Jump to content

Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

[edit]

In section "Notable Ashkenazim", add an "and" in the last sentence, making it "Though Ashkenazi Jews have never exceeded 3% of the American population, Jews account for 37% of the winners of the U.S. National Medal of Science, 25% of the American Nobel Prize winners in literature, and 40% of the American Nobel Prize winners in science and economics." Maxyyywaxyyy (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Khazar theory

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The sources I cited for the Khazar theory are a genetic testing company [1]https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jewish-q/about/results and a study that's in the National Library of Medicine [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595026/. The author of the study, Eran Elhaik, is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Lund University in Sweden and he also works for Johns Hopkins University Medical School, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world. Would Johns Hopkins hire some crackpot? Hell no! The idea that the Khazar theory (as distinct from the Khazar hypothesis) is a fringe theory is patently absurd. The Khazar hypothesis is fringe because it says that the Ashkenazi Jews are exclusively descended from the Khazars, which all genetic studies have shown to be false. The Khazar theory says the Ashkenazi Jews are only partly descended from the Khazars. Not only do other studies besides Elhaik's support the theory, the fact that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic haplogroup Q lineages diverged 3,200 to 5,100 years ago (definitely before the Jews left Israel for Europe and quite possibly before Judaism was even established) is consistent with it. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Ultrabomb (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.Andre🚐 00:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)>[reply]

No. FamilyTreeDNA groups are never a reliable source on Wikipedia, certainly not a user-contributed project written by non-experts and vetted not at all, which doesn't even say anything similar to what you want to add. The Elhaik study is widely discredited and criticized in the literature. It's absolutely a WP:FRINGE study. Elhaik was affiliated as a postdoc with the Department of Mental Health at the School of Public Health, and not the medical school, genetics or biology department. He may be an associate professor in bioinformatics at Lund University, but that doesn't make his study any more authoritative or worthy of any weight, when contrasted with the extensive body of research that shows the possible Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi gene pool is negligible, by actual genetics researchers, who generally agree that the majority of Ashkenazi Jews are European and Middle Eastern in their genetic heritage. While it is true that some amount of Khazar ancestry might be found in some populations, that doesn't mean the main article on Ashkenazi Jews should give any credence or airtime to what is fundamentally a discredited theory being pushed by dubious sources and often along with antisemitic conspiracy theories. It should be afforded practically no weight and certainly not any more than it already does, which is covered in the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry article and possibly a bit elsewhere such as Khazars and Genetic studies of Jews. This is the main article for Ashkenazi Jews. Elhaik shouldn't be cited here. Andre🚐 04:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC 26 November 2024

[edit]

Should this article have a lead image? If so, which image should be used? إيان (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of suggested images (feel free to suggest others if you think this article should have a lead image)

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Where is the deadlocked discussion that has made a full-blown thirty-day RfC necessary? See WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - please read the info in the link Redrose64 has provided.
Thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Summoned by bot), despite the label, it does seem odd to have this picture (presumably taken in Mandatory Palestine), when the article is about a (mainly European?) diaspora group Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. إيان (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General considerations—In 1920 when this was taken there were some 10,000s of recognizably ethnic Ashkenazim in Mandatory Palestine—far more than there are in all 2024 Europe. The overwhelming majority of modern Ashkenazim (both generally and who wear ethnic clothing) live in Israel and the US, and that's been true since the 1940s. Another problem is that the "Ashkenazic" identity only really exists in contrast to "Sephardic"—a picture of 1920s Warsaw wouldn't be normally described as "Ashkenazic" because everyone in it would have thought of themselves as "Polish Jews", prayed using "Polish rite" prayerbooks etc., didn't consider themselves part of a pan-Ashkenazic identity group. The historical exceptions where you found specifically "Ashkenazic" identity are Venice, Amsterdam, London, Mandatory Palestine, where half were Sephardic Jews so the Ashkenazim grouped together. This presents a challenge because until 1945 or so, almost everyone who thought of themselves as specifically "Ashkenazic" necessarily lived far from Ashkenazic cultural centers and was unrepresentative of the median Ashkenazi Jew. Since the Holocaust, physical displacement and cultural contamination from Israel (which is 50/50 Ashkenazic/Sephardic) has meant the death of all sub-Ashkenazic identities in the US, even though 99% of Jews here are Ashkenazic. GordonGlottal (talk) GordonGlottal (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1920 when this was taken there were some 10,000s of recognizably ethnic Ashkenazim in Mandatory Palestine—far more than there are in all 2024 Europe. What point are you trying to make in comparing Mandatory Palestine in 1920 with Europe in 2024? Changing the variables of both the time and place corrupts the comparison.
Another problem is that the "Ashkenazic" identity only really exists in contrast to "Sephardic"—a picture of 1920s Warsaw wouldn't be normally described as "Ashkenazic" So should the article not discuss Ashkenazi history until the community came into contact with other Jewish groups?
almost everyone who thought of themselves as specifically "Ashkenazic" necessarily lived far from Ashkenazic cultural centers and was unrepresentative of the median Ashkenazi Jew so is this a disapproval of a lead image to represent all Ashkenazi Jews? إيان (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RFC, no WP:RFCBEFORE. I see no problem with the lead image though. A better one could be proposed, but it hasn't. Filer removed the image citing the nonexistent WP:ethnicgallery, and the real policy under WP:GALLERY doesn't actually say not to illustrate an ethnic group with an image, it says not to use a gallery, which is very different. Unless someone has an argument why the image is bad based on an actual policy or guideline, it seems fine and certainly better than no image. I'm open to proposals for a higher quality image on the basis that it's a black and white, kinda shadowy photo. Andre🚐 22:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete pointed out the issue with the current image above. It's not representative. There's also no such image of Mizrahi Jews. إيان (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RFC per the arguments by Andre, but I agree that this image is fine and that an image is desirable, not hard preference regarding a specific outcome. FortunateSons (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the appropriateness of the RfC itself

[edit]

For the four editors so far who have chimed in to express their dissatisfaction with the RfC—the objective was to invite a wide community of editors to opine in what is an inherently contentious endeavor: discussing a lead image for an ethnic group. Although I skipped the phase of back-and-forth on this article, there have been robust conversations on lead images for ethnic groups or groups of people elsewhere on Wikipedia, as at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:African_Americans/Archive_23#Should_this_article_have_a_lead_image?, so an RfC felt appropriate.

For the sake of organization, I've started this new section for anyone else who would like to give their opinion of the appropriateness of the RfC itself so as not to clog the discussion of the actual RfC question pertaining to the lead image. إيان (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]