Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 28 July 2006

Achievement Section, Questionable

Couldn't it be argued or even proven that Ashkenazi-achievements are mainly due to self-promotion rather than superior ability? This is proven in the times Hitler removed Jews from positions of power and influence resulting in Germany going ahead in leaps and bounds regarding technologies and other advancements. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing on Hitler's Germany not being a great step in human discovery, even though there may have been doctrines that others found unacceptable. Druidictus 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on table

Does "nn" stand for "not known"? I'm confused by this -- can someone who knows more about this than I do fix this?

• nn is sort of a generic numeric variable, and stands in for a place where a number is needed. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Koestler, Khazars, etc.

If you have a problem with the contents of Koestler and Wexler's books, I'd suggest you articulate those objections in an impartial and scholarly manner inside the article. Of course, that also means you'll have to explain the ideas that are contained in those books. Putting a "disclaimer" above the books as you have done is not NPOV. If you can't keep your emotions or personal biases out of the article, maybe you shouldn't be editing it.

You are correct to ask for an explanation for such statements; I am happy to provide such an explanation. In regards to Arthur Koestler's 1976 book, The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage (Random House), I offer the following information. Most of the significant claims in his book have been throughly debunked by historians.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8646

...Leon Wieseltier can only be commended for debunking Arthur Koestler's attempt to rehabilitate the long discredited theory of the non-Semitic origins of East European Jewry .

A glance at Koestler's intellectual meanderings and fluctuations across the past three decades can only lead one to conclude that his intentions this time around in The Thirteenth Tribe were not the advancement of knowledge but cruel mischief, unforgiveable attention seeking (considering the predictable Arab response already noted by Wieseltier). Koestler, therefore, deserves to be openly chastised for misusing his considerable intellectual talents and devoting them to such a peripheral theory bordering on fantastic speculation, a tangential issue in Jewish history even in its heyday a generation or so ago.

Professor Henry R. Huttenbach, Department of History, The City University of New York, New York City

RECOGNIZING CHRISTIAN IDENTITY and Koestler's book

Book review followed by point by poitn refutations

Errors in the Thirteenth Tribe, by Kevin Brook

writes in a Usenet newsgroup post:

From: Kevin Brook

Subject: Re: Khazars

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval

Date: 2001-12-17 16:43:19 PST

Many elements of Arthur Koestler's thesis were proven false, while a few others were proven true. Some of his false claims are:

• His concept that German Jews did not migrate to eastern Europe in large numbers.
• His claim that French and German Jews mostly died out in the Middle Ages.
• His exaggerated population figures for Khazaria.
• His claim that Crimean Karaites descend from Khazars.
• His supposition, based on Gumplowitz and other Polish Jewish scholars, that certain Polish placenames were named after Khazars. Only in Hungary and Transylvania do we find placenames that actually come from Khazars.
• His claim, based on Mieses, that an Austrian legend about Jewish princes was based on the Khazar rule of Hungary.
• His claim, based on Poliak, that Ashkenazic shtetls were derived from Khazar village life.
• His claim that Ashkenazic Jews have hardly any genetic or anthropological connections to the ancient Judeans.

The following book reviews of his "The Thirteenth Tribe" provide various opinions (Rosensweig, Wieseltier, Szyszman, and Majeski are highly critical of Koestler's book but sometimes their criticisms are illegitimate; by contrast, MacLean, Steiner, Cumming, Schechner, and some other reviewers were more positive):

Abramsky, Chimen. "The Khazar Myth." Jewish Chronicle (April 9, 1976).

Adams, P. L. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Atlantic 238 (September 1976): 97.

Anonymous. "Lost Empire: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." Economist 259 (April 24, 1976): 121.

Blumstock, Robert. "Going Home: Arthur Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe." Jewish Social Studies 48:2 (1986): 93-104.

Brace, Keith. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Birmingham Post (1976).

Cameron, James. "Ask the Rabbi: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." New Statesman 91 (April 9, 1976): 472.

Cumming, John. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") The Tablet (1976).

Du Boulay, F. R. H. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") London Times Educational Supplement (June 18, 1976).

Fox, Robin Lane. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") The Financial Times (1976).

Fuller, Edmund. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Wall Street Journal (1976).

Grossman, Edward. "Koestler's Jewish Problem: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." Commentary 62 (December 1976): 59-64.

Kanen, R. A. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Library Journal 101 (August 1976): 1632.

Kirsch, Robert. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Los Angeles Times (1976).

Klausner, Carla L. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Kansas City Times and Star (September 12, 1976).

Maccoby, Hyam. "The Khazars and the Jews: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." The Listener 95 (April 8, 1976): 450.

MacLean, Fitzroy. "Shalom Yisrah: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." New York Times Book Review (August 29, 1976): 4.

Majeski, Jane. "Chutzpah: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." National Review 27 (November 12, 1976): 1248-1249.

Mason, Philip. "The Birth of the Jews? The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." Spectator 236 (April 10, 1976): 19.

Meyer, Karl E. "Conversion in Khazaria: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." Saturday Review 3 (August 21, 1976): 40.

Raphael, Chaim. "Chosen Peoples: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." Times Literary Supplement (June 11, 1976): 696.

Rosensweig, Bernard. "The Thirteenth Tribe, the Khazars and the Origins of East European Jewry." Tradition 16:5 (Fall 1977):139-162.

Salamone, V. A. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Best Sellers 36 (November 1976): 262.

Schechner, Mark. "All the Difference in the World: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." Nation 223:17 (November 20, 1976): 535-536.

Sheppard, R. Z. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Time 108 (August 23, 1976): 60.

Sokolov, Raymond. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") Newsweek. 1976.

Steiner, George. (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") The Sunday Times (April 6, 1976).

Szyszman, Simon. "La question des Khazars essai de mise au point." Jewish Quarterly Review 73:2 (October 1982): 189-202.

Toynbee, Philip. "Who Are the Jews? The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." London: Observer (April 4, 1976): 27.

Wieseltier, Leon. "You Don't Have to Be Khazarian: The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler." New York Review of Books (October 28, 1976): 33-36.

(Author?) (review of Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe.") New Yorker 52 (September 20, 1976): 145.

Moved from Article

Intelligence

I moved this from the article after hearing that it was it at least rewritten carefully citing an actual study, metrics and particulars of any study -- if not simply removed.

Ashkenazic Jews are the group with the best results in intelligence testing.

Their contribution to many areas of cultural achievements (for example: philosophy, physics, mathematics, chemistry, music, psychology, biology, medicine) far exceeds their proportion in the general population.

See:

Please refer to race and intelligence for a theory of the coincidence of higher IQ and neurological disease in Ashkenazi Jews.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 04:00, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bcorr, you are correct that this description is very sketchy. It's an echo of the material on race and intelligence, which seems to have come mainly from Greg Cochran's article on Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor page. Greg Cochran is an evolutionary biologist with an interest in neurology, as evidenced from PubMed. This article, "How the Ashkenazi Got Their Smarts", circulates in various blogs and other resources, and never does he quote a peer-reviewed article. Perhaps most can be gained by contacting him, (he works at Amherst College, MA, dept of biology). I've been unable to figure out his email address - perhaps you have ways. At any rate, this is not the first time I've heard an evolutionary biologist make rather off-the-hand remarks that turn out to be wild speculation. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have seen repeatedly that Cochran works (worked?) at Amherst. I have neither seen nor found any evidence that this is factual, and cannot find out who he is other than the Pournelle page. (anon, 19 July 2005)

That's just from PubMed. I'm not even sure if he officially works in Utah. JFW | T@lk 17:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have his email address if you still want it, JFW.--Nectarflowed 20:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So do I. His domain doesn't give away his present position, and I'm in no rush to ask him. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Has anyone else actually read the massive material recently added to the article? It is a lengthy tract claiming that the Ashkenazi are not descended from the Biblical Jews. As far as I know, this is very much a minority opinion, as inappropriate as an earlier article that claimed that the Pashtoon are descended from the Biblical Jews. I suggest reversion to User:Esparkhu's version of 10:39, Nov 26, 2004. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

It's mostly Khazaria nonsense; the cites given (for example Brooks) don't come to the conclusions the author of this article has. While the information about Khazar Jews may be accurate to a degree (if outdated), the claim that Ashkenazi Jews and Khazars are the same is simply not true. Genetic and linguistic evidence indicates that Ashkenazi Jews descended from Jews living in the Roman empire, and particularly the Italian regions, who migrated northwards from there to Germany, where Yiddish began to develop, and from there eastwards to Poland, Hungary, Ukraine etc. It is possible that Khazar Jews make up some of the ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews, but it is a minority at most, and that connection is itself still unproven. As Brooks himself concludes "Are all Jews around the world descended from the Khazars? Certainly not. East European Jewish ancestry originates substantially from ancient Judea, and the same is true of most other modern Jewish populations (with the exception of groups like Libyan Jews and Ethiopian Jews). But, it is rational to conclude that some Jews also have some Khazar ancestors." Jayjg 02:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, in Polish history it is noted that at the moment Poles came into contact with the Khazars, there were already Jews in Poland - and these groups were considered completely distinct, both by the outside world and by themselves. ]]] 02:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

While I'm the farthest thing from an expert on the subject, I do find the "Ashkenazi = Khazars" claim to be rather contrary, if not completely antic. Also, couldn't we do better than quoting large, repetitious chunks of fourteen(!) other encyclopedias? They may just qualify as fair use (no more than 10%, etc), but I don't like the way they comprise the bulk of the history section. The hodgepodge reminds me of a lazy college student's essay. It'd be best to excise the quotes and (if possible or necessary) rewrite the data, or simply summarize. In my opinion, of course. -- Hadal 04:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• User:Jmabel's judgment is correct, too much speculative and hypothetical nonsense was added to the article, and so I have joined Jmabel's advice to revert and have done so. Thank you. IZAK 05:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Be warned about genetic studies that are interpreted as demonstrating that Askenazim are descended in large part from ancient Middle Eastern Jews. The studies are simply not capable of supporting any very firm conclusion, and interpretations usually rest on what the investigators believe anyway. Since historians do not usually know much genetics, nor geneticists much history, there is a danger that each group will uncritically accept the other's beliefs. As far as descent from the Khazars is concerned, one would need to know what their genetic markers looked like, and we don't. Furthermore, there is no genetic signature that distinguishes Jews from all other populations. Rejection of the Khazar idea is usually about as arbitrary as its acceptance; more information is needed, but we won't get it if everybody thinks the question is answered - or should never be asked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.77.137.57 (talk • contribs) .

you feeble minded, those genetic test dont tell the whole truth! Those genetic test ALSO say that ashkenazi are VERY closely related to Khoisen africans.....

History

I'd love to see a history section. I could make a try, if nobody disagrees.--Wiglaf 16:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A history of what, Ashkenazi Jews? Jayjg | (Talk) 19:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a short one about their immigration to the Rhineland and later migrations to Eastern Europe as well as a summary of Jews in East European history. But, that is just me, and I won't insist on such a section.--Wiglaf 23:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, though there are other articles dealing with Jewish history. Ashkenazi specific stuff would make sense here. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jay, do you know if general paths of Jewish migration are already covered somewhere? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall an article on it, I'll try to look for one tomorrow. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been doing some reading on this lately. If we don't already have something, I'll try to help. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

The closest I can find is History of the Jews in Germany. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Misplaced Pages is huge. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've found a source that is very informative on the various migrations since about 1650 (and especially since the 19th century), how the Jews fit the various societies, how some countries might be best understood as containing multiple Jewries, of the splits between Orthodox and modernizing tendencies, etc. Unfortunately, I have been able to borrow it only briefly. Someone is strongly encouraged to track down a copy and mine it heavily; with any luck I might be able to borrow it some other time myself. It is:

• Riff, Michael, The Face of Survival: Jewish Life in Eastern Europe Past and Present with personal memoirs by Hugo Gryn, Stephen Roth, Ben Helfgott and Hermy Jankel; epilogue by Rabbi Moses Rosen. Valentine Mitchell, London, 1992, ISBN 0853032203.

I read it this weekend & took a lot of notes. Not as detailed as I hoped, but very suggestive. I've found material to add to a lot of articles. I'll add to various places over the next few weeks. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The Riff book has a lot of good detail, especially post-1850, but that isn't where the story should start. Some points that should make it into the article:

1. During and after the Chmielnicki Uprising (1648–1654) tens of thousands of Jews were killed. Prior to that, there were some 200,000 Jews in Poland. This triggered the first of many waves of migration out of that area. Probably half of the Jews either were killed or left.
2. Another major migration in 2nd half of 18th century triggered by Poland's political decline.
3. Because of this and other migrations over the next 250 years, many areas of East Central Europe had growing populations of Jews, often with Galician roots. In areas where the economy was largely rural and undeveloped -- Northeastern Slovakia, Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, parts of Transylvania -- they often became intermediaries (peddlers, even lessors or managers of noble estates). Also, many Jew migrated to the cities, where a lot became involved in commerce and industry. Transylvania & Sub-Carpatathia developed density of Jews comparable to Galicia. Moldova (where they were about 20%) similarly.
4. Urbanization: Jews from Prussian Poland mostly went to Berlin and Breslau. "By the turn of the century over a third of the Jews in Bohemia (92,746) lived in Prague and its immediate environs, while nearly a quarter of those in Moravia lived in Brno."
5. By the time of the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, Jews constituted a very large proportion of the middle class in East Central Europe. During late A-H Empire, middle mgt & bureaucracy., + banking, retail, and "the free professions". As a result, as national elites grew and were competing for middle-class role, it was Jews they were competing with.
6. Assimilation and acculturation took many different directions. In Hungarian-ruled areas, even most Orthodox learned Hungarians and saw themselves as "Magyars of the Hebrew persuasion". Similarly, in Austrian-ruled Bohemia and Moravia, Jews were acculturated as Germans, but after independence learned Czech. Similar in lesser degree elsewhere, even at times Poland.
7. The Kresy (part of Russian Empire: Polish Lithuania-Belarus & Volynia): ethnically diverse, politically backward. Relative lack of anti-semitism. Shtetls intact, Jews were about half (or even more) of the larger towns. Acculturation was toward Russians, and not much of it at that, because the towns were more Jewish than Russian.
8. Important social splits: Orthodox, Hasids, (post 1890s) Zionists of various persuasions, Folkists (nationalist, like the Zionists, but wanting to remain geographically where they were), various religious reform movements, esp. the Neolog in Hungarian areas, Bundists and other socialists, I'm sure things are missing from this list.
9. Important geographical issues: Can't be neatly divided by country, and besides, borders moved. Speaking of Poland c. 1900, Riff (p.30) writes that it had "Not one Jewry, but several" in different parts of the country.

Ashke-what?

Should there be an explanation of how to pronounce the term? Yes, I know, Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, but at least The World Book Encyclopedia puts pronunciations at the top of many of its articles, and I'm guessing a lot of readers would see the "nazi" in the name, try to pronounce it "not-see" to sound like the name of one of the major ideologies opposing Judaism, and imagine allegations of Nazi-Ashkenazi collaboration or compare Zionism to Nazism. --Damian Yerrick 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. We sometimes do that, especially on foreign words (see SAMPA and ISA for modes of phonetic spelling; probably give both), and I have heard this one innocently mispronounced. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding the pronunciation: (not with as in Nazi). --Damian Yerrick 04:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

absolute pitch?

The following was added anonymously and without citation to the "medicine" section: "However, an interesting note is that there is a relatively high occurence of absolute pitch in Ashkenazim." I've brought that over here pending citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Here's some possibly relevant material, but it seems more to mention that this is believed possible rather than known to be true: . -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

IQ

"Many studies report Ashkenazim to have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group, with the most pronounced gains in tests of verbal ability."

This is errenous. The Japanese are the world smartest people with an IQ of 111. The Ashkenazim in the United States have an IQ of 115 but elsewhere they do not. The Ashkenazim in Israel for example score on average 100. (User:Egud 7 May 2005)

I believe there is the possibility of an incongruity. In particular, the article on the wealth of nations and IQ gives a substantially different number. Frankly, most of the research is pretty loaded. It is quite possible that bad science was being done: it certainly was in the case of the wealth of nations/iq book. Danielfong 02:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Danielfong 02:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The data regarding average IQs of ethnic groups is better for U.S. groups than groups in other countries. What's disputed regarding the U.S. data is the interpretation of it, i.e., what is the source of the disparity (partially genetic, the most common response from experts, or 100% environmental).--Nectarflowed 05:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is "the world's smartest" in their own IQ tests. If I made an IQ test here and now, and got 100% right, would I be the world's smartest? Also, intelligence isn't simply mathematical or verbal reasoning. It's much more. Therefore it's wrong to say group X is the smartest due to having the highest IQ. Not to mention that the Soviets were the world's best in many thing in their own Olympics. They weren't in other countries' Olympics. --85.49.224.196 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and that's why the article doesn't say that Ashkenazim are the "smartest" because they have the highest average IQ. All that it says is that "According to many studies, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average intelligence of any ethnic group as measured by IQ", something which can be empirically measured and quantified. Any claims of of Askhenazim being "better" or "smarter" are only personal interpretations not supported by that data, and most importantly, not made in the article. Yid613 04:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cochran study

I'm not sure that citing Cochrane is "original research", isn't it rather reporting the (controversial) research of these authors? Furthermore, the reversion by Jdwolff reverted all of the objective information about IQ testing (citations of other studies) which have nothing to do with Cochran at all. Also he removed the Nobel prize information, again an objective fact, not related to Cochran per se. Kaisershatner 17:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the study of Cochrane and the rest of the University of Utah team is being published in the Journal of Biosocial Science. The study is not any more controversial than any other intelligence research on ethnicity and is being followed up with further studies.--Nectarflowed 00:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, the paragraph gives immense credit to Cochran, who is just a clever loudmouth and has pushed for his research to be published in The Economist before it had even reached the professional literature and been exposed to peer review, expert commentary and the inevitable letters to the editor.

The paragraph should take the following form:

• Reliable statistical source that Ashkenazim are in the world's top percentiles of IQ.
• Examples (e.g. ACM prizewinners)
• Theories
  • Conventional theories
  • Radical theories, e.g. Cochran and his lot.

Of course this paragraph is very easily misunderstood, and if not written properly will lend credence to anti-Semites (look, the Jews are just so @#^(*# clever, you can never win while they move to dominate the world, better kill 'em off etc etc). JFW | T@lk 10:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for fun, look at this. The blog exposure to Cochran's speculative theories has been quite stunning. Long live PageRank. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the paragraph in a way that does not make Cochran and his lot look like they've invented the concept. I have also offered an alternative theory, which I have been unable to source but should definitely be mentioned. I must say that employment in "finance and trade" as insisted by Greg is rather stereotypical. Most Jews in 17th-20th century Poland and Russia were farmers and craftspeople; they were also very poor. JFW | T@lk 10:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cochran himself mentions other theories, some of which he suggests are possible, and one is somewhat related to your theory. I'm uncomfortable with providing theories without citation, it smacks of original research. Jayjg 22:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nectarflowed, I don't think we should use footnotes to link to other Misplaced Pages articles. This is really a novelty. Otherwise, you have done very well in rewriting my dabbling. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I do think in this case footnotes may be a good choice. Simply referencing the same sources that race and intelligence references, such as _{Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42, 137–144)}, but not dealing with the statements and their surrounding issues and objections in depth, as 'race and intelligence' does, would not give readers the same level of verifiability.--Nectarflowed 21:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just saying it has no precendent, and more conventional approaches would be better. JFW | T@lk 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Haredi reaction to Greg. I will condense this later. JFW | T@lk 06:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nectarflowed, can we please condense the section on Cochran. This bloke is really getting more attention than he deserves. Some snippets of information do not need to be here. Misplaced Pages has already done its share to promote this guy's work. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Done. Does it look better?--Nectarflowed 4 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

I've made some additions. Some of the criticisms from the NY Times article deserve direct mention. In retrospect I think Charles Murray was a good source to quote - he got controversional for suggesting very similar things in the Bell Curve. If we cover Greg so verbosely we may as well document the response from the research community. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

PS The Economist article does not add anything, so I've removed that link.

someone please read http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/ and act on the content.

in more general terms - in recent years there have been several attempts at racist "science", be it the bell curve study, goldhagen's book on the germans or this asinine attempt at reverse prejudice.

now, the society in which being racist is so politically incorrect as to cause instant mortification JUMPS at those studies and embraces half-baked pseudo-scientific theories as facts - even incorporating said theories into encyclopedias BEFORE they are published in any journal. it's worth noting that the journal that agreed to publish the article in question only struck the word eugenics from its title in 1968. --Snottily 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We have read that article (listed at the top of this talk page). It's not an especially well written article, interesting as it is, so I don't think we should necessarily take at face value any positions it takes. The current scientific race and intelligence debate has been going on off and on over the last 30 years. It's a minority scientific opinion that a study becomes pseudoscience if its results are considered undesireable.--Nectar 23:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an article here in Misplaced Pages about Gregory Cochran, apparently written by one of the members of his cult. The entire Cochran section should be moved there and referenced from here. Including it here, in a relatively incomplete article on Ashkenazi Jewry, makes it seem vastly more important than it really is. It is a minor piece of research, virtually all theory with no empirical science, by two authors who are neither geneticists nor historians. Metzenberg 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

This is wrong fact, that Ashkenazi Jews came Europe through Khazaria Khaganate, first Jews came to Germany in 1600s, Jews were pushed eastwards after decline of Khazaria - they played important role in Poland early history and in Hungarian history. So, you have to correct your text.

That is a theory. It gets mention in the article. There were Jews in Germany well before the 1600s. You have to correct your grammar. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the DNA evidence, there is overwhelming linguistic and historical evidence that the Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Middle East and arrived in northwestern Europe, before moving eastwards. The Khazar theory has popular with a few Jewish writers in the middle of the 20th century, when many Jews wanted to disassociate themselves from Germany. More recently, it has been taken up by various anti-Zionist groups because it suggests that modern Jewish ancestry is not Middle Eastern. However, this theory has no mainstream support among historians, or in linguistics or human genetics.

Who "were" they before the 10th Century????

This article seems incomplete in that it states that Ashkenazi origins go back to the 10th Century in Central/Eastern Europe. Were their ancestors from previous centuries Pagan Europeans who converted to Judaism and/or intermarried into small Diaspora Jewish communities in Central/Eastern Europe? Would this intermarriage/conversion explain the significant population growth of European Jews up towards the Industrial Revolution and onward before the Holocaust of WWII?

Ashenazic Jews are most closely related to Roman Jews, and the intermarriage ratw was quite low, 0.5% per generation. See: . Jayjg 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Your source does not support your claim - it is very important to look at the data, rather than the claim made by the title or abstract. As is typical of investigations of Jewish ancestry, the study uses commonly accepted history as a basis for both design and interpretation of the experiment. But the history is really not that clear - particularly on the origin of the Ashkenazis, which is essentially a legend. A cold look at the historical evidence indicates that Jews migrated throughout the Roman empire, and beyond, and there is no reason to suppose that they did not intermarry with local populations. There seems to be resistance to the idea that a substantial portion of Jewish ancestry comes from places other than Israel, but the genetic data is entirely compatible with that view. True, the Ashkenazi population can be seen as distinct (in some senses) from other European populations, but that does not in itself tell us where it came from. We will be enlightened only by assembling a complete picture of the genetics of the several populations that might have contributed to the Ashkenazi.

RE: Who "were" they before the 10th Century????

Good point! Like most other historical articles about the Ashkenazi population, there is nothing mentioned about how the Jews got from the Judea/Mediterranean Basis during the Roman Empire times to places in Northern Europe such as Germany and Northern France. It seems new insights into Ashkenazi DNA are answering some questions about Jewish migration patterns. Apparently, the male Y-chromosome patterns of Ashkenazi Jewish decent match the y-chromosome patterns of other Middle Eastern populations such as Lebonese, Iraqis, etc. This is proof that atleast the original male founders of the Ashkenazi community were of Southern Mediterranean/Middle Eastern origin. However, studies on the mtDNA (the founding mothers' side) have shown that the female founders might be from local European ancestry. This is interesting for several reasons. One is that in Jewish tradition "Jewishness" is passed on through the mother. However, according to DNA evidence it appears "Jewish" males intermarried non-ethnically Jewish woman. Despite this anamoly, it does explains some things. For one, it explains why most European Jewish populations look like their host communities (because the intermarriages of the southern Jewish traders with European women) while still maintaing Jewish culture and religion.

An historical framework for this DNA evidence has not been explored and fully elaborated on. In other words, how exactly did the Jewish male traders from the Mediterranean Basin move into new communities in the North? How did these males then intermarry the local women (probably converting the local women when intermarrying)?. Also, which communities did the Jewish males move from (maybe somewhere in Italy? Maybe in Greece? Maybe Mesopotamia?) and in what specific time periods did this migration take place(400s, 500s, 600s CE, etc.)? If anyone has information they should add it to the Origin of Ashkenzi article which is probably being merged into the Ashkanzi article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.168.167 (talk • contribs) 26 Sept 2005.

I've just found an article in Discovery about a new research which claims to have found that 4 founding mothers in the Rhein basin (Germany) are the common ancestors of all current Ashkenazim. Here is a link: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060123/jewishmom_his.html I think this is relevant to this section but I don't know how to fit it in. Penedo 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC) But they weren't from the Rhine basin - that is merely the interpretation of the authors, based on their reading of the history which (like this page) asumes that the Rhineland population was the basis of the Ashkenazi population. Actually the authors have no way of knowing where the women camce from. the fact that the haplotypes were found in some other Jewish populations could be explained by migration from europe into other Jewish populations. See how assumptions get turned into "evidence"?

IQ - why was it deleted

Lapinmies (talk · contribs) deleted the whole section on IQ and genetic causes. This may be controversial, but Misplaced Pages should not avoid topics because they are controversial. In fact, what was deleted was the product of careful NPOV work by many editors, involving many long discussions about the balance between one speculative article that has not even been published in print yet.

The topic has set blogs on fire for months on end. We do not dare avoiding it just like that. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ostjuden, Yekkes, etc.

It seems to me that, although largely forgotten post-WW2, significant distinctions were made between German Jews, sometimes called Yekkes (not sure if this is a derogatory slang word or whether the German Jews themselves used this) and so-called Ostjuden of East Europe. I don't know a great deal about it, but I recall books by Sander Gilman highlighting the extent to which these differences were considered significant in Europe by both Jews and non-Jews, extending to language (Yiddish), custom, physical appearance, etc. I know this is a touchy subject, and I don't want to harp on it, but I wonder whether treating Ashkenazim as a homogeneous mass doesn't do a disservice. Are there Ashkenazi "sub-sub-ethnic groups", or whatever is the appropriate term here? --AnotherBDA 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yekke is a slang term used by Israelis for Jews specifically from Germany. There term is used, with some qualification, in Spielberg's recent film on Munich. Within Ashkenazi Jewry there have long been religious and national differences in culture.

Why are Jews smarter? Try common sense for the answer

Why are Jews smarter? There is precious little laboratory science to help with finding the answer. That being the case, to arrive at a plausible paridigm one must keep the solution very simple, and rely heavily on common sense.

In only one short paragraph, were the ideas of Galton (1860) and Wiener (1900's) mentioned, yet theirs were the only plausible model. I have been watching this phenomonon for 60 years and I think the answer is so simple, that even a child can see it. But only a child, untouched by intellectual fashion and politically correct taboos.

Here it is:

Why are Jews so smart? There are many explanations, some of which strain common sense. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. It can all be explained quite clearly:

Through millenia of widsread illiteracy, Jewish culture valued the twin cultural ethics of learning and literacy above all else. This was true since Jesus' day, and long before. Pressures to become the most learned in the Jewish community were around forever. Many of the men were rabbis of some sort, and every one dreamed of becoming the chief rabbi. The competition for that job was stiff, and was entirely based upon mental abilities. It was not even important what was studied. Even if it had been the game of chess, it would still have produced the same result, just as long as the challenge was a hard mental contest.

Early on then, the smartest Jews rose to the highest level of their society. Moreover, the field of competition was among all men thanks to universal male literacy, and not just among a much smaller group, as it was elsewhere. So a very strong merit system was in place from the beginning, and for a very long time. This cultural accident alone can answer the question.

But there was another and even stronger pressure. As if to insure the result, the smartest men reproduced themselves moreso than ordinary males. That was because the most highly placed rabbis were freed from having to make a living. They were supported by the community so that they could study all day long. Even more significantly, the head rabbi went through wives like popcorn, a younger one each time. Culturally, it was a great honor for an ordinary father, not blessed with great intelligence but only the ability to become rich, to give up his young daughter to the Rabbis bed, once the rabbis previous wife died having her 20th child. There is even hard evidence for this gleaned from the detailed family records that Jews are well known for, even going back to Bible days. So the most intelligent men were selected not only for intelligence, but for their ability to reproduce a lot, too. This is an even surer recipe for the selection of smart genes, but the realtive smartness of the Jews was helped along from another, and most unexpected direction.

Consider how the culture of non-Jews effected their own special outcome. In the culture of Christendom, the best minds, indeed the cream of the crop, were recruited, prized, and sent into the priesthood. Thus, in a single stroke, the genes for the best minds were collected from the entire male population, every generation, and then simply sent off into the celibate priesthood, thus removing them from the gene pool forever. So while Christendom impoverished its own gene pool of intelligence, the Jews enriched theirs, thereby making the relative difference between the two populations even larger.

I can't emphasize enough the role of male universal literacy among the Jews. Not only did the Jews invent a system that produced smart men (without realizing it), but they forced their entire male population through it. That took care of all the unsung geniuses from poor families who were so often overlooked by every other system, even in lands very far away from Christendom. Indeed, who among the gentiles could read at all? Only a small part of the population, the clergy and the aristocrats. And as we all know, from the example of the colonization of South America, selecting managers solely from the aristocracy is a very bad idea.

i would like to remind you that the Eastern Orthodox Church allows the priests to be married, your theory does not apply to the whole of Christendom.

Post Script: The arguments above can also be used to explain negative outcomes, of course, such as the higher than average rates of certain inherited diseases among Jews. Also, when the arguments above are applied to other groups and races, many heretofore complex and thorny issues suddenly become clear and easily understood by all.

posted by realscientist

As a proud Jew is saddens me to have to correct this but your theory does not hold much water. Unfortunately, the push for everyone to become the most learned, and even universal literacy, are fairly recent phenomena. If you look in the halakhic works of the middle ages (cf. Shulchan Arukh and Rambam) you will see many laws pertaining to those who cannot read. If you look in the Beit Yosef you will see that the purpose of the repetition of the shemone esrei during prayer was quite clearly for those in attendence who could not read it themselves. Illiteracy was clearly a large enough problem that such the rabbis imposed a fairly major inconvencience on the congregation (be require the repetition), which is generally prohibited. In regard to the aim to be the chief rabbi, no such aim existed except for the few learned. Until the chassidic movement, probably less than several thousand men learned any gemara at a given time. While it was normal for the common people to attend lectures or study scripture and often mishna, intense learning was not the aim. It is certainly understandable to conclude that everyone wished to be a great rabbi because most of our sources from the time are great rabbis, but it is important to understand that this is a selective pool and not representative of the overall population. Avraham 15:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why the repetition of the shemone esrei should indicate that it was for the illiterate, given that other similarly important sections were not repeated. A.G. Pinkwater 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Koestler

I see that Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe is cited as a reference. Given that I've pretty much never heard of a scholar who buys into Koestler's views:

1. Does someone have any indication that scholars take Koestler seriously on this?
2. What in the article comes from Koestler?

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1. No.
2. Nothing.

-- Jayjg 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews in Israel: citation

I see that for Israel, we now cite ourselves!

]: '''''app. 2.7 mil.''''' ,

I believe this is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. We should cite the information that article cites. - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok then. The reference to the Israeli demographics Misplaced Pages website has been replaced with another website. The first citation is supposed to be a reference to what fraction of Israeli's Jews are Ashkenazi (app. half), and the second citation to how many Israeli Jews there are (4.95 million). For clarification, that is how the approximate number was derived. Yid613 | Talk 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • On second thought, I have found that the numbers from the second source are still outdated, from 2002. The Wikpiedia article information was from 2004 and that is why I cited it earlier, so until a source is found outside the[REDACTED] that has updated statistics, the listing has been returned to its previous form. Yid613 | Talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of the Orient's article on "Ashkenazi" contains the figure of 3,700,000 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. The Encyclopedia's copyright extends to 2005, so I assume it is updated. I have therefore added the figure in the article. This is the website. It only links the main page, you have to go to teh search engine and type "Ashkenazi". Yid613 | Talk 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:IQ and the sciences

If that section is going to be renamed to "IQ and the sciences", detailing how Ashkenazi IQ correlates to achievements in the sciences, it should only make sense that there should be another section describing corresponding accomplishments in the humanities and social sciences. It should be noted that the Ashkenazi average verbal IQ is actually higher than the Ashkenazi average spatial (mathematical) IQ. Yid613 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Khazars

The recently added part of the article concerning the khazars in the Origin of Ashkenazi section, might be a fallacious argument. The theory of khazars being the origin of the Ashkenazi, was postulated by Arthur Koestler. The article states that the theory is not disproven by DNA evidence, when in fact the DNA evidence seems to indicate that in fact the origins of the Y-chromosome is Middle Eastern in origin, and the mtDNA is local european in origin. There is no pervasive Turkish or Turkish related genetic markers as far as I know. I think that part should be taken out of that section, maybe put in another one, like "Alternative Theories" or "Koestler's One-Time Theory".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.170.195 (talk • contribs) . The preceding comment is mistaken in just about every detail. Koestler was not the originator of the Khazar hypothesis; he merely wrote a book about it (parts of which were pretty fanciful, other parts not). No sensible geneticist would argue that the genetic evidence on Ashkenazi origins is complete or unambiguous; the commenter is accepting interpretations as if they are fact, but that is not how science works. The (presumed) lack of "pervasive Turkish...markers" is irrelevant: we don't know what genetic markers Khazars might have carried, and anyway there has never been a comprehensive analysis of genetic markers in that population.

Koestler was a novelist, and his theories have been disproven. The IP editors contributions were unsourced original research; I've restored the previous, more neutral version. Jayjg 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Koestler was not just a novelist: he was a highly respected intellectual, and anyway why can't a novelist write about history?

I'm confused. If you had to remove the source, how is it unsourced? — goethean ॐ 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The IP editor's claims didn't come from Koestler; rather, they consisted of his own original research, and the article itself didn't use Koestler either. Jayjg 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the deleted text:

In his book The Thirteenth Tribe Arthur Koestler proposed a theory of Ashkenazi origin by the migration of people from Khazaria. This alternative theory is that a proportion of Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazars, a Central Asian tribe that converted (at least in part) to Judaism in the 8th-9th centuries. The Khazars were defeated in war, and disappeared from historical records in the early Middle Ages. According to Koestler numerous sources indicate that some Eastern European Jewish communities were founded by Khazars, but the contribution of the Khazars to the Ashkenazi population is not clear. The theory is controversial because of its implication that a large group of Jews has its origins outside of Israel, and is often ignored or disparaged in discussions of Ashkenazi origins. Koestler's theory has largely been disproven with genetic studies indicating Middle Eastern and local European origins of founding Ashkenazi populations.

Are you saying that none of this has anything to do with Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe? Or are you merely saying that the last two sentences aren't backed up by it? — goethean ॐ 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, the Koestler book was here as a reference for many weeks or months (see question by Jmabel above), though it was not used in any of the text. Next, here are the original edits by the IP editor (209.77.137.57 (talk · contribs); . They deleted this material:

Full Roman citizenship was denied to Jews until 212 CE, when Emperor Caracalla granted all free peoples this privilege. However as a penalty for the first Jewish Revolt, Jews were still required to pay a poll tax until the reign of Emperor Julian in 363 CE. Throughout the first three centuries of the Common Era, Jews were free to form networks of cultural and religious ties and entered into various local occupations, the most prevalent occupation being trade (due to easy mobility in the dispersed Jewish communities).

and inserted, among other things, these unsourced claims:

Another theory of Ashkenazi origins, not necessarily incompatible with the above, is that some proportion are descended from the Khazars, a Central Asian tribe that converted (at least in part) to Judaism in the 8th-9th centuries. The Khazars were defeated in war, and disappeared from historical records in the early Middle Ages. Numerous sources indicate that some Eastern European Jewish communities were founded by Khazars, but the contribution of the Khazars to the Ashkenazi population is not clear. The theory is controversial because of its implication that a large group of Jews has its origins outside of Israel, and is often ignored or disparaged in discussions of Ashkenazi origins, but it has not been disproven by either historical or genetic studies.

All of these studies are preliminary, and interpretations of data tend to follow commonly accepted historical explanations of Ashkenazi origins. A definitive view must await more exhaustive studies that include larger numbers of subjects from possibly related ethnic groups, as well as more genetic markers.

There is some evidence that the origins of Jewish communities in Eastern Europe predates the migrations from Eastern Europe. Records are scant; a significant contribution from an indigenous (possibly Khazar) group has not been diproven.

None of the inserted information came from Koestler. A later IP editor (137.99.170.195 (talk · contribs)) came along and tried to "NPOV" the insertions by converting them into essentially the form you have above. They also questioned the whole validity of the section (they made the first comment in this talk section). So, in answer to your question, the article referenced Koestler without using him. Then an IP came along and made a bunch of unsourced claims, while removing material detrimental to those claims. Then another IP came along and tried to "NPOV", attributing to Koestler. Then I came along, removed all newly introduced the POV material, and removed the Koestler link. And finally, Koestler should not be cited regardless, since he was a novelist, not a historian or scientist, his work was derivative of Dunlop's, and it's all been disproven by genetic research anyway. He now falls into the "extreme minority view" category, and is promoted almost exclusively by anti-Semites. Jayjg 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunlap's not mentioned, either. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't help those adding the "Khazar theory" material to mention Dunlop, because Dunlop himself says that there isn't enough evidence to make any claims that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars. Thus they must instead rely on the derivative and speculative work of a novelist, who was not bound by the same academic standards. Jayjg 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to quit this discussion because I don't know anything about the topic. But it does raise suspicion when an editor insists that no mention of a theory appear on a page that appears to be related. — goethean ॐ 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOR "How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories:... 2. state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included. The Zionism article makes no mention of the theories that appear in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf either, even though the theories raised by those works "appear to be related"; does that "raise suspicion"? By the way, I mention these works not because they are similar in intent; Koestler's intent was, in fact, to lessen anti-Semitism by proving that the Jews of today were not descended from those awful Jews who killed Jesus. However, these works are now all used by the same groups for the same purposes (which is quite ironic, in the case of The 13th Tribe). Jayjg 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the use and abuse of the "extreme minority" clause to delete information. — goethean ॐ 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure is an example of the former; do you feel it is not? Jayjg 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, how do you deal with ideas advanced by one theorist that are subsequently disproven without leaving much of a trace in the scientific paradigm on a subject? The exterme minority clause is extremely valid in keeping articles encyclopedic. What do you consider an "abuse" of the extreme minority clause? JFW | T@lk 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't see what's so offensive about a sentence that mentions the view as a fact of history along with the fact that it is defunct or largely held by anti-Semites. Obviously, the clause is abused when it is used by an editor to delete views that, although they are in the minority, are not in the extreme minority. — goethean ॐ 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If Koestler's work is to be mentioned, it should be as a hypothesis advanced by a non-historian layman, albeit talented novelist, who based his history on a largely recited account taken from Dunlop and his racial theory on physiognomic analyses now disproven by genetic testing as well as a few poorly-analyzed and misunderstood similarities in place names. While it's probably that the Khazars had some impact on the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews, Koestler claimed, with no evidence that a serious historian would accept, that all Ashkenazi Jews were primarily Khazar in origin, which is simply false. As an interesting, marginally related and ironic side note, an article recently published states that a genetic marker predisposing the bearer to Parkinson's Disease (which was killing Koestler when he committed suicide) that appears in Ashkenazim derives from Middle Eastern ancetors. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For Jaydig: What precisely is wrong with the statement that "All of these studies are preliminary, and interpretations of data tend to follow commonly accepted historical explanations of Ashkenazi origins. A definitive view must await more exhaustive studies that include larger numbers of subjects from possibly related ethnic groups, as well as more genetic markers "? That is a pretty standard warning that the genetic data is incomplete, and an observation on the way in which the extant data has been interpreted. Can you argue with getting more data? Have you read the cited papers in their entirety? How do they rule out a Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazim? What if the Khazars shared genetic markers with Middle Eastern populations?

(The prvious paragraph is not mine.) I have met several well-educated Ashkenazi Jews who 'learned' the Khazar theory as supposed truth in their youth, presumably from their parents. Several months ago, I researched how they could have come to believe such an outlandish fancy and found this Misplaced Pages article. The information helped me explain to some of them both the truth and the history of the notion. Given the currency of the beleif in Khazar ancestry, it would ba a shame if the debunking information is removed in a misguided attempt to suppress a neutral but inaccurate theory—which only happens to be being used this deacade for nefarious political purposes. Dvd Avins 10:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

DNA clues

version 1 Modern genetic accounts indicate that "Ashkenazi Jews are a group with mainly central and eastern European ancestry. Ultimately, though, they can be traced back to Jews who migrated from Israel to Italy in the first and second centuries." .

version 2: Modern genetic accounts indicate that Ashkenazi Jews ultimately "can be traced back to Jews who migrated from Israel to Italy in the first and second centuries." .

Jayjg reverted version 1 to version 2 with the edit comment, "actually, the study itself specifically states that Ashkenazi genetic origins *not* European; please stop inserting non-DNA information in DNA section"

The Behar study states that "The term “Ashkenazi” refers to Jews of mainly central and eastern European ancestry, in contrast to those of Iberian (Sephardic), Near Eastern, or North African origin (Ostrer 2001). Most historical records indicate that the founding of the Ashkenazi Jewry took place in the Rhine Basin, followed by a dramatic expansion into eastern Europe."

The study does not claim that Ashkenazi Jews "migrated from Israel". That quote is taken from the CNN article. The CNN article also states that "Ashkenazi Jews are a group with mainly central and eastern European ancestry."

Therefore version 1 is more accurate than version 2. --68.211.66.29 01:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the most accurate would be to just directly quote the DNA conclusions from the study from the PubMed link (it's succinct and clear): "Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium." --MPerel 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and edited accordingly. --68.211.66.29 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Much improved. Nice job. --MPerel 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What with the other 60% (the majority)? Even so, for the 40% with "likely" Near Eastern mtDNA, this does not exclude European admixture for that 40%. Al-Andalus 12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

The study doesn't comment on the origins of the 60%. In addition, mtDNA is passed essentially unchanged (except for mutations) from mother to daughter, so the 40% Near Eastern mtDNA of course excludes "European admixture". Jayjg 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But the study only says "likely of Near Eastern ancestry"; it does not prove Near Eastern ancestry at all, it merely makes the interpretation because the haplotypes are found in other Jewish populations. In fact the haplotypes could have come from somewhere else: the study did not by any means make an exhaustive search for the haplotypes in other populations. Your certainty is not warranted by the data: you should examine your own assumptions and ask yourself why you are so ready to draw conclusions.

Al-Andalus asks, "What with the other 60% (the majority)? Even so, for the 40% with "likely" Near Eastern mtDNA, this does not exclude European admixture for that 40%." I think this is one of the dangers of interpreting early results of haplotype analysis. In fact, haplotype analysis is a cummulative process. Many haploytpes cannot be positively identified as Middle Eastern or European at this time because not enough data has been collected and analyzed. The 40% is just the low lying fruit, the ones that can clearly be placed in one of four large groups. But 40% is probably a lower limit on what more comprehensive studies in the future will eventually find. Haplotype groups can be as small as one, which is to say, there will probably never complete certainty over time, but that the confidence level will rise over time. --Metzenberg 07:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE JEWISH PPL DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THEM NOT RLLY BEING OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL! ASHKENAZI DO COME FROM KHAZAR OR AT LEAST WERE INFLUENCED BY KHAZAR TO CONVERT! THOSE DNA TEST R RIGGED BY JEWS AND ASHKENAZI JEWS LIE TO YOU SO THEY WILL HAVE A BIBLICAL REASON TO OCCCUPY PALESTINE(ZIONISM)!

More DNA clues

Not all Ashkenazi males are descended from Levantine populations. The lineage of Levite Ashkenazi Jews appear to descend from European origins. --68.211.66.29 01:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Oct;73(4):768-79. Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosome evidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries.

Behar DM, Thomas MG, Skorecki K, Hammer MF, Bulygina E, Rosengarten D, Jones AL, Held K, Moses V, Goldstein D, Bradman N, Weale ME.

Previous Y chromosome studies have shown that the Cohanim, a paternally inherited Jewish priestly caste, predominantly share a recent common ancestry irrespective of the geographically defined post-Diaspora community to which they belong, a finding consistent with common Jewish origins in the Near East. In contrast, the Levites, another paternally inherited Jewish caste, display evidence for multiple recent origins, with Ashkenazi Levites having a high frequency of a distinctive, non-Near Eastern haplogroup. Here, we show that the Ashkenazi Levite microsatellite haplotypes within this haplogroup are extremely tightly clustered, with an inferred common ancestor within the past 2,000 years. Comparisons with other Jewish and non-Jewish groups suggest that a founding event, probably involving one or very few European men occurring at a time close to the initial formation and settlement of the Ashkenazi community, is the most likely explanation for the presence of this distinctive haplogroup found today in >50% of Ashkenazi Levites.

I don't think anyone was saying Ashkenazi Jews have no European DNA. I'm sure Ashkenazi Jews have traces of all sorts of DNA in them, like most other ethnic groups, including European. This particular study seems to have found that for a small sub-group of Ashkenazi Jews, the Levites, which comprise what, 4-5% of Ashkenazi Jews, it is likely that 50% or more (i.e. 2-3% of all Ashkenazi Jews) have non near-Eastern, likely European, ancestry. That said, User:Alberuni, I've tolerated your interactions on this page, even though you are banned user, because, frankly, I didn't want to waste my time enforcing your banning. However, if you continue to edit war on any pages, or make edit summaries like this, or make personal attacks like this:, then I will enforce your Arbitration Committee ban. And no, I will not debate with you about whether or not you really are Alberuni; we've been through that before with your previous sockpuppets, and I have no more time for those games. Jayjg 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"exterminated'" vs. "murdered"

The concept of murder long pre-dates states that could declare anything illegal. Vermin may be "exterminated", but only humans may be "murdered." The previous wording was more specific and appropriate; I will revert. Dvd Avins 20:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

murder and extermination are in fact different term, but holocost was about extermination not murder... --tasc 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think simply "killed" is just as accurate and less loaded. -- Schaefer (Talk) 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

there is simple english[REDACTED] btw. :) --tasc 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I recall a discussion about this in Talk:The Holocaust. I am too lazy busy to search for it now. IMHO, "murder" would be a correct term: it was intentional and premeditated. "Killing" is too general. "Extermination" is a Nazi term. ←Humus sapiens 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "extermination," or rather its German equivalent, was chosen by the Nazis precisely because it implied the Jews were less than human. IMO, "murdered" is most specifically accurate, "killed" is unnecessarily vague but not inherrently wrong, and "exterminated" is pro-genocide POV. Tasc, do you beleive that any mass-killing is automatically not murder? Dvd Avins 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I personaly don't see anything offensive in "extermination" as opposed to "murder". If you do think that "nazi-term" is not appropriate in this article you can change it. --tasc 11:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I did change it and you changed it back. It started out as "murdered. It was changed to "exterminated" 4 days ago by someone else. I noteced that change and restored the prior wording. Then you made the third change. Before we change it again, let's all agree (or at least consent): are we changing it to "killed" or "murdered"? Dvd Avins 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can follow history page by my own. Thanks. Let's change it to "murder" than. Though my opinion is explained above. --tasc 12:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

IQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of Ashkenazi Jewry

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

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

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

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

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

Metzenberg, 11 April 2006

Holocaust Issues

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

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

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

Usury

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

Metzenberg 11 April 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metzenberg 16 April 2006.

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

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

Jewish Achievement

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

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

Is this the right place for a list of diseases?

Somebody just added a new one today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research removed to Talk: page

I've moved the following text here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's a Jew?

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

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

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

"Related Ethnic Groups"

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

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

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

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

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

Population - aka more problems with the ethnobox

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

From Talk:Palestinian_people

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

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

1. Forton, Julian et al. Accuracy of Haplotype Reconstruction from Haplotype-Tagging Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms. American Journal of Human Genetics 76:438–448, 2005.

• Articles referenced by the press