Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

This article has been referenced by a media organization. The reference is in: Jennifer Senior (October 24, 2005). ""Are Jews Smarter?" (cover story). New York Magazine.

This is getting silly....

Okay - I have semi'ed this for the time being until we can sort this out, so that further debate on possible numbers per country can be discussed here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.82.248 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a different person to the one that wrote the above.. and the subject "this is getting silly".

I am not expert at adding my comment.. I have read this article and am appalled by what looks like the anti-ashkenazi sentiment in it....I wonder if it was written by people using anti-semitic sources, or some kind of sephardi supremecist!

Orthodox jews believe that hebrew is the holy tongue.. so "development" of it is going distant from the original way it was pronounced, and is bad.. We just don't know how it was originally pronounced, so people hang onto their customs..

The article says "Ashkenazi Hebrew came to be pronounced in ways distinct from other forms of Hebrew."

This is a suggestion that ashkenazim aren't doing it right, but every other type of jew is.

Every form of hebrew came to be pronounced in ways distinct from other forms of hebrew.

Teimani is often argued as being the most accurate(at least for letters).. since they have the most letters distinct.

Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Teimani hebrew are different. Certainly, in some ways, ashkenazi hebrew is quite different, Specifically, different locations within europe, the cholam vowel got pronounced differently. But, the Kamatz, in ashkenazi hebrew, is like the yemenites pronounce it. So ashkenazi hebrew and yemenite hebrew are the same for the kamatz, and the sephardi one is the one that is different there.

Also, Ashkenazi is more like Teimani than sephardi is, in relation to the letter Tav. Ashkenazim still distinguish between the two. Sephardim don't. ashkenazim say T and S . Sephardim just say T. Teimani(the best) say T and Th.

The article says (just before it makes negative comments about ashkenazi pronunciation of hebrew).. It suggests that ashkenazim developed customs later. So again, an idea that sephardim have the original customs.. And ashkenazi customs are just later developments of it.

"In a religious sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is any Jew whose family tradition and ritual follows Ashkenazi practice. Until the Ashkenazi community first began to develop in the Early Middle Ages, the centers of Jewish religious authority were in the Islamic world, at Baghdad and in Islamic Spain. Ashkenaz (Germany) was so distant geographically that it developed a minhag of its own"

The fact is . That sephardim in every different country have their own customs. And sephard actually means Spain. The article is suggesting that ashkenazi customs only differ because they are ashkenazi customs that are new developments.

I see an Ethnicity section.. The sephardic article does not Why is it that the ethnicity of ashkenazim has a section? Because the article panders to anti-semites who claim ashkenazim have claimed ashkenazim aren't real jews.. (they relied mostly on the khazar argument, but now even genetics doesn't support them..and runs against them. since they don't find turkish genes there.. and they should if the theory was correct). I see a comment that the khazar theory has been debunked.. It was bad before, but with genetics it has been debunked even more.. so that's good.. Though I wonder if the author previously believed in that sort of thing..

In orthodox judaism, intermarriage is a bad thing.. because in judaism, jews should marry jews. This article has the remark that "Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths"

Do you know that genetics also show sephardim have also intermarried.. and their genetics shows that.. just as much as ashkenazi genetics shows it. Yet the sephardic article doesn't say they intermarried..

It's all about saying ashkenazim are less jewish..

The article says it's "striking" that ashkenazim appear to be an ethnic group.. Is it "striking" that sephardim are? or are not? surely they started from a locations and moved.. unless they intermarried.. I don't see mention of them intermarrying in the wikipedia article for them.

Religious jews consider Torah first and foremost, and above politics.

I see this comment in this article.. I see no such comment about sephardim.. Who vote for the political party Shas, in masses.

"Religious Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel are obliged to follow the authority of the chief Ashkenazi rabbi in halakhic matters. In this respect, a religiously Ashkenazi Jew is an Israeli who is more likely to support certain religious interests in Israel, including certain political parties. These political parties result from the fact that a portion of the Israeli electorate votes for Jewish religious parties; although the electoral map changes from one election to another, there are generally several small parties associated with the interests of religious Ashkenazi Jews"

The israeli chief rabbi , ashkenazi or sephardi, has NO authority over religious jews at all. The big authorities are scholars, like the late reb moshe feinstein. Or currently, Rabbi Elyashiv.

"a religiously Ashkenazi Jew is an Israeli who is more likely to support certain religious interests in Israel, including certain political parties."

I see no comment about sephardim that they are likely to vote for Shas!

Infact. UTJ and Agudas Yisrael may well have sephardim.. Shas is probably more of an ethnic political party than UTJ and Agudas yisrael.

many sephardim enrole in ashkenazi yeshivot. I am not sure that it's right to say that UTJ and Agudas yisrael are just associated with interests of ashkenazim. As if interests of ashkenazim are not the interests of sephardim..

This is a very strange article..

It gets worse..

Saying sephardim have stricter requirements on meat..

I don't think this is the case at all.. There is the concept of Glatt kosher, which is the strictest standard going.. and it's ashkenazi..

The article says "Sephardi Jews have stricter requirements—this level is commonly referred to as Beth Yosef. Meat products which are acceptable to Ashkenazi Jews as kosher may therefore be rejected by Sephardi Jews."

to religious jews.. stricter requirements are often seen as more pious..

so this article makes a very sweeping statement there, about how great sephardim are and how bad ashkenazim are.. And I don't know what it's based on..

but perhaps it's the other way around? in that ashkenazi is stricter

but anyhow, it is a very sweeping statement..

Certainly where I live, in britain, the London Bet Din, (many or all ashkenazi rabbis there), is hugely respected.. as are some other ashkenazi batai din. And it's the sephardi bet din that is rejected by many ashkenazi rabbis, whether it's a story of a "Get" they gave out, or the meat.

religious ashkenazim are extremely strict in their observance of law and customs..

definitely more than sephardim.

In israel lots of sephardim are going to ashkenazi yeshivot..because they are so good. sephardi yeshivot aren't attracting ashkenazim as much..

"the large majority of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, their percentage dropped from nearly 92% of world Jewry in 1931 to nearly 80% of world Jewry today."

This is a crazy statement..

Trying to show the extent of the holocaust? or really trying to make it look like it wasn't such a big thing! Taking a figure of jews from 1931, then a figure from "today"!!! after jews have already had lots of babies to make up for all the jews that were murdered. If you want a figure showing the extent of jews killed in the holocaust.. you don't take statistics like that.. That is very strange.. So people rad it and think oh, 92% to 80%.. Well, at least still 80%! or, stil the vast majourity.. I know earlier it says 2/3 of ashkenazim were killed.. that does show the extent. But the comment made there, is very strange.. I see it comes from an article titled "Can Sephardic Judaism be Reconstructed?". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2006-05-24." Unfortuntely, it's not uncommon for sephardic rabbis to make terrible insensive statements about jews that died in the holocaust.. such as them being reincarnations of sinners.. So maybe some sephardim have followed that..Most sephardim are quite sensitive to it though..I would hope, and share in the sadness..

I see this comment "In an essay on Sephardi Jewry, Daniel Elazar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs[5] summarized the demographic history of Ashkenazi Jews in the last thousand years, noting that at the end of the 11th century, 97% of world Jewry was Sephardic and 3% Ashkenazi; in the mid-17th century, "Sephardim still outnumbered Ashkenazim three to two", but by the end of the 18th century, "Ashkenazim outnumbered Sephardim three to two, the result of improved living conditions in Christian Europe versus the Ottoman Muslim world."[5] By 1931, Ashkenazi Jews accounted for nearly 92% of world Jewry.[5]"

If you want to go back to a time when ashkenazim were 3%.. There was a time when sephardim were 0%

When there were no jews in spain or portugal..

and anyhow..the fathers of the jews of germany) would've existed in countries like Spain. So It's strane that the article goes back to a time when ashkenazim were 3% and sephardim 97%.. And it's under a section called "modern history".. it goes back 1000 years.. How about going back to before there were sephardim..

The data is taken from an article on sephardim.. maybe that's why it's bias. But used biasly too.. Maybe the author read a lot of bias stuff against ashkenazim..

I notice the sephardic article has a list of sephardic rabbis..

religious jews are proud of their rabbis.. the sephardic article has a list.

No list of ashkenazi rabbis in this article. The whole article is basically just about their origins and numbers.. The bit about religious practice is that they are less strict than sephardim (yeah right!!). It seems the holocaust (which everybody knows was catastrophic) brought them down tfrom 92% to 80%.. (if statistics here are used).. using before and after figures with decades between them.. The whole article shows bias.. it's just amending older anti-semitic versions.. It used to suggest ashkenazim were persecuting sephardim in israel's early years. It was the SECULAR israeli government that did.. And the same government attack religious jews today, whether sephardi or ashkenazi., There just weren't that many religious ashkenazim in israel's early years, because ashkenazim were largely anti-zionist at a early time.. just as today.. (still pro israel.. and israel's defence. but against adding any ISM to judaism . just sticking to Torah, ).

Another example.. against this idea in the article, that sephardim are stricter with halacha. http://www.cyber-kitchen.com/rfcj/kosherfaq.htm "Ashkenazim generally soak and salt all meat, while Sephardim omit this if the meat is to be broiled."

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_foods " although the Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews treat an egg as non-kosher if blood is found anywhere within it[citation needed], the Sephardi Orthodox Jews only consider blood in the yolk to be a problem; the Sephardi treat eggs with blood in the albumen as legitimate food, if the blood is removed before use"

It's well known that ashkenazim are strict with jewish law and custom..And if you want to be disgusting like this article and say one is stricter than the other (which means very little since one must do a complete listing to show that),. Then it's ashkenazim that are stricter .. And it's obvious to most religious jews.. ashkenazi yeshivot are all over the place and growing and popular.. because the learning there is so good.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090203043809AALTUg6 "Ashkenazi men wear tzitzit the whole day, many Sephradim don't"

there may be ways that sephardim are stricter..

and it's just pure pissing contests to say one is stricter than the other..

and judging by other things in the article.. like the figures used with the holocauist.. and the whole focus on the ethnic thing.. it's also strange that the article on ashkenazim is bias against ashkenazim.. Surely there are religious ashkenazi jews that can write it.. instead, we have an anti-ashkenazi article being amended gradually over time.. With a proud sephardic one listing their rabbis.

Also funny how we see a comment about ashkenazim being a hibrid population.. or a particular ethnic group..

either way it's strange.. 'cos it's either suggesting that they are mixed with non-jews. Or that they are a particular ethnic group unlike all other jews..

Fact is. Both sephardim and ashkenazim have some mix with local population.. And some of their own genes too.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.82.248 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying Sephardim are stricter, full stop: that comment was only on the subject of glatt kosher meat. Zimmels, in his book on "Ashkenazim and Sephardim", makes comprehensive lists of respects in which Ashkenazim are strict while Sephardim are lenient, and vice versa.

I think the only reason there isn't a list of Ashkenazi rabbis is that there are too many of them, so it would look almost like a list of all rabbis there have ever been! It is perhaps more important for minority groups to say "look, we have famous rabbis too". The list of Sephardi rabbis was moved over from an article on "Sephardic Judaism", when I felt that that article was getting too unwieldy and should be confined to questions of law and custom. That said, we can certainly add a list of those rabbis who have specialised in questions of Ashkenazi minhag, like Moellin and Isserlein.

I agree that there should be no prescriptive comments on which tradition is more "authentic", either in genetic descent or in pronunciation. On the latter, a balanced view is given in the articles on Sephardi Hebrew pronunciation and Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Kane123123's view

This article is posting incorrect information. Ashkenazi Jews are a hybrid population. http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34265153/Jews-and-Their-DNA http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-paper-on-ashkenazi-jewish_23.html Jon Entine and Goldstein are very respected people. Get over it, you aren't 100% near eastern and even the near eastern component is more similar to northern middle easterners than to fertile crescent people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane123123 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging Ashkenazi intelligence back into the article

Since being forked from this page[1], the article Ashkenazi intelligence seems to have fallen by the wayside. Specifically, the discussion about whether or not to merge the article back into this one has stagnated. Additionally, the tag at the top of this article seems to have been removed from this article, but left dangling on the other. I've added it back in hopes that this can be resolved sooner than later. Here is the previous discussion [2]. A.Prock 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the more specific article discussion page. The tag is dangling there now because you put it back and the only resolve you seem to accept is merging; cf. appropriate discussion page; sincerely, 217.236.231.90 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, most editors thought merging made sense. At that point, the process stalled. Once the decision has been made to do the marge, what's the next step in the process? A.Prock 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 217.236.231.90 that the specific article's talk page is the place to discuss this. It is also disingenuous to say the tag has been left dangling at the other article - you keep re-inserting it yourself. My view is that the other article is about an absolutely distinct subject matter: a theory, no matter how nutty, with appropriate references to that theory. The issue that the two subjects deal with the Ashkenazim isn't enough to warrant a merge. If anything, a merge gives some credibility to the theory itself. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to mere the content back here, this article is a perfectly fine place to discuss how to do that. The guidelines for merging [3], indicate this page is the appropriate place for the discussion. Given that most editors thought the subject did not merit it's own, the best thing to do is to figure out how to merge it back into this article from whence it came. It may be that opinion about the merge has changed, but I suspect it hasn't. On the other hand, editors in this article may want to discuss the issue before we merge it back here. A.Prock 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Or you could make your case and then sit back and allow other editors to discuss. If there aren't sufficient editors backing your cause, then there is no merge. However, this isn't the appropriate venue for the discussion - the actual article's talk page is. A Sniper (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Help:Merging. This is the correct talk page. The case is pretty clear in the previous discussion. If need be, I'll summarize it later when I have time. A.Prock 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the appropriate time has gone by, I'll remove both tags - unless some floodgate is opened and the masses start discussing this dead horse issue ;) A Sniper (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I suppose then would be a good time to do the merge. A.Prock 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason why a nice small article with many sources and external links should be merged into something else. I hope it is linked from there? Debresser (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary reasons for the merging are:

1. non notability WP:NOTABILITY
2. fringe WP:FRINGE
3. summary of one academic article WP:NOT
4. the article it summarizes is a soapbox WP:SOAP

While the information in the article is well referenced, there isn't enough meat for it to stand alone. I think merging back to the article is a viable strategy for the content. A.Prock 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - now we know your position. Thanks. Now let's wait for the masses to discuss.  ;) A Sniper (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@A.Prock - Did you swear an oath to get rid of this article, or something? ;) The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived two deletion propositions. If there were not "enough meat to stand alone", people would not have prevented the proposed deletion twice. This is a very specific issue with its own resources and external links. If all of this (moderately) coherent content was put into the Ashkenazi Jews article you can expect it to be diminished over time, links sorted out etc.

If on the other had your main motivation is, that you deem the article not to be neutral or include all significant viewpoints, well go ahead and fix it. Surfers will be glad if it gets more "meat", more resources, better balance etc.

Sincerely, 217.236.216.238 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do me the favor of assuming good faith. If you have links to previous discussions, by all means share them. I'd be happy to review them. I agree that more "meat" would be welcome, but as it is, the article is fairly meatless. Hence, the move to return it to this article. A.Prock 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, an entire day has gone by and the only discussion here hasn't seemed to go your way... ;) A Sniper (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in any rush. There is no WP:deadline. A.Prock 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article is developed enough to be on its own, in my opinion, and I see no reason to merge. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I Jewish?

Okay, I read this and I'm confused. My ancestors have some people in their family that were Jewish (Ashkenazi). Does that make me of Jewish descent? Please respond.

(David101jam) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.189.150 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If your mother was Jewish, you are Jewish.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

gilbarnd - this is a religious definition. in reality it's more problematic because of the notion that being jewish is a religion on top of all. making some people claim that jews are not a real nation for certain political intersts. on another note how do you know if you are irish? or russian? in my opinion and probably in many schools of thoughts you just have to pass a certain threshold of certain conditions to be considered one or the other. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

The people in the infobox are there as a result of lengthy negotiation. Please don't add individuals without first proposing and getting consensus here. Also, because of WP:BLP concerns, it has been agreed that no living people will be added to the box. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

There is currently a discussion to merge Ashkenazi intelligence into this article. Please discuss the matter on Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence, where I have created a section, outlining all of the current issues raised. ScienceApe (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Why propose this a second time? The last time [4], only two editors from this page voiced an opinion (Debresser and Avi), and they were against the proposal. Unless there is a new, clear consensus in favor of a move, then I hope that you won't bring this up every few months. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion, except to note that this article already violates WP:SIZE. What would you recommend cutting to make room for the material from Ashkenazi intelligence? David.Kane (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10)."

The assertion:

"Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10)."

at the end of the first paragraph has no basis in fact; and it should be deleted from the article.