Talk:Anatole Klyosov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

contest delete request[edit]

klyosov is a top scientist in his field, he became millionare from his chemical discoveries in the USA. his articles are in top russian scientist journals, where russia obviously is one of the most advanced nations in science in all fields if not surpassing most other countries. their scientific journals, discoveries colleges even if not acknowledged in the west to just to protect western medical discoveries/medicines etc, does not lessen russian contribution to science, unless if you want to transform wiki to just the anglosaxons knowledge encyclopedia with scientific research not mentioned in Pub Med such as most the world scientific discoveries in ancient times like Avicenna etc making this request for deletion a hate/discrimination gesture. Klyosov chemical doscoveries made in the us in the english language of which he became millionaire, and other studies he done are also in english and his findings are extensively resourced by other academiaViibird (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Some dubuious journals of his[edit]

The "Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba" and the "The Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy" are his - self-published via - and should not be used as sources. He's also editor of "Advances in Anthropology" published by Scientific Research Publishing - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatole Klyosov. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The anthropology papers of his I've read come across as the work of a crackpot. (They are also among the snarkiest papers I've ever read, and have racist overtones.) I am not at all surprised that (like so much of his stuff) they had to be self-published, and are virtually never cited in any peer reviewed papers. Since credible researchers don't want to dignify his junk with comments or rebuttals, I hope that the deletion idea will come up again, as there may be no way to accurately represent this author within the confines of BLP. (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Venomous comments without any proof[edit]

First, a journal itself cannot be taken as a proof of quality of papers published in it. Only the paper itself can be considered for its quality. For this, a qualified review is needed.

Second, venomous comments without any proof and which reflect an opinion of a person who wrote it cannot be considered as a qualified comment.

Third, any journal "for pay" can be easily called as "predatory". Klyosov's papers in Advances in Anthropology are downloaded by many thousands, they are the most downloaded papers in the journal. The Editorial Boards of Advances in Anthropology consists of University Professors. It seems there is a problem with author(s) of those negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but our WP:VERIFY and WP:RS make it clear that it is the journal that normally determines whether we use a source. And a lot of Klyosov's work is self-published via - his "academies" aren't what they seem to be. And numbers of downloads are irrelevant. We have an article on the publisher: Scientific Research Publishing which doesn't make it appear at all impressive. We don't even know if the professors you mention know they are on the board or are in relevant fields - "Some of the journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own.[10] In 2012, one of its journals, Advances in Pure Mathematics, accepted a paper written by a random text generator." Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh look, there was a mass resignation of the editorial board. He took over as editor in chief.[1] "I resigned as Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Anthropology after consistent and flagrant unethical breaches by the editorial staff in China. [ ...]. The senior members of the Editorial Board resigned as well and we wrote up the editorial conditions we wanted implemented before we would return. The editorial staff in China was unwilling to integrate the scholars on the Editorial Board into the decision-making process regarding the review, acceptance, and publication of articles. This was unacceptable. For them it was only about making money. We were simply their “front”. [...]." Signed by Fatimah Jackson. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Mass resignation" and its (non) relevance to Anatole Klyosov profile[edit]

Interesting. Why such a desperate attempt to discredit Klyosov by "Dougweller"?

1. "Mass resignation" (in fact, a third of the Editorial Board stayed) has happened before Klyosov have assumed a position of Editor-in-Chief. So why to put it into his profile? The former Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Fatimah Jackson, could not get along with the journal' staff, so she agitated the Board and talk them into resign. Not a big deal, since all who left did not publish a single paper in the journal, so to leave was a relief to them. The journal has invited Klyosov to accept the position of new Editor-in-Chief since May 2013. Was that the main reason Dougweller wants to sanction Klyosov? It is ridiculous. For the last year and a half Klyosov has changed the journal, invited new Editorial Board members, some of them are prominent university professors, wrote editorial papers. What is wrong with that?

2. Regarding his "self-publishing", what is wrong with that too? People from all over the world publish in his Proceedings. What is wrong with that too? Gosh, just do not read it, that is all. Easy.

3. Recently Klyosov has published a paper in European Journal of Human Genetics. Is it also self publishing?

4. Klyosov's Advances in Anthropology is NOT on the list of "predatory" publications. Why this comment was removed from the Klyosov profile?

5. Klyosov is highly decorated for his scientific achievements. He was elected to the World Academy of Art and Science, founded by Albert Einstein (along with a number of Nobel laureates), he was elected to the National Academy of Science (country of Georgia), his books are published by recognized publishers, such as John Wiley and Sons, Oxford University Press, etc. So why those negative comments by Dougweller, who did not review his books and papers, and based his venomous comments based on his personal and non-qualified opinion? He bends every event associated with Klyosov (and those not associated with him, such as "mass resignation" to a negative side. It is grossly unfair. Looks like a personal vendetta. Or as a character assassination, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest for deletion[edit]

I've never done a AFD myself, but I know an article that needs to be deleted when I see one. This is one.

  1. Self-published works are not counted toward notability
  2. Some works here are mis-represented. For example, #14 is not a published paper, but a paper stored at an open "pre-print" site.
  3. Cite 4 is his own site, so is not a reliable source
  4. Cite 3 does not mention him
  5. Cite 2 does legitimately state him as an Internet pioneer.
  6. Cites 8 & 9 are in a journal with a very poor reputation, known as a predatory journal
  7. Cites 11 & 12 are in a "free" journal with zero impact factor
  8. Cites 17 - 19 (Proceedings from the Russian Academy of DNA Geneology) are published via LuLu.

Also note that many edits to his page are from a single IP address that appears to be a Single Purpose Account. All of this is enough to qualify this article for deletion. If no one else takes it up, I'll commit to my first AFD request. LaMona (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually fixed some of these. What is missing here, of course, is any mention of his career positions. The only source I can find for those is on his own web page. I added what I could from the Galectin page, a company he founded. As I don't know much about the company, I cannot guarantee that it is a reliable resource. The company listed on his editorship of the journal of dubious quality is not listed on his home page, and the page I do find does not list staff. [2] Personally, I'm still not sure what's going on here in terms of who he is and what he's up to at the moment. But I did do as much clean-up as I could. I would like to remove the articles published in poorly regarded journals, as they have little academic value, but I don't think that would be ethical. The books published by OUP and Wiley should be sufficient, although in all but one case he was the editor, and it is hard to know what that means. (For conference proceedings, it can just be the person who forced everyone to cough up copies of their papers; for some books, the editor has a major contribution.) I haven't look into the patents, and I don't know how those affect notability. The problem that I see is that we have no solid information on who this person works for and what work he is currently engaged in. For a biography of a living person, that's a real lack.LaMona (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
LaMona, this isn't actually an WP:AfD, but if you really want I can start one. I'd want to quote your rationale so that it's clearly yours. Let me know what you want me to do. The criteria that apply to him are at WP:NOTABILITY. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dougweller. I think the other criterion is WP:ACADEMIC. He seems to be somewhere between an entrepreneur and an academic, having been a visiting prof at Harvard (acc. to sources; this is something we may not be able to confirm). This article was listed for deletion once before, and the decision was 'keep'. I looked at the discussion there, though, and it wasn't very detailed. He does have some highly cited articles Google Scholar search, some with reputable publishers, but others in "pay to play" journals with poor reputations. If you'll set up the AFD, you can use my criteria, with attribution, and I'll take the heat. LaMona (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Self Publishing[edit]

Folks, if you do not like self-published editions, just remove them from the article. It would only improve the article. After all, the article does not contain any reference of his to self-publishing. Why someone needed to include those in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue why you think that "Through Klyosov self-publishes the The Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy[16][17] and the Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba" isn't relevant. The fact that he runs two 'academies' that are actually self-published titles is as relevant as any of his other work as an academic. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the credentials of those who contest biographical statements made by a third party regarding Dr. Anatole Klyosov?[edit]

I have been using Dr. Klyosov's methods for several years with much success and in fact are a key reason for my research success. I have found that most comments made about Anatole are from those who do not have the math background to understand his work nor do they have the development background to handle the processes necessary to build phylogenetic trees. In reading statements made against Anatole, I do not see anything but opinion and mean spirited opinion. None of these negative comments include their background or credentials. So I ask, what makes their statements qualified to have any standing whatsoever? If they had the credentials they would proudly include them.

My credentials include having an equivalent of a minor in engineering math and computer science, worked as a software developer and manager for 20 years, am currently a MSPA candidate at Northwestern, I have been researching yDNA for 5 years and using Anatole's methods for 3 years, am in the process of publishing my work on yDNA based on a base haplotype, and am representing submissions to ISOGG in my area of expertise.

So Dougweller, who are you? And the other detractors with unqualified opinions? If indeed those are your real names. The statements you have both made are libelous and unfounded which comes with a legal remedy attached based on the public written documentation above which I am saving for future reference. Your statements demonstrate your ignorance. Your willingness to post your ignorance is evidence of itself. Unless you can prove your identity, the Wiki editors should dismiss your statements outright. I will be writing directly to the editors with my complaint regarding your libelous comments against Dr. Anatole Klyosov. What you are attempting to due is unlawful, unethical and simply bad character.

As a Certified Fraud Examiner and former police officer, I suggest you remove your unlawful comments immediately or face legal consequences. Before conducting yourself in this disreputable manner again online, you may consider that your IP address is connected to your posting, as well as your login account, and everything on the internet literally remains stored somewhere forever. The paper trail already exists and is available for a determined investigator to follow the path to you.

Science is not established by popular opinion or by consensus. Science stands on its own merit. Krkerwin (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have blocked Krkerwin for this legal threat. One can edit here, or you can pursue legal action, but not both. As for the rest of the nonsense above, please read the links to our guidelines and policies in the welcome template on your talk page, this is not the ay we do things here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not out of Africa[edit]

I don't know if this is significant enough yet (by which I mean I cannot find any discussion of this in reliably published (academic) sources, just blogs), but Klyosov states that "“Ancestors of the most present-day non-Africans did not come from Africa in the last 30,000 - 600,000 years at least. In other words, those who migrated from Africa, or were forcefully taken out as slaves, are not ancestors of the contemporary Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians, Polynesians. This follows from the whole multitude of data in anthropology, genetics, archaeology, DNA genealogy." in Advances in Anthropology 2014. Vol.4, No.1, 18-37 Published Online February 2014 in SciRes ( "Reconsideration of the “Out of Africa” Concept as Not Having Enough Proof". Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not fair to blame a scientist for non-conformance. The science was and is created by non-conformance, it is based on the discovery of unknown, not on conformance to the already known. The "Out of Africa" theory was based on modern diversity, it was a first attempt to explain the then scientific findings. A scientist must be credited for applying alternative methods and proposing alternative concepts for scientific exploration. The initial theory did not discriminate between the original and migratory diversity, and that difference has to be studied by the scientific community. WP pages are not a proper venue to discuss scientific alternatives, much less to advocate for any side in a scientific discussion. In addition to the previous methodologies, Dr. A.Klyosov suggested a novel method of calculating genetic dating based on methods of stochastic kinetics, a major development in the field of genetics, and as any new approach, this approach brings new results that pave the way for new paradigms and discoveries. The author of this scientific achievement can't be blamed for non-conformance with the past. Any party involved in scientific or carrier dispute should abstain from using WP to vent personal views. WP already has numerous references to A.Klyosov related to different disciplines, these references are needed, and it would have been hurtful to WP if these references were stripped of the bio links. Barefact (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying this shouldn't be included? And of course we discuss scientific alternatives on Wikipedia so long as we follow our guidelines and policies. I don't know what a carrier dispute is. We'd need reliable, peer reviewed sources on his 'novel method' before we include it - the same point about significance as I've made on the NOA issue. It's covered by WP:UNDUE. And of course Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the dissemination of new ideas before they've been discussed elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a hard one. The article is indeed published, but it is published in a journal with a very poor reputation. There is no definitive measure of journal quality, but, as mentioned in the article, this one is listed as one of the predatory journals in Jeffrey Beall's list. I actually dislike that the term "predatory" is used because it sounds way too nefarious, but in general these journals are not considered to be holding to accepted academic standards of peer review and quality monitoring. Klyosov has numerous articles in one of those journals. This leaves us with the dilemma of how to weigh academic notability for these publications. Should they be given a light weight? zero weight? or even a negative weight, since anyone smart enough to write the articles should also be smart enough to understand the reputation of the journal? Rather than debating "science vs. pseudo-science" it would be highly useful to find other academics responding pro and con to Klyosov's theories, and for those to be published in known reputable journals, as Dougweller suggests. I mention, though, that the article does no give much information about Klyosov's contribution to science, and that such information, with proper 3rd-party references, would greatly enhance any measure of notability. LaMona (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

>The article is indeed published, but it is published in a journal with a very poor reputation.

Let's start with this one. Who says that Advances in Anthropology is a journal with "a very poor reputation"? It is NOT on the list of "predatory" journals. Why to disseminate false accusations? What is a purpose?

> mentioned in the article, this one is listed as one of the predatory journals in Jeffrey Beall's list.

This is a lie. It is NOT listed on said list.

Again, why to lie? What is a purpose?

>Klyosov has numerous articles in one of those journals.

Which "those"? Open access? PLOS ONE is an open access journal, with around $2000 per publication. NATURE requests pay for publications. Is it predatory?

>I mention, though, that the article does no give much information about Klyosov's contribution to science...

Lie again. Klyosov was elected to the World Academy of Art and Science, to a National Academy of Science, he holds major scientific prizes, his books are published by major publishers in science -- does it "no give much information"? Why that acrobatics? What is a driving force for such negative comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Please tone it down. Perhaps it's your command of English, but "lying" implies a deliberate attempt to tell something that is wrong. If you disagree with someone, it's enough to just say something like "incorrect". The journal is crappy, its publisher is (deservedly) on Beall's list (meaning that all journals of that publisher are suspect). As for your last remark, you're missing the point. LaMona bemoans that Klyosov's contributions to science are not well described in the article, she does not say anything about the honors he has received. I would think you would actually agree with that, instead of accusing LaMona of lying. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we are going to convince this editor that the list is of predatory publishers. The journal in question also publishes work by fringe authors, eg Clyde Winters[3] who disagrees with Klyosov and also argues that the Olmec, etc were from Africa, as were the Celts and Vikings[4]. No way does Advances in Anthropology meet our criteria as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 10:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's another bit of fuel: I decided to look at the latest issue of this journal. This article is a study of teenager's stress reactions to a set of videos. There are four authors listed, all from Universite' Laval, Quebec. Three of them do not exist in the U's database of people; #4 is a professor of ophthalmology. The article is quite clearly bogus; full of sentences that would not pass muster in a high school class. This article's author exists, but his publication page does not list this publication nor the cited publications that are attributed to him in the -- obviously bogus -- SCIRP journal article, nor does he appear to have done any "aquatic" research. In this article, the listed primary author is unlikely to have written about the hemorrhagic fever epidemic in Grenada as he is a professor in the veterinary school (and does not list this nor any publication like it on his site). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. A large number of these articles are bogus. I found many where the authors were not listed at the institutions cited, although usually at least one author's name can be found. What could one say about the editor of such a journal? LaMona (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, suppose all what is written in the above paragraph is true (and there is no reasons to believe that it is not). It might well be that the journal staff does not inform its editor and bypass him, sending many papers directly to press. In other words, the same situation is repeated when Prof. Jackson was editor-in-chief, and eventually she resigned. So, are we going now to blame Anatole Klyosov for that? Does this overweigh all his achievements in science? His memberships in Academies? His scientific awards? His books that he publishes in leading world editions? Doesn't this attack on him sounds unreasonable? Why the critics pick some secondary issue and pound on it? What is he resigns tomorrow from the journal, would it greatly improve his notability and achievements? Where is logic here?

The same is with the "self-published journal". It might be so. So what is such a big deal about it that it is described in Wiki? There is no any single reference to it in his publications profile. What if he keeps his photo album, which is "self-published"? Would it be another reason to doubt his other achievements? Why such a bias in the consideration of the matter? It is hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has mentioned a self-published journal. You are simply speculating in any case, suggesting that he has no real control over his journal. If you mean his 'academies', of course it's relevant that they are self-published. An 'Academy' is normally a professional organisation with a reputation, not a way of publishing material that you couldn't publish in a proper peer-reviewed way. Just as the journal that he edits it appears. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The integrity of the journal is important not only because he is now editor, but that he has published in that same journal, and those articles are cited on the WP page. Therefore, to use those articles as part of the argument for academic notability, it is important to understand whether they were published using academic standards of peer review and editorial integrity. LaMona (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The only way to evaluate scientific papers is to evaluate scientific papers themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
That ducks the question of whether they were published using academic standards of peer review and editorial integrity. And of course we don't evaluate papers ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A Collective Response by a Team of Russian Academics to Klyosov's DNA-Genealogy. Klyosov's Counter-Critique[edit]

In January 2015, a group of Russian academics wrote an "article" (or a collective "letter" signed by 24 prominent names listed in alphabetical order) in a popular science magazine "Troitskii variant" denouncing DNA Genealogy as "pseudoscience" ( The ensuing discussion generated 2800 comments authored by the anti-Klyosov majority, by Klyosov himself and a number of his followers as well as by a couple of independent observers from a wider Russian and U.S. scientific communities. The anti-Klyosov majority criticized Klyosov for flawed historical interpretations, a deficient conceptual apparatus, crude and antiquated phylogenetic methods, association with radical pseudoscientists and racists, misreading of mainstream genetic publications, self-publishing as well as non-collegial behavior and vitriolic language against opponents. Klyosov responded to the critique with several posts on (e.g., supported by posts by his supporters and academic allies. He accused "mainstream" Russian academics of "bad science", extrascientific politics and reaffirmed the viability of his version of DNA Genealogy. Judging by "likes" on his supporters vastly outnumber his opponents on that online property. A Boston-based science journalist Valery Lebedev ( published an attempt to discredit Klyosov's commercial activity and past Harvard University academic credentials and later collated and published some of anti-Klyosov's posts from the "Troitskii variant" discussion as "articles" in his web-based magazine. Independent observers agreed with some of the "official" assessments of Klyosov's methods and interpretations but raised concerns about the style and format of the "official" critique of Klyosov's DNA Genealogy as well as some persistent factual mistakes and misunderstandings. The debates around Klyosov's DNA Genealogy are tightly linked to the ongoing conflict between Normanist and anti-Normanist interpretations of the origin of Russian statehood that preceded the emergence of DNA Genealogy. Klyosov sided with anti-Normanists and marshaled Y-DNA data to argue for no substantial Scandinavian contribution to the Russian gene pool. Hot debates around Klyosov's DNA Genealogy have continued into the Russian Wikipedia where some of the co-authors of the anti-Klyosov article in the "Troitskii variant" supported by anonymous but potentially anti-Klyosov Wiki editors published some of the assessments by Russian academics of Klyosov's DNA Genealogy. The Russian Wiki article may currently be biased against Klyosov and may not follow Wiki rules and principles ( A discussion around some of the controversial aspects of the conflict between Klyosov's DNA Genealogists and Russian academics was swiftly moved into the Archives and closed for further contributions.,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2.

The topic is very controversial and needs an objective, neutral analysis. At the moment it's being dominated by advocate groups on both Klyosov and anti-Klyosov sides. There's a dearth of reliable sources on the controversy and different online sources are being called upon by both parties as "reliable" when they express their point of view.

German Dziebel, Ph.D., Anthropology, independent participant observer in the debates on "Troitskii variant" and the Russian Wikipedia. (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In January 2015, a group of leading Russian academics (geneticists, anthropologists, linguists, archaeologists) published a letter in the popular science magazine Troitskii Variant denouncing Anatole Klyosov’s “DNA demagoguery” (link). Alexei Kassian (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you go ahead and add some material to the article based on your sources? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately my English is too poor to edit Wikipedia. But our denouncing letter in Troitskii Variant (I'm among the 24 authors) will be translated into English in the nearest future and hosted at an independent site. Alexei Kassian (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Your English is good enough, and any errors will be corrected by other editors. So please make any edits that you consider to be relevant. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, it's a good idea. I have to wait until the Troitskii Variant letter is translated into English, but then I'll make a massive contribution. Alexei Kassian (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexei Kassian is one of the co-signers of the letter at the Troitskii variant that I mentioned. If he authors a section against Klyosov on Wikipedia, then we should invite Klyosov to write a section on himself and roll back Kassian's contribution. We need independent and unbiased contributors, not biased promoters of their own agenda. German Dziebel (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)