Talk:Anatole Klyosov

contest delete request

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

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 Lulu.com - 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. 173.228.54.175 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Venomous comments without any proof

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 76.19.214.64 (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 Lulu.com - 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

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 208.91.195.229 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest for deletion

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

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 208.91.195.229 (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue why you think that "Through Lulu.com 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?

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

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 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/aa) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.41004 "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?

>...as 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 208.91.195.18 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 208.91.195.18 (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 208.91.195.18 (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

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" (http://trv-science.ru/2015/01/13/dnk-demagogiya-kljosova/). 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 Pereformat.ru (e.g., http://pereformat.ru/2015/02/klyosov-position/) 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 Pereformat.ru his supporters vastly outnumber his opponents on that online property. A Boston-based science journalist Valery Lebedev (http://lebed.com/) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov). 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. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Обсуждение:Клёсов,_Анатолий_Алексеевич/Архив.

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. 71.66.241.156 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC) 71.66.241.156 (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)

• It looks like several scientists have registered in Wikipedia to participate in Klyosov talks, and it's definitely very good for Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• • SSR. I've reverted the reference you included to Klyosov's article in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy about mutation rates. This article provides no support for the claim that "Klyosov has been prominent in the Russian mass media concerning his controversial theories of the origin of the Slavic peoples and the Arkaim historic site". If Klyosov's claims have been featured in the Russian mass media then I'm sure there will be plenty of sources that can be used instead that support this claim. Sources do not have to be in English. Dahliarose (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anatole Klyosov. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/profile/anatole-klyosov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to NPOV

I am trying to keep some neutrality per WP:BLP. I restored referenced info removed by an anonymous editor but made the modifications to avoid stating as a fact (not an attributed opinion) that his DNA chronology theory is Pseudoscience. I think it is quite sufficient that we inform readers that many authors consider this theory as such but Klyosov himself disagree. I guess adding some references to authoritative publications (preferably Western) that praise DNA chronology would farther balance the article (assuming those publications exist).

Another problem is that currently the sources stating that Klyosov's journal is published by a predatory publisher do not mention the journal itself. It looks like a violation WP:SYNTH to me. I propose to remove the information unless a reliable source has made the connection for us. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reliable sources say it is pseudoscience — WP:FRINGE/PS — We need another reliable source with opposite opinion (not author himself with his non-scientific publications) to make some changes... --Q Valda (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views" --Q Valda (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for undertaking this. I don't quite understand your second paragraph - that the sources don't mention the journal; the statement is that the sources name the publisher and all of its journals. For an article that actually names the journal, you can link to this from that same site. LaMona (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Balanovskaya, E. V.; et al. (2015-01-13). "ДНК-демагогия Анатолия Клёсова" [Anatoly Klyosov's DNA-demagogy] (in Russian). TrV-Science. — here 24 russian scientists have stated that Klyosov's journal is published by a predatory publisher --Q Valda (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I think there are two BLP problems with current version: (a) he is mostly known for his work in physical chemistry and enzyme catalysis and very good one, and (b) Intro suppose to summarize content in the page - the phrase: "In Russia, Klyosov is also known ..." - what it summarizes? If there was a significant subsection about this controversy on the page, them such phrase in Intro would be justifiable. I fixed it simply by moving this phrse from intro to a separate section. If this section will be better developed, then reflecting it in Intro will be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • [5] — not 'described as pseudoscience', it is obvious and crystal clear pseudoscience with strange and bizarre claims that cannot be supported by mainstream science. --Q Valda (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

MIR International

Klyosov used this name (MIR International) in his publications on composites (eg [6]) and on DNA genealogy (eg [7], [8]). Seems like this company registered at his home address ([9]). In 2012 it was — [10] — a private company categorized under Banking and Finance Consultant, Management Consulting Services, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (and not composites or DNA Genealogy). Company employed "a staff of approximately 1" (probably Gail Klyosov, president, wife). --Q Valda (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC

Good catch, thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to point out a similarity between addresses of home and office? --Q Valda (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be original research. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN and POV qualifiers

This edit was explained in edit summary. I checked the quoted source, and where does it make connection between Klysov and resignation by another person? I do not see it in the source. In addition, one should not make POV qualifiers about subjects that were already described on other pages. Also, in this case, we can not tell in WP voice that his work was outright pseudoscientific. Yes, it was described in some other publications as wrong/pseudoscience/mistaken/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edit. I added another ref with connection. Also returned sourced information about predatory publisher. 'Described as pseudoscience' — we need another source to say this. --Q Valda (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Which source makes connection between Klyosov and resignation by other people? Please quote here what it tells about it. Yes, I can see that people resigned because they did not like the publisher. But they did not resign because of Klyosov, right? Given that, making such connection on this page is WP:SYN. In addition, we should not describe on this page anything about Scientific Research Publishing because it is already described on its own page. This is "POV fork". My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

1) [11] — there was no such connection in article ('they did not resign because of Klyosov'), just people resigned and he took vacant position. 2) yes, page Scientific Research Publishing exists, but in russian article quoted earlier — [12] — 24 russian scientists have stated that Klyosov's journal is published by this predatory publisher. Why to omit this important (for scientists) information? --Q Valda (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

One strong connection is that he himself publishes in this journal, but none of those are listed here, only his articles in Russian. You can find them on his home page here and it would make sense to include some of these in the WP article. There are at least 9 on his home page. LaMona (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(a) I agree that describing his DNA research as pseudoscientific per these sources is probably OK (no time to check this more carefully); (b) info about people resigned and publishing house claimed to be "predatory" is fine, but it belongs to the page Scientific Research Publishing, and it is already included out there. Repeating the same info on every BLP page of every editor is WP:Content fork and actually goes against WP:BLP. If he resigned or forced other people to resign, than yes, that would belong to this page. But this is not the case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why Advances in Anthropology should represent Scientific Research Publishing as a whole. Information (about mass resignation from editorial board of one of journals) is there today, but may be missed tomorrow. This info is important for this WP article. --Q Valda (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(a) Why exactly information that other people resigned would be important in a BLP of another person? (b) Consider someone who works in University X - would any controversy about University X belonged to BLP of that person? Frankly, the desire to include as much negative information as possible in a BLP page, even if this is negative information about other people, is ridiculous and goes against WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

a) Anatoly Karpov became World Chess Champion because of other person (Bobby Fischer) resignation in 1975. Isn't it important information for Karpov's bio? (Anatoly Karpov#Match with Fischer in 1975)
b) I just think this is important circumstance about questionable journal headed by Klyosov and about himself. Klyosov with his academies and journals clearly tries to mimic science, but these activities have no scientific status (as reliable sources say) --Q Valda (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Did Klysov have a widely publicized competition with another editor to win his place? If he had, let's include it. Besides, this is not "his" journal. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Klyosov became editor-in-chief after a widely publicized resignation of other people (and Karpov became World Champion similarly) --Q Valda (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What? This is getting ridiculous. So, in which sources his role in resignation of other people has been "widely publicized"? My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

his role in resignation are your words, not mine. Karpov himself had no role in resignation similarly --Q Valda (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) (Fisher resigned because of FIDE, not of Karpov, but this episode is in Karpov's BLP, right?) --Q Valda (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CFORK

Seems like WP:CFORK is about creating entire articles, not about moving parts of text. In case of need editors may repeat the same info on every BLP page — 'in 2013 he/she became a member of editorial board of AA after mass resignation...' — why not? --Q Valda (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See above. Forking is also about content. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

'New science'

Reverted this — [13] — one of Klyosov's books (2013, in Russian) is named Entertaining DNA Genealogy. New Science Gives Answers.

• Balanovsky says — [14] — ...Klyosov's DNA genealogy ... is proclaimed new science and counterposed to population genetics. --Q Valda (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anatole Klyosov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930230306/http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Science_in_RUS.html to http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Science_in_RUS.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/12/16/the-chinese-publisher-scirp-scientific-research-publishing-a-publishing-empire-built-on-junk-science/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy

[15] — reverted this. Klyosov claims that his ″DNA genealogy″ is not a part of genetics at all, but of chemical kinetics. And reliable sources say it is pseudoscience with strange and bizarre claims that cannot be supported by scientists. --Q Valda (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you spotted.that. Doug Weller talk 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with such approach. I read WP:NPOV and think we are breaking the principle. I tried to read the sources, with translation, and it is obvious that one group of scientists tried to discredit his work in genetic genealogy, whose conclusion we cannot accept as the majority and mainstream conclusion, without showing the answer by other scentists who support him or his own answer. As well, the title "Pseudoscientific publications" is implied that all his publications are pseudoscientific and wrong. Where is reference that each of those publications are of pseudoscientific value? Instead of using an imposed label by a group of scholars, like "pseudoscientific", to marginalize a notable scientist, it should be noted and explained to the public in which parts his work is erroneous. Also I would like you to cite me the exact sentence and reference in which is explained that he does not think DNA genealogy is not related to genetic genealogy, yet to chemical kinetics. If you read any his publication, and you are familiar with genetic genealogy, his work is not different anyhow. Chris Stringer in Why we are not all multiregionalists not (2014) cited and agreed with work, published by Advances in Anthropology, African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis? (2013) by Robert G. Bednarik who cited four references, notably used in his work, by Klyosov.

Also, I cannot but ping My very best wishes to note him that user Q Valda continued to edit the section, although they had a substantial discussion at "WP:SYN and POV qualifiers", from revision of 13:17, 28 June 2016, when user JzG who did not participate in the discussion re-added the info as of 11:02, 31 August 2016.--JoyceWood (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are not satisfied with this version, one possible solution would be to expand the section entitled "DNA genealogy". Here you should explain (based on independent publications in RS rather than in "predatory" journals) the following: (a) what exactly was so novel in the "DNA genealogy" by Klysov; (b) why exactly this theory has been described as pseudoscientific in a number of publications (those are Russian language sources and beyond my area of expertise). If there are any positive publications in 3rd party RS about this theory, (like here), they can be used per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that I don't agree with the use of such a short sentence that his publications on genetic genealogy are simply pseudoscientific, thus not even in the category of controversial, but without any value of consideration, yet without explaining in which parts his scientifical approach, understanding, terminology, calculation is considered wrong by one group of Russian scientists. Also, like in mine edit on 30 December, it should be given context to his work in the specific field - what it caused (triggered a debate); when (2015); among whom (Russian scientists); who considered and labeled his work as erroneous as well pseudoscientific (a group of Russian scientists); what they considered erroneous or failed scientific standards and methods ([we need to read and cite it from the articles in the Russian language]) and so on. Current sentence "Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy" and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science"" for me it is badly formulated, against NPOV, WP:FRINGEBLP, even WP:FRINGE/PS, because what I read and understood, from my personal opinion, I find more than questionable the label of "pseudoscience" for his whole work rather than "alternative theoretical formulations" or "questionable science". We have, numerically, references 12, 13 and 14 related to the issue, and thus we should cite them properly to give to the public information for e.g. why and what caused such a reaction in a group of scientists. I would like first and foremost a discussion, if we agree with mine and yours proposition, an analysis of the sources, and only then to edit the article. --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• when (2015) — Earlier. In fact, in Russia Klyosov's "DNA-genealogy" became widely known in 2012-2013, when he participated in pseudohistoric film by M. Zadornov — "Rurik. Lost true story" (see ru:Рюрик. Потерянная быль) --Q Valda (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't understand - those remarks are about when the issue of debate and criticism about his work emerged among the Russian scientists.--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian scientists started their criticism right after the film, then debate was triggered by Klyosov's article "Our ancestors didn't came from Africa" published in 2013. --Q Valda (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. You also need to take a look at WP:FRINGE and understand that it is not against NPOV to call something what it is. And it is definitely not against NPOV to say what reliable sources say. --Majora (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I started the WP:BRD on edit by Q Valda. I opened this issue, I know what is the policy to edit Wikipedia, and while writing my reply you entered the discussion, and even reverted it saying "Status quo ante". How we know those publications are pseudoscientific? Where is the reference that each of those publications is pseudoscientific? Does such a title imply that all his articles, not only publications, are pseudoscientific? --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I quickly checked ru:Клёсов, Анатолий Алексеевич with some refs and "Web of Science" database. It appears that in addition to being an internationally recognized researcher in Enzymology and Biochemistry, Klysov also has cited publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal). Given that, I think describing him as an outright "pseudoscientist" in the area of human genetics would be incorrect and should be avoided, especially in light of WP:BLP. And I am a little suspicious about all involved strange accounts including JoyceWood and "Q Valda" ("sledgehammer" in Russian)... My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • please don't transliterate my name from latin to russian (and then again to latin), my infobox on ru.wiki asks the same ... thank you --Q Valda (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • what (exactly) was cited in his publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? by whom those citations? --Q Valda (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • 5 references by Klyosov cited in Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood (Human Genetics, 2009), 2 references cited in Afghanistan from a Y-chromosome perspective (EJHG, 2012), 1 reference in co-work The ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that isn’t: a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perry’s X-degenerate portion of the Y chromosome (EJHG, 2014), 1 reference in co-work Reply to Mendez et al: the ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that still isn’t (EJHG, 2015), 4 references in co-work Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration (Frontiers in Genetics, 2014).
      • 3 references (the two article from 2012, and one from 2014 about "Out of Africa") as well chapter Clarifying the ‘African Eve’ concept are also included in the Archaic modernity vs the high priesthood: On the nature of unstable archaeological/palaeoanthropological orthodoxies (Rock Art Research, 2014).--JoyceWood (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't impose any censorship on the consideration by the group of Russian scientists, however, it should be mentioned in neutrally and well formed paragraph (see below), as you said, to not violate the WP:BLP. There exist sources by him, or others who used his sources as reference, in peer-reviwed publications, even Advances in Anthropology, and like mentioned below, which are seemingly alright, but also different from his controversial or pseudo-"DNA genealogy" publications. Like in the discussions e.g. "Not out of Africa", the next issue is to consider; a) are all sources by Klyosov, including those published in peer-reviewed publications, and Advances in Anthropology, unreliable due to label of pseudoscience b) are articles by Klyosov, reliable, but his publications unreliable c) are his articles published by Advances in Anthropology, which are again used as references in the listed sources, reliable d) are only his peer-reviewed articles, not including those in Advances in Anthropology, reliable?--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
        • articles in peer-reviewed journals are unreliable because of existing criticism (e.g. [16]), other publications on DNA-genealogy are unreliable for the same reason — not due to label but because of existing criticism --Q Valda (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
          • that is constructive criticism, every scientific study must have a critical review, and it does not include any conclusion that the articles by Klyosov should be considered completely unreliable (we don't even know if he used the same method in later articles), actually "Finally, regarding the detailed ‘‘haplotype trees’’ offered by the Comment, these are indeed interesting and can be very instructive". Such a simplified consideration is against that all sources before, or those after 2009, are completely unreliable if they are cited in reliable articles and peer-reviewed journals - by this criteria deduction we can consider that Chris Stringer's specific conclusion or source is unreliable when it agrees with conclusion and source by Robert G. Bednarik who cited several sources by Klyosov, source or conclusions by Jason Randall Thompson (latest listed above) is unreliable because it cited several sources and included a chapter by Klyosov. This kind of deduction is against RS policy.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Analysis

As we can read at source "Problematical theories", his work is not labeled as pseudoscientific, rather "In January 2015, a group of leading Russian academics published a letter in the popular science magazine Troitskii Variant denouncing Anatole Klyosov’s “DNA demagoguery”". In the article signed by 24 scientists in Troitskii Variant [14], with bad translation, we read:

- "This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy"... Using ready-made database and pulling from an extensive toolkit of population geneticists Y-chromosome (occasionally mtDNA), it adds to one of the techniques of genetic dating of several formulas, usurps the term "DNA genealogy" and by exploiting all the growing interest in genetic reconstructions of the history of nations, announces all this "new science", and himself - the creator" - we see that the the term "DNA genealogy" is Genetic genealogy, not Chemical kinetics - but "Anatoly Klyosov, claiming that he created a new science that the formulas of chemical kinetics reconstructs the history of the peoples" - according to them he allegedly uses formulas of chemical kinetics in the study of genetic genealogy, even claims the credit for it, which logically other scientists find offensive, but I don't see where he uses those formulas, better to say, to me it seems like his or their spin due to his work and reputation in the biochemistry.

- "Eastern Slavs - the genus R1a1... Genetic the term "haplogroup" AA Klyosov replaces the social category of "race", putting in his biological sense... an attempt of biologization of social categories" - they criticize his rigid use of the linguistic and ethnological terms Slav, Aryans with the haplogrup R1a1 and vice versa.

- "These methods can refute anything, such as "out" man from Africa... In the writings of A. Klyosov the hypothesis that the Russian North - the ancestral home of Homo sapiens: "160 thousand years ago, people lived on the Russian plain, or in the north of the Russian Plain, and hence of his relatives had gone to the south, to Africa. Arriving there after a long migration of about 140-120 thousand years ago" - they criticize his opposition to the Recent African origin of modern humans theory, however his view on migration, dating and other things in the two or three sources mentioned at "Problematical theories" or African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis? (2013) are different from the web article they cited this quote, so this is questionable.

- "The creator of the "new science" demonstrates not only the pressure of an aggressive, but also an excellent ability to mimic academic standards, which sometimes leads to confusion not only viewers, but also scientists. For example, in an article for a scientific audience names geneticists M. Hammer, T. Karafet, L. Zhivotovsky listed among the forerunners of his "new science"... Mimicking in response to criticism... A skilful populist AA Klyosov produces the expected results for public consumption" - they criticize his linkage of geneticists with his "new science", and like stated above, to sometime contradicting and populistic conclusions or results.

- ""New Science", designed to "re-format representation of the past," not only denies the results of genetics and anthropology, and linguistics, and archeology... Language is imposed hard biological context: if two people have the same haplogroup, their languages are required to consist of kinship... According to the "new science", each ethnic group is associated with "their" main haplogroup... Harvard... priorities of DNA genealogy" - they again criticize his rigid, simplified, uncritical use and connections of the haplogroups with languages or ethnic groups, but which is nothing controversial per se, see Father Tongue hypothesis or Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA, Eupedia. They question his position at Harvard and other which hardly understand.

- "To sum up: the "new science" AA Klyosov de facto is not a scientific concept and can not therefore be the subject of scientific debate. This parascientific concept, unfortunately, is not harmless. Signs of language and culture is not transmitted as haplogroup or color, these are two different mechanisms. Phantoms AA Klyosov in which biological mixed with social - populist dangerous tool of management and hidden forces. Its packaging in fashionable pseudo-scientific layman shape flatters their accessibility and attract readers, the national political ambitions which does not satisfy the scientific world" - the 24 scientists are uniformic in considering his concept pseudoscientific, however, their statement that there's no connection between language and culture with haplogroups i.e. denying the biological (genetical) differences between human populations is stunning because it's the very opposite, implying that they resent his simplified populistic "packaging" and sometime erroneous understanding and conclusions.

In the Gene pool of Europe (2015):

- ""Pseudoscience" - a strong word, but DNA genealogy in the version promoted by AA Klesova deserves it fully... The discussion of pseudoscience would be probably no place in the scientific monograph, if AA Klesov not spread DNA genealogy as widely and aggressively in the Russian-speaking Internet, that many scientists who are not professional geneticists, necessarily acquainted with it... beyond simplification AA Klesova genetic data, methods and results... (1) faith in the infallibility of the "genealogical" mutation rate, and (2) in the infallibility of the age of the method of calculation of the share of the original haplotype (developed jointly with genetic genealogy Dmitry Adamov). During the years of independent activity, he (3) declared a "genealogical" speed of their personal invention, (4) was the age of the calculation of the instructions and look-up table (5) introduced an amendment to reverse mutations (6) called it the only true way of dating, and more that (7) of the new science, which has no relation to population genetics." - in short, they criticize his approach to the understanding of the facts about the genetic genealogy, and like above, its use as a doubtless method in the explaining and dating of migrations or specific events (in simplified, populistic, or very recent events, like Slavic migration). From these quotes, as could not translate very good the source by Klein [15], should be made a short and neutral (not implying no use of the label pseudoscientific in the paragraph) summary about his work related to genetic genealogy which sparked a debate and harsh criticism, for example without much detail:

- "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology. His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience."--JoyceWood (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy"... — RS gave exactly this characterization. 1) Publishers are not scientific and "controversial" at least. 2) Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" is not the same as genetic genealogy. Some of his methods are not good and Klyosov incorrectly uses them in the fields of anthropology, history, lingvistics etc. /with bizarre results/ --Q Valda (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Read again - it is more than clear that the DNA genealogy is the same as genetic genealogy (This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy").--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course genetic genealogy is not pseudoscience, but Klyosov's "version" (or "new science') — is (as RS say) --Q Valda (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No one said that genetic genealogy is pseudoscience. A group of 24 scientists considered that Klyosov's approach/method showed in some of his publications make "DNA genealogy" (term they deliberately use to make it seem like his work is different from genetic genealogy, yet it is not) pseudoscience.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow WP:BLP please

I quickly looked at some publications and think that

1. Dr. Klysov is a well known mainstream scientist. 95% of his publications were in the areas in Enzymology and Biochemistry and highly cited.
2. Dr. Klysov did not make significant scientific contributions in the area of human genetics. The lack of notability in this area is indicated by the relatively low level of citation of his works in this area' in English language sources. That does not make him a pseudocientist. To the contrary, he made publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal), that are main stream peer-reviewed publications, not a "predatory publishing".
3. Dr. Klysov apparently support certain controversial (possibly fringe) ideas on the origin of Slavs, which led to significant controversy in Russian language sources and trading mutual accusations. As an example of a similar controversy, one might consider Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry that received a lot more coverage. Should people who support that theory be described as "pseudoscientists"? I doubt because very same people had many publications in mainstream journals, just like Klysov. It seems that the entire subject area about origin of ethnic groups based on their genetics is controversial, but this is not pseudoscience.

Hence, I do not think that word "pseudoscience" should appear anywhere on this page. It seems that user "Sledgehammer" (Q Valda) is a little too biased. If no one but "Sledgehammer" objects, I can quickly fix the potential BLP problem here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to ask again not to transliterate my name, please --Q Valda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think "pseudoscience" is my problem here, or it is something specifically russian — just not many scientists in the whole world can support "Into Africa" theory or "protoslavs" as ancestors of all modern humans or many other Klyosov's bizarre claims ... so please don't try to counterpose your opinion to those of russian scientists, all we need is another RS which examines Klyosov's theory and says it is scientific --Q Valda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please provide a few RS by scientists in English that explicitly tell "work by Klysov in such and such areas was a pseudoscience"? I can not assess reliability of Russian language sources you are talking about, such as [17], [18], but the titles of these sources sound like attack pages ("Dangerous demagogy of ..."). This whole subject area is full of political bullshit, as exemplified by the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. Did anyone of these people published anything criticizing Klysov in journals like European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? And if they did not published anything criticizing Klysov in such journals, maybe that's because their criticism was bullshit? Being non-expert, I can not (and not suppose to) independently assess it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do not understand how much I have to emphasize that we cannot simplify and label all his articles and publications with the same criticism, or even pseudoscience. The sources [19] and [20] (2012), and [21] (2014) used in reliable sources above do not provide any "Into Africa" theory, they re-consider and re-examin the current claims of the "Out of Africa" theory, there is nothing bizzare, if they are bizzare are the reliable sources in which are used also bizzare and unreliable - no they are not. Klyosov did made some controversial claims, but not in articles like these or those published in other peer-reviewed journals. If we are going judge and dismiss the complete work by someone scientist because of some bizzare claims, even political correctness, it is foolish.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We allow foreign language sources. The other issue that I don't think we can ignore is his self-publishing. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we allow foreign language sources. Yes, let's ignore everything self-published, published in "predatory journals" and other questionable sources, exactly as WP:BLP requires. However, these particular Russian language sources (those criticizing Klysov and currently used on the page) look to me exactly as poor quality and possibly self-published sources that should not be used on BLP pages. Perhaps Sledgehammer Q Valda should post them on RSNB, but I am not sure that too many people can assess their reliability. At the very least, those are "advocacy sources" that should best be avoided.My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Haven't you read this talk page? I don't think we should ignore the fact that his "organisations" etc are self-published. In other words, he can't get the material published via lulu.com in academic journals, even though he can get other material published respectably. We can probably find a way to assess Russian language sources. Please strike through your use of a nickname you created for an editor after you were asked not to do it. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how organizations can be "self-published", but I simply think we should not use self-published or other non-reliable sources in BLP pages, exactly as the policy requires. I would like to emphasize that Klysov has a number of his own publications in mainstream scientific journals (this is not self-published), even on human genetics, however, what we need here are high quality 3rd party sources about the person, and I do not think that these particular advocacy/attack publications in Russian qualify as such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, this source criticizes genetic research by Klysov. Is it an RS? I am not so sure because it can be easily dismissed as an "opinion piece" or polemics. But OK, let's consider it RS. However, it does not call Klysov "pseudoscientist" anywhere. There is a significant bar for calling someone a "pseudoscientist" in Western culture (and English WP). No so in Russian culture. Just another important reason to request English language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling him a pseudoscientist and saying that others have called specific work of his pseudoscientific are not quite the same thing. The article mentions his self-published organisations, " Between 2007 and 2010 it was the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy and in 2010 it identified itself as international and was renamed as the Academy of DNA Genealogy (Boston, Moscow, Tsukuba). Klyosov self-publishes its proceedings through Lulu.com" Doug Weller talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That source does not call his work "pseudo-scientific". Person X self-published something. Is it bad? No, this can be anything. Should this be noted on BLP page? Yes, if this is something significant as reflected in multiple publications in secondary RS about this author. My impression is that he simply did not do anything significant in human genetics based on low quotation of his articles in this subject area in scientific international citation databases (Russian language sources by his critics do not count because they are NOT included in the scientific databases - yet another reason not count them as RS). My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please provide a few RS by scientists in English that explicitly tell "work by Klysov in such and such areas was a pseudoscience"? — unfortunately I don't know English language sources that examine Klyosov's concept in depth. --Q Valda (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC) And, of course, scientists not often work in area of Science studies (where study of scientific status of theories belong). Moreover, something about pseudoscience rarely published in scientific sources at all — not many people want to deal with bizarre claims like with valid scientific concepts. --Q Valda (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I can not assess reliability of Russian language sources you are talking about —
  1) [22] contains fragments from Balanovsky's scientific book Gene pool of Europe (2015) (published by KMK Scientific Press)
  2) [23] from the bulletin "In defense of science" (ru:В защиту науки) published by the Commission on pseudoscience within Presidium of Russian Academy of Science (ru:Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований).--Q Valda (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)