Talk:Genetic studies of Jews

Ethiopian Jews

What you wrote about Ethiopian jews

However,half of the Ethiopian Jews in fact have up to 30% semitic blood in some instances. Ethiopian Jews have a mixture of Hebrew, but that is because during the rise of Islam, some of the Jews in what is now Saudi Arabia, ended up in Yemen AND Ethiopia, so, the community there got an infusion of Hebrew semitic blood.Secondly,as in other studies where Ethiopian Jews exhibited markers that are characteristic of both African and Middle Eastern populations, they had Y-chromosome haplotypes (e.g., haplotypes Med and YAP+4S) that were common in other Jewish populations.as cited from another study their haplotype frequency profile does suggests an additional non-African element.

is at the opposite of what I read up to now. Could you please quote the exact sentence where we can see your claims else it is WP:NOR --Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of sentences in the lead

Hi, could I ask about a couple of sentences which are unclear to me:-

1. In particular, those studies showed that the paternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to the paternal gene pool of other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than the one of their host populations in Europe.

I recognize this is getting more discussion later in the article, but my understanding of the field is that there is some lack of consensus on this point (especially concerning " an Middle Eastern...")? By putting such a strong conclusion in the lead isn't there a potential neutrality concern?

Well, you may be right it is a little bit too much. But who say the opposite ? --Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question! But my question was really literal, at least as a first step. I just wanted to know if you and other editors were comfortable that this sentence fits with the rest of the article as sourced so far. Getting more sources is of course always an on-going task here on WP. I'll keep this question in mind and try to remember what I was thinking of! Obviously a big problem in this field is that it is so new, the really good articles are so few, quite often too old, and replies to them or reviews of them almost nothing. I would think that Ashkenazi paternal populations, if you look at sub-clades in their latest definitions, look more Italian or SE European than anything else, but I need to work out if I have a source for that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll start a new thread about sources below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have answered below.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

2. If they do not conflict with the Jewish traditions that place the origin of the Jewish people in Hebrew peoples who settled in Canaan, they draw a geographical area of origin broader than those traditions.

On this sentence my main concern is just that I don't understand it. Can someone help me out? Maybe we can improve the wording.

Cheers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my english. I wanted to say that paternal gene pool of jewish people probably comes from middle east. And the middle east does include Israel.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all and I appreciate that how hard it is to work in a second or third language. Good work. I was thinking to try to help re-word it but I was not perfectly sure of the meaning. Looking at it right now I am guessing it means something like These studies appear to be at least consistent with Jewish traditions in placing most Jewish paternal ancestry either in the region of Canaan, or more generally in the Middle East. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds better, thank you.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've a had a go at adjusting these two sentences. Main aim is just to make the English a little more orthodox, but I've also perhaps just slightly simplified the fairly strong implied claims being made for the science of genetics. How does it look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is almost OK. I would like to point out that now it is not true any more when you write "than with populations in Europe". Papers don't say with population in Europe but population where they lived (the Rhine Valley in France, Germany, Holland, Austria, Hungary, former Czechoslovakia, Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine). As you said and as many authors emphasis the Y-DNA of AJ is closed to southern european population.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

...And of course the many Ashkenazi ancestors probably lived in Southern Europe. Are geneticists presenting arguments against this or just passing over the subject quickly by for example treating an Eastern European population as a simple stand in for "neighbours"? It is my feeling that giving this fine point in the wording of these articles a big emphasis is perhaps going beyond the expertise and probably the intentions of the authors? Anyway, maybe you have a neat solution but if not I was not thinking the distinction being made clearly or consistently enough? Remember that in effect we are deciding about what to say that the field has really argued and agreed upon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no genecists saying that AJ male ancestors come from southern Europe, they say that AJ paternal gene pool is close to the one of Southern Europe population which does not mean exactly the same. According to me the neat solution is to write "than with host populations in Europe" or "than with their neighbours". But if you want to clarify better I do not see any objection.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is no genecists saying that AJ male ancestors come from southern Europe, they say that AJ paternal gene pool is close to the one of Southern Europe population which does not mean exactly the same." I agree. Maybe you misunderstood me. Historians, not geneticists, discuss this subject in the most detail. Geneticists in these articles do not really go far into that subject and simply treat it as if Ashkenazi neighbours and hosts were Eastern Europeans. But they moved around. I am not saying we should disagree with anything the geneticists clearly explain, clearly thought through in the cited papers, and clearly agreed upon. But is that what we are talking about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"According to me the neat solution is to write "than with host populations in Europe" or "than with their neighbours". But if you want to clarify better I do not see any objection." These words are unclear though, and this is one thing that drew me to those sentences. More to the point, I think these words "host" and "neighbour" are not the subject of detailed definition and argument in the sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So why not using the Hammer sentence "non-Jewish neighbor populations in areas where Jews lived in the Diaspora". The full sentence would be:

In particular, these studies indicate that Ashkenazi Jews share more common paternal lineages with other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than with non-Jewish neighbor populations in areas where Jews lived in the Diaspora.

It is a little bit long but it can't be clearer.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing, particularly on the Ashkenazi-European admixture question

• First of all, although you can't cite blogs here there is a blog by Dienekes Pontikos which collects a lot of published references on this. See its "Jewish" category:- http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Jewish .
• In 2010 there are new articles on several aspects of the subject: Bray, a new Behar paper, Atzmon. Most recent ones are autosomal studies though, and my question above was specifically about paternal lines.

Thank you, most of new papers are including in autosomal studies paragraph (Behar, Atzmon), except Bray. I have to read it carefully but it seems that it is consistent with other papers.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bray's paper is very interesting, I will add it soon and I think we will have to change the end of the abstract according to this paper because it reinforces Atzmon's claim about southern european population and AJ.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear it helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see on discussions here on this talk page that it is important to distinguish the different types of DNA study.

Yes, I hope I have distinguished clearly all kind of DNA studies. If it is not the case please tell me.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that you see the difference and have tried to describe it. What I notice from this talk page, and have noticed before, is that the way older papers talk about "admixture" (which implies a mixing of peoples) when they are really only talking about male lines, does confuse intelligent readers. No easy solution though!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make sure it is clear. I do agree that genetic evidence, whether Y DNA or autosomal, does seem to show connections back to the Middle East. The specific quote in the lead however seems to imply that it is certain that Y DNA's lines are >50% from there. I think that is not so certain. I see above in some discussions that you're aware of the importance of which genetic variations are defined as European, Middle Eastern etc.

This kind of sentence is a little bit tricky but I think it is correct. It does not assume that middle east DNA's lines are > 50%. It assumes that the middle east part is more important than "local host" part that means countries where AJ lived and southern europe is not included.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's better stated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand, do you agree with the "original" sentence or do you prefere to rewrite it ?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At first sight I prefer your version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• A particular question of interest when we think about the Ashkenazim comes about because at least some of the early papers seemed to assume that local European sources of admixture could be defined as the ones where the Ashkenazim ended up in areas like the Ukraine. Certainly R1a could have entered the population there. However I think it is not controversial to say that the Ashkenazi came from other parts of Europe more to the west. Italy and Southern France share many genetic variants with the Middle East. Some of them like E1b1b1c (sticking to Y haplogroups) probably came from the Middle East. Others may just as easily have come from Anatolia or the Balkans.

I agree, I hope that the text is clear enough for example when I write "In addition, of the Jewish populations in this cluster, the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations, specifically the Greeks".--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment on R1a. I see a comment above that this was being given undue attention because a big chunk of Jewish R1a descends from one man. That is a misunderstanding because all groups of related paternal lineages descend from one common ancestor. That the definition. What makes a paternal line notable is generally how common they have become today. R1a is certainly notable. The bigger question is perhaps whether Y DNA should ever therefore be used to explain "admixture" (as it throughout this article) because it can imply massive immigrations if taken too seriously, even though you are only looking at a very limited number of lines of descent (unbroken paternal lines). This is a question which is discussed in peer reviewed literature and can be sourced also. In a nutshell, Y DNA is often thought to be good for finding evidence of movements of people. An immigrant Y line becoming common might represent a small number of successful men, perhaps men bringing a new technology. But Y DNA is problematic for estimating real overall admixture, but so is every other method.

I agree, however if I understand wikipedia is not done for such development. We have to stick on papers dealing with DNA studies on jews.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw some discussion of this principle on this talk page. But I think it depends on what you have in the article. If you want to write a sentence saying, for example, "R1a is common in ethnic Poles" then this sentence is about Poles and you would be looking for sources about Poles. Also the whole article does not have to be about ethnic Poles. If there is one sentence in a good source about ethnic Poles we can of course use that also if appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When such claims are made they come from papers dealing with "jewish DNA". To be honnest, I used to think more like you before but the problem is when such development are made it becomes rapidly original work. For other subject it could be acceptable but this subject is too touchy.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is easier to discuss real concrete examples if there are any still worth discussing or if any come up. The example I give above would not be original work I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the example you give is not an original work because R1a1 is clearly identified as an "eastern european population" haplogroup in "jewish Y-DNA studies". --Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Practical point is of course that until recently Y DNA studies were the only ones being widely done. Autosomal studies required some quite recent technological breakthroughs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank's for all instructive comments.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad if it helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"some" studies indicate that Ashkenazi Jews share more common paternal lineages with other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than with populations in Europe

User:Andrew Lancaster keeps inserting the weasel word "some" before the lede paragraph on the studies, replacing the word "these". The paragraph itself is about a certain set of studies, and already starts "These studies". In addition, the lede merely summarizes the body of the article. Could Andrew please explain which studies he is referring to in the article that do not "indicate that Ashkenazi Jews share more common paternal lineages with other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than with populations in Europe"? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are currently reverting my edits on several articles that you normally do not edit. I think anyone who looks at the discussion I tried to have with you over the last several weeks on your talk page will see what it is all about. Template:Nono

The text I slightly adjusted, and which you Template:Nono reverted, had clear edit summaries indicating that the tweak was simply intended to remove any possibility that this sentence would be understood as claiming a consensus in the field. This is clearly what your supposedly preferred version does. Template:Nono

Your implied request that I go out and prove that there are no more articles in the field is perhaps a joke?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I've made far more edits to this article than you have, and edited it months before you ever showed up here. In fact, I wrote the paragraphs you are now modifying. If anything, it's obvious that it is you who are editing articles that I edit but which you normally do not. And I did not simply revert your edits, but quite obviously built on them. As for the text you adjusted (that I had originally written), please respond to the question: which studies disagree with these assessments? Where are they mentioned in this article? If there are "more articles in the field", they don't seem to be represented in this article. As I've stated before, the lede summarizes the article, not studies that may or may not exist elsewhere, but are undiscussed here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are off topic. Address the points made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I responded to your statements; if your statements were "off topic", then you shouldn't have made them. Now, please address the points I've made: which studies disagree with these assessments? Where are they mentioned in this article? If there are "more articles in the field", they don't seem to be represented in this article. Why is "these studies" fine for the start of the paragraph, but not for this specific sentence in the middle of the paragraph? As I've stated before, the lede summarizes the article, not studies that may or may not exist elsewhere, but are undiscussed here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote removed, editorial comment inserted

Andrew Lancaster had changed the following sentence:

The proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with "relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim," and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%."

to

According to the estimate of that early paper, the proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with "relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim"

This edit appears to be unhelpful. The paragraph the sentence is in already gives the specifics of exactly what the study is referring to, what year it was done (2000), and that these are the results of that study. Why would someone want to insert the editorial phrase "According to the estimate of that early paper"? Every statement made in that paragraph is "according to the estimate of that paper"! And why "early"? We know the exact year of the paper already, why state it is "early"? This is apparently just well poisoning. In addition, why remove the paper's summary of the total admixture rate - how can removing this cited information possibly help the reader? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, the problem with the words "total admixture estimate" and "Motulsky's average estimate" is that even a population geneticist reading this article would not be able to work out how these terms are understood. If someone can re-write the section so that the terms can be parsed then we can re-assess.

As to the word early, I think it is appropriate because not everyone would realize that 2000 is indeed early in this field. This was an early paper. Again, it is an issue of WP:DUE.

Template:Nono?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the quotations, I don't know why you find them unclear, they seem perfectly clear to me. Total admixture is the overall percentage of European genetic contribution. Why would a population geneticist find this confusing? Clearly the geneticists who wrote the paper thought the phrases were meaningful.

Regarding the phase "early", why would it apply only to that particular finding of the study, as opposed to every single thing about the study. And what argument are you trying to make when you say "not everyone would realize that 2000 is indeed early in this field"? Which WP:RS characterizes this specific study as "early"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg:

• It is amusing to read you say how simple "total admixture" is for you. Population admixture can be defined and estimated in different ways and to visualize what it really means is perhaps not as simple as you think. That's one of the complexities of the field, and it is of critical importance. The words might look simpler to someone who does not know what they mean. Ways of defining it and estimating it have also changed since 2000.
• The authors of the paper indeed thought their words were meaningful and they also will have defined how they used them in the paper. A typical WP solution would be for editors thinking those words important to go to the sources and clarify?
• Concerning "early" my point was already clear: 2000 is early for genetics because genetics moves fast. Are you challenging that statement? Not everything you do not know is OR. Challenging everything other editors write is a game that can be pushed to extreme limits but I think it is not a good thing to do.
• You have not yet explained your strong position on Motulsky's average estimate. It must have just slipped your mind. I am really looking forward to your explanation there. I mean you wouldn't be reverting people and taking a strong position if you had no point would you?
• Lastly, please do not edit the talk page posts of other people you are in a content dispute with, especially when the comments are directed to the strength of the arguments, or suggestions to follow WP policy. That is frankly a little dishonest. Why, for example, should you be able to accuse me of well poisoning without justification, and I not allowed to suggest that you should talk before reverting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re "total admixture": what do you think the possible alternate meanings of "total admixture" are, and how do you think the meaning has changed since 2000?

Re "early": please provide a source stating that this study is an "early" one in this field. Also, please indicate why it is only this specific sentence, out of this entire article of studies, that needs to be characterize as "early".

Re "Motulsky;s average estimate": The paper itself has a footnote listing the source in question, Motulsky A G et al (1980) in Population Structure and Disorders, eds Eriksson A W , Forsius H R , Nezanlinna H R , Workman P L , Norio R K (Academic, New York), pp 353–365.

Re redacting personal comments on Talk: pages, the template is there for that reason. If no personal comments are made, none will have to be redacted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)