Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

The section at the end of the Notable Ashkenazim section must be removed immediately. It is disgusting and sickening that scientific racism would be allowed to linger on this page or anywhere on Wikipedia. Racist insanity cannot be allowed to slip into encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.94 (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have much time to dig into this non-sense. This racist drivel is being pushed on Wikipedia by a group of editors, all using the same set of spurious, unreliable sources. All the sources used for this drivel are just unreliable, untrue, and cheap political propaganda. I for one completely agree with the IP that "It is disgusting and sickening that scientific racism would be allowed to linger on this page or anywhere on Wikipedia. Racist insanity cannot be allowed to slip into encyclopedias." That section was modified lately from its original intent, to include this pseudo-"scientific racism" drivel, and it should be deleted. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Warshy: I agree that the material should be removed, and is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Racial/ethnic hereditarianism, connecting racial/ethnic genetics to intelligence (including the positions of researchers such as Cochran and Harpending, who are cited there) is fringe according to the the rfc (see here [[1]]. And the hypothesis put forward by it and sources such as it has been disputed in several instances (one example here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273369474_How_Jews_Became_Smart_Anti-Natural_History_of_Ashkenazi_Intelligence). Hypotheses such as Cochran's should not be presented as mainstream giving the impression of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Skllagyook (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the pointers Skllagyook. I will try and catch up on these issues as time permits, following your guidance. What really bothers me is the intrusion of genetics, a new and unstable science, into the humanities and social studies in general. I don't have patience for alleged social and/or political "sciences" to begin with, but the new fad with genetics, something that is really barely understood in itself, in my view, is really dangerous. Because it will end up re-introducing race (which got thrown away after the end of WWII for obvious reasons) as a science again into the social discourse. I know it is extremely dangerous, but I personally am still unprepared to deal with it. So thanks for the help. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

There's a error: it should read 21st century, not 11th. Antimétodo (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I assume you're referring to the 11th century mention in the lede. Even if not so, all of the mentions of the 11th in the century on the page look accurate, as they are referring to the population during the 11th century, not during the 21st century. Zupotachyon (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IQ stuff, again.

Regarding this edit, to briefly explain:

The Cochran, Harpending and whosit source was exhaustively discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), and several other talk pages. It's pseudoscience. Per Sander Gilman, it's too insulting to call "bullshit". Per him and others, it is designed to feed into stereotypes of Jewish intellectual queerness. It doesn't have widespread support in proportion to its many, many valid criticisms. Therefor, it cannot be used to demonstrate the encyclopedic significance of any particular statistic or factoid.

This is all supported by one of the attached source:

• Entine, Jon (2007). Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. Hachette Digital, Inc. p. 211. ISBN 978-0446580632.

The source was being misused to "teach the controversy" of Ashkenzi IQ, which utterly fails WP:GEVAL, so I have removed the whole thing. Further, combining multiple different sources to support a broad conclusion is textbook WP:SYNTH. As a demonstration of how bad this is, the FIDE source is just a routine listing of chess players. It says nothing about Jewishness at all, making it tissue thin WP:OR. Please don't restore this garbage without actual, reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased Reporting of History re: "Palestinian Syrians"

"The Greek historian Herodotus knew of the Jews, whom he called 'Palestinian Syrians.'"

Better sentence that is actually supported by the source given:

"The Greek historian Herodotus probably referred to the Jews as "Syrians" or "Palestinian Syrians."

Sentence from the book used as a source:

"...that at first glance Jews are apparently never deemed worthy of mention in the Histories: in this way a number of contacts between the two great works would be established, which would also furnish the perceptive reader with a good reason to suppose that the 'Syrians' or 'Palestinian Syrians' of Herodotus should usually be identified with Jews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:B9E8:6E1E:7BC3:C608 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

With leshon ashkenaz / loshn ashkenaz Rashi meant Yiddish, not German. See Erika Timm, Zur Frage der Echtheit von Raschis jiddischen Glossen, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 107 (1985), pp. 45-81. See also Id., The Early History of the Yiddish Language. In: The Jews of in the Middle Ages […], ed. Christoph Cluse. Turnhout: Brepols 2004, pp. 353-364, esp. p. 356. 77.127.97.158 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

use of the term "Mizrahi"

Mizrahi is used in an anachronistic way throughout the article. Mizrahi is a racial label applied to unrelated and linguistically diverse ethnic groups of Jews in Israel, who are variously Iranian, Kurdish, Levantine, North African, Yemeni, Iraqi, Indian and otherwise. There is no basis for using it to describe any population before 1948. Generally, Mizrahim are not a single distinct ethnic group. For example the phrase "Arabic-speaking Mizrahi and Persian Jews" makes no sense. "Arab and Persian Jews" would make more sense. All uses of the term Mizrahi should be double checked; it should not be used in any context earlier than the formation of the modern Israeli state, nor should it be used as a euphemism to avoid using the phrase "Arab Jews." 71.105.20.90 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we really use the "Yiddish Flag"

Hi there, This is a pretty important article, and right at the top of it is this "traditional Yiddish flag" invented by a Commons contributor circa 2011. I've removed the absurd claim in the caption asserting that it is a "traditional" flag, but stopped short of deleting it. The flag is problematic in multiple ways, first off the use of a very recent invented flag that is very rarely, if ever, used to represent Ashkenazi Jews or Yiddish speakers in real life, the conflation of the Yiddish language and/or Ashkenazi Jews with Israel, etc. Seeing the significance of the article at hand, I've decided against personally removing it from the page, but I do not see any reason why this flag should represent Ashkenazim and I'm personally strongly for its complete removal from the page, if not that, at the very least its removal from the article header. Theodore Christopher (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Kurds???

Since when did Kurds become related to Ashkenazi Jews? There is litterally zero DNA connections between Kurds and Ashkenazi Jews. You have more DNA connections with Georgians, Greeks, Turks etc. rather than Kurds. Iraqikurd (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

History Section: Vagueness/Generalization (no source)

The final sentence of 3rd paragraph, under History, reads:

“But, after Christianity became the official religion of Rome and Constantinople in 380, Jews were increasingly marginalized.”

No source. This is a vague generalization, likely speculation, or something controversial that is not backed up with source material. This sentence should be removed. JV701 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

low citation quality in Notable Ashkenazim section

> The achievements of so many Ashkenazi Jews, have led some to the view that Ashkenazi Jews have higher than average intelligence. However many of these studies which show superior intelligence have been discredited, and other studies note that we should not "confuse racial categories with scientific ones."

At the present time, I'm concerned that this quote lacks any kind of primary literature citation; two of the sources are journalistic rather than scientific, and the third is not actually a study investigating Ashkenazi IQ (being instead a well-sourced article on how the discussion has been happening in popular culture). I suggest finding a primary literature article investigating Ashkenazi IQ (for preference, the study discrediting earlier studies which you mention) and including it as a source.

There is also the issue that the word "discredited" (similar to "debunked") can mean several different things depending on context:

1) This study was found to have its data fabricated

2) This study made a claim, and a later study obtained the opposite conclusion

3) This study made a claim, and one or more researchers later found fault with the study's methodology

I suggest clarifying the paragraph with which of these meanings are being used, preferably with citation and reference to the specific article that was discredited in this way. 63.231.52.138 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Italian Jews

Most Italian Jews are not Ashkenazi, so 28,000 in the list "regions of significant populations" is not a correct number and should be changed to a more realistic one. Arandiro (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ashkenazim, as the article bears out, basically began as an offshoot of Italqim Romomusicfan (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Israel section - Aliyah from Russia in 1990s

The article could do with more content on this subject, as the 1990s Aliyah resulted in a substantial Ashkenazic proletariat in Israel for the first time after decades of perceived Ashkenazic class privilege. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

The romanization of the Yiddish word ייִדן in אַשכּנזישע ייִדן (Ashkenazi Jews) in the beginning of the article is currently wrong and needs to be changed from Eydn to Yidn. The first letter is a yud (י) followed by a khirek yud (יִ), so the syllable would be pronounced as "yi". Keiyuu (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Do the maps in this article have any meaning or purpose? Mmmarkkk (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

accuracy of Jewish diaspora

from reading the article in Hebrew it's seems that modern genetic research suggests that Ashkenazim were not originated from the middle East Avy falk (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the Hebrew article mentions research that Ashkenazim are originally of mixed European and Middle Eastern origin, which is what modern research finds and is also mentioned in this article. Skllagyook (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The article does not go into specifics about proportions of Israelite vs admixture. For what it's worth, the consensus seems to be that Ashkenazim fall into the top end of the same 60%-70% Israelite bandwidth as most other Jewish populations (with higher levels for Levantines, lower for Morrocans and Yemenites and negligible for Ethiopian, Cochin and Bombay "Beta Israel") Romomusicfan (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Romomusicfan, could you please cite a source for your claim that that is the "consensus"? I suspect you will not find any such consensus, and in fact, as you have worded your argument, it would be impossible to do so, because (to my knowledge) absolutely ZERO genetic studies have been done comparing the genomes of "Israelites" (the ancient people, and that is the word you used) with any modern Jewish group. "Levantine" and "Israelite" are not synonyms, and this is not a trivial difference. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you, personally, committed this error accidentally, but there are many who intentionally equivocate between these terms. This equivocation in point of fact begs the question; that is, it is circular reasoning: by treating "Israelite" and "Levantine" as synonymous, and especially if you also treat "modern Jewish" or "modern Israeli" and "Israelite" as synonymous, you have assumed the conclusion you set out to prove in the first place. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim—who make up roughly 80% of the world's Jews, including 90% of those in America and half of those in Israel—ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe, perhaps Italy. Which makes sense due to Roman conquest, slavery and forced migration. 138.122.25.142 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Khazar reverts

The Khazar hypothesis is mostly an anti-Semitic theory. There might be some legitimate proponents. But the edits done by User:Ուլտրաբոմբ are removing valid sourced content to lend credence to anti-Semitism. The Khazar hypothesis is a known anti-Semitic theory: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] See also Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Antisemitism Andre🚐 23:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Khazar Hypothesis is not an anti-Semitic theory. Some people just want people to think it is because they're afraid that it would weaken the Jewish claim to Israel in the eyes of the world. But, politics and science don't mix. I want to present all the evidence accurately and let the readers decide for themselves. My last edits corrected mistakes in the article. Citation 195 doesn't say the Khazar Hypothesis is unsubstantiated by genetics and citation 196 is an article on a study that supports it, as does the study by Ellen Levy Coffman that I cited. Citations 197 and 198 don't say it's associated with anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism [Unsigned comment by User:Ուլտրաբոմբ]

Per User:Skllagyook, the studies you are using to support this are old and WP:FRINGE studies. The current studies do not support this theory. You are also removing connections to anti-Semitism. Please see the sources I provided. You appear to be soapboxing a POV: The Khazar Hypothesis is not an anti-Semitic theory. Some people just want people to think it is because they're afraid that it would weaken the Jewish claim to Israel in the eyes of the world. That is not what the RS say. Andre🚐 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You're the one trying to promote a point of view. You're the one who says without evidence that the Khazar Hypothesis is an anti-Semitic theory. You're the one who called the studies I cited "fringe" studies, also without evidence. You're the one who wants to keep any mention of studies that support the Khazar Hypothesis out of the article. Eran Elhaik published his study in 2013, the same year that the transgenome study the article mentions was published. So, if that study is old, the transgenome study is too. The article makes no mention of any "current" studies.

I just gave a list of sources that show how it's an anti-Semitic theory. The 2013 study is actually a massive review. Elhaik study is one study, so it'd be too much weight, his is a fringe perspective. I am not trying to promote a point of view at all. I didn't have anything to do with writing the text that's currently in the article. It was there and you're the one completely changing it to meet your preferred POV. Andre🚐 04:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not quite so black and white. It's a largely unsupported theory, that nevertheless still finds proponents, some of whom may be antisemites, but also others, like Elhaik, who simply approach it in the spirit of enquiry. Here's a fairly neutral assessment found in the lead of Khazars: "Linguistic and genetic studies have not supported the theory of a Khazar connection to Ashkenazi Jewry. The theory still finds occasional support, but most scholars view it with considerable skepticism. The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism." Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, I'm willing to grant there may be legitimate proponents as I said. However the removals/rewrites conducted by this user are systematic and inappropriate. The Khazar theory is a fringe theory. The consensus is that Ashkenazi Jews share a lot of overlap with Levantine populations (ie.,Druze,Lebanese,Bedouin,Syrians,Palestinians,etc) which includes mostly Middle Eastern people, which a healthy amount of admixture from France and Germany (or probably, in my view, Spain/Italy/Portugal/UK as well). While it's not impossible that the Khazars might have contributed to the Ashkenazi gene pool in very small amounts, those such as this user who have an interest in it because they have an axe to grind are frequent. Any possible Khazar contribution is considered insignificant. This user gives away that he is pushing POV. Andre🚐 07:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in no way defending those edits, merely cautioning against generalizing statements, which can push any discussion in a "gazing into the abyss" direction. I don't see any valid reason for the deletion of content by the above user, e.g.: in this diff, while their final addition, beginning "All this indicates..., is by all indications an example of OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• The latest research on this in Cell and Science Andre🚐 04:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Though I do NOT support the Khazar hypothesis, I do want to add my grain of salt to the controversy by stating to what extent the hypothesis is not anti-Semitic. Since Arthur Koestler, a secular zionist, took up the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, all the scholars that in the main fleshed out Koestler’s hypothesis, Paul Wexler, Shlomo Sand and Eran Elhaik, are reputed Israeli academics. The hypothesis, as it stands now, is an Israeli academic dispute open to scientific debate that, taken up by far-right Israeli politicians, has become a tool in the name calling arsenal that characterizes Israeli politics. Eklir (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Ashkenazi ACE2-K26R receptor makes them immune to COVID19

ACE2-K26R; which is most frequent in Ashkenazi Jewish population decreased the SARS-CoV-2/ACE2 electrostatic attraction. On the contrary, ACE2-I468V, R219C, K341R, D206G, G211R increased the electrostatic attraction; ordered by binding strength from weakest to strongest. The aforementioned variants are most frequent in East Asian, South Asian, African and African American, European, European and South Asian populations, respectively. 2601:644:9082:5970:D0A3:FAD0:29F6:B9EF (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You need a reliable source, but probably not true. Andre🚐 23:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

The article suggests that the jews were "exiled from their origins of the Levant by the Holy Roman Empire towards the end of the first Millenium. This is a mistake, as the kingdom of Judea was destroyed in the great Rebellion in the year 73, by the Roman empire. Much of the population remained, only to be exiled too 6 years later after the Bar Kochva rebellion 109.160.230.142 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Question: So what exactly is wrong in that sentence? And what would you suggest it be replaced with? Actualcpscm (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre opening sentence

@User:Jeppiz The source states that "In general the Ashkenazi originally came out of the Holy Roman Empire, speaking a version of German that incorporates Hebrew and Slavic words, Yiddish." Nowhere does the source make the bizarre claim that the Holy Roman Empire dispersed Ashkenazi Jews into Europe from the Levant. The Levantine ancestors of Ashkenazim entered Europe centuries before the Holy Roman Empire even began to exist in the 800s/900s. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

You information are not true . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:868E:2000:CF68:5FC:DC62:CD3A (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews not 12 million

Good afternoon,

The mentioned numbers of Ashkenazi Jews seem to be for the Total of Jewish people. I know for fact that in the Netherlands there are 30.000 reliious Jews on a total of around 60.000 Jews. This is including Sephardic jews. The Total of 12 million seems to me the otal of the whole Jewish people.

Can anybody look into this?.

Best regards&thanks

Max Worms 2A02:A44F:D04F:1:6925:6352:3E30:1F35 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, look at the figures for all Jewish people at the page Jews. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The content of this page ignore the latest researches

According to recent researches AJs might be originating from the Caucasus and not from the Levant. And Yiddish would have Slavic roots rather than German. More on this page, detailing also the sources: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full 193.37.67.39 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The views of Paul Wexler, one of the authors of this paper, have been rejected by the vast majority of linguists and geneticists who study this topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The article is Frontiers (not a well-regarded academic outlet) falls within WP:FRINGE, and run contrary to the academic consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In line with this, I have removed "Turks" from the list of related ethnic groups in the Infobox- the source was an Aeon article that reported the results of the same Frontiers study above. If anyone believes there is another compelling reason to include Turks in this list, with a better source, please advise. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Usury - dubious application here

“… Returning to Frankish lands, many Jewish merchants took up occupations in finance and commerce, including money lending, or usury.” 2A02:3030:604:8D18:79BE:902E:1A8E:F14 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This section clearly needs cleanup, it seems to lack NPOV and perpetrate anti-Semitic ideology; not sure who introduced this edit or how it made it this far without revision. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Khazars hypothesis material

This second paragraph in this section requires much improved referencing if it is to stay:

'The theory has sometimes been used by Jewish authors such as Arthur Koestler as part of an argument against traditional forms of antisemitism (for example the claim that "the Jews killed Christ"), just as similar arguments have been advanced on behalf of the Crimean Karaites. Today, however, the theory is more often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism' The final sentence relates to the theory as it stands "today" however the two references are from 1975 and 1992. Is there anything credible from more recent publications? Otherwise, I suggest, it should be deleted or flagged Caramello pup (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Era

Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers states, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." The original established style of this page was BC/AD, see https://web.archive.org/web/20130221031144/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews. I do not know when someone switched the style, but I do not see any prior discussion of era in the talk section as the manual requires. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_existing_styles.

Here, according to the Manual of Style, where either era style was acceptable it was inappropriate for a user to make a change of era style. As such, all references to BCE should be reverted to BC and all references to CE should be reverted to AD. Shaggydan (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Ashkenazi Jews are not closely related to Germans which you put in the "Related Ethnic Groups" its insulting to say we're related to them. 2A02:C7C:662D:3400:85C8:46E9:519B:B55E (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I apologize if the article offends you, but -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the claim you're attempting to contest is sourced. Due to WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABILITY, I don't believe I'm allowed to remove information like this arbitrarily. However, if you can supply proof that the source doesn't support the claim, or that the claim is irrelevant to the page, it could be removed faithfully.

It seems that various Jewish communities resided in Germany, possibly leading to genetic variety.

Again, if I am misunderstanding, feel free to let me know and we can reconsider your edit. Thank you for the concern.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024 (2)

Remove where it says next to 'related ethnic groups' where it says Germans or Germanic people, cause that is false. Simons g1996 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made -- and refer to the discussion above. The claim you are against is sourced. Thus, you should have some sort of counterargument, such as proof of failed verification. If I am misunderstanding, feel free to let me know by replying to this discussion and we can reconsider your edit.

Edit 1: I'm leaving this edit request open so that other Wikipedians can provide input and potential sources to support this argument, considering it has been brought up twice today, so as not to impede a potentially important discussion.

Edit 2: It is important to note I am not an expert of ethnic groups, but am rather concerned with the claims being made without a proper explanation of the reasoning behind them.

Related external discussions:

• Do Ashkenazi Jews have German ancestry?
• Are Ashkenazi Jewish people considered middle eastern/have middle eastern dna?

Related sources:

• European Population Genetic Substructure: Further Definition of Ancestry Informative Markers for Distinguishing Among Diverse European Ethnic Groups
• Genome-wide data from medieval German Jews show that the Ashkenazi founder event pre-dated the 14^th century
  — Urro^{[talk][edits]} 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Your diligence to try and address the content concerns are appreciated, Urropean, but I've gone ahead and closed out the edit request. The template instructions state that requests which require further input from editors should remain in a closed state until the request becomes actionable. Since consensus appears to also be needed, as you wish to start such a discussion, the template should remain closed until a consensus forms. Any additional edit requests wishing to address the topic you are attempting to generate consensus on should be closed as "not done" as being controversial, which is another exclusionary factor. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions! —Sirdog (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand. To gain a considerable discussion, should we instead notify the relevant WikiProjects and ask for their input? (Wikiproject Ethnic Groups)

I apologize for the misconduct. Your kindness is appreciated.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 12:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, and there was certainly no misconduct. Going to an associated WikiProject to solicit input is a fine idea. —Sirdog (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: WikiProject Ethnic groups has been notified of this discussion.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 14:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC. I find the current state of this infobox field problematic in many ways, and I will suggest a more radical rewrite. According to the manual of style (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), the purpose of an infobox is to summarize, not supplant, the information in the article, and it should be kept as brief as possible. Here the field is bloated and includes an excessive amount of citations. The concept of "related" ethnicities itself is subjective, and there is no strict criteria for what should be included in this field. Nevertheless, in this case it seems misguided to put so much weight through citations on genes alone, when cultural aspects (in broad sense, including religion and language) are arguably as important. Listing all the European ethnic groups separately also seems unnecessary (and e.g. French people are still missing from the list). I suggest the following very brief statement instead :

• Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, other Jewish ethnic divisions and Samaritans; various Middle Eastern and European ethnic groups

The part about Middle Eastern ethnic groups would be similar to the infobox in Mizrahi Jews. This would also avoid an explicit mention of Germans, which was the original issue here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree: This is a very great response. I think there was some confusion as the edit requests were quite direct and ignored a bigger issue.

While there is proof of relation between certain ethnicities, whether that constitutes as enough to be included in a vague infobox or not is polemic. And, as you said, this goes past the "German" statement. Even if the summary is true to some, it can be misleading -- There isn't an easy to way to discuss how connected ethnicities are to one another without comparison and/or, well, showing the original data.

Perhaps it is the article's job to investigate the details and open up a better understanding for readers.

Thank you very much! I believe we'll wait a bit longer to see how others feel about this change.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 18:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I made the change. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

Review: "In Israel the term Ashkenazi is now used in a manner unrelated to its original meaning, often applied to all Jews who settled in Europe and sometimes including those whose ethnic background is actually Sephardic. Jews of any non-Ashkenazi background, including Mizrahi, Yemenite, Kurdish and others who have no connection with the Iberian Peninsula, have similarly come to be lumped together as Sephardic."

Unless credible sources can be used to verify it, I would remove this passage entirely. In my own personal experience, that is not the case, at least making the "often" seem questionable. As I hear people use the terms, "Ashkenazi" does refer to any Jews of Eastern, Central, and sometimes Western European decent; while Sephardi describes any Jews of Iberian origins, sometimes including those who've migrated to Israel from countires which were once Hispanic or Lusophone colonies, as well as with roots in the Langue D'oc (the south of France), southern Italy and Sicily, and in some cases, from communities in North Africa. Typically, Jews from North Africa as well as those from the wider Middle East-North Africa region are considered Mizrahi. Certainly the claim that Mizrahis can be "lumped together" with others within "Sephardi" does not seem to conform to the general usage I have heard in my own Jewish community. So I would like to request a fact check at the very least, and, failing that fact check, a revision. Thanks in advance! SingularityInProgress (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This information also appears in Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. If anything here is changed, I ask kindly that these changes be reflected in the other article as well.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 15:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Removed as this does not have any sourcing to support it. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

What is the evidence that the Ashkenazi Jews are related to Hebrews or Abraham. In the first initial paragraphs the origins of Ashkenazi's are stated as coming out of the holy Roman Empire. This was not the middle east. All of the tribes of Israel are in modern day Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Israel and Palestine. There is no clear mention of any of the tribes heading and living in Armenia in the time of the Kings of Israel, Saul et al up until the Exile to Babylon. They, the Ashkanaz were referenced in Jeremiah as being a northern Tribe, but that is still not connected to Abraham. They cannot be a Diaspora as there is no proof that they are Ex Israelis.

Later in the article, stated in the Etymology they are related to descendants of Gomer. Gomer was a grandson of Noah from Noah's Son Japheth. There is no descendant connection to EBER which came to mean Hebrew from which Abraham descended. Eber was the great great grandson of Shem, Noah's first born. I can find no connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Abraham. Even in recent genetics testing, Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically linked in fortitude or evidence to the offspring of any of the Tribes of Israel or Jacob (Israel was Jacob's name change from God). It seems as though they converted to Judaism, when that would be is unclear. They are linked in history with the Khazarians. While not necessarily descendants their conversion to Judaism may coincide with a conversion to Judaism by the Khazarians. The Khazar Correspondence, referring to the 8th–9th centuries, states that Khazars were said by Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Daud to have converted to Rabbinic Judaism. But as the Ashkanaz was historically linked to this area of northern Turkey to Albania, it is possible that they too converted at this time period.

This is well after the destruction of the second temple of 68 CE. So why this is mentioned in the article make no sense. But the Ashkanaz were not Jews from antiquity. But then is Jewish a religious designation or a genetic, or at least not a genetic traceable marker to the Israelites. Hence, leave all of the references to genetic Hebrews out of this article. It has no relevance to a descendant tribe of Gomer and Ashkenaz, Gomer's offspring. Both can not be true. They cannot be Hebrew and descendants of Gomer. Get rid of the conflation and conflict that exists thereof. If so, they are Gentiles: Non Hebrews.

Also, in the bible those that celebrate and worship to the God of Abraham are to be called Jews. If that is the case, then cease with this genetics insistence as it is clearly misstated that Jews are Hebrews decedents of Eber. Those who do not hold the Torah in practice would then by definition become non Jews.n It too cannot be both.

One last point is that it is stated that Ashkenazi spoke Germanic languages. Those languages are derived from Indo European and have little to no Semitic Language influence aside from some Assyrian and Hittite minor references. Nothing denotes or asserts that they are descendants of Hebrews and all points to the contrary. Hebrews spoke Aramaic and are more in common genetically with Canaanites then the Ashkanazi. Semitic is a AfroAsiatic language which is not connected in any major structure with Germanic. Hence, AntiSemitic is a stretch as they never appear to have spoken a Semitic Language.

This whole writing is a display as to why Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information. Conflation of Israel and Jepheth / Gomer / Ashkanaz cannot exist together. They are not related as descends, except from Noah. (Hence the entire Human race is any of the old testament is to be believed and relied upon.

https://usefulcharts.com/cdn/shop/files/biblical-family-tree-2023.png?v=1684871121

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/98/f4/9598f4cd8d58a9a7e48976a2b4bc0f2c.jpg 2601:198:C180:5540:3012:8EFE:2DCD:D257 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

❌ not done

It is not clear what changes you want to make to this article. Please state your changes in the format “change X to Y” or “add/remove B in between A and C” SKAG123 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Change "Berber Jews" to "Amazigh" or "Mizrachi." " Berber Jews" is not accurate or appropriate. HorshJewCrab (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is it not accurate or appropriate? Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: According to the corresponding Wikipedia page:

"Berber Jews are the Jewish communities of the Maghreb, in North Africa, who historically spoke Berber languages. Between 1950 and 1970 most emigrated to France, the United States, or Israel."

Please provide either explicit reasoning or supporting sources. Otherwise, consider establishing a consensus. Then, we can reopen the request if actionable.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 14:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

Under "late antiquity", the phrase "a task fraught with peril" seems a bit dramatic and editorializing. Recommend replacing with "difficult" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.76.216 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Law of Return and the Zionist Campaign to Subvert Science

Suggested edit ... New Section ... Controversies

The Law of Return and the Zionist Campaign to Subvert Science

"Despite Jewish historians and scholars acknowledging that a significant portion of the Jewish people living around the globe converted to Judaism during the last millennium (and therefore are not descendants of the people of Judea), controversy still exists as to which group comprises genuine descendants of Judea, and which group comprises converts to Judaism."

https://imemc.org/article/the-law-of-return-and-the-zionist-campaign-to-subvert-science/ 2601:444:300:B070:4D60:7443:4CDC:E701 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Another Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

In the lead,

−

Ashkenazim adapted their traditions to Europe and underwent a transformation in their interpretation of Judaism.

+

Ashkenazim adapted their traditions to Europe and underwent development in their traditions.

This reflects the language used in the source better. The source is Centre, UNESCO World Heritage. "ShUM cities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz" (Archived).

The kehillot ShUM played a major role in establishing the specific principles underpinning Jewish life north of the Alps by adapting key aspects of Jewish cultural traditions from Babylon, the Holy Land, the western Mediterranean area and northern France – some of them stretching back to Antiquity – to the specific conditions of their living environment north of the Alps. Indeed, their influence even extended to how such principles were physically handed down from generation to generation. This novel development of Jewish ways of life and traditions, partially coloured by the Jews' close contact with a Christian environment, became characteristic of Ashkenazi Judaism, which in the modern era assumed lasting importance in the New World and in the state of Israel. For many of the legal decisions and traditions, rites and customs (minhagim) passed down by scholars in the Rhine region remain binding for Orthodox Jews to this very day.

It is a stretch to say that the Ashkenazim "underwent a transformation in their interpretation of Judaism" based what is said in the source. I do not see any evidence of a change in interpretation. 2601:204:F100:83B0:E1C4:4964:FC7F:5162 (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This page is archived. If you still would like the edit to be made, please post it on the current version of the article's talk page. Shadow311 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

−

Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim, constitute a Jewish diaspora population that emerged in the Holy Roman Empire around the end of the first millennium CE.

+

Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim, constitute a Jewish diaspora population that emerged in the Holy Roman Empire.

"Around the end of the first millenium CE" is not reflected in the source used: Mosk, Carl (2013). Nationalism and economic development in modern Eurasia page 143.

Mosk writes The Germans were not the only group invited into the empires and kingdoms that controlled territories in Central Europe. The Jews were an important second group. There were two distinct groups of Jews with two separate geographic patterns of migration throughout Europe: Ashkenazim and Sephardim. In 1900 of the approximately 10 million Jews worldwide, over 70 percent were Ashken- azim residing in Central Europe. In general the Ashkenazim originally came out of the Holy Roman Empire, speaking a version of German that incorporates Hebrew and Slavic words, Yiddish. Encouraged to move out of the Holy Roman Empire as persecution of their communities intensified during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Ashkenazim community increasingly gravitated toward Poland. He does not say when the Ashkenazim originated. The current statement is not supported by the citation. 2601:204:F100:83B0:E1C4:4964:FC7F:5162 (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Ashkenazi_Jews#High_and_Late_Middle_Ages_migrations seems to support this statement and is referenced - perhaps look in those references? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

One more Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

In the section Ashkenazi_Jews#Customs,_laws_and_traditions,

−

The Halakhic practices of (Orthodox) Ashkenazi Jews may differ from those of Sephardi Jews, particularly in matters of custom. Differences are noted in the Shulkhan Arukh itself, in the gloss of Moses Isserles. Well known differences in practice include: Observance of Pesach (Passover): Ashkenazi Jews traditionally refrain from eating legumes, grain, millet, and rice (quinoa, however, has become accepted as foodgrain in the North American communities), whereas Sephardi Jews typically do not prohibit these foods. Ashkenazi Jews freely mix and eat fish and milk products; some Sephardic Jews refrain from doing so. Ashkenazim are more permissive toward the usage of wigs as a hair covering for married and widowed women. In the case of kashrut for meat, conversely, Sephardi Jews have stricter requirements – this level is commonly referred to as Beth Yosef. Meat products that are acceptable to Ashkenazi Jews as kosher may therefore be rejected by Sephardi Jews. Notwithstanding stricter requirements for the actual slaughter, Sephardi Jews permit the rear portions of an animal after proper Halakhic removal of the sciatic nerve, while many Ashkenazi Jews do not. This is not because of different interpretations of the law; rather, slaughterhouses could not find adequate skills for correct removal of the sciatic nerve and found it more economical to separate the hindquarters and sell them as non-kosher meat. Ashkenazi Jews often name newborn children after deceased family members, but not after living relatives. Sephardi Jews, in contrast, often name their children after the children's grandparents, even if those grandparents are still living. A notable exception to this generally reliable rule is among Dutch Jews, where Ashkenazim for centuries used the naming conventions otherwise attributed exclusively to Sephardim such as Chuts. Ashkenazi tefillin bear some differences from Sephardic tefillin. In the traditional Ashkenazic rite, the tefillin are wound towards the body, not away from it. Ashkenazim traditionally don tefillin while standing, whereas other Jews generally do so while sitting down. Ashkenazic traditional pronunciations of Hebrew differ from those of other groups. The most prominent consonantal difference from Sephardic and Mizrahic Hebrew dialects is the pronunciation of the Hebrew letter tav in certain Hebrew words (historically, in postvocalic undoubled context) as an /s/ and not a /t/ or /θ/ sound.The prayer shawl, or tallit (or tallis in Ashkenazi Hebrew), is worn by the majority of Ashkenazi men after marriage, but western European Ashkenazi men wear it from Bar Mitzvah. In Sephardi or Mizrahi Judaism, the prayer shawl is commonly worn from early childhood.

+

The Halakhic practices of (Orthodox) Ashkenazi Jews may differ from those of Sephardi Jews, particularly in matters of custom. Differences are noted in the Shulkhan Arukh itself, in the gloss of Moses Isserles. Well known differences in practice include: The prayer shawl, or tallit (or tallis in Ashkenazi Hebrew), is worn by the majority of Ashkenazi men after marriage, but western European Ashkenazi men wear it from Bar Mitzvah. In Sephardi or Mizrahi Judaism, the prayer shawl is commonly worn from early childhood.

Only the statement about the tallit/tallis is sourced. The rest are unsourced and unverifiable, so should be removed. From wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I challenge the unsourced claims and politely ask that they be removed, or sourced within a reasonable time. 2601:204:F100:83B0:E1C4:4964:FC7F:5162 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. All of these statements are both true and uncontroversial. A more productive approach would be to find sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)