are Ashkenazi Jews, aren't they (http://www.muslimtents.com/yousefalkhattab/)? --Fantastic4boy 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting article. Obviously, this man was looking for a complete change of lifestyle, and not just a new religion. He was once an Ashkeanzi Jew, and as an Ashkenazi Jew he sought out very extreme elements, like Meir Kahane. It's just my opinion, but there surely is no spiritual peace in Kahane Chai. I hope this man has found the peace that he did not find through through Judaism in Islam. --Metzenberg 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Basic Problem with the Article

This article suffers from the same problem most articles on Jewish groups suffer from: It keeps trying to retroactively apply 19th century ideas back through time and make Jewish religious labels (and Jewishness itself) into "ethnic" designations rather than religious one. Ashkenazi is not an ethnic label, it is a religious and to a lesser extent grographic one. Sammy Davis Jr. was Ashkenazi. If he moved to Iran and married a Sephardic Persian Jewish wife, their children would have been Ashkenazi. If their son did the same thing, their children would be Ashkenazi. And if his son and his son and his son, for ten thousand generations did the same thing, the child would have been Ashkenazi. He would be Ashkenazi despite the fact he's the offspring of 10,000 Persian women and the 10,000 sons of Persian Jewish women and his only Ashkenazi ancestor was the black guy from the rat pack. Now comes the ultimate kicker. Not only were all those sons Ashkenazi, so were there wives once they married them. A wife becomes Ashkenazi or Sephardic with her husband. Doesn't make sense from an ethnic perspective, and that's because it is not a title of an ethnic group but a religious one. 88.153.142.83 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? Seems like you didn't! --Metzenberg 11:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to point out another horrible anachronism. Even in the section on Religious definitions, someone inserted nonsense phrases like "ethnic sephardi." There is no such thing as an ethnic Sephardi, espescially in a religious context. The daughter of the Ashkenazi wonder rabbi Yehudah HaLevi who married a Sephardi rabbi became Sephardi as soon as the wedding was done. Can someone explain to me how she changed ethnicity? Or how a blond Dutch Sephardi is the same ethnicity as a Morrocan Sephardi? Also, and here comes the king of terrible anachronisms, someone contrasted Sephardim with Mizrchim in the religious section. Ahhhhh!!!! Mizrachi as a title for Eastern Jewry is a modern Israeli political designation. Religiously they are Sephardim. No, they never lived on the Iberian peninsula anymore than Hungarian Ashkenazim lived in Germany, nevertheless religiously they are Sephardim. 88.153.142.83 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some knowledge about this. Why don't you get a log-in, so you can come back here and we will know who you are, and start contributing. But first, please do actually read the article as it is now written. There is absolutely nothing in the article about "ethnic sephardi" so you must be imagining something. --Metzenberg 11:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote. "In this respect, the counterpart of Ashkenazi is Sephardic, since most non-Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews follow Sephardic rabbinical authorities, whether or not they are ethnically Sephardic." Like I said, one cannot be ethnically sephardi. It's not an ethnic designation, but a religious one. 82.81.103.16 08:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're trying to split hairs. In the early 20th century, there were Ladino speaking communities in the Balkans, Greece, and Turkey. "Ethnically sephardic" in this context refers to such groups, which until around 1950 had in-married just as the Ashkenazim had. In addition, the majority of Jews of Morocco and North Africa were also of Sephardic ancestry. How about we say, "of Sephardic ancestry." Would that be kobesedek? --Metzenberg 09:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

In the graphic on the right, why is Germany listed seperately from the European Union? I understand if one wants to point out the current Ashkenazi population in Germany, but I find the double-listing slightly misleading. Perhaps Germany should be listed as a subitem under European Union.

Prpoprortion of Ashkenazis in Israeli Jewish population

The box at the top right estimates there are 3.7 million Askenazi Jews in Israel, which would account for 70% of the 5.4 million Jewish population of Israel. Contradicting this, the section 'Modern history' states that Ashkenazis account for "probably less than half of Israeli Jews".

A further comment: The article repeatedly contrasts Ashkenazim with Sephardim, which is misleading and inaccurate. Sephardis are just one of many non-Ashkenazi Jewish groups. Others are Yemenite, Iraqi and non-Ashkenazi Italian Jews as well as Greek Romaniotes. Although an inclusive definition of Sephardi is commonly in use in popular parlance, this article should strive for greater accuracy. RCSB 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

number of CIS jews

there are almost 1M jews in the former soviet union, i think one should state the number of jews in CIS and not Russia, because of significant numbers also in Ukraine and Belarus as well as Moldova and the Baltic states.--Holod 22:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Populations - EU

The infobox says there are 1.7 million Askenazis in the European Union. What is the source for that? I see it is unlikely, because the majority of Jews in France are Sephardim who are or whose ancestors immigrated from North Africa. --Shamir1 21:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tons of Ashkenazi Jews still live in Hungary, Germany, the Ukraine, Russia, and Eastern Europe in general. 1.7 million doesn't seem like too high a number; in fact, it is probably larger than that. --Wassermann 08:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I notice that the front page has been vandalized. On the right sidebar, under religions associated with Ashkenazi is Satanism and Nazism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.68.17.223 (talk • contribs).

Thank you, I fixed that and temp. blocked the offender. Next time, feel free to click Edit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The image

Let's discuss the image before putting it in the infobox. Please use a normal photo of Einstein rather than with that joke. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with that image: no women? Ida Rubinstein, Golda Meir, Ayn Rand, Elena Bonner, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally acknowledging the fact that the collage should be balanced between men and women. Meir and Rand seem like the most obvious choices. --Wassermann 08:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted, but its author new user (see User talk:M.V.E.i.) has readded it and reinserted it here, violating WP:3RR. I am not against a good image in general, but this one shows Ashkenazi Jews as misogynists and freaks. In addition, it has licensing problems. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a new section on the sexism of this collage below. Thanks for acknowledging that it is horribly biased and needs to be changed. --Wassermann 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Judge by contribution and not by sex. M.V.E.i.

Ashkenazi Jews in Azerbaijan

According to the news site below there are is also a significant number of Ashkenazi Jews in Azerbaijan who moved to the country during the Soviet period to work in the oil industry. This should definitly be added to the article. [1] 145.83.1.6 06:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish population of Azerbaijan was/is almost overwhelmingly Mizrahi. Do you know of some documentation for how many Ashkenazi Jews lived in Baku and Azerbaijan in the Soviet period, and may still be there? --Metzenberg 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this can help. Parishan 07:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexist Photo Collage

Once again, the photo collage is sexist and needs to be EQUALLY BALANCED between men and women (we were able to hammer out a compromise over at the Jew article; so hopefully one can be made here too). It of course LOOKS excellent now, but there obviously needs to be some women in the collage (an EQUAL amount). This means that the collage may need to be reduced in number (or not). There are obviously some major problems with the collage as well: it includes a few relative unknowns that laypeople would probably have never heard of (Lev Landau, Grigori Perelman, Anton Rubinstein), and it even includes a convert to Christianity (Felix Mendelssohn); it also seems rather Russocentric. In the interest of fairness and NPOV, please change this collage immediately. --Wassermann 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many revolutionaries, musicians, and scientists. And no rabbis or talmudists. The revolutionaries are not really Jewish identified. It does look nice. Here are some suggestions:

• Lauren Bacall to replace Lev Landau (too many physicists)
• Anne Frank to replace Simon Weisenthal
• Emma Goldman to replace Leon Trotsky (who was anti-Jewish)
• Adin Steinsaltz to replace Karl Marx (who was anti-semitic)
• Gloria Steinem to replace Felix Mendelsohn (who converted)
• Jascha Heifetz to replace Anton Rubenstein (who converted, and is not well known)

Good pictures of all of these persons are available in the wikimedia commons. --Metzenberg 04:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Marx was not Anti-Simitic, he was Jewish by nationality, atheist by religion. Same thing Trotsky. Judaism is a relegion, but its Not an articale about it, its an ethinc article. Who cares who converted and who not?! If you want a Sex Compromise, read this-

The Mothers Of All Those Mman Were Woman. And rabbis, who cares?! Rabbis, if you want, put in an article about Judaism. Nationality (Ethnic defenicion), and riligion are To seperated things! M.V.E.i.

An attempt at balance for the photo collage

To some extent, these selections were determined by the availability of good photos in the Wikimedia commons. On balance, fewer revolutionaries and scientists, a broader selection that includes world leaders and Jews who have been successful in business and economics.

• Albert Einstein. No contest here!
• Adin Steinsaltz. Ashkenazi Jew who was born in Israel, a Sabra. A great rabbinical scholar who both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews hold in very high esteem.
• Anne Frank. No contest. Represents the victims of the Shoah and the terrible loss of potential. Recognized the world over. One of the most widely read books of the 20th century.
• Stephen Spielberg. One of the most successful directors, representing Jewish achievements in entertainment and the film industry. Representing achievement in the arts.
• Emma Goldman. A revolutionary, and one who had a unique soul.
• Sholom Aleichem. Yiddish writer, represents the specifically Yiddish culture of Ashkenazi Jews. Representing achievement in the arts.
• Gloria Steinem. Represents participation of Ashkenazi Jews in new political movements of the 20th century. Steinem had a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, but is known today to be an observant Jew. Since this is a common Ashkenazi identity today (born half-Jewish, identifies positively with Judaism and is observant), it belongs here.
• Joseph Stiglitz. Nobel Laureate in Economics. Former chief economist of World Bank. Former chair of Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton Administration. Leading critic of globalization. Represents achievements in social sciences and mathematics, as well as world leadership in politics.
• Golda Meir. Represents new Israeli Ashkenazi Jews. One of the first elected female chiefs of state in the world.
• Julius Rosenwald. Early 20th century. Represents Ashkenazi Jewish achievement in business and philanthropy. --Metzenberg 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is better. Please keep an eye on {{Infobox Jews}}. Perhaps the image there could be improved, but there are attempts to turn it into a tapestry. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll stay out of that one. --Metzenberg 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These comments added by M.V.E.i:

• Joseph Stiglitz - beeng and Anti-Globalist is not somthing thhat makes a man social, and hes not the onlt jew winning a Noble prize.
• Golda Meir - For a representetive of a new Ashkenazi Jew you can take someone else, like Rafael Eitan.
• Emma goldman - There were many like her who wanted a revolution, but people like Trotsky actually made them.
• Gloria Steinem - There are millions of femenists, nothing special.
• Adin Steinsaltz - Like, excuse me but... who cares?
• How can you NOT put Landau (Saying to much Physics is as stupid as saying to much Jews), Mendelssohn (Who cares if he convertet? Its a nationallity were talking about), Rubinstein? Weisenthal (Who represents not only the once who lost everything at the holocaust, but also the fighting Jew), Trotsky (Who was one of the key people for a revolution that changed the world), Marx (Philosofy). Its really stupid to take out the once who really represent the nation because of their sex. We judge by achievments, not by sex! M.V.E.i.

Ashkenazi Jews photo

Discusion moved here from Metzenberg's Talk page:

Hello! The photo you made was nice, but i still replaced it with mine because of a few reasons: 1) Emma goldman didn't do anything out of the blue to enter the photo, from the other hand you didnt put revolutionaries who managged to change, everything actually. 2) You didn't future any Jewish composer. 3) To much Jews hate Golda Meir for the mistakes of the Yom Kippur war.

In conclusion: The photo you did was really nice, but there was no point of making it. I made a photo, after talking about it with many people i know, that features faces of the once whose faces are associated with the Ashkenazi Jews. I really dont understand the atacks on me that started Homo Sapiens and some joined to it, i dont understand why few people want me to remove this photo (Most of the people actually like it), but i worked hard on it and it took me some time to decide who to put in the photo, so please, leave it alone. Thank you.

                                              M.V.E.i.

P.S. If you want, i have a nice idea for a compromise. You can download the photo i made, and make another line of people under (Or beyond, whatever you like) the lines of people i made.

Please continue this discussion on the Talk page for Ashkenazi Jews. It is a public discussion, not between you and me. --Metzenberg 17:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate the work you did on the picture. On Wikipedia, you have to always be prepared for others to change your work, and the fact that you did a lot of work on a picture is not itself an argument for using it. I have also done a lot of work on my version of the collage, but that's no argument for the work I have done either.

Please note that I have sized and balanced the photos more carefully, making the portraits more equivalent in size and importance, placing them so that in their orientation, the arrangement as a whole is more pleasing. I placed Anne Frank's portrait in what I consider the focal position, since the Holocaust was the sad fate of more than a third of all Ashkenazi Jews, and resulted in the near death of Yiddish and the near abandonment of the traditional Pale of Settlement.

Also, four women and six men (for what is now a historic ethnic group, not a modern one) is a good balance. It is a balance that would come up often if you chose ten randomly from any larger list (binomial distribution) that is fairly balanced. I think even Gerda Lerner (the Viennese goddess of women's history) would agree that that the right number of women worthies on a list (her term) is not the point of Women's History. One of my own opinions is that Ashkenazi Jews are a historic ethnic group, and that anybody under the age of 50 today is not an Ashkenazi Jew, but a member of a new Jewish ethnic/cultural group (Israeli Jew, American Jew, modern French Jew, Russian Jew, etc.). --Metzenberg 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And still you totally ignored my messege. The photo balance in my photo was not bad, i didnt strech the photos or anything. The problem is not with the quality of the photo you made, the problem was with forgeting importent people. We neet to chose people by contribution to humanity and not by sex. M.V.E.i.

M.V.E.i. What an amazing list any one of us can come up with! So many Ashkenazi Jews have contributed a lot. How to limit the list to just ten? There are hundreds if not thousands who are very recognizable. I've given reasons above why I choose these particular ten. Would you like to discuss another row of five more? I don't think you'll ever come up with an Israeli leader that everyone thinks is perfect. I've tried very hard for balance in many ways, even what parts of Europe they come from and how many Israelis there should be versus Americans and Europeans. --Metzenberg 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A COMPROMISE is somthing that people agree on. You just give arguments to what you di but ignore what i say. I offered a fair compromise, making a three row photo, but your just putting yours instead of mine, thats not a compromise! Lets do the compromise, or i will just kep on putting my photo. Both Mine and Yours chosen people, you chose the design and if you like then change the photos but keep the people. M.V.E.i.

M.V.E.i. You have made a 4th revert on this article now. The compromise is not between you and me as persons, but among all contributors who are interested in the contents of this page. It takes only an hour or two to put together another collage in Photoshop (or a free program, such as the one I used, if you don't own Photoshop). I'm happy to substitute other images in the collage I have made, or add a third row. Any contribution you make on Wikipedia is subject to being replaced at any time by the contributions of others, and you have to accept that. It appears, from reading your Talk page, that you have created a number of these photo collages for many different pages. I thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, but the fact that you have done so does not mean that others have to accept what you contribute. Others have obviously had a problem, on page after page where you have made these collages, with your choices, especially with the lack of women. I also feel that your photoediting composition style needs to develop further. Consider the contributions you have made so far to be good practice. --Metzenberg 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Metzenger! All you said to me could be adressed to you the same way. I'm not happy with YOUR photo. If you agree on the compromise, lets agree on the three-row version. But you just keep on puting yourse instead of mane having a 3-revart-cat-and-mouse game. "Any contribution you make on Wikipedia is subject to being replaced at any time by the contributions of others, and you have to accept that". I dont accapt what you did. But i, unlike you, tried to find a compromise with you. Many people i showed the photo i made, girls and boys didn't feel any problem (No girl had a problem with a "lack of wimmen_. They new all those men i have puted there and agreed on them. I personaly know the people you chose for your image, but no one who i showed it to new most of the once you hace puted, and the trick is that the people on the image will be recognizable. Your composition style is populist. I chose by contribution, not by sex.

M.V.E.i.

Here are the two versions of the collage

Version One (above):

File:Ashfamo2.JPG

Above: Albert Einstein, Lev Landau, Karl Marx, Sholom Aleichem, Simon Wiesenthal. Below: Anton Rubinstein, Felix Mendelssohn, Steven Spielberg, Grigory Perelman, Leon Trotsky.

Version Two (below):

File:Ashkenazi collage1.jpg

Above: Albert Einstein, Adin Steinsaltz, Anne Frank, Steven Spielberg, Emma Goldman. Below: Sholom Aleichem, Gloria Steinem Joseph Stiglitz, Golda Meir, Julius Rosenwald.

These are the two collages. --Metzenberg 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A third row? These would be my suggestions:

• Natan Sharansky. Refusenik, representing resistance of Soviet Jewry. Now an Israeli politician.
• Chava Alberstein. Israeli music star who sometimes sings in Yiddish. Born in Poland to refugees who moved to Israel, where she grew up in Kiryat Chaim.
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg. American Supreme Court Justice, representing achievements in law and jurisprudence.
• Abraham Joshua Heschel or Mordechai Kaplan. Religious leadership in non-Orthodox Jewry.
• Andrew Grove. A founder of Intel Corporation, and one of the pioneers of microprocessor technology. Born in Hungary, and a survivor of the Shoah, he represents leadership in technology.

I could easily come up with five more names, and five more after that. --Metzenberg 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you dont want a compromise, then why yours and not mine image should be here? i personaly like mine more. M.V.E.i.

Copyright license of Perelman image on Ashfamo2.JPG and Ashfamo1.JPG

No copyright information has been provided about the Grigory Perelman image. It appears to be copied from a wire service, but it is not in the wikimedia commons.

File:Ashfamo1.JPG

Above: Albert Einstein, Lev Landau, Karl Marx, Sholom Aleichem, Simon Wiesenthal. Below: Anton Rubinstein, Felix Mendelssohn, Steven Spielberg, Grigory Perelman, Leon Trotsky.

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ashfamo1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

File:Ashfamo2.JPG

Above: Albert Einstein, Lev Landau, Karl Marx, Sholom Aleichem, Simon Wiesenthal. Below: Anton Rubinstein, Felix Mendelssohn, Steven Spielberg, Grigory Perelman, Leon Trotsky.

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ashfamo2.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Metzenberg 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is NO copyright problems, i've checked the subject of all the photos, including Perelman's so stop seeking for low excuses to fight this Edit War. This Perelmans photo was shot in the Sankt Piterburg's University, but it's not copywrited. Deliting a licence i have given is VANDALISM. M.V.E.i.

M.V.E.i. You cannot simply take images off the web and add them to Wikipedia. You cannot license the collages as your work if they contain images that are themselves not properly licensed. Provide information about who took the photo and who placed it in the public domain, under what kind of license, if that is the case. --Metzenberg 08:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They are taken from WIKIPEDIA, and not just "from the web". Perelmans photo is from the Russian Wikipedia. M.V.E.i.

Provide us with a link to the original image that you used in the wikimedia commons, so that we may check its attribution and licensing. I currently see no such image at http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Perelman. I don't know how to use the cyrillic alphabet. Would you provide links? --Metzenberg 09:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shure, there you go:

[[2]] Press on where it's written 15 and it will take you there. M.V.E.i.

Thanks! --Shirahadasha 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which collage?

File:Ashfamo2.JPG

Collage that includes no women.

There has already been sufficient discussion of what the collage in the template should represent. Several editors objected vehemently to the use of only male individuals. Furthermore, editor M.V.E.i. lacks the skill and experience with photoediting to balance the photo composition of the images. We are blessed that the Ashkenazi Jews have produced a wonderful selection of scientists, writers, artists, musicians, religious leaders, political activists, philosophers, world leaders, economists, philanthropists, and so forth, both male and female.

User M.V.E.i. made more than three reverts on May 7, 2007, editing under the IP address 62.90.101.55. User M.V.E.i. was informed about the three revert rule by Humus_sapiens in a previous exchange on May 4, 2007. The following is a list of the four reverts on May 7, 2007:

• First Revert
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert

File:Ashkenazi collage1.jpg

Collage that includes women. Above: Albert Einstein, Adin Steinsaltz, Anne Frank, Steven Spielberg, Emma Goldman. Below: Sholom Aleichem, Gloria Steinem Joseph Stiglitz, Golda Meir, Julius Rosenwald. (NOTE: gender is still not balanced in this collage)
(NOTE: "gender balance" is wholly irrelevant in this context)

The collage originally provided by M.V.E.i. offered no women. It appears to reflect the bias of a young Russian Jew living in Israel who is not religious, and doesn't think that women or religious leaders make important contributions. Any selection of ten individuals would reflect some POV. I think there is no point to further debate by the editors who have already commented. It appears that other editors who work on this page prefer this version of the collage.

I am willing to add another row (five individuals) to this collage, although I don't think it really necessary. Others can agree as to who these individuals should be, but I feel that any additions should continue to reflect the diversity of Ashkenazi Jews, that is, should include several women. Furthermore, I feel that revolutionaries, mathematicians, and physicists are already well represented, that a wider perspective is needed.

I'd like to ask that the other collage be used during the period of the edit dispute, that the page be reverted to [this version] by User:Humus Sapiens while the page is locked pending resolution of this editing dispute.--Metzenberg 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why yourse and not mine?! I personaly dont like yours. Besides, you started an Edit War, thats violation. I can bring many my friends, i can ask many to especialy sign to wikipedia for this war, but it all will be stupid. I like mine, you like yourse. I offered a fair compromise you ignored. M.V.E.i. 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I don't want to take a part in this dispute since I'm acting in an administrator role. However, if you can get consensus or near-consensus one way or the other, let me know and we can take care of it. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd much prefer Image:Ashkenazi collage1.jpg and concur with User:Metzenberg's explanation. The other image (even if the licensing problem will be fixed) makes bizarre choices, is misogynist and reflects POV of one user: its author. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse you would, especialy after i hurt your ego by saying "Your not the boss".M.V.E.i. 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This page has an enormous number of links to it, and it appears to get a lot of traffic, but there don't seem to be a huge number of Wikipedia editors that concern themselves with this Talk page. It appears to me that Humus Sapiens, Wasserman, and myself are the only ones other than M.V.E.i. who are following this. What is the procedure to follow? We could simply ask the last 20 editors who have made non-vandalistic edits to come here an chose which version they prefer. Is that agreeable to everyone? Metzenberg 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Editors are humans with opinions to. Besides, the fact that i dont know other editors for beeng new but you already know many of them ill make shure that you will bring more of those who support you. I can bring many friends here to, but it will be just a mass-edit war. Why not the compromise i offered?! Its stupid. M.V.E.i. 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My preference is also the second collage, but this doesn't reflect any opinion on MVEi's personality or motivations - please remember to AGF. Daniel^C/_T+ 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Metzenberg! Stop inverting my words. There are alot of wimen with contribution, but the ones i chose are the ones who realy are the faces of the nation. I chose by conribution not by Sex. Its an ETHNIC article, relegion not hear. Na yes, i dont know how exacly a relegious guy writing about religion helps our people. I belive that relegion is regresion. I chose Jews who are really known by the whole world, those who the simpelest man will know. I didnt choose by sex, but by conribution. Not by what the man belivews in, but by contribution. M.V.E.i. 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I also prefer Image:Ashkenazi collage1.jpg. M.V.E.i. is pushing a POV of what he views as important Jews. I quote: "And rabbis, who cares?! Rabbis, if you want, put in an article about Judaism. Nationality (Ethnic defenicion), and riligion are To seperated things!". This picture is not a top ten list of the greatest Jews ever, but is meant to be generally representative of Ashkenazi Jews, both currently and historically. That means a balance (not necessarily exactly 50/50, but not 100/0) of women, religious and non-religious, different times and of fields of contributions that is comparable to the Ashkenazi population in general. Jon513 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon, its understood why you say that. You yourself dont understand the differemce between Nationality and Religion, and you yourself not once supported the Jews for Judaism movement. See, if i would push the once I see as importent you would also see there Levka Zadov (Tha right-hand of Nester Machno), a few Jewish actors from Russia, Rafael Eitan, Mordechaj Anielewitcz, Anna Frank, and Moshe Mendelsson (By the way, a Religious Leader). But i didnt put them and tried to do the most objective photo judging only by recognization and comtribution. I have puted Scientists, Musicians, Revolutionerie, A holocaust victim and a fighter against Nazis, a writer. I chose the once who are most known for their contribution and whos contribution is most known. M.V.E.i. 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have repeated said that you made your image sole based on "contribution". I do not believe that contribution should be the defining criteria for the the collage. This is not a top ten list of the greatest Jew ever. I think that representativeness (is that a word?) of the collage is more important. It is very hard to objectively measure "contribution"; some may view certain contributions as more important that others. You, for example, have implied that Rabbis contribute relatively little, perhaps I have misunderstood you, or perhaps you are unfamiliar with their works. Representativeness (how much does this small group of people reflect the whole) on the other hand does not have as many inherit POV issues. Do you understand me now? Jon513 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to show those who when any simple man sees will say: Yes, i know who he is, i know he's a Jew, and i know who he was. How can someone unrecognizable and whose contrabution is a B-class can enter the page? That will just come out populistic. Rabbis really made more bad then good for the nation. They didnt give any realistic contribution, but actualy, stoped it. Besides the article is about Ashkenazi Jews, an ETHNIC group. In Judaism you can make a photo were you wiill have a few Rabbies. Rabbies maybe "contributed" to Judaism, but not to Jews as an Ethnic group. M.V.E.i. 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I notice that while User:M.V.E.i. has spoken in favor of [[Image:Ashfamo2.JPG]], the other editors who have commented so far have favored [[Image:Ashkenazi collage1.jpg]]. Accordingly, I will change the image for the time being. Let me know if a compromise or other final decision is reached. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why a collage is necessary. We can debate all day (or all decade) about the ten, fifteen, two hundred "most representative" Jews, but it's by no means necessary and (in my opinion) on the whole contributes very little to the article. Kith 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Having images makes this a stronger encyclopedia. Most websites today are filled with graphics and images. If you want to capture the attention of students, and you are a teacher, you must have visual information as well as text and lecture. Learning is visual too. We see a picture, and we remember information in a personal way that we don't if it was only presented as text. So I think the effort is to be a better encyclopedia. And if we are going to have a collage, it should be representative. What does the collage say? It says, the Ashkenazi Jews are a historic Jewish ethnic and cultural group that survived a terrible Shoah and yet still produced an amazing cultural contribution to the world. The ten faces here could be replaced by any of hundreds others, and still have the same impact. The one exception, the one image that I think is truly iconic, is that of Anne Frank. So many people in the world have read her book and recognize her face. I fight back tears every time I see her image. No matter what, you cannot think of the Ashkenazi Jews and not be aware of the Holocaust and the tragedy, that there could have been so many more survivors. But you can't have just Anne Frank's image, because so much did survive. So therefore, we need a collage. --Metzenberg 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT ignored the Holocaust, many of my family were murdered there, so your populistic speach, lame. If i ignored the Holocaust then how would you explain that i have puted Wiesenthal's photo there?! Your speach was lame. M.V.E.i. 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gender still not balanced

The new photo collage is STILL not balanced when it comes to gender -- PLEASE create a gender-balanced photo collage (only ONE more woman is needed to balance this collage numerically, i.e. 5 men and 5 women). Also, there are some relative unknowns on there (Steinsalz, Stiglitz, Rosenwald). All of this still needs fixing. --Wassermann 13:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling Steinsalz a "relative unknown" is both POV and OR, to say nothing of just plain "uninformed"... Stiglitz and Rosenwald are less well-known by the public at large, perhaps, but I think this entire discussion is missing a very important point... a photo of an ethnicity should not be a collage of its most famous people, it should, instead, be somehow representative of at least one aspect that makes that group "different" from other groups. I don't want to see a shtetl pic, but that would be far more appropriate than quibbling about which famous people should be in a collage, and whether or not that collage is, or should be, "gender balanced". Tomer^talk 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you flip 10 coins it is more likely that there will be 6 of one type and 4 of the other then exactly 5 head and 5 tails. 6/4 is still balanced in my book. Jon513 10:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we aren't flipping coins here -- 6/4 is obviously not balanced, 5/5 is. --Wassermann 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the goal were to make the collage perfectly representative of the Ashkenazi population, then the much bigger problem is that the individuals pictured are disproportionately wealthy, intelligent, and famous. Calling them unrepresentative because 6 are male and 4 are female is like saying a sample of ten people from Beverly Hills is unrepresentative of the population of Earth because two of them are too short. There is no way any reasonable reader could see that collage as an attempt to represent Ashkenazi demographics. -- Schaefer (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Ashkenazim seriously proud to claim Gloria Steinem as one of their own? Tomer^talk 23:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A better question is prolly...why is Anne Frank included? Sure, she's famous...but on what basis is she defined as Ashkenazi? I hear {{fact}} calling my name... Tomer^talk 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A far better question is where is Henrietta Szold? Tomer^talk 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See, thats funny. Mine photo had recognizable Jews who deserve to be there, but it was knocked out because "there were no woman". Know Wasserman or whatever uses my argument ("not recognizable people") against Metzenbergs image. This photo is deffinutly to politicized, no enough real contributors (Writers, Composers, Scientists, Philosophers-and real ones, not cheap demogogs). You all judge by gender and by political views and not by real contribution and recognazation. You want to get woman in the photo, even if they dont deserve it and you put out those who really deserve it. Our people maybe has many great smart people, but from here i can see that unfortunately we've got much more not-smurt once. And about Metzenberger and Homo SApiens, were the hell are they? I see that after puting there photo they took of from here (To remind you, the one who started atacks against my photo was Homo Sapians, for me "daring" to say he's not the boss). M.V.E.i. 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the entire discussion is silly. "Wasserman" is clearly far more interested in pushing political correctness than in writing a good article or in using a good picture. Per my comments above, however (directly under Wasserman's), I think the collage idea is just plain bad altogether. Tomer^talk 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that my image, which was the first one here by the way, was the best. I didnt choose by gender, i chose by contrabution and recognazibility, it wasnt sexism that there were no woman in my image. The current image is populistic in cheap. M.V.E.i. 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Marriage" images

Speaking of images, I'm not sure how the two images midway down the page captioned "Marriage" (Image:Ashk_sephard_couple.jpg,Image:Ashk_mizrahi_couple.jpg) contribute anything of use to the article. They appear to be photos of random people who happen to be of Sephardic, Ashkenazic, and Persian ancestry who are married. I understand that the point is that intermarriage (in the good way) is reducing distinctions, but photos of happy couples don't really demonstrate that in any meaningful way, and unfortunately make the sections look a bit amateurish. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they don't really contribute anything. Jon513 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They do. I as an Israeli can say, that most of Ashkenazi Jews here are already mixed with Siphardic Jews. They show the process that today goes in Israel. You cant ignore this mixture, and by the way, its actualy works. Any photo from the everyday life contributes. M.V.E.i. 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I took both photos and contributed them. One photo shows a couple I met in Israel, taken next to Rabbi Uziel's tomb in the Meron forest. I asked them for permission to use the photo in my travel blog, so they understood that the photo might be on the Internet, although they may never have imagined such a public forum with as many hits as this one. The other photo shows two friends of mine who live in the San Francisco area. I had their permission to donate the photo here. They say they love the photo, and are very proud of it. Two good looking young couples, don't you think! The whole point is that Jewish ethnic groups are vanishing. People aren't even keeping track of it, and that's a good thing. People are becoming just plain Jewish, both in Israel and the diaspora, and what better way to demonstrate than with pictures. M.V.E.i., if you have a camera, I'd love to see more pictures of Israel here at wikipedia!

HALLELUYA, we agree on somthing! I dont have a camera, but those photos you uploaded are great! Your right, we cant ignore the facts that Jews finaly turn into one nation, and i support keeping the photos you uploaded! M.V.E.i. 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article could be written from a very different perspective, and still be within the bounds of what some people believe is true. It could instead emphasize differences between Jewish ehtnic groups. I feel that would simply be incorrect, but that's a matter of opinion. The article is a good example of how fuzzy a lot of things that are true really are. What is a fact that you can verify? You can actually verify that there are differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc. a lot more easily than you can verify that those differences are vanishing. The latter is just something that is happening, over time. --Metzenberg 19:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[Offtopic comments moved to section below. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)]

File:Nevin-Nihan-Hasan Sami Bolak ... Avanos- 22 Eylül 2006.jpg

some people, like the ones pictured above, feel that not every picture adds to an encyclopedia

Lets stay on topic. This tread is suppose to be talking about the picture itself, not the merit of the whole section. I believe that the section has merit but the picture does not. Not every picture adds to the encyclopedia. For example, in the article Corn flakes there is a picture of a bowl of corn flakes. There is NOT a picture of a person eating corn flakes. The picture should be as general as possible. They shouldn't look like they were taken from a person private collection. Jon513 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I have no problem with the section, assuming that it can be properly sourced, but the pictures contribute nothing and are out of place in what's supposed to be a scholarly article. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, one of the pictures should go. I can see leaving one in the absence of a better alternative graphic, but two seems excessive. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for information on Ashkenazi/Sephardi intermarriage

[My following comment was written in response to Metzenberg's comment at 19:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC). I moved it to a new section to help keep its original section on topic. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)]

The deciding factor for whether this information should be presented in Wikipedia, however, is whether it has been reported on in reliable sources to which it can be attributed. Without such attribution, the second paragraph of the section "Ethnic definition" as well as the captions to both images of married couples look very much like original research. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not just truth. -- Schaefer (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Schaefer. Some people think there must be an algorithm for producing an encyclopedia, that you stick information into some kind of meat grinder and a fair, neutral encyclopedia emerges. But there is a process of redaction (selecting and editing information) that is unavoidable. Apply verifiability to the logical extreme, and you'll end up with nothing that is interesting to read, which is why you sometimes have to ignore all rules to have a better encyclopedia. These photos illustrate what there is no data for.

In the Jewish world today, there is an extreme reluctance to classify Jews ethnically, because of the experience of the Shoah. Try to find statistics about Ashkenazi/Sephardi intermarriage! I challenge you to find them! You won't find any, because nobody will study the phenomenon, and nobody keeps track. Furthermore, Jews everywhere are self-classifying. A lot of American Jews love to tell you they are Sephardic because they have one Sephardic branch in the family who came to the USA before 1700 (although the rest of their family is all Ashkenazi). They are proud of how long their family (some branch) has been in the USA. So, it is really impossible to study this. But it is happening. Already in Israel, young people refuse to identify themselves as Ashkenazi or Sephardic or Mizrahi, or they tell you proudly about their mixed heritage. In a few generations, the Jewish ethnic groups will have vanished and every Jew will just be Jewish. --Metzenberg 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research leeches off the authority of encyclopedic content. Anyone that sees a few paragraphs describing the high intermarriage rates between two ethnic groups in an encyclopedia should be able to safely assume that these claims are based upon authoritative research, not just the intuitions and speculations of the editors. If the subject is unstudied, as you claim, the reader's assumption is false. This is a problem.

If nobody else is writing about this particular subject, why should Wikipedia? Because it's interesting? Is it not also interesting that such an interesting subject has received no academic attention whatsoever? It would be dishonest to the reader not to note the lack of serious scholarship leading to the conclusion you present.

And who's to say yours is the only unsupported conclusion in town? Suppose I were to argue that, because intermarriage rates are so high, the Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews willing to marry outside of their ethnic group are rapidly separating from the more insular members of their respective communities. I might argue that, eventually, all the Jews who are accepting with such intermarriage will have intermarried, and the only distinguishable Ashkenazim and Sephardim will be even more insular than before, as they will all be descendants of the (possibly extreme) minority of their ancestors that refused to intermarry. Then, I could say that birth rates for people of mixed Ashkenazi-Sephardi heritage are lower than for non-mixed Jews of either heritage, and thus in the long run you will end up with two mostly non-interbreeding populations of Jews that are much more insular than they are today.

Like you, I have no evidence for any of this. It looks like our arguments are equally well founded, though opposite in conclusions. Let's include both positions in the article, then. The policy of ignore all rules applies to my unsupported conclusions just as well as yours. If we are to cast off the requirement for reliable sources, I propose we include something along the lines of, "One editor of this article, Metzenberg, believes that Ashkenazi and Sephardi distinctions are becoming less meaningful due to high intermarriage rates and will cease to be useful classifications in the future. Another editor, Schaefer, disagrees, and reaches the opposite conclusion. Neither editor has any verifiable credentials to give their claim any authority. Furthermore, no serious scholars have ever studied this subject, and no relevant data has ever been collected."

All of this is, of course, contingent on your claim that "nobody will study the phenomenon, and nobody keeps track." I doubt this. I'm moderately confident that Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics publishes information on ethnic intermarriage, and even if they don't I would be immensely surprised to find nobody else even attempting to study it. You said, "Try to find statistics about Ashkenazi/Sephardi intermarriage! I challenge you to find them!" I accept your challenge. I will report back later. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've searched and searched in English. How's your Hebrew? There are are many references to the high intermarriage rate, especially in Israel, by journalists. They are all anecdotal references, not scholarly studies. The last time there was a scholarly study, as far as I can tell, was in 1971. There is so much intermarriage now, since we are talking about the grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who immigrated to Israel in the 1950s and before. You find people in Israel with four grandparents from four different regions. It would be a methodological issue even how to study it and report it? --Metzenberg 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can do five years better than that, so far. From Yochanan Peres's "Horizontal Integration and Vertical Differentiation among Jewish Ethnicities in Israel", appearing in Studies in Israel Ethnicity (1985, edited by Alex Weingrod, pp. 39-56): "The rate of mixed couples (couples with one partner of European origin (E-A) and the other of Asian or African origin (A-A) among all Jewish marrying couples rose from nine percent (1952) to nineteen percent (1976) [...]. A parallel rise in occurred in the ratio of intermarriage among Orientals originating from different (Asian or African) countries, from twenty-two percent (1952) to forty percent (1975) [...]."

If there are many references to the high intermarriage rate by Israeli journalists, why not include those? Attribution to articles in reputable Israeli publications would be a vast improvement over the completely unattributed content in the article now, even if the articles aren't in English. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

infobox image redux

I rather doubt I'm the only person who disagrees with both sides of the above dispute about "which collage is better", so I've removed the image from the infobox altogether, until the issue can be hashed out here on the talk page. As I've indicated above, I think the collage idea, at least for the infobox, is colossaly stupid. If an image appears in the infobox it should be such that it portrays features that distinguish the subject from others, both similar and different... in other words, in this case, the image should show how Ashkenazim are different from Germans or Poles or Russians, etc., and/or how Ashkenazim are different from Sefardim and/or all the many varieties of other smaller Jewish communities. The collage fails to accomplish either task, dismally. The collage idea is fine for a discussion later in the article of prominent Ashkenazim, but fails to elicit any feeling for who Ashkenazim are, or what makes them peculiar or special, in the infobox. If no such image can be found, none whatsoever is a far better choice. Tomer^talk 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant middleastern genes? what are the majority of them then?

When the article says that genetic tests have shown "significant" amount of middleastern ancestry for ashkenazi jews (or partial ashken) then what is the majority gene pool group for this Jewish ethnicity? I would assume that, with the history, cultural infusions, population growth, etc, it would have to be Germanic, specifically German. Why does the article not say that? It's kind of like the 2,000 pound elephant in the room. "Ashkenazi" literally means "German". So aren't they, or, other jews back in history basically saying "we are Germans", or "they are Germans"? Of all the European countries Germany has the most extensive history of Jews, and I would assume the most extensive genetic infusions into the jewish population. Even many of the Jews who setted in the East, had already lived in Germany for a ~millenia prior to relocating, this often evidenced by their German names.

The largest ethnic group in the United States is German! But is the largest "ethnic group" in the Jewish population ialso German? That would be kind of interesting, huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.101.77 (talk • contribs).

First, please sign posts using ~~~~, so that people can more easily follow who's saying what. For more, please see WP:SIG.

To address a couple of your points, specifically your misconceptions an anachronistic misunderstandings of history. It is true that the majority of Jews in the US are Ashkenazim, and it's true that the word for Germany in Hebrew is Ashkenaz, but it's also true that the original area described as "Ashkenaz" in the middle ages referred as much to northern France as it did to what became Germany a full millennium later, and until quite recently, the vast majority of Ashkenazim had lived for centuries in what is today Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and Rumania, not in Germany. Secondly, to call Ashkenazim "German" ethnically is highly anachronistic. The notion of a "German people" postdates "Ashkenazi" identity by at least half a millennium... The assertion that the German Jews lived in Germany for a millennium prior to relocating is ludicrous. The first massive waves of Ashkenazim who fled to the east went during the Black Plague. Germany first became a nation and a national identity as a result of Bismarck's campaigns, 500 years later. "Their German names" are not a hallmark of Ashkenazim...it's quite a stretch, for example, to say that Isaac Asimov or Ivan Pavlov had especially "German" names. What the presence of "German names" is indicative of is Napoléon's declaration that everyone had to adopt a surname. In case you're not familiar with history, it was in trying to take Moscow, well past where Jews were allowed to live within the Russian Empire, that Napoléon was rebuffed. That Yiddish was the common language of Jewish communities throughout eastern Europe at that time is generally undisputed, and it should therefore come as no small surprise that their names, whereëver they lived when the adoption of surnames was mandated, would reflect that. Tomer^talk 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the majority gene pool for Ashakenazi's, and is it Germanic/German based on the genetic tests that have been done? If not what is the biggest european gene pool found in ashakenazi's? That is my question. As far your points, of course "Germany" was created only about 130 years ago, however, "Germany" is often referred to mean various continental german tribes or federations. I assumed that was known. Your main point about Northern France only proves my point about Germanic ancestry as this was a major region of Germanic tribers on each side of the Rhine, many of these "tribes" had migrated after the climate change in Scandinavia moved them downwards after ther indo-european migrations, and into Northern France today, and Germany, as well as the Ukraine, Poland and Russia itself. Thus, your other locations for Jewish ancestry are all Germanic at one point or another when jews lived there. That is a fact. In addition, it is a fact that many Jews who settled in Germany, or Germanic confederations, tribes,etc.., later (hundreds or a thousand~ or so years, no difference in my overall point here) moved eastward and many retained their uniquely Germanic names. This is very obvious. So, my question again is, how much German genes are in the Ashakenazi population based on these tests that found some "significant" amounts of middleastean genes as the article states? I think this is a pretty obvious conclusion and not very controversial, that Ahakenazi have large amount of Germanic, specifically German genes. If not then what is the major european component to ashakenazi's? And, of course, this to say nothing of the many, many jews who lived inside what is Germany today, over a thousand years ago. 71.192.101.77 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

The First concrete evidence of Jews in Germany comes from ~300 A.D. If they spoke Yiddish in the East that also proves my point that they must have come from Germany, and they had to have lived in "Germany" long enough to create a new Germanic language for themselves before moving eastward or else they would have been creating and speaking a Slavonic dialect and not a German one. That says alot right there. 71.192.101.77 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

You cite many "facts" that are, in fact,your own unsubstantiated supposition. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no one Jewish ethnicity because of conversion and the multi-ethnic composition of the Jewish people. Most Jews are either Ashkenazi or Sephardi, but there are Ethiopians, Indians, Ugandans, Russians (subbotniks), even German descendants of the Nazis who converted and are now Jews. Ashkenazi literally means, of Germany, while Sephardi means, of Spain. So clearly being a Jew is much like say having a title of any other religion. Where it diverges is that (non convert) Jews get an inheritance from their Jewish mothers as being Jews. That's why most Jews have tended to be in those 2 main groups. The two main groups are mostly of Levantine-area DNA heritage, akin to Lebanese and Syrian peoples although the closest relationship is to the Kurdish people. There is also a (now disproven) theory that Arthur Koestler wrote about that most Ashkenazi are not Semitic, but are Khazars -- this has been used by some anti-Israel groups to deliegitimize Jewish immigration to the Holy Land. TheWebthsp

Polacks??

I changed the word Polacks to Poles in the last sentence of the second paragraph. I'm frankly a little shocked that no one has noticed or changed this before.

201.220.15.66 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Alan

Why did you change it, and what is the source of your "shock"? Tomer^talk 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you haven't heard, but Polack is an ethnic slur. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polack 201.220.15.66 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Alan

Interesting. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary [3] 'Polack' is the Polish word for 'Polish person', but when used in English the term is considered offensive. AHD [4] and MW [5] confirm that it's offensive in modern times. I never knew that. Good catch. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh...I don't know who's writing the dictionaries, but they're wrong. I live in the state with the largest percentage (of the population) of ethnic polacks outside poland, and I've never once heard "polack" described as an ethnic slur by any of them... Looks to me like someone who hated polacks decided that they were going to turn over a new leaf, and started by declaring that the term that they'd always used for polacks was now "offensive" and got a few like-minded haters to go along with it. They're probably the same people who decided that "Jew" is offensive and go around Wikipedia and elsewhere, changing all mentions of "Jew" to "Jewish people". Preposterous, bordering on outrageous. Someone had prolly better let the hispanoparlantes know that "polaco" is now "offensive". Good lord, if anything is offensive sounding, it's to call someone by a word that doubles for a length of pipe stuck in the ground... Tomer^talk 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this may be that rarest of occasions when everybody's right. Doing some more research, I've learned that we can probably thank Archie Bunker for turning a previously harmless national designation into a racial slur. As Tom says, Polack has been used by Poles themselves for many years, but Archie Bunker's continuous use of 'Polack' with that tone of voice when referring to his son-in-law (a.k.a. Meathead) on the TV show seems to have put Polack onto the no-no list. Those of us who are old enough know that several designations have had a similar path. Oh, well, miłego dnia, muszę już iść! 201.220.15.66 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Alan

Tomer is right, its the same case as with Nigger, which just means black in Latin but was decided to be an ethnic slur somehow. You can politisize and kill any word and turn in into a slur. M.V.E.i. 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fallacy of Biological Judaism

There is no scientifically acceptable standard for Jewish DNA. Dr. Robert Pollack, a professor of biological sciences and director of the Center for the Study of Science and Religion at Columbia University, makes the following important observation in his online article The Fallacy of Biological Judaism

"Unlike asking "Are Jews a family?", as historians have traditionally done, geneticists seeking to advise Ashkenazic families are also, in passing, asking, "Do Jews all share the same versions of one or more genes?" -- a question with a testable, precise answer. As no two people except pairs of identical twins have exactly the same version of the human genomic text, this claim could be confirmed or rejected by a search for versions of the human genome shared by all Jews and no other people. Given the historical context of the Nazi "experiment," it is all the more remarkable that Jews all over the world have been flocking to the new technology of DNA-based diagnosis, eager to lend their individual genomes -- each a surviving data point from the terrible experiment in negative selection -- to a revisiting of this issue of biological Judaism. At a recent meeting of the Association of Orthodox Jewish scientists and the Columbia Center for the Study of Science and Religion, it became clear that Jewish curiosity has provided sufficient genetic material to give a perfectly clear negative answer: There is no support in the genomes of today's Jews for the calumnious and calamitous model of biological Judaism. Though there are many deleterious versions of genes shared within the Ashkenazic community, there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews. There is nothing in the human genome that makes or diagnoses a person as a Jew."

What does that have to do with the topic of this article? The DNA of Ashkenazi Jews has certain characteristics which give clues to ancestry, and that is discussed in the article. The fact that there is not one specific Jewish DNA is irrelevant to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How can we talk about the DNA of a religious community !? As R.Pollack says Ashkenazi Jews are not a race but only members of a religious community and as you may know many people were exterminated because of that kind of theory (even if now some of them would like to prove the contrary for political reasons ...). So I will add a {NPOV} in this section --Rpetit 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But Pollack doesn't say Ashkenazi Jews are not a race. He says that there is no genetic marker for Jews in general. The section doesn't claim that there is a genetic test for Jewishness; I don't think anyone claims that. It's a non sequitur. What statements in the section do you think are POV? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Married?

The two pictures showing the 2 couples both start with "Married. [...]" I do not see any encyclopedic value that they are married, if there is any, feel free to explain that. 83.135.143.250 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The caption goes on to say how marriages such as these are making traditional distinctions less meaningful. But the word "Married" at the front is jarring and ungrammatical. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be put into the continous text and actually also that is not necessary because it can be derived from the context. 83.135.149.63 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be a long-standing edit war over whether info about generically-Jewish-DNA belongs in a section about specifically-Ashkenazi DNA. Please discuss here instead of reverting. I think it would be best to get a consensus on whether that material belongs on this page.

Here, I'll go first. Personally, I think that material would fit better in an article about Judaism in general and DNA, and not in this article. Any other thoughts? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not about Ashkenazi Jews, and it's not even about Jewish DNA. It is a statement that there is no specific Jewish gene. Um, ok, no-one claimed there was. It's irrelevant polemics. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a little silly?

We have in this article the following:

Who is an Ashkenazi Jew?

There is currently a debate regarding "Who is a Jew?". This makes it especially difficult to define who is an Ashkenazi Jew, because an Ashkenazi Jew can be defined religiously, culturally, or ethnically.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone that the definition of an Ashkenazi Jew presupposes that they are a Jew in the first place. Bus stop 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit to remove what I consider an improper imposition on what should be a consideration of what an Ashkenazi Jew is in distinction from what a non-Ashkenazi Jew is. Please use this, the Talk page, if there is anything to discuss. Bus stop 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't Daniel use the Talk page? What is Daniel's point to reverting everything without discussing anything? Bus stop 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there is "currently a debate regarding "Who is a Jew?"" This is an article about Ashkenazi Jews. A mere reference to the Who is a Jew? article is sufficient. We don't have to go into all the point of view pushing about Judaism being an ethnicity on this article's page. As an article about Ashkenazi Jews, there is a presumption that the subjects in question are Jews. Bus stop 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As might have been expected, Daniel is still reverting without any use of the Talk page whatsoever. Bus stop 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnicity, and Ashkenazi Jews in particular are one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Parties involved in the above discussion may be interested in this conversation: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop. Thank you. John Carter 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who brought up the idea for the image here

And what i can say is that an image would add, the problam is that Homo Sapiens and Metzenberg politisized it and invented demands which are absurd, and the case becane ugly, so i support the current idea of not having an image, because, at least for me, Metzenbergs image was funny. M.V.E.i. 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

African Traits

No matter how hard I choose not to look, I keep finding African traits in these Jews. EIther curly to kinky hair, full lips, or a combo European/African nose. I am sure others have noticed these traits also. These are too deep to be ignore. You can even see the traits in the blue eyed man in the pic. Maybe these Jews used to be Africans? Maybe that are from the middle-east because of such traits.

I remind you that the Jews came from the east of the river of Jordan, which was a plase where the Indo-Iranian tribes sattled, so probablly thats where those traits are from. P.S. Jews have many incommon traits with Armenians for example, so i dont belive that Africa has anything to do with this. M.V.E.i. 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

help

I'd appreciate it if regular contributors to this article helped me out here. KarenAER provides three responses to three comments of mine. You need concern yourselves only with the third. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On horsewhips vs. whipping horses (a very minor point)

The sentence “the thesis is used as a whipping horse for antisemites” drew my attention. I can easily imagine a kicking horse, quite hardly a whipping horse. On the other hand, everyone knows what a horse whip (or horsewhip) is. Something did not make sense in that sentence.

Consequently, I decided to check the Google statistical frequency test, which yielded as follows:

737 times for “a whipping horse”

17,500 times for “a horse whip”

Dictionaries confirm that horses are sometimes whipped by people, but they never ever whip anybody themselves. Last but not least, my otherwise beloved Grandma used to (metaphorically) threaten me with a (figurative) horse whip, and not (God bless her!) with a whipping horse.

I accordingly re-revert the whipping horse, restoring by the way a badly needed “been” that had also disappeared with the horse whip.

Cheers and שלום.

Zack Holly Venturi 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Whipping horse" is a common English expression meaning a point or argument that is belabored by a person or group to great extent; it's similar to the expression "beating a dead horse". In the context of the paragraph it should definitely be used "for" rather than "against", since anti-semites are the ones frequently using the thesis in their argumentation as to their status. I've restored the previous text accordingly, leaving in the "been" that you rightfully reinserted. Hopefully this explanation is sufficient, but feel free to ask if you have any more questions. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 20:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proto-ashkenazi jewish males worked as slave traders?

There is some written evidence that some jewish males were slave traders of european people(celtic and germanic) who had been defeated in war by the roman empire at the time that geneticist say jewish males aquired european females for wives. This would explain why ashkenazi jews look like europeans since the jewish males who coupled with european females make up most of the ashkenazi jewish population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.221.210 (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I never heard that, but what you say is reasnoble. M.V.E.i. 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to read or see those "written evidence". By the way, there are many different cases/groups which are "proto-Ashkenazi" groups. Jews came to Europe in different times and different ways. M.V.E.i. 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference it, or I'm removing this as anti-semitic twaddle. Daniel^C/_T+ 18:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people scream "anti-semitism" on every-phrase they dont like. I'm half Jewish (from the mother side) and i dont see here anything Antisemitic. What he says makes sence. Keisaria tells you anything? A city of pro-Roman Jews who had Roman culture and many had positions given by the Roman. If that could be, couldn't it be that a Jew will be a slave trader? It's also possible that a trader will want to take a pretty lady from the slaves as a wife. NEVERTHELESS, it would be interesting to read or see those "written evidence" . M.V.E.i. 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but when someone suggests that Ashkenazic Jewish men, with no specificity, were slave traders in the past with no backing references it reeks of antisemitic inventions. If it was placed on the Black people talk page or similar it would be reverted without a second thought. Giving the anon editor a chance to back this up is probably more than is deserved - I've never heard of anything even remotely suggesting this, nor have you. I'm all for avoiding extreme political correctness, but without something to back it up accusations like this have no place in a popular public forum. Daniel^C/_T+ 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should keep it even if he gives no references, why? because it wont give him anything, but it might show something about him not giving references (which he still havent given). If you delete somthing someone other says, others might use it as: "Ouuu if you delete it it means theres somthing there that you dont want us to know. And if it's not true, why shouldn't we know about it?". Lets keep it here, because the fact we asked for references and he didn't give them to us (if it's "written somewhere", as he said, then why not telling us where, or it's a CIA secret?!) will also be kept here. And as i explained him above, there were many groups who came to Europe in different times who eventually were proto-Ashkenaz's. Most of them Israelites, but not only (also people who took giyur and joined the community, and Khazarians). M.V.E.i. 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In a Google search i found there is an article on the topic here in Wikipedia, Jewish slave trade. The article is sourced and has what the guy said about Jewish slave trading. BUT, i dont see the genetic thing. Shure most slave traders raped slave-woman (not only Jewish slave traders, all slave traders), but rarely they married those. The jewish mixure with Europeans comes probably from those not-Jews who joined them during their travel. M.V.E.i. 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That page repeatedly states that allegations of large-scale Jewish involvement in European slave trading have been widely refuted and specifically links such statements to antisemitic canard. Mentioning that such allegations exist isn't a problem, but coming up with OR ideas depending on these allegations, as the anon editor did, most definitely is. I'll hold off on reverting due to the discussion it's engendered, but it's not going to matter shortly anyway since this page is well past due to be archived. Either way, thanks for the link - I hadn't seen it before. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The trick is not to ignore allegations, but beat in the science method: prove him he's wrong. M.V.E.i. 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude? I though that if you ask a question you might want to hear an answer, and you've got it, now what about some references? You said numbers, it would be nice to see where you took them from. M.V.E.i. 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest ignoring unsourced personal theories. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Their were Jewish slave-traders, there were traders who raped slaves, thats true. But as i think, what he tryed to do is to take those facts and "wrapp" them in his own invented numbers and add-ons and present it to us as a whole pakage (at least that's how i'm going to think till i get some references). M.V.E.i. 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also widely known that Arabs were- and still are- involved in the black slave trade, particulary in places such as Sudan. Does ackowledging this make a person "anti-Arab"? Gringo300 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the muslim world, and esspecially in the Arabic one, slave-trading is still alive. Not talking about the woman trading, but thats not even considered slavery there. Have you heard about kiddnaping? mostly people from other village, but sometimes Europeans to, are kiddnapped and forcely turned into slaves. M.V.E.i. 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5