![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[12][12][13][14][15] and in Rome in 139 B.C.[16]
This is a conspicuous WP:OR construction.
But how did the Jews get to the town on the Oder?
In the year 70 AD, the Romans conquer insurgent Jerusalem and destroy the temple. After further insurrections the Jews are banished from Palestine and there arises a strong Jewish diaspora - dispersal through many lands. After initial settlements in the Middle East, Jews move on into Europe. The so-called Ashkenazic Jews get through Turkey and Greece to central Europe. They settle in Germany, which is called Ashkenaz in rabbinic literature. The Ashkenazi speak Yiddish and form the largest part of the whole of Jewry. The first documented mention of Jewish life in Germany is from 321 AD in Cologne. The Rhineland forms the early centre of Jewish settlements, which sees a heyday in the 10th century.
(a) This is hackwork, full of untruths or distortions and the source is written by a certain Johanna Adrian, who turns out to be a student at the European University Viadrina at that. This is unacceptable for our RS criteria.
In short, it is self-evident that Jews were in Europe from pre Christian times, amply attested in numerous places. But the above notes contain nothing about either Ashkenazi forefathers or ‘beginning to settle along the Rhine.
In 321 Emperor Constantine the Great sent a letter to Cologne in which he assented to having Jews appointed to the Town Senate, the Curia. Only a large and well-off community was capable of providing members for such a municipal honorary position because in late Antiquity, members of the curia faced massive private financial burdens"... "the Cologne Jewish community Excavations at the Town Hall Square have, in the interim, brought evidence for the continuity of the Jewish community from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.For example, before an earthquake destroyed it end of the eighth century, the first synagogue that can undeniably be identified used a building from late Antiquity. This includes an oval basin that was utilised in all the phases of the building . Scientific investigations have proved its utilisation for a time span of 1,000 years.[ [1]]-- Tritomex ( talk) 23:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the story about "W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.". To start with, it is Finkelstein not Frankenstein. Second, this is a multi-volume work so the volume number should be cited (it is volume 4). Third, Davies and Finkelstein were the editors of the first two volumes of the series so they aren't even relevant. The editor of volume 4 was Steven T. Katz, but he was not the author of page 1042. Fifth, page 1042 lies in Chapter 39, "Jews in Byzantium", written by Steven Bowman. Sixth, this volume was published in 2006, not 1984. Finally, here is the complete relevant text: "Therefore, Constantine’s general law regarding the admission of the Jews of Cologne to the decurionate 13 was beneficial at the time – note the pristina observatio perpetual exemption." with a footnote "CTh 16.8.3; December 11, 321." I don't see any other mention of the Rhineland here, which is hardly surprising given the chapter topic. In summary, whoever added this was being extremely sloppy about the citation (I'm trying to be nice) and since it is a brief mention in passing in an article on a different topic, without any mention of "forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews" or similar, it doesn't support the text. This fake citation appears in History of the Jews in Germany also. Zero talk 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's say all agree that parts of that sentence are unfounded. If we remove that part, then the sentence loses part of its functionality in the lead, and the question is where to place it and in what connection. Debresser ( talk) 11:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[12][12][13][14][15] and in Rome in 139 B.C.[16]
Not sure the Volume used here says 1984,,,but the isbn is wrong...was asked to find all the copies...many volumes..below the ones that can be seen. -- Moxy ( talk) 16:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of the current discussion. It's a fact that not one WP:RS source has been presented to support what is currently being said in the lead. Quite the opposite, it is clear that the section as it stands violates WP:OR as it makes far-fetching claims that find no support in the sourced used. That being the case, I have removed the section. While I'm sure we all agree it would be preferable to have something about the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews, that's not a reason to invent a story with no support in the sources. I do think we will need to add something, when good sources are found. While waiting for that, it is obvious that it's far better to have nothing at all than a story written by someone who either did not understand or did not read the sources. If someone disagrees, I dare to say they need to read WP:OR carefully. What we do here at Wikipedia is to find sources and present what the sources say. We do not invent stories and misrepresent sources. For that very simply reason, part of the introduction had to go as it has been established by several users that it not only is invented, but that it also completely misrepresents the sources. Jeppiz ( talk) 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The same conclusion are clearly pointed out in Tony Frudakis academic genetic book [3] The Hebrew university in Jerusalem article states that "The early founders of the Ashkenazi community made their way to Europe during Roman rule, but the majority of the founders of the population came more recently from the region of present day Israel, moved to Spain, France, and Italy, and then in the 10th century into the Rhineland valley in Germany. It is estimated that prior to 1096, the first Crusade, the entire Jewish population of Germany comprised 20,000 people." [4] I do not understand why revisionist history should be promoted also here, as it was done in articles regarding Khazars.-- Tritomex ( talk) 23:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
'It is fairly clear that the Jewish populations that first began speaking what could be called Yiddish came from various locales, such as France, Germany, the Slavic lands, and the Mediterranean. The difficult question is which of these groups contributed most to the distinctive character of the language and culture. The traditional view, which is also probably still held by the majority of scholars who have studied the question, is that Yiddish was born of eastward migrations. In other words, Jews from France (and perhaps Italy) moved into Germanic-speaking territories and adopted some form of Middle High German (the ancestor language of both Yiddish and German). More recently, several linguists have suggested that the most important migrations were of Slavic-speaking Jews who moved westward. This debate hinges in part on theoretical issues about the nature of language-contact influences.' William F. Weigel 'Yiddish', Jewish Language Research Website 2002
The pages of Atlas of Jewish History By Dan Cohn-Sherbok I cited here are not controversial. The same is true for many other sources I cited here. All this sources can be&should be used in this article as they are sources of high quality regarding this subject .-- Tritomex ( talk) 14:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yiddish as we know it is not just a Germanic language with Slavic syntax and lots of Hebrew words; it is the only Jewish language in which the Semitic elements are more than loan words and expressions; it is in Yiddish that the Hebrew-Aramaic component behaves as an independent language system of its own, and it is in the Oriental language, in the old and good Orientalistic sense, where we find such independent language systems formed of Arabic and Persian elements.Dan Shapira, above p.136.
Nishidani You must first establish consensus, then edit. I have reverted your edits, will post on WP:ANI and ask for page protection. We just had the same problem above, and then you help building consensus. Now you ignore that process, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 13:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
So right now the article says we know nothing about the origins of Yiddish. I don't think this is correct and I definitely don't think it's in accordance with NPOV.
I'm siding with Debresser on this one. I'd elaborate, but I'm on my way out the door. Ankh. Morpork 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The disputed origin of Yiddish as originating from German, is a view, not supported by large majority of Yiddish scholars and would equal for example to placing a claim in the lead of 9/11 article that weather 9/11 was and inside job or not is disputed by historians.-- Tritomex ( talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
As a result, methodological remarks are needed to make clear what tongue can be called Yiddish when speaking about a time period many centuries ago.1 One part of the definition is shared by all authors:this designation can be applied to the vernacular Jewish language
- (1) in which the German component is quantitatively and structurally dominant
- (2) that represents an ancestor of (at least some) modern Yiddish varieties
- (3) that is distinct from local German dialects.
The consideration of the last position represents the main source of the existing controversy in Yiddish linguistics. Here various scholars can be assigned to two major groups characterized by what can be conventionally called the Germanistic and Judeo-Centric approaches. For the representatives of the first group, during a large period of time Jews in German territories spoke the same language as their Gentile neighbors but for the presence of a certain number of words specific to Jewish speech. For the representatives of the second group, Ashkenazic vernacular language was fundamentally different from that of the surrounding Christian majority from the beginning of the Jewish settlement in German lands.p.78
I was surprised to see the text "A 2013 conference of the American Society of Human Genetics with more than 10 scientists participating concluded that there was "no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews" still here after so long. First, it is a false report — except in very rare cases where scientific conferences vote on some issue, they do not "conclude" anything. They just provide a venue for participants to discuss their work. Second, this source miserably failed to get support at WP:RSN. That was not surprising, since it is just a notice of a poster session. Such things are not peer-reviewed, and in fact don't even establish that a paper exists. Ask anyone who attends scientific conferences. It will become citable if/when it is published. Zero talk 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll also note that the source given does not establish that there was a poster actually presented at the conference (only that it appeared in the conference program earlier), nor whether what was presented at the conference matches the abstract (exceptions are common, because of the time lag between when the abstract must be submitted and when the conference is held). Nor does it verify "more than 10 scientists participating" — actually there were probably far more than 10 but that is entirely irrelevant anyway. Zero talk 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to say emphatically, that any mention of Jewish DNA or any other minority DNA with negative implications, should be the one universal exception to freedom of speech. Especially, the case when that group has a proven history as both a minority and getting punished for their parentage, by multiple ruling governments (unless of course they are of that DNA).
That said; read the actual study that those who are saying the current study proves European descent and see what you think the British author of the study had found. The 2 people (and probably more) I believe to be fanatical anti-Judean descent group have praised here over and over.
I had read the whole debate above twice, it seems based on their own words the people who are against the Judean lineage for the majority of today's Jews usually make claims about exactly what they are doing, about the contesting view in their eyes.
The examples I can refer to, I will mention 3.While on the other side Debresser is a tricky one himself, he says he is changing it for consensus then only puts our view (the view he and I share) he likes that position.
1) The anti-Judean heritage group makes the claim that the study claims the descent of these people is "controversial" it seems they had said that 4 times in the above debate, look. Yet, this I guess is how far they had read in to the Richards study before forming a definitive opinion. However, that study says the opinion Jews are not from the Mid-East is the controversial claim, reversed from what is implied above. Richards claims 3 times, claiming anything other than Levantine heritage is controversial. His team also states, from the actual study itself:
"There is consensus that all Jewish Diaspora groups, including the Ashkenazim, trace their ancestry, at least in part, to the Levant, ~2,000–3,000 years ago5, 12, 13, 14. "
in the first paragraph.
2) They claim disparagingly, again and again that the majority of Jews, who according to unanimous consensus without exception, even the Khazarian hypothesis, have claimed from parent to child that they are Judean in origin for the passed 1000 years, and was the main aspect of their whole lives (after their humanity itself in importance), is merely a "meme" or rumor, is obviously offensive. The meme is the Kazar hypothesis, due to the fact that not a single person had even heard it 200 years ago, and until the passed 30 years not over 100. And was never ever taught even in Russian history books, let alone anyone else.
3) Most importantly, the claim over and over, that the European heritage according to this "most recent study" according to the no Judean heritage group, is Eastern European or even Southern European. Firstly in interviews Richards and his team have said twice, that the idea of the majority of Jews converting on the Black Sea 1200 years ago, has been 100% debunked in this study. He said this in his interview for Live Science, and for a Jewish publication.
But more importantly his theory makes the claim that and this separates the superstitious anti-Semites, and their current memes, or canards, and the people looking for truth, that only 5% of the female line "originates" or in current scientific methods is found among the present populations Eastern Europe (aka nested), and only 4% of the female line is found (nested) in the present North African populations. Virtually none have a connection to the Caucuses. I know but science has not caught up to the footnotes of history yet, that this is due to the mass evictions of Jews by their Muslim rulers in the stans and Bukharia, who were the basis of those societies and made up the majorities there (I base this on the domination of Hebrew the Torah's chosen people, rather than Arab the Koran's chosen people's names there, until today, but even more so 200 years ago). These mass evictions occurred in during the 17th Century, and among those forcefully converted to Islam is where in fact you will find the Khazars who rejoined the nested Caucus populations as the Caucus religion which is Islam in the east.
The key finding of Richards and his team if it is correct at all, is that the majority of Ashkenazi female "founders" originate in a group that joined the Jews between 1800-2300 years ago and are now only found in the populations of the British Isles, Northern Italy and Germany, I am referring to what the genetic science world refers to as the K1a1b1 lineage. These lineages are NOT found in Eastern Europe or the Caucuses to any extent up until this point. Yet the debaters had connected the Richards and his team study to claims of Eastern European heritage among the MtDNA tested, so have obviously not even skimmed, let alone read the study itself. From the study:
"The K1a1b1 lineages within which the K1a1b1a sequences nest (which make up the vast majority, and include 19 lineages of known ancestry) are solely European, pointing to an ancient European ancestry. The closest nesting lineages are from Italy, Germany and the British Isles, with other subclades of K1a1b1 including lineages from west and Mediterranean Europe and one Hutterite (Hutterites trace their ancestry to sixteenth-century Tyrol)26. Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types2, likely the result of gene flow from Mediterranean Europe. K1a1b1a is also present at low frequencies in Spanish-exile Sephardic Jews, but absent from non-European Jews, including a database of 289 North African Jews2, 25. Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews25, who are known to have a distinct Near Eastern ancestry, with no known influx from Spanish-exile immigrants (although Djerban Jews, with a similar history, have not been tested to date for mtDNA, they closely resemble Libyan Jews in autosomal analyses27). Thus the Ashkenazi subclade of K1a1b1 most likely had a west European source."
K1a9 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. S4), accounting for another 20% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or 6% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and also dating to ~2.3 ka with ML (Supplementary Data 2) again includes both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi lineages solely from Europeans (again suggesting gene flow out into the wider communities). Like K1a1b1a, it is also found, at much lower frequencies, in Sephardim. Here the ancestral branching relationships are less clear (Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary Fig. S4), but K1a9 is most plausibly nested within the putative clade K1a9′10′15′26′30, dating to ~9.8 ka, which otherwise includes solely west European (and one Tunisian) lineages, again pointing to a west European source.
K2a2 (Fig. 4) accounts for another 16% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or ~5% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and dates to ~8.4 ka (Supplementary Data 2). Ashkenazi lineages are once more found in a shallow subclade, K2a2a1, dating to ~1.5 ka, that otherwise again includes only east Europeans, suggesting gene flow from the Ashkenazim. Conversely, the nesting clades, K2a2 and K2a2a, although poorly sampled, include only French and German lineages. K2a2a is not found in non-European Jews25.
Haplogroup K is rarer in the North Caucasus than in Europe or the Near East (<4% (ref. 23)) and the three Ashkenazi founder clades have not been found there (Supplementary Note 2). We tested all eight K lineages out of 208 samples from the North Caucasus, and all belonged to the Near Eastern subclades K1a3, K1a4 and K1a12. Haplogroup K is more common in Chuvashia, but those sampled belong to K1a4, K1a5 and pre-K2a8.
The fourth major Ashkenazi founder mtDNA falls within haplogroup N1b (ref. 2). The distribution of N1b is much more focused on the Near East than that of haplogroup K (ref. 24), and the distinctive Ashkenazi N1b2 subclade has accordingly being assigned to a Levantine source2. N1b2 has until now been found exclusively in Ashkenazim, and although it dates to only ~2.3 ka, it diverged from other N1b lineages ~20 ka (ref. 24) (Supplementary Table S5). N1b2 can be recognized in the HVS-I database by the variant 16176A, but Behar et al.2 tested 14 Near Eastern samples (and some east Europeans) with this motif and identified it as a parallel mutation. Therefore, despite the long branch leading to N1b2, no Near Eastern samples are known to belong to it.
In our unpublished database of 6991 HVS-I sequences, however, we identified two Italian samples with the 16176A marker, which we completely sequenced. We confirmed that they belong to N1b2 but diverge before the Ashkenazi lineages ~5 ka, nesting the Ashkenazi cluster (Fig. 6; Supplementary Table S5). This striking result suggests that the Italian lineages may be relicts of a dispersal from the Near East into Europe before 5 ka, and that N1b2 was assimilated into the ancestral Ashkenazi population on the north Mediterranean ~2 ka. Although we found only two samples suggesting an Italian ancestry for N1b2, the control-region database available for inspection is very large (28,418 HVS-I sequences from Europe, the Near East and the Caucasus, of which 278, or ~1%, were N1b). Moreover, the conclusion is supported by our previous founder analysis of N1b HVS-I sequences, which dated the dispersal into Europe to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene24."
But before that one of them repeats again and again, I guess to force it to be true, that the study over which you are debating proves a Caucus heritage. Neither the article in Science, but in this context far far far more importantly the study upon which it is based makes that claim, even once. Finally, Richards and his team's study is just one among many done so far, by reputable geneticists. The study was published in the scientific team's own words in Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk loganewski ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
‘How far back must we go to find the most recent shared ancestor for – say – all Welsh people or all Japanese? And how much further is it to the last person from whom everyone alive today- Welsh, Japanese, Nigerian, or Papuan-can trace descent. . . Speculative as they are, the results are a surprise. In a population of around a thousand people everyone is likely to share the same ancestor about ten generations. Some three hundred years- ago. The figure goes up at a regular rate for larger groups, which means that almost all native Britons can trace descent from a single anonymous individual on these islands who lived in about the thirteenth century. On the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C. Steve Jones, Serpent's Promise: The Bible Retold as Science Hachette 2013 p.27. Nishidani ( talk) 13:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[12][12][13][14][15] and in Rome in 139 B.C.[16]
This is a conspicuous WP:OR construction.
But how did the Jews get to the town on the Oder?
In the year 70 AD, the Romans conquer insurgent Jerusalem and destroy the temple. After further insurrections the Jews are banished from Palestine and there arises a strong Jewish diaspora - dispersal through many lands. After initial settlements in the Middle East, Jews move on into Europe. The so-called Ashkenazic Jews get through Turkey and Greece to central Europe. They settle in Germany, which is called Ashkenaz in rabbinic literature. The Ashkenazi speak Yiddish and form the largest part of the whole of Jewry. The first documented mention of Jewish life in Germany is from 321 AD in Cologne. The Rhineland forms the early centre of Jewish settlements, which sees a heyday in the 10th century.
(a) This is hackwork, full of untruths or distortions and the source is written by a certain Johanna Adrian, who turns out to be a student at the European University Viadrina at that. This is unacceptable for our RS criteria.
In short, it is self-evident that Jews were in Europe from pre Christian times, amply attested in numerous places. But the above notes contain nothing about either Ashkenazi forefathers or ‘beginning to settle along the Rhine.
In 321 Emperor Constantine the Great sent a letter to Cologne in which he assented to having Jews appointed to the Town Senate, the Curia. Only a large and well-off community was capable of providing members for such a municipal honorary position because in late Antiquity, members of the curia faced massive private financial burdens"... "the Cologne Jewish community Excavations at the Town Hall Square have, in the interim, brought evidence for the continuity of the Jewish community from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.For example, before an earthquake destroyed it end of the eighth century, the first synagogue that can undeniably be identified used a building from late Antiquity. This includes an oval basin that was utilised in all the phases of the building . Scientific investigations have proved its utilisation for a time span of 1,000 years.[ [1]]-- Tritomex ( talk) 23:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the story about "W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.". To start with, it is Finkelstein not Frankenstein. Second, this is a multi-volume work so the volume number should be cited (it is volume 4). Third, Davies and Finkelstein were the editors of the first two volumes of the series so they aren't even relevant. The editor of volume 4 was Steven T. Katz, but he was not the author of page 1042. Fifth, page 1042 lies in Chapter 39, "Jews in Byzantium", written by Steven Bowman. Sixth, this volume was published in 2006, not 1984. Finally, here is the complete relevant text: "Therefore, Constantine’s general law regarding the admission of the Jews of Cologne to the decurionate 13 was beneficial at the time – note the pristina observatio perpetual exemption." with a footnote "CTh 16.8.3; December 11, 321." I don't see any other mention of the Rhineland here, which is hardly surprising given the chapter topic. In summary, whoever added this was being extremely sloppy about the citation (I'm trying to be nice) and since it is a brief mention in passing in an article on a different topic, without any mention of "forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews" or similar, it doesn't support the text. This fake citation appears in History of the Jews in Germany also. Zero talk 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's say all agree that parts of that sentence are unfounded. If we remove that part, then the sentence loses part of its functionality in the lead, and the question is where to place it and in what connection. Debresser ( talk) 11:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling along the Rhine in Germany in the year 321[12][12][13][14][15] and in Rome in 139 B.C.[16]
Not sure the Volume used here says 1984,,,but the isbn is wrong...was asked to find all the copies...many volumes..below the ones that can be seen. -- Moxy ( talk) 16:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of the current discussion. It's a fact that not one WP:RS source has been presented to support what is currently being said in the lead. Quite the opposite, it is clear that the section as it stands violates WP:OR as it makes far-fetching claims that find no support in the sourced used. That being the case, I have removed the section. While I'm sure we all agree it would be preferable to have something about the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews, that's not a reason to invent a story with no support in the sources. I do think we will need to add something, when good sources are found. While waiting for that, it is obvious that it's far better to have nothing at all than a story written by someone who either did not understand or did not read the sources. If someone disagrees, I dare to say they need to read WP:OR carefully. What we do here at Wikipedia is to find sources and present what the sources say. We do not invent stories and misrepresent sources. For that very simply reason, part of the introduction had to go as it has been established by several users that it not only is invented, but that it also completely misrepresents the sources. Jeppiz ( talk) 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The same conclusion are clearly pointed out in Tony Frudakis academic genetic book [3] The Hebrew university in Jerusalem article states that "The early founders of the Ashkenazi community made their way to Europe during Roman rule, but the majority of the founders of the population came more recently from the region of present day Israel, moved to Spain, France, and Italy, and then in the 10th century into the Rhineland valley in Germany. It is estimated that prior to 1096, the first Crusade, the entire Jewish population of Germany comprised 20,000 people." [4] I do not understand why revisionist history should be promoted also here, as it was done in articles regarding Khazars.-- Tritomex ( talk) 23:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
'It is fairly clear that the Jewish populations that first began speaking what could be called Yiddish came from various locales, such as France, Germany, the Slavic lands, and the Mediterranean. The difficult question is which of these groups contributed most to the distinctive character of the language and culture. The traditional view, which is also probably still held by the majority of scholars who have studied the question, is that Yiddish was born of eastward migrations. In other words, Jews from France (and perhaps Italy) moved into Germanic-speaking territories and adopted some form of Middle High German (the ancestor language of both Yiddish and German). More recently, several linguists have suggested that the most important migrations were of Slavic-speaking Jews who moved westward. This debate hinges in part on theoretical issues about the nature of language-contact influences.' William F. Weigel 'Yiddish', Jewish Language Research Website 2002
The pages of Atlas of Jewish History By Dan Cohn-Sherbok I cited here are not controversial. The same is true for many other sources I cited here. All this sources can be&should be used in this article as they are sources of high quality regarding this subject .-- Tritomex ( talk) 14:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yiddish as we know it is not just a Germanic language with Slavic syntax and lots of Hebrew words; it is the only Jewish language in which the Semitic elements are more than loan words and expressions; it is in Yiddish that the Hebrew-Aramaic component behaves as an independent language system of its own, and it is in the Oriental language, in the old and good Orientalistic sense, where we find such independent language systems formed of Arabic and Persian elements.Dan Shapira, above p.136.
Nishidani You must first establish consensus, then edit. I have reverted your edits, will post on WP:ANI and ask for page protection. We just had the same problem above, and then you help building consensus. Now you ignore that process, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 13:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
So right now the article says we know nothing about the origins of Yiddish. I don't think this is correct and I definitely don't think it's in accordance with NPOV.
I'm siding with Debresser on this one. I'd elaborate, but I'm on my way out the door. Ankh. Morpork 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The disputed origin of Yiddish as originating from German, is a view, not supported by large majority of Yiddish scholars and would equal for example to placing a claim in the lead of 9/11 article that weather 9/11 was and inside job or not is disputed by historians.-- Tritomex ( talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
As a result, methodological remarks are needed to make clear what tongue can be called Yiddish when speaking about a time period many centuries ago.1 One part of the definition is shared by all authors:this designation can be applied to the vernacular Jewish language
- (1) in which the German component is quantitatively and structurally dominant
- (2) that represents an ancestor of (at least some) modern Yiddish varieties
- (3) that is distinct from local German dialects.
The consideration of the last position represents the main source of the existing controversy in Yiddish linguistics. Here various scholars can be assigned to two major groups characterized by what can be conventionally called the Germanistic and Judeo-Centric approaches. For the representatives of the first group, during a large period of time Jews in German territories spoke the same language as their Gentile neighbors but for the presence of a certain number of words specific to Jewish speech. For the representatives of the second group, Ashkenazic vernacular language was fundamentally different from that of the surrounding Christian majority from the beginning of the Jewish settlement in German lands.p.78
I was surprised to see the text "A 2013 conference of the American Society of Human Genetics with more than 10 scientists participating concluded that there was "no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews" still here after so long. First, it is a false report — except in very rare cases where scientific conferences vote on some issue, they do not "conclude" anything. They just provide a venue for participants to discuss their work. Second, this source miserably failed to get support at WP:RSN. That was not surprising, since it is just a notice of a poster session. Such things are not peer-reviewed, and in fact don't even establish that a paper exists. Ask anyone who attends scientific conferences. It will become citable if/when it is published. Zero talk 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll also note that the source given does not establish that there was a poster actually presented at the conference (only that it appeared in the conference program earlier), nor whether what was presented at the conference matches the abstract (exceptions are common, because of the time lag between when the abstract must be submitted and when the conference is held). Nor does it verify "more than 10 scientists participating" — actually there were probably far more than 10 but that is entirely irrelevant anyway. Zero talk 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to say emphatically, that any mention of Jewish DNA or any other minority DNA with negative implications, should be the one universal exception to freedom of speech. Especially, the case when that group has a proven history as both a minority and getting punished for their parentage, by multiple ruling governments (unless of course they are of that DNA).
That said; read the actual study that those who are saying the current study proves European descent and see what you think the British author of the study had found. The 2 people (and probably more) I believe to be fanatical anti-Judean descent group have praised here over and over.
I had read the whole debate above twice, it seems based on their own words the people who are against the Judean lineage for the majority of today's Jews usually make claims about exactly what they are doing, about the contesting view in their eyes.
The examples I can refer to, I will mention 3.While on the other side Debresser is a tricky one himself, he says he is changing it for consensus then only puts our view (the view he and I share) he likes that position.
1) The anti-Judean heritage group makes the claim that the study claims the descent of these people is "controversial" it seems they had said that 4 times in the above debate, look. Yet, this I guess is how far they had read in to the Richards study before forming a definitive opinion. However, that study says the opinion Jews are not from the Mid-East is the controversial claim, reversed from what is implied above. Richards claims 3 times, claiming anything other than Levantine heritage is controversial. His team also states, from the actual study itself:
"There is consensus that all Jewish Diaspora groups, including the Ashkenazim, trace their ancestry, at least in part, to the Levant, ~2,000–3,000 years ago5, 12, 13, 14. "
in the first paragraph.
2) They claim disparagingly, again and again that the majority of Jews, who according to unanimous consensus without exception, even the Khazarian hypothesis, have claimed from parent to child that they are Judean in origin for the passed 1000 years, and was the main aspect of their whole lives (after their humanity itself in importance), is merely a "meme" or rumor, is obviously offensive. The meme is the Kazar hypothesis, due to the fact that not a single person had even heard it 200 years ago, and until the passed 30 years not over 100. And was never ever taught even in Russian history books, let alone anyone else.
3) Most importantly, the claim over and over, that the European heritage according to this "most recent study" according to the no Judean heritage group, is Eastern European or even Southern European. Firstly in interviews Richards and his team have said twice, that the idea of the majority of Jews converting on the Black Sea 1200 years ago, has been 100% debunked in this study. He said this in his interview for Live Science, and for a Jewish publication.
But more importantly his theory makes the claim that and this separates the superstitious anti-Semites, and their current memes, or canards, and the people looking for truth, that only 5% of the female line "originates" or in current scientific methods is found among the present populations Eastern Europe (aka nested), and only 4% of the female line is found (nested) in the present North African populations. Virtually none have a connection to the Caucuses. I know but science has not caught up to the footnotes of history yet, that this is due to the mass evictions of Jews by their Muslim rulers in the stans and Bukharia, who were the basis of those societies and made up the majorities there (I base this on the domination of Hebrew the Torah's chosen people, rather than Arab the Koran's chosen people's names there, until today, but even more so 200 years ago). These mass evictions occurred in during the 17th Century, and among those forcefully converted to Islam is where in fact you will find the Khazars who rejoined the nested Caucus populations as the Caucus religion which is Islam in the east.
The key finding of Richards and his team if it is correct at all, is that the majority of Ashkenazi female "founders" originate in a group that joined the Jews between 1800-2300 years ago and are now only found in the populations of the British Isles, Northern Italy and Germany, I am referring to what the genetic science world refers to as the K1a1b1 lineage. These lineages are NOT found in Eastern Europe or the Caucuses to any extent up until this point. Yet the debaters had connected the Richards and his team study to claims of Eastern European heritage among the MtDNA tested, so have obviously not even skimmed, let alone read the study itself. From the study:
"The K1a1b1 lineages within which the K1a1b1a sequences nest (which make up the vast majority, and include 19 lineages of known ancestry) are solely European, pointing to an ancient European ancestry. The closest nesting lineages are from Italy, Germany and the British Isles, with other subclades of K1a1b1 including lineages from west and Mediterranean Europe and one Hutterite (Hutterites trace their ancestry to sixteenth-century Tyrol)26. Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types2, likely the result of gene flow from Mediterranean Europe. K1a1b1a is also present at low frequencies in Spanish-exile Sephardic Jews, but absent from non-European Jews, including a database of 289 North African Jews2, 25. Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews25, who are known to have a distinct Near Eastern ancestry, with no known influx from Spanish-exile immigrants (although Djerban Jews, with a similar history, have not been tested to date for mtDNA, they closely resemble Libyan Jews in autosomal analyses27). Thus the Ashkenazi subclade of K1a1b1 most likely had a west European source."
K1a9 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. S4), accounting for another 20% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or 6% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and also dating to ~2.3 ka with ML (Supplementary Data 2) again includes both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi lineages solely from Europeans (again suggesting gene flow out into the wider communities). Like K1a1b1a, it is also found, at much lower frequencies, in Sephardim. Here the ancestral branching relationships are less clear (Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary Fig. S4), but K1a9 is most plausibly nested within the putative clade K1a9′10′15′26′30, dating to ~9.8 ka, which otherwise includes solely west European (and one Tunisian) lineages, again pointing to a west European source.
K2a2 (Fig. 4) accounts for another 16% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or ~5% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and dates to ~8.4 ka (Supplementary Data 2). Ashkenazi lineages are once more found in a shallow subclade, K2a2a1, dating to ~1.5 ka, that otherwise again includes only east Europeans, suggesting gene flow from the Ashkenazim. Conversely, the nesting clades, K2a2 and K2a2a, although poorly sampled, include only French and German lineages. K2a2a is not found in non-European Jews25.
Haplogroup K is rarer in the North Caucasus than in Europe or the Near East (<4% (ref. 23)) and the three Ashkenazi founder clades have not been found there (Supplementary Note 2). We tested all eight K lineages out of 208 samples from the North Caucasus, and all belonged to the Near Eastern subclades K1a3, K1a4 and K1a12. Haplogroup K is more common in Chuvashia, but those sampled belong to K1a4, K1a5 and pre-K2a8.
The fourth major Ashkenazi founder mtDNA falls within haplogroup N1b (ref. 2). The distribution of N1b is much more focused on the Near East than that of haplogroup K (ref. 24), and the distinctive Ashkenazi N1b2 subclade has accordingly being assigned to a Levantine source2. N1b2 has until now been found exclusively in Ashkenazim, and although it dates to only ~2.3 ka, it diverged from other N1b lineages ~20 ka (ref. 24) (Supplementary Table S5). N1b2 can be recognized in the HVS-I database by the variant 16176A, but Behar et al.2 tested 14 Near Eastern samples (and some east Europeans) with this motif and identified it as a parallel mutation. Therefore, despite the long branch leading to N1b2, no Near Eastern samples are known to belong to it.
In our unpublished database of 6991 HVS-I sequences, however, we identified two Italian samples with the 16176A marker, which we completely sequenced. We confirmed that they belong to N1b2 but diverge before the Ashkenazi lineages ~5 ka, nesting the Ashkenazi cluster (Fig. 6; Supplementary Table S5). This striking result suggests that the Italian lineages may be relicts of a dispersal from the Near East into Europe before 5 ka, and that N1b2 was assimilated into the ancestral Ashkenazi population on the north Mediterranean ~2 ka. Although we found only two samples suggesting an Italian ancestry for N1b2, the control-region database available for inspection is very large (28,418 HVS-I sequences from Europe, the Near East and the Caucasus, of which 278, or ~1%, were N1b). Moreover, the conclusion is supported by our previous founder analysis of N1b HVS-I sequences, which dated the dispersal into Europe to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene24."
But before that one of them repeats again and again, I guess to force it to be true, that the study over which you are debating proves a Caucus heritage. Neither the article in Science, but in this context far far far more importantly the study upon which it is based makes that claim, even once. Finally, Richards and his team's study is just one among many done so far, by reputable geneticists. The study was published in the scientific team's own words in Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk loganewski ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
‘How far back must we go to find the most recent shared ancestor for – say – all Welsh people or all Japanese? And how much further is it to the last person from whom everyone alive today- Welsh, Japanese, Nigerian, or Papuan-can trace descent. . . Speculative as they are, the results are a surprise. In a population of around a thousand people everyone is likely to share the same ancestor about ten generations. Some three hundred years- ago. The figure goes up at a regular rate for larger groups, which means that almost all native Britons can trace descent from a single anonymous individual on these islands who lived in about the thirteenth century. On the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C. Steve Jones, Serpent's Promise: The Bible Retold as Science Hachette 2013 p.27. Nishidani ( talk) 13:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)