Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cohen Modal Halotype

I thinh that there is a problem of date concerning Zoossmann-Diskin criticism related to Cohen Modal Haloptype. Indeed, there is no reference for this criticism but it seems that it comes before Behar's paper. Nobody, talk anymore about Cohen Modal Halotype since 2009.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

2009 is not so long ago? Anyway for more references about this subject you can look maybe at the haplogroup J1 article. My understanding that there is an "extended" version of the Cohen haplotype which still makes some type of sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What I wanted to indicate is that Hammer and Behar answered to Zoossmann-Diskin criticism by defining the so called "extended CMH" and as far as I know nobody put the extended CMH into question.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than say Tofanelli et al. 2009 at the University of Pisa who demonstrated the so-called "CMH" (that is jocularly named and is even admitted to be impossible to "prove" even on the wikipedia page of the alleged Y-chromosomal Aaron) is itself too old at 8,600 years old to even be connected to start with, with any historical Aaron from 4,500 years in tradition. Putting aside Zoossmann-Diskin and others critiques. Cityslicker4 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And on top of this Tofanelli et al. 2009 question the very basis of what Behar and company use to make their claims; [1] "Furthermore, J1 STR motifs previously used to trace Arab or Jewish ancestries were shown unsuitable as diagnostic markers for ethnicity."Cityslicker4 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)User:Historylover4 sock--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but we need to WP:balance what we report. You seem to have a strong preference for one particular author, who is not necessarily the biggest of names, in the best of journals, but I have no problem with mentioning that author - as long as we do not start trying to delete mention of other significant sources. I also do not think Tofanelli is the only recent source to be relevant to this subject. Hammer also put out an article in 2009. I think that overall the story we can tell is pretty simple: the CMH was proposed, and became well known. Then it was strongly criticized, but more complex ideas about J1 clusters have replaced the original simplistic CMH proposal. Now we need to wait for more research to be published. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ostrer hyperbole and odd claims in the reflection of writing of Katya Gibel Mevorach and others

People wanting to include Ostrer's statements from (clearly agenda driven) jpost newspaper, are ignoring the absolute ridiculousness of the general claims he apparently presents there. Ostrer goes even further than his usual "evangelizing" and literal "preaching" from a mythology book ("the Bible" in this case, literally look up some of his "interesting" quotes that should completely disqualify him in the eyes of anyone who is an actual academic, historian, scholar, etc). As Ostrer is both apparently claiming not only that a social construct like "race" is supposedly real, but also that there is apparently some mysterious actual "Israelite" DNA that can be "verified"! That is in Ostrer's hyperbolic claims that go beyond just speaking about possible linkages to a specific region (i.e. "the Near East", etc etc) but rather even swerve off into literal talk of in this case "ancient Israelites"; I'm surprise he hasn't gone into "Canaanites" or even the people of say "Atlantis" and other mythological ancient populations of which NO genetic material or DNA samples of any kind exist from whatsoever (as anyone who knows anything about academia, or simply is in touch with reality rather than just propagandizing like Ostrer appears to be, likely thumping his Bible the entire time as well!). Unless of course Ostrer himself also secretly has a time machine of some kind and went back in ancient history to collect "DNA samples" (samples from ancient populations that again don't exist, which is why actual sober academics and scholars only speak of REGIONS i.e. "Near East", "Western Asia", etc)! Ostrer's claims (in a newspaper with a clear agenda to push printing them) are an absolutely stunning and vivid example of what Katya Gibel Mevorach discusses in her "Not an Innocent Pursuit: The Politics of a 'Jewish' Genetic Signature"[2]. Ostrer's claims are even more absurd in the light of clear facts that are stated such as (by Robert Pollack here [3]) "there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews. There is nothing in the human genome that makes or diagnoses a person as a Jew". This page should rely on the various academic studies not in placing ridiculous hyperoblic statements from jpost in the start of the article; [4][5]Cityslicker4 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)User:Historylover4 sock--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If the source is a newspaper only then that might indeed not be a strong source, especially if it disagrees with all stronger sources. But I am a bit worried about how most of your explanation is based on your own arguments against the author, not any calm comparison to other published sources. Whatever we think personally about concepts such as race, or studies trying to understand the genetic diversity of long disappeared populations, both of these things appear in serious publications. So because we are not here to report our own opinion, just saying that a source mentions "race" is not a good enough reason to delete mention of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One solution would be to use only original sources and not report from news paper nor blog. I strongly beleive that it would avoid misunderstanding.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds logical. For sure we should avoid blogs, as discussed before, above. Newspapers can have a special use sometimes, because sometimes people's opinions become notable, but otherwise definitely better to use the peer reviewed articles. But note that not all articles are truly peer reviewed. These days some articles that are "published" are published in a sort of draft form, for review.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cityslicker

Is a confirmed sockpuppet of blocked Historylover4 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you cite sources?

I have a study I want to link to, and a corresponding change to the article I want to make. Please help.69.248.98.23 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That question would probably be most appropriate at the WP:TEAHOUSE. --Jethro B 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

remark/question

Obviously European Jews don't have a genetic signature that is endemic to Jews alone, BUT they apparently have signatures that are found mainly in non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations and not European ones. Further, there are European Jews who look quite Middle Eastern, if you haven't noticed. I don't know a whole lot about genetics, but that seems pretty indicative that Middle Eastern origins for European Jews is not just a Biblical myth.69.248.98.23 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is more complicated than that. Using autosomal DNA at least some particular Jewish populations, such as Ashkenazi, can be identified with reasonably high accuracy. But there is not one simple genetic signature for all Jews, and you would not expect one because these are long separated populations. On the other hand this does not mean they do not have the same shared ancestors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• A second point to make is that many populations, including Jews, but also for example most Europeans, show strong signs of Middle Eastern ancestry. The reasons for this will be many and various, and it is so far not easy to tease them all apart.
• As a final point, back to the subject of editing this article, which is what this talk page is for, I notice you made several edits concerning what you apparently think that some published genetics studies said. But your question above makes it appear that you do not know what they said. I'd suggest that you should be please be careful about that. You should not be re-writing reports of published articles to suit what you think they should have said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I know a little about genetics, but not enough that I would call myself an expert on it. Either way, the links to ancient Israel and its surrounding areas can be verified in that modern Jewish populations such as the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, etc share a lot of genetic material with modern day Levantine populations. There are PCA plots (I'll post them later) which show that European/Syrian Jewish populations form a distinct cluster, putting them roughly in between Southern Europeans and the Fertile Crescent.

As for the changes I've made, I was afraid that random fanatics with a political axe to grind would come in and start manipulating it. As I'm sure you have noticed, there is a lot of dogma floating around regarding the origins of Jews, Ashkenazim in particular. I will leave it as it stands, but will nevertheless watch it like a hawk.69.248.98.23 (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, that this is the approach (trying to compensate for what you think are the biases of the rest of the world) which most encourages what you call random fanatics (who are also normally just people with exactly this same idea as you, that they should compensate for bias in others). If you want to discourage that, then try to be as neutral as possible. Otherwise things can quickly spiral out of control.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Need at al

The section written about this study is total misinterpretation.

1. Here is what the study says "Finally, the proximity of the Jewish cluster to the Adygei is of interest, but the small sample size of the Adygei and sparse availability of Central Asian populations makes interpretation of this proximity difficult."
2. and here is what is in article:"Concerning the theory of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazi, the authors found no direct evidence but note that they detected a similarity between the Adyghe people (a group from the Caucasus, but also near the Middle East, whose land was formerly occupied by the Khazars) and Jewish populations studied, as was observed by Need et al. in another study"

It was NOT observed in Need at all study. This do not stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) --Tritomex (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not look at Need, so probably right. Concerning Kopelman, I think the adjustments I already made to the text were in the same direction you are mentioning. I shall look again to see if I can make it clearer. In effect what I think the authors say is that they noticed a bit of information which might be relevant, but they did not take a strong position. Correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

paragraph removed for discussion

I have cut out this paragraph and pasted it here for discussion. It seems to me to be presenting debate between a pre-publication article, and blogs, mixed in with original ideas by Wikipedians:

In August 2012, one genetic study which applied a wide range of population genetic analyses (principal component, bio-geographical origin, admixture, identity by descent, allele sharing distance, and uni-parental analyses) concluded that "our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry".<ref>{{cite journal | author = Eran Elhaik | url = http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1092 | title = The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses | journal = arXiv Quantitative Biology | date = August 2012 }}</ref> In this study, Druze are depicted as exhibiting "a large Turkic ancestry (83%) in accordance with their Near Eastern origin" while "Caucasus Armenian and Georgians were considered Proto-Khazars because they emerged from the same cohort as the Khazars". However, there has been criticism of the study. Hungarians and Romanians are referred to as "Slavic people", while Armenians and Georgians were used as a models of "Proto Khazars" and Palestinians were used as the model of "Proto Judeans".<ref>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/ashkenazi-jews-are-probably-not-descended-from-the-khazars/</ref> While both Armenians and Georgians are Caucasian, West Asian people, they are not considered Turkic, as the Khazars were. By using Palestinians as the models of "Proto Judeans", the authors may have overlooked previous findings of Sub-Saharan and Arab gene flow in to contemporary Palestinian people.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180338/</ref> The data sets were obtained by using samples from previous studies carried out by other authors.

Can any one defend this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that you are right in this assumption, the article is published as we know it, blogs, especially highly specialized blogs from genetic experts, like in this case are reliable sources and are often used as url. Considering original ideas I am not sure if there is any.--Tritomex (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Arxiv does not work like traditional journals. It has a pre-print phase. I remember that when this one came out many blogs remarks that it was hard to know how seriously to take it yet because of this, and so such concerns count double for us because we are writing an encyclopedia.
• And concerning blogs I have a lot of respect for Razib, but he is not an expert for this subject as per our normal strict definitions for using this kind of argument. For example he is not known for publishing in this specific field himself (apart from in blogs etc), and his blog is also not widely cited by any kind of publication except other blogs etc.
• What's more, a lot of the paragraph is from neither of these sources. The whole effect of the paragraph is that it is like a blog itself. I am not saying it is wrong or badly written, just that it is trying to take a side in an argument which is just starting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Which paragraph is not from the cited genetic blog? Off course I would support the removal of such claim. However I would consider the rest fully acceptable. As you know Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, while in this article we heavily relied on primary sources (although generally I consider this article a good one)Razib Khan has academic background in the biological sciences and concerns and errors he pointed out is something that must be dealt with. I support the current form and I suggest the restoration of this section.--Tritomex (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope more people will comment. Just in quick counter reply:

• Secondary sources are preferred. Yes, sort of, but concerning blogs there are also clear guidelines against using them in almost all circumstances. These are not circumstances meeting those normal guidelines.
• And anyway we do not need to cite the blog if we do not cite this pre-print article. And that also seems appropriate. Indeed the spirit of most blog commentary about this pre-print is negative, but interested to see what the final version will be like. So why not wait a while?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as an update I notice that an editor has removed mention of this arxiv preprint from the Khazars article, citing [RSN discussion] about it. So any discussion here should keep in mind that this exact question has already been discussed in other forums.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kopelman on relative similarity

Concerning the Kopelman article I want to note the following series of edits, just to make sure my understanding is clear. I notice that without I think any clear intentions to do so, Tritomex and me are reverting each other, and I am actually trying to get back to what Tritomex's original edit said, which directly quoted the source. I think Tritomex may misunderstand my point.

Source	Version 1 (Tritomex)	Version 2 (Andrew Lancaster)	Version 3 (Tritomex)	Version 4 (Andrew Lancaster)
the Druze, Bedouins and Palestinians are each largely distinct in cluster membership coefficients; the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity to these three Middle Eastern groups than do the European populations other than the Adygei, but they also have greater similarity to the European populations than do the Middle Eastern groups.	Considering the exact place of Jewish population groups (Ashkenazi, Moroccan Tunisian and Turkish Jews) in relation with European population and three Middle Eastern ethnic group (Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins) the authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity to these three Middle Eastern groups than do the European populations"	The authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than the European populations do, and that the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population".	The authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, and that the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population".	The authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than the European populations do, and that the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population".

Does this make sense, or am I missing something? If it is confusing, the whole paragraph probably needs a bit more work. (I think it was more confusing!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In my new edit (not mentioned above) I have removed this complicated sentence and just stuck to saying the same thing in a simpler way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your recent edit is fine I will support your version 4.--Tritomex (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

16:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Occasional (talk)

Concern about interpretation of articles

I share some editors' concern with use of the studies. I'm going back to read the original sources, whose conclusions in the abstracts are more nuanced than the summaries that have appeared in the article. In addition, I've found some other sources: Ostrer and Falk, which appear useful to the discussion. I've made some changes to the Lead to more closely reflect the abstracts, which offer the conclusions of the studies, and am going through the article to try to reflect this as well. There seems to be too much effort to say the studies show mostly Jewish/Levantine origin of maternal populations, which is not the conclusions I read. In addition, Ostrer's book is a summary of 20 years' worth of studies, and has been reviewed in the NY Review of Books, already cited in the article. Richard Lewontin, in "Is There a Jewish Gene?", notes the greater variation in MtDNA than in Y-DNA, and says,

"This is understood by Falk and Ostrer to mean that when the Jews fled ancient Palestine to found the Diaspora, it was not whole families that fled but largely the men, who then found new local mates in the places to which they migrated. Thus, most of the mothers of these founding communities were not themselves Jews but were sources of new genetic variation, and the present genetic variation among Jews is consequently much greater than it was in Palestine three millenia ago."

Parkwells (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely good to have someone going back to the original articles to re-check things in this article. It is the type of article where it needs to be done frequently. Concerning Ostrer and Falk I have a feeling they were discussed here before so you might want to check the talk page archives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest move/renaming

The title would be better as "Genetic studies of Jews", not "on Jews".Parkwells (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds correct to me. Would be good to confirm from more editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews

In the former version of this section it was said “Another study done in 2007 by J. Feder et al. … confirms the hypothesis of the founding of non-local origin”. But the study by Behar on which “the hypothesis” is based says that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Middle East. That leaves the other 60%, at least some of whom may be descended from local women. According to Atzmon et al. “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool, [citing Behar] whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin.” My revision takes this into account, quoting the sentence from Atzmon, and altering the reference to Feder accordingly. Occasional (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No that does not leave 60% out..those 60% "is originated from ~150 women, most of those likely of Middle Eastern origin."--Tritomex (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Occasional (talk) I am afraid I cannot understand your reason for removing my version. According to Behar about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool". That does leave 60%, though of course not necessarily not descended from women of Levantine origin, but I did not say that. I said “at least some of whom might be descended from local women.” I cited Atzmon to the effect that “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool (citing Behar), whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin.” Accordingly I altered the statement that the study by Feder confirms the hypothesis of the “founding of non-local origin” to read, “founding of substantial non-local origin.” And as regards the reference to “little or no gene flow from the local non-Jewish communities in Poland and Russia to the Jewish communities in these countries” I added “This does not exclude gene flow in the earlier history of the Ashkenazi people, in southern and western Europe.” You say with your edit (but not on the talk page) “Findings of Behar concludes that the rest of A. Jews may have originated from 150 woman of Levantine origin.” I have not found that in the Behar article. Is it in another article of his?

Tritomex, As you have not responded to my comment, I have restored my original edit.Occasional (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Occasional, I have red your comment and indeed the findings of Behar and all were modified in 2010. As you will see if you try to find it out,there are numerous article citing 150 woman issue. I will have to look further what exactly happened with the original quote.

However, your current edit is still unacceptable "That leaves the other 60%, at least some of whom might be descended from local women." This can not stand as it represent original reaserch as it is not mentioned anywhere in Behar findings. Considering Atzmon and all “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool (citing Behar above), whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin.” This is acceptable as it is direct quote, yet it goes hand to hand with another sentence "Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in other Jewish populations based on nonoverlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years." However, I still failed to understand why you removed the material which was already in the article with your edit. All the material which is sourced should be restored and merged with your edits, without WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex: Which material do you claim that I removed from the article with my edit? I am not aware of having done so. Given that the section is on Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews, I do not see the relevance of your quotation from Atzmon, “Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in other Jewish populations based on nonoverlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years." Do you not think that this should be removed from the aticle?Occasional (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure weather any secondary quotes from Behar should be used via Atzmon, but if we already did so, I do not see any reason why the mtDNA relationship between Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups should be avoided. Nonoverlapping mitochondrial haplotypes are explaining the mtDNA split between Ashkenazi, Sepharadic and Mizrahi Jews. Therefore their existence among Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews is of primary importance in understanding mt DNA of Ashkenazi Jews.--Tritomex (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Zoossmann-Diskin study

This page should not include a sentence, that apparently is trying to challenge the work of Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. (especially without citing a source for this challenge) [6] And if it must be included, it must include Zoossmann-Diskin's response to this critique (also why aren't similar critiques of Behar included? Such as Behar being critiqued for using small sample sizes). Zoossmann-Diskin himself responses to this issue in the last paragraph of his 2010 research paper's "Comments on Previous Studies"; he writes:

"The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7. Despite the small number of markers the current matrix has the highest correlation with geography. Moreover it has a higher correlation with each of the two other matrices than the two of them have with each other. The high correlations between the current matrix and the other two attest for the robustness of the autosomal genetic distances in this study. The lower correlation between the two matrices, which are based on more than 150,000 SNPs, is surprising and even more so, if we remember that the four non-Jewish populations are represented by exactly the same individuals taken from the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP). It is likely then that sampling more individuals, which represent more of the variation of the investigated populations, is far more important than typing many markers. It is also possible that the typing error rates of genome-wide microarray studies are much higher, as demonstrated by the genotyping errors that were discovered in 7 out of 29 (24%) reexamined SNPs [55]. It seems therefore, that good characterization of the genetic relationships between populations can be achieved by a small number of good unique-event-polymorphisms."

So it is far more complex then simply saying he uses "comparatively less data" or such sentences that some want included in this page. And also a relevant further quote from Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. in his third "Author's Response"; that:

"I am not sure what Dr Ayub means by 'assumed', but I suspect that he means something like the relationships between phenotype and genotype in certain blood groups, in which one (or more) allele is dominant over the other and the gene frequencies of the alleles have to be inferred from the phenotypes assuming Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. In such cases there may indeed be errors in the gene frequencies. Protein electrophoretic markers are completely different. Nothing is inferred! As mentioned in Methods all the protein electrophoretic markers in this study represent a SNP at the DNA level. This SNP causes an amino acid change that can be detected at the protein level. Both alleles are directly viewed on the gel in the same way as both alleles of an RFLP are directly viewed on the gel. Gene frequencies are determined in both cases by simple gene counting and the error rate in protein electrophoresis is no greater than in DNA studies. There is no need to type the same samples for all the polymorphisms, because the unit of study is the population, not the individual. One can use polymorphisms typed by different researchers using different samples and combine them to create a genetic profile of each population. Typing all the polymorphisms on the same sample does not add more credibility to the study. Indeed the renowned works that employed classical autosomal markers to portray the genetic affinities of human populations were based on many different samples typed by many different researchers [56,57]."

So if a critique of Zoossmann is going to be placed in this paper, it should both give Zoossmann's response and these critiques should also be allowed against other studies (such as Behar and small sample size challenges to that individual's work).Youngdro2 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1. What is the source for "limited number of samples?

1. To everyone please avoid criticism of any study study, and ask for consensus prior of editing such details

Best regards --Tritomex (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Zoossmann-Diskin himself writes [7]; "The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7."Youngdro2 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Zoossmann-Diskin goes in-depth on this issue (and if this page is going to include some critiques of him randomly, to be fair it must also then include his response and analysis back!). Again Zoossmann-Diskin states:

"It is likely then that sampling more individuals, which represent more of the variation of the investigated populations, is far more important than typing many markers. It is also possible that the typing error rates of genome-wide microarray studies are much higher, as demonstrated by the genotyping errors that were discovered in 7 out of 29 (24%) reexamined SNPs [55]. It seems therefore, that good characterization of the genetic relationships between populations can be achieved by a small number of good unique-event-polymorphisms."

There was nothing in this paper noting what Zoossmann-Diskin was saying about the value of "good unique-event-polymorphisms" (even if they were a smaller overall number); and again no mention of Zoossmann-Diskin's small sample size critique of Behar and Atzmon's works (who are also cited on this page).

And Dr. Zoossmann-Diskin's third "Author's Response" replying to a certain Dr. Ayub, also debates the topic at hand. [8]

It appears Zoossmann-Diskin's article is being singled out by people who want to try to weaken his conclusions (because they don't agree with them personally or just don't like them for some reason), if some sort of critique is going to be included specifically for this study it both opens the door up to critiques of other work that should be included and also for the fairness the page must then logically include Zoossmann-Diskin's response or it is biased!Youngdro2 (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason for any criticism or rebuttal of this particular genetic studies to be included. --Tritomex (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Youngdro2 - another Historylover4 sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. He did seem particularly suspicious.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Estimated sizes of the "priestly castes" should be noted in this article

This article has long contained the point that, in regards to haplogroup R1a1a (R-M17), that Ashkenazi Levites are thought to make up maybe 4% of the overall Ashkenazi Jewish population. A similar figure should be noted in regards to the Cohanim, as it is noted that [9]

"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million."

"Today, it is estimated that approximately five percent or 350,000 men of the seven million male Jews around the world are kohanim."Youngdro2 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Khazaria com is self published and not a reliable source therefore can not be used for editing this article which, we who were involved in the creating of this huge scholarly work based exclusively on academic papers, kept protected from different low quality materials for years.--Tritomex (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The link I provided, http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html, is simply a page that has simply collected a bunch of sources and pasted quotes/excerpts from these various sources on their own page (so khazaria.com itself is not making these claims, they are simply citing other sources and again giving excerpts from those original sources).

"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million" an excerpt from: Michael F. Hammer, Karl L. Skorecki, Sara Selig, Shraga Blazer, Bruce Rappaport, Robert Bradman, Neil Bradman, P. J. Warburton, Monica Ismajlowicz. "Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests." Nature 385(6611) (January 2, 1997): 32-33.

Again someone should include something about what the estimates are for the amount of Jewish males with the last name Cohen (modern "Cohanim", even though this doesn't play any active role in the modern religion of Judaism today) especially as the section on the Levites again notes that the Ashkenazi Levites are thought to be make up about 4% of the overall Ashkenazi population.Youngdro2 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views" Zoosman Disskin is already mentioned bellow, and as we have 23:1 status regarding the Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups, as per Wikipedia rules this single genetic study can not go in the lead WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well".

Considering analysis of Erhak, it was already discussed on this talk page. As this analysis goes with huge criticism and evident mistakes (see the archives) they were removed by other editors.--Tritomex (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The only "legitimate" reason people gave for not wanting Elhaik's article (that supports the Khazar hypothesis included) was because it was previously only in arXiv and thus only a "preprint" and thus it had not been published by any professional journal, it is now published in a journal and should be included. Again since it is in Genome Biology and Evolution, there is no reason it should not be included (include the critiques of it if you want).

And as for your other claim, it is completely based on Ostrer's claims in a jpost newspaper article (a newspaper with a political axe to grind), and Zoossmann-Diskin's research is a thorough critique of the likes of Ostrer, Hammer, Behar, and Atzmon and Zoossmann-Diskin is in a long running debate especially with the last two (Behar and Atzmon) whom he accuses of having errors from using small sample sizes in particular.[10]Youngdro2 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Zoossmann-Diskin findings can not get equal place as 23 opposite findings.WP:UNDUE -rule. ZD is already mentioned and the fact that his minority are not in line with overwhelming majority view per Wikipedia rule means that he can not be repeated in the same way as those 23 genetic studies summerised in the book of Ostrer. The reference is not Jpost, but the book of Dr. Ostrer Btw ZD wievs are not supported by Atzmon, Nebla, Shen, Semino, Moorijani, Campbel, Ferer, Molutsky, Behar and many others: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."--Tritomex (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Elhaik read the criticism in archives. It is not a genetic study and Elhaik was never involved in any genetic study of Jewish people. In his artickle he described Hungarians as Slavic people and Georgians and Armenians as Proto-Khzars while those two people are non Turkic people. The criticism and factual errors pointed out by other geneticists and non geneticists are also in the archives --Tritomex (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Include critiques of his paper, it was published meaning the journal approved of it and thus it can be cited here. Unless your claiming you can overrule the professional journal Genome Biology and Evolution?Youngdro2 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason why the book "A Genetic History of the Jewish People" was used in this article is because it gives summary of all genetic studies carried out so far, and all genetic studies denied the so called Khazarian Theory, there is a consensus on this issue. Elhaik did not carry out any genetic studies, and there 100s of articles regarding this issue from geneticists in different scientific journals, which are not included in this article. This article is named "Genetic studies on Jews" and Elhaik never participated in any study, he used datas from other geneticists who came to absolutely differnt conclusions with their studies, and he came to conclusion which is not backed up by single genetic study including ZD. Again this is clear example of WP:UNDUE and simply his taught do not equal genetic studies--Tritomex (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You have given no reason for Elhaik's study not to be included, the ONLY reason people wanted it removed in the past was "it is only a preprint on arXiv"[11] it is now published by a professional journal and can be included. Simply cite the critiques of it with its' mention, that is the fair way to present it. As for what you mention from Ostrer again you want something from a journal removed [12], but then a link from jpost newspaper, discussing a book and not including any new research, included even when Ostrer & co.'s conclusions are clearly challenged by Zoossmann-Diskin's research and conclusions! Zoossmann-Diskin critiques the studies that Ostrer and you are mentioning [13]; "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]." [14] "In contrast to the conclusions of several previous studies, there was no evidence for close genetic affinities among the Jewish populations or for a Middle Eastern origin for most of them. Since the study is the first to use only the more reliable protein electrophoretic markers, and an appropriately comprehensive panel of non-Jewish populations, the results are regarded as the most reliable available to date." Include both Zoossmann-Diskin and Ostrer's quotes and let the reader decide.Youngdro2 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the text of this article and don't plan to. I only want to say that the paper of Elhaik is now published by a prestigious scientific journal and it is completely impossible to rule out its inclusion by wikipedia rules. It is obviously admissible, and it is obviously a "genetic study on Jews". Your remaining task is to decide how to include it, that's all. Zero^talk 00:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am personally geneticist and Elhaik did not carry out any genetic study, so his article and analysis has no place in the section regarding actual genetic studies, because it is against all genetic studies (and all genetic studies refuted the Khazarian hypothesis which is considered both by historians and geneticists as falls. Basic WP:UNDUE rule. Considering Zoossmann-Diskin as a legitimate study it is mentioned, yet as his conclusions are backed by ratio 1:23 he does not go in repetition, lead or background again- Basic WP:UNDUE rule

In very shorth term Genetic study means selecting samples, taking their DNA, analyzing them and than giving the results. Elhaik used Behar samples, without any study came to opposite conclusions than he published it. This can not be taken by any rule as same as genetic studies carried out on living persons, and presented in this article. What Elhaik did is an analysis. I can add 101 additional published analysis of different geneticists who used studies and samples of other geneticists. However this is not a place for such things. Also, to repeat Zeero words, "you need consensus to add material to artickle", I hope Zeero it does not imply only in certain issues We had already discussed RS implications. " --Tritomex (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd, "Tritomex" you are now saying you are a "geneticist" and you can supposedly "remove" things as you wish!! As editor "Zero0000" stated "I only want to say that the paper of Elhaik is now published by a prestigious scientific journal and it is completely impossible to rule out its inclusion by wikipedia rules". Again, echoing "Zero0000", the ONLY legitimate reason that was ever being given to not allow Elhaik's study to be included in the past was that it was previously only a preprint in arXiv [15] it is AGAIN now published in as "Zero0000" noted "a prestigious scientific journal" it therefore can be included in this article. It should be quoted and then reviewer's challenging Elhaik should be quoted right after it. As for the other link you defend it is again a NEWSPAPER article from the right wing JPost; again it is shocking you want this included as a supposed "source" on the topic but Elhaik's study in Genome Biology and Evolution [16] supposedly doesn't make the cut for you! And again even what you cited from the newspaper JPost was simply Ostrer speaking on past works (nothing new), what Ostrer was speaking of clearly falls under what Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin was critiquing when Zoossmann-Diskin again wrote "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]." with the [1] standing for this earlier study of Zoossmann-Diskin et al. [17] "Protein electrophoretic markers in Israel: compilation of data and genetic affinities"

And you giving supposed numerical "23 vs. 1" statements, is you just trying to obscure the issue as it relates to Zoossmann-Diskin; and that in no way touches the new research of Eran Elhaik published just this month in what "Zero0000" again calls correctly a prestigious scientific journal.Youngdro2 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason why on this talk page was decided not to include Elhaik (see the archives of this talk page) was that

1. He did mot carry out genetic study, nor he participated in any, but used samples from Behar study with opposite conclusions than Behar

2. This article deals only with ACTUAL GENETIC STUDIES NOT ARTICLES

2.he made mistakes which were obvious for non geneticists in his analysis by referring to Hungarians as Slavic people, and Armenians and Georgians as Turkic people. This was criticized by another geneticists Dr Rhazib Khan.

3. We avoided any criticism of actual genetic studies on this page,Zoossmann-Diskin study is presented here and he can not be put due to WP:UNDUE above or equal with 23 respected genetic studies which came to opposite conclusion than his study. Because his findings, although legitimate and mentioned in this page represent small minority (to be precise single minority) view on this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik's study is again now published in a prestigious journal, it is not just a preprint at arXiv anymore, and as editor "Zero0000" there is thus no legitimate reason for it not to be included in this article; again you should simply put Mr. Khan's and others response to Mr. Elhaik's work after the quotes from Elhaik's study. Zoossmann-Diskin's critiques are again from real studies and papers of his, what you've presented from Ostrer is only being sourced from a political newspaper and provides no new research merely Ostrer commenting on past works that Zoossmann-Diskin heavily critiques as again incorrect [18][19][20]. So you numbering the old studies is really meaningless and doesn't touch the point of Zoossmann-Diskin et al.'s numerous papers critiquing everything that you are mentioning, again with you using JPost newspaper as the "source" while again not wanting something from a scientific journal included in this article [21].Youngdro2 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently I removed Dr. Ostrer book, until all who participated in the debate on this issue will be notified. Although Dr Ostrer is a participant in many genetic studies while Elhaik did not carry out any. This article is about Genetic studies on Jews and not about Genetic articles on Jews especially not such articles whose findings are against all known genetic studies, giving to it by you same weight (or more) than actual genetic studies.Tritomex (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW "numbering the old studies" This is meaningless everyone familiar with population genetics know that all Y and X DNA studies from 2000 are done by same advanced techniques while autosomal studies from 2005 are done by same technique. This studies can differ only on number of locus analyzed beyond this, although this is irrelevant, as all previous 21 studies are correct, at least 2 studies (Campbel and Moorijani) all supporting common Middle Eastern origin of JP, are done after ZD studies. " Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)" Beyond this, this article only presents genetic studies!!

Your attempts to prevent Dr. Eran Elhaik's genetic study from being included in this article shows your activist editing (i.e. not wanting something supporting the Khazarian hypothesis included even though it is published in a prestigious scientific journal now!), you have resorted to claiming your supposedly a "geneticist" yourself and using newspapers while wanting to forbid Elhaik's study from being mentioned even though it is now published in the prestigious journal "Genome Biology and Evolution" [22] as editor "Zero0000" has also noted (showing you have no case to keep it out as it is no longer just a preprint at arXiv again) so your attempts to knock Dr. Elhaik's study see you going against a professional journal that accepted his research paper (but I guess its not a newspaper so I understand!). And your attempts to claim the Khazar hypothesis is supposedly similar to advocates of a "flat earth", just shows how biased you truly are (putting aside the debate around the possible Khazar nature of haplogroups R1a1a/R-M17, Q1b[23], and G2c[24]. And again you have not touched on how the newspaper article you use mentioning Ostrer's book (while showing he has no new research to offer) is in conflict with Zoossmann-Diskin's research which says these studies Ostrer cites are wrong and he (Zoossmann-Diskin) is right [25] "Comments on previous studies" section of this Zoossmann-Diskin article from October 2010; "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]." leading to this next link again from Zoossmann-Diskin et al. [26] and [27]

The simple solution is to just put both the quote you want from Ostrer (even in a newspaper) and then put the conclusions of Zoossmann-Diskin and Zoossmann-Diskin et al. that challenge these past studies (that even you state are what Ostrer is discussing in his book that you link to a newspaper article again for) as well so readers can see the debate between them.Youngdro2 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond dr Ostrer and Zoosman Disskin there are 21 another genetic studies which do not support Zoosman Disskin WP:UNDUE Therefore and because of WP:UNDUE rule, Zoosman Disskin can not go in lead. Also you posted self published blogs as references for Khazarian hypothesis. Khazarian hypothesis is considered scientifically falls, pseudoscientific among other things by all genetic studies carried out so far, without a single exception.Protein electrophoretic markers, blood groups distribution ABO, Rh factor distribution are outdated and unreliable methods and are not part of this article regarding concrete genetic studies (X;Y;Autosomes) --Tritomex (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Elhaik didn't publish a genetic study is one of the most weird and bizarre claims I have seen. Lots and lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else. It's like saying that an atmospheric chemist can't publish a study on the ozone layer unless she personally built the satellites that collected the data. Zero^talk 08:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He did not published a GENETIC STUDY. All the authors in this article are without exception authors of genetic studies which they carried out in different Jewish population groups. No one beside them are here, there are no genetic analysis in this article . No one without this requirement is in this article. As I am a geneticist, I can also publish my analysis of certain genetic issues in scientific magazines. This does not equal a genetic study. To claim that "lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else" in genetics is true only for law quality analyses- Nowhere in genetic science there is equality between a genetic analyses and a genetic study. There are thousands of other genetic analysis and certainly hundreds of articles on this subject. To pick up up one article and the only one which tells the opposite from all REGULAR GENETIC STUDIES and to include it in article with same weight as regular genetic studies( and in this article there are only regular genetic studies) would be a serious violation of WP:UNDUE All huge genetic studies involving tens of thousands of participants have identical conclusion and they can not be made equal with this article claiming the opposite. If this two would be equal why would anyone waste millions of dollars for regular genetic study if equal "scientific study" can be done at home on PC with sensationalistic outcome contrary to all known facts from genetic science. To analyze one medicine impact, and to present your findings after serious clinical trials is not the same as to discuss and study its ingredients without any clinical trial and to present your own view about this medicine. --Tritomex (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this argument is empty of content. I am not a geneticist, but I am a scientist and I know how science is done. Data collection and data analysis are the two parts of an experiment and there is no reason whatever they have to be done by the same person. Very VERY frequently, they are not. Zero^talk 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can any drug be introduced without clinical trials based on samples used in clinical studies which came to the conclusion that the drug is toxic, after further in vitro analysis by third person?

This article covers only authors and their genetic studies and all of this genetic studies came to opposite conclusion than Elhaik genetic analysis. There are hundreds of articles and analysis in numerous genetic journals, widely cited genetic books like for example The Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA By Tony Nick Frudakis (see page 383) which are all exuded from this article based on the fact that they are not genetic studies. It would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE to select the single article whose conclusions are in collisions with all genetic studies, (even in collision with the results of study whose samples Elhaik used-Behar used 100K loci in oreder to avoid selective interpretations,) without a single exception and while presenting at as equal to other regular genetic studies involving thousands of people and enormous work, exuding all other genetic analysis which clearly have consensual and widely supported results in all genetic studies carried out.--Tritomex (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, still no content. Do you have an actual argument for excluding this reliable source? Where is it? Zero^talk 08:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Again along with you claiming to be a "geneticist" yourself, you seem to be implying "we should just quote Behar" even though there is a clear challenge to the claims you are presenting. [28] "The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7." and regarding the "past studies" you speak hyperbolically about so much again [29] "The discriminant analysis resulted in only two Jewish populations, from Iraq and Yemen, being classified within the Middle Eastern group. According to their genetic distances, no particular genetic similarity was observed between the various Jewish study populations. Conclusions : In contrast to the conclusions of several previous studies, there was no evidence for close genetic affinities among the Jewish populations or for a Middle Eastern origin for most of them. Since the study is the first to use only the more reliable protein electrophoretic markers, and an appropriately comprehensive panel of non-Jewish populations, the results are regarded as the most reliable available to date."

Present quotes of people challenging Zoossmann-Diskin's or Elhaik's work after they are quoted, just like critiques of Behar and company have to be included as well. Your claims about "undue" are really just a smokescreen trying to prevent studies you don't want mentioned from being mentioned!Youngdro2 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And "The claim that Elhaik didn't publish a genetic study is one of the most weird and bizarre claims I have seen. Lots and lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else. It's like saying that an atmospheric chemist can't publish a study on the ozone layer unless she personally built the satellites that collected the data." Zero0000 you are completely correct, in the past the charge against Elhaik's research was again "well it can't be included because it is only a preprint on arXiv" [30] and certain people even conceded "it can be used if it is accepted by a journal" which it was again this month (December 2012) by prestigious Genome Biology and Evolution [31]. And now editor "Tritomex" is saying even though it is in a prestigious journal (when he was in the past wanting to use newspaper links as a source) "it is not a 'study' thus it cannot be included!" this is really very odd and fallacious on his part as you, Zero0000, have noted. Also now "Tritomex" is basically trying to cite HIMSELF as a "source" and saying that supposedly "Protein electrophoretic markers, blood groups distribution ABO, Rh factor distribution are outdated and unreliable methods" we have to go with what journals and scientists have said [32] not what this individual editor is claiming!Youngdro2 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article for genetic analysis and articles regarding Jewish people. There is no even a section where such analysis can be included, to present it as autosomal genetic study is WP:OR beyond WP:UNDUE.Protein electrophoretic markers, blood group distribution, Rh factor measurement is not part of this article. Wikipedia can not be used as mirror source for Wikipedia articles. Anthropological blogs too, beyond this anthropology has nothing to with this subject. All the rest of facts I already stated above --Tritomex (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to exclude a relevant, reliably published, source on spurious grounds is noted. You didn't succeed. Zero^talk 09:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

User Youngdro2 is engaing in WP:VAN (vandalism) of this article. When I introduced an WP:RS to the article regarding Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, you removed it Zeero, claiming that there is need for consensus to be included. In this case, at least consensus is needed to include articles and analysis beyond genetic studies. There is no such thing here, and to pick up one among hundreds which tells the opposite from all regular genetic studies, to declare it equal with genetic studies is violation of WP:UNDUE --Tritomex

There are a lot of misconceptions making sensible discussion difficult in the above thread. Both sides of the discussion are wikilawyering, trying to veto all consideration of the concerns of the other side, rather than trying to find a practical compromise. I shall list a few:

• There is nothing at all in WP policy which says we should only mention sources which are primary sources for raw findings, in fact where possible we should prefer the opposite. But in genetics this is not really practical.
• There is no rule which says we need to use any particular source just because it is reliable.
• There is nothing stopping us from including mention of minority opinions, and in fact we should do so in many cases.

I personally find ZD's article a bit extreme in his conclusions, but also I find that he makes some criticisms of the mainstream which are valid and worth mentioning. (Which is what I tried to do when his article first came up for debate.) Population genetics is a small field and so a majority opinion might mean just a few scholars. So we should be careful about labeling any dissenters as whacky fringe authors. Anyway, the main point is that you all need to listen to each other's real concerns and try to find a way to cover the concerns of others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, he is one of the main contributor to this article. Although we had occasionally some disputes we managed to overcome them quickly. The only thing I would like to add, is that we are having now 20+ (X, Y, Autosomes) genetic studies related to this question, which is not small number and it makes Jews the most genetically studied population.--Tritomex (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is now plenty of data, and the discussion comes down to how to interpret it. My feeling is that if you read all the articles properly there is a lot of common ground, but emphasis on different observations. For example ZD is apparently quite right about saying that both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are closer to Italians than many modern Middle Eastern populations. This is a remark worth noting, but there are also many more worth making, and what they actually mean is still not totally clear. The Middle East is a very complex and large region which CONTAINS the Caucasus, so all such observations need to be compared and weighed. Unfortunately we have no authoritative secondary sources to helps us do this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

After Youngdro2/historylover4 has been identified as a vandal sockpuppet specifically targeting certain articles, this talk page should be restored to its original purpose by removing his baseless allegations.--Tritomex (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the Elhaik research is covered in some length in a recent Haaretz article [33]. I think it is becoming impossible to justify censoring any discussion of it from the article. Dlv999 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There was never any justification for excluding it. Zero^talk 02:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Elhaik has published the referees' comments on his paper [34]. For those who don't know how it works, when the author submits a paper to the journal, the editor sends it to some number of referees whom the editor judges as qualified to assess the quality of the paper. The identities of these referees are not usually disclosed to the author. Depending on the journal and the nature of the referees' comments, the author might be asked to respond to them in addition to editing his/her paper on the basis of them. Zero^talk 04:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What Youngdro2/historylover4 tried to do here is to include Elhaik article in autosomal genetic studies section. This article do not deals with journals or articles. It covers only genetic studies. There are hundreds of articles regarding genetic studies on Jews, most if not all in line with actual findings of this 23 studies. So as not a single article beside genetic studies have been included, the same pattern goes for Elhaik. There is simply no section in this article for genetic articles and personal views. Otherwise at least 100 additional articles could be included as well. Sensationalist articles full of evident errors, can not be pushed in scientific academic article like this one only because of political consideration, because there are as I said 100 additional articles on this subject which are not included because they also do not represent genetic studies, although they go in line with the findings of genetic science . --Tritomex (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't anything to do with Youngdro2. It is only to do with someone trying to exclude a reliable source that obviously belongs here. Also read WP:OWN, you are not entitled to decide by yourself what this article covers. Zero^talk 08:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not belong to the page of Genetic Studies on Jews, as it is not a genetic study. I can list here numerous other genetically related articles, all refuting the pseudohistoric so called Khazarian theory, yet this academic articles did not cover personal observations and articles based on such personal analysis. It has well defined sections for years: x, y, autosome studies of different Jewish groups. WP:OWN goes for everyone. --Tritomex (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Try and come up with a serious, policy-based argument. You appear, over a range of articles, to be trying to exclude any source which disagrees with your personal convictions about the lay of the land. This is science reportage, not faith-based POV pushing. What you call 'pseudo-historic' happens simply to be a theory, with respectable support from a wide variety of scholars, that may point in the right or wrong direction. At this stage in the discipline there are no 'refutations' available: there are only numerous provisory studies, often in conflict with one another, and often displaying a shaky hold on the historical and analytical problems which arise from inferences of selective readings of partial evidence.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Elhaik didn't do a genetic study is, for want of a better word, fatuous. Anyone can read the paper to see that he did. He took a large amount of raw genetic data (X, Y, and autosomal) and studied it using methods partly standard and partly innovative and came to different conclusions from those of other scientists. That happens sometimes. So far the only real argument presented is that Tritomex doesn't like it but, as Nishidani correctly states, arguments should be based on policy. My argument is that the source meets WP:V without the slightest doubt and its exclusion from the article without an adequate case is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. My argument does not in any way imply that I believe Elhaik's conclusions, nor is that relevant. (But now having improperly raised the issue: personally I think Sand is correct that the whole subject is saturated with ideology and can't be trusted. I'll start taking these studies seriously when they are blinded; i.e., the person drawing conclusions from the data should not know which data group belongs to which population group.) Zero^talk 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not political article and I do not understand why some editors involved in editing Palestinian-Israeli conflict who didn't took part in the writing of this scientific article, or as in case of Nishadani clearly stated that are not familiar with population genetics, nor they believe in that science (Ashkenazi Jews, talk page) are collectively trying now to force in something that is not genetic study, to present it as genetic study, promoting it to the rank of other genetic study or present a single view contra all genetic science. as a dispute. This has clearly political and not scientific repercussion. In this case this is clearly a WP:UNDUE issue.

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views

Genetically related articles

1.Analysis of Jewish genomes refutes the Khazar claim. [35]

2. New York Times [36]

3. Scientific journals [37]

4. Population genetic academic books [38] and 5. [39]

6. Jewish DNA [40]

7. Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Mark Avrum Ehrlich p 275

8. Jews having common genetic origin [41]

9. Hebrew university genetic database [42]

10-[43]

11. Nature magazine [44]

There are about 80 similar articles, books and analysis. However only genetic studies have been written in this article. User Zeero comment "the whole subject is saturated with ideology and can't be trusted. I'll start taking these studies seriously when they are blinded; i.e., the person drawing conclusions from the data should not know which data group belongs to which population group." is WP:OR "Innovative techniques" applications and using other authors samples are not standard procedures in genetic science and can not be presented as such, nor the "alternative" has equality with "standard" anywhere in medicine.--Tritomex (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors who took part in writing this article should/will be notified. If non genetic study articles shell be introduced, due to WP:UNDUE artificial disputes can not be created with a single view against entire genetic science in this question (23 genetic studies). --Tritomex (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You're having trouble focusing. You consistently misrepresent what your interlocutors say. Read my contributions. They are not restricted to the I/P area and have little generally to do with politics. I never said I was unfamiliar with population genetics. I nowhere state that I disbelieve in that science. Scientists don't 'believe', by the way. On the Ashkenazi Jews page, which has nothing primarily to do with genetics, you massively deleted anything that contradicted your own reading of a selective numbers of genetic papers, irrespective of whether the evidence was genetic (Zoossmann-Diskin/Elhaik), linguistic or historical. It will take a while for the article to recover from the damage you created.

None of your objections to Elhaik (or Zoossmann-Diskin, or Jits van Straten, etc.etc.) concerning 'standard procedures in genetic science' relate to policy. As an editor, in making these claims, you are breaking wiki protocols about neutrality, by making personal judgements about peer-reviewed scientific work. In evaluating the status of scientific work, our only guide, whatever our professional background, is what other published, area-specialists and scholars say. Nothing of what we privately think is acceptable.

You raise WP:Undue. That cannot be used to exclude genetic papers that arrive at different conclusions from those you prefer. The 23 sources or 80 books and articles you keep citing cover nuanced, often reciprocally challenging material in a debate that is new, and far too early to establish a consensus, particularly since many of the historical inferences made by those papers are by geneticists who appear to have a frail grasp of the ongoing historical and linguistic debates. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It will take me a while to get up to speed on this discussion, but for now I will chime in and say that Zoossmann-Diskin's study does not belong in the LEDE. It is the only study out of about 30 on this page that does not support a Middle Eastern origin for all Jewish groups, which clearly renders it a fringe, minority viewpoint and should not be given any undue weight by including it in the intro.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is your peer-reviewed source saying that Zoossman-Diskin's work is a 'fringe, minority viewpoint'? At the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which I helped get to FA status, this sort of judgement and description of a theory or academic paper had to be backed up by several sources to be taken seriously. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." And seeing as ZD's study is the only one here that asserts that Jews do not share a common Middle Eastern origin, it is a minority viewpoint and thus should not be given undue weight. Leave it in the main article, if you wish. It does not belong in the LEDE, though.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Zoosman Diskin is not subject here, he was subject at AJ. There is a consensus among geneticist that the Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews is scientifically established.[45] 22 out of 23 genetic studies confirms this fact, including those carried out this year. All academic books from population genetics stand by this line, so you should not mix politics with this issue nor can anyone artificially create an impression like there is no overwhelming majority view on this subject and this view is based on huge scientific research which clearly supports the Middle Eastern origin of AJ. Concerning your allegations against me that "I massively deleted anything that contradicted my selective readings" on another article, it was you Nishadani who censored and massively deleted WP:RS from the articles regarding Al Husseini, in clearly selective way, as nothing which you saw as problematic to your personal political view was allowed in those articles.In the same way you have been accused by another editor at Jerusalem talk page for politically motivated biased editing. However what is the most strange is that you stated on AJ talk page, that you are a)unfamiliar with population genetics b) that you don't believe that population genetic findings are scientific.(something similar was said by another editor on this talk page today) Still and despite this you are coming to population genetics articles selectively picking up certain claims and than trying to force them over. --Tritomex (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand wikipedia editorial obligations, citing this for the view that there is a scientific consensus. That phrasing nowhere appears on page 383, and the author Frundakis speaks of appears hypothesis, etc. as is proper in provisory results of a scientific study. Please supply the RS that support your assertion (2( supply an RS that supports your otherwise WP:OR assertion that '22 out of 23 genetic studies confirms this fact.' Neither your personal beliefs or professional background are proof of anything. The only thing that counts is RS that back up one's assertions, and, as in this case, you consistently fail to provide them, as opposed to providing your personal opinions about the consensus you see in those sources. (3)What's al-Husseini got to do with this. I wrote a large part of the article, and it is closely watched by highly informed experts on the period who only use, like myself, RS. I, and they, only remove whatever cannot be substantiated by academic RS. Repeating hysterical innuendo and rumours is not material to the specific objections both I and Zero and a few others have raised. Please review wiki policy on WP:OR and WP:RS, and get back with the information asked of you. Please give the diffs for your assertion I said (a) I am unfamiliar with population genetics (b) I don't believe that population genetic findings are scientific. Now back to my dinner table. My guest is, funnily enough, a top-ranking biologist, and she even happens to come from the ME, in theory. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Its very nice that you describe yourself as a "highly informed expert" on Al Husseini, however my reference which you censored was an academic historian and WP:RS. Its also very honest that you admitted that genetic is not your field and regarding this I can fully support you. The pattern of commenting other articles was not introduced to this talk page by me, but by you. I do not need to repeat this 23 genetic study, nor to summarize them by third source, they are mentioned in this article and their conclusions are already presented in this article. Everyone can see with basic logic that genetic science has consensus on this issue. This is also specifically stated in books of Jon Entine, Tony Nick Frudakis, Dr Harry Ostrer, Amos Morris-Reich, Mark Avrum Ehrlich, Arno Gunther Motulsky, based on scientific genetic studies of Behar, Nebla, Shen, Thomas, Semino, Atzmon, Moorijani, Campbel, Hammer and others. As all of this authors without exception (both in genetic studies and in academic books from the field of population genetic) have unequivocally determined that all major Jewish groups have common Middle Eastern origin, I do not see how this fact can be WP:OR.--Tritomex (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(a)'Everyone can see with basic logic that genetic science has consensus on this issue.'

I.e. you cannot come up with an RS which backs your own inference that there is a consensus. Please stop talking about a scientific consensus if you cannot find any textual evidence in the relevant literature for the phrasing or idea.

I wrote a large part of the article, and it is closely watched by highly informed experts on the period who only use, like myself, RS.

and you infer that I am describing myself

as a "highly informed expert" on Al Husseini,

Okay. I guess half the problemn is that you clearly haven't a strong grasp on the English grammar, and therefore do not understand often what people are writing.

'experts on the period who only use, like myself, RS' means I exclude myself from being 'a highly informed expert on al-Husseini' (unlike say Pluto and Zero, or even Greyshark). Since this is obviously the sense, and you fail to see it, it's probable that language difficulties account for your repeated apparent refusal to see the point.

Perhaps that is why you have for the third time, failed to respond to both what Zero and I have asked, and simply repeated your position. It's no fault if you cannot understand what is asked of you in a foreign language. It is a fault if you persist in reciting a set piece about what you think in the face of repeated requests for policy-based arguments. It's called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani I have no intention to be provoked further in fruitless discussion, especially about population genetics where you admitted your lack of expertise. All the references and WP:RS, are mentioned in this article, (I will not repeat them daily on personal requests) you can also find them at Ashkenazi Jews talk page. Nothing that I edited came without reliable source or against Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your concern regarding my linguistic skills, I speak many languages and I understand you perfectly.Tritomex (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, you don't understand me, and haven't over several articles, because you radically misconstrued a straightforward sentence, transforming a phrase implying deference to editors better informed than I, into a boast of being an authority, i.e. totally inverting its meaning. I'm not the problem. The issues I raise have been raised by other editors, some with a far better scientific background than I have, and a stronger grasp of wikipedia policy than I can claim to have.

You still fail to get the point, and refuse to construe the plain meaning of English sentences which request information from you, hitherto lacking, which show you understand wikipedia policy. Several of your articles are not compliant with WP:RS (Simple to Remember.Judaism online' and its article by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman). I have no trouble in following the technical arguments in these papers. I have, at the same time, no evidence you are a geneticist, no evidence you understand scientific method, no evidence you understand the internal contradictions in the highly nuanced and often conflicting results of the 23 papers you cite (and which I have read), no evidence you understand relevant imput from contiguous, and related disciplines on historical origins, linguistic evidence. Most of the evidence suggests the contrary, i.e., that you have difficulty in understanding the implications of what is a WP:OR set of assertions that govern your evaluation of text.

You are consistently holding out against papers written by accomplished geneticists, whose conclusions are not those you privately entertain. Unless you can show peer criticisms of their conclusions, and peer comments in RS that affirm that, as of 2012, there is such a thing as 'scientific consensus' none of your objections hold.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First off all comment on content, not on the contributor per WP:NPA.Second one paper even by expert on the field can't cancel all other pappers that have diamatrically opposed opinion.Per WP:UNDUE we shouldn't include this report as it WP:FRINGE minority opinion.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, if you wish to be credible, don't play policy games by ignoring every violation of policy except what you think is the case in edits by people with whom you customarily disagree. For the record Tritomex engages in WP:CANVASS and, sure enough, Evildoer shows up and backs him. As to WP:NPA, out of the blue Tritomex first asserted my interest here is motivated by politics (b) then Tritomex asserted I don’t know what I am talking about (c) then asserted I don’t believe in population genetics, and refused to give a diff for this queer notion. (d) then asserted I maintained I was a highly informed expert on al-Husseini, when I said exactly the opposite. These all personalized what was a legitimate request for sour4ces.(e) Further he has consistently engaged in in WP:OR and WP:BLP violations, as when he commented on Eran Elhaik’s peer reviewed scientific paper as an example of Sensationalist articles full of evident errors, can not be pushed in scientific academic article like this one only because of political consideration. He is boasting of his authority as a geneticist, an unprovable claim, and pushing an agenda. It is not a personal attack to note that he refuses to listen, and provides no evidence for what he claims. Let's focus on the issues, please.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point to any source evidence that you have supporting your claim that this study is considered "fringe". It has been published in an appropriate peer reviewed scholarly journal and has been given coverage by mainstream news media. Censoring this study from the article and presenting the false idea that there is unanimous agreement in the genetic research is highly misleading and contrary to core policy of the encyclopedia (see WP:NPOV).

The haaretz article say it quite clearly "Similar research conducted by other scholars, some of whom are celebrated professors in Israel and other countries, presents very different results." and then it continue to say that "The only scholar who agreed to give his opinion (and did so with great enthusiasm ) was Tel Aviv University professor of history Shlomo Sand, " and Sand not even a geneticist.So no geneticist have agreed with this research hence is a WP:FRINGE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is, frankly, bizarre logic. 'Different results' from peers does not mean that the new research by Elhaik is, ipso facto fringe. (b) that only Sand responded, means geneticists in Israel withheld their critical opinion from the press (c) which means that we, as wiki editors, cannot then conclude, as you do, that 'no geneticist has agreed with Elhaik's research'.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, how are Sand's views not marginal when you consider the bulk of contrasting opinion? Ankh.Morpork 17:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing Elhaik's appropriateness at this juncture, are we not?Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishadani For the record "I did not asserted that you don’t believe in population genetics, and refused to give a diff for this queer notion" as you yourself in clear example of WP:OR stated this:

[46] To quote you "I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians." With this kind of editing you violated also WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It is not important what editors thinks or feel about population genetic. You may be "completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history," yet population genetics is a scientific method in determining historic origin and you can not derogate its importance by your personal feelings. You went further in WP:OR by claiming "What geneticists define as 'Jewishness' in Europe relates to male founder genes, the paternal lineage in Y-DNA." [47] Although no such thing exist anywhere in population genetics, as the Middle Eastern origin of Jews is autosomal, x and Y related as well. Again you returned to WP:OR with claim "In my family, we also have a genes that are Jewish markers, which however, since we have a fair understanding of logic, does not mean we originated in the Middle East, since by the same logic, giving three centuries of documented history, we originated from Brittany, Ireland, Wales, England, Spain, Italy, and Goan India, with genic imput from all those populations. What these geneticists keep doing to define the Jewish type"[48] I have to inform you that in population genetics, there are no such things as "genes that are Jewish markers," nor Jewish type So this highly insulting racial comment can be justified only with your lack of basic knowledge from population genetics. With your comment describing me as a "wild editor with a POV battle mentality messes with a text, while others assist, help revert, use the talk page to challenge the lone editor, with never a peep about the bullshit the wild card throws." you violated WP:CIVIL the same goes for your reply here [49]. In both Ashkenazi Jews and here, you came back soon after hisotylover4 and his sock puppets were caught, practically reinstalling/reaffirming his editions with different wording which were as per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE irrelevant to this academic article, with the attempt to create artificial dispute about something that is not disputed in population genetics. Informing other editors in neutral way about ongoing discussion involving their edits in not WP:CANVASS--Tritomex (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As I say, you can't read English closely and this generates numerous misprisions in your understanding both of sources and what others say.

A pointer, one of many possible ones, on how not to construe elementary English.

I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians.

(a)does not allow you to infer, and repeatedly say, that the meaning is: Nishadani clearly stated that are not familiar with population genetics, nor they believe in that science.'

Where in that sentence do I state that I am unfamiliar with population genetics, and disbelieve that discipline? I am saying nothing about genetics: I am stating my scepticism about geneticists stepping outside their discipline to make arguments about another discipline, namely historiography. Peer-reviewed geneticists have RS credibility as geneticists, not historians, as peer-reviewed historians have RS competence as historians, not geneticists. Sometimes you have dual competence, as with C.D. Darlington, or Jits van Straten, but the geneticists you cite, if you check the historical books in their bibliographies, use dated or unreliable sources for their history, and make frequent errors, as many reviews have shown.

(b)'You protest my writing:'What geneticists define as 'Jewishness' in Europe relates to male founder genes' and call me a racist who insults Jews.

Here you fail to understand what geneticists define as 'Jewishness'. I am not using that language, the view is not therefore mine. If you have a problem with this take it up with Harry Ostrer, whose work you keep citing, or with experienced science reporters who report him saying that markers on the DNA reveal "a biological basis for Jewishness,"..

Reflect on this. You keep screwing up the obvious meaning of sentences. It's a reportable offence to do this when one of the consequences of your failure to understand my English is that you imdulge in wildly false accusations that a reasonable editor, making reasonable remarks, is an antisemite. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Ostrer himself says that in his book, right in the preface: "I published a scientific article that demonstrated a biological basis for Jewishness" (p. xiii). And on page 217: "The evidence for biological Jewishness has become incontrovertible." One can find more nuanced statements too, but the way he chooses to summarise his position is telling. That goes for Elhaik too, who is more black and white in his Haaretz interview than in his paper. Zero^talk 02:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that your comments have been "misunderstood" by editors from English speaking countries as well, especially when you in reply to jethro spoke about "your Jewish genome". [50] When your Jewish genome has 30-60% European admixture..., I missed previously in your comment when you described genetics and genetic science results as based on (through remarkable extreme example of WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation) "quasi racial stereotypes of the Jew" To quote you "by geneticists, who ignore that their results, based on a quasi-racial stereotyping of the Jew are not compatible with halakhic law which defines 'Jews' by different descent criteria. That is why I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians" [51] So you can not edit population genetic articles by believe that this science is based on "quasi racial stereotypes of the Jew" with WP:OR inventions of "Jewish genes" and "Jewish types" and by entitling yourself to be "indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history" because of your personal attitude, believes and feelings. Your comments regarding "Jewish genes" "Jewish types" and "Jewish geneome" show lack of basic understanding of population genetics. The common Middle Eastern origin of Jews is not based on any "Jewish genes, Jewish types or Jewish genome" but on shared Middle Eastern haplogroups, haplotipes and mutation which Jews share with the rest of population from the area of their origin. Human population genetics is a precise science which among other things do explore human origin, migrations and admixture and explains historic events from natural and medical point of view. As I said your believe that you can edit population genetic articles whith attitude of being "indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history " or with POV that genetic science results are based on "based on a quasi-racial stereotyping of the Jew" is violation of Wikipedia rules.--Tritomex (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Second pointer on the niceties of English usage, concerning your as in 'your Jewish genome'.

'Your' is not possessive in this idiom, (your house): it means 'the one you or we' have in mind. 'Your Jewish genome' means 'the genome you or we or the texts we are discussing are speaking about'. You can see this at an instant if I change the phrase and provide a parallel: if I say your average guy, I am not (as even Jethro thought) referring to you, a person, but to 'average guys' as the topic of conversation. One of the reasons this place is dysfunctional is that people don't understand simple grammar any more. The stupidity of trying to say I violate WP:OR or WP:NPOV on the talk page, when those rules govern what we edit into the articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've had coffee. What is particularly shameful in your inability to follow an argument is that my words expressing total scepticism about the idea of 'racial stereotyping', the existence of a 'Jewish type' or a 'Jewish genome' (read elements of the genome cited to mark a Jewish type) are being misconstrued to attribute to me a pseudo-belief in the existence of such stereotyping hogwash. If you read in context you will see that. If you google for word-clusters out of context, while ignoring grammar or misapprehending it, you won't. End of argument.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not say that we only explain the majority viewpoint and censor mention of any alternative viewpoints. It says we represent all significant viewpoints that have been published in RS. Elhaik is an expert in the appropriate field working at a prestigious University known for the quality of its scientific research. His study was published in an appropriate peer reviewed journal by Oxford University press. One of the peer reviewing academics described the study as "more profound than all the previous studies on the ancestry of the Jewish people". [52] The study has also received coverage in mainstream news media. This is not a fringe theory, presenting the idea that there is a universal consensus on this issue is misleading. Dlv999 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. So where in the article should it go? Elhaik considered all of X, Y and autosomal, so it doesn't match the structure too well. Zero^talk 02:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the discussion, that with 4 editors objecting the inclusion of something that is not genetic study, a fringe theory which is even by the Haaretz source recognized as not supported by any geneticists + all other facts pointed out by AnkhMorpork, Shirke ,Evildoer187 and myself, you do not have consensus to include this i in the article about Genetic Studies on Jews. Tritomex (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(a)it is a genetic study, and you alone persist in denying the evidence of the source itself. I.e. you defy commonsense in plain sight (b) you have no RS defining Elhaik's work as a 'fringe theory' (b) the Haaretz source does not say it is not supported by geneticists: it said geneticists refrained from being interviewed. (c) AnkhMorpork, Shirke (sic: check the dictionary),Evildoer187 have made no serious policy-based arguments so far.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that Nishidani is the one who made the "Palestinian" people "article" claim that the Arabian colonists are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Since he got away with adding that disgusting nonsense, it is no surprise that he is trying to screw up this article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.193.3.19 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You should have written, 'It should be noted that when repeated attempts were made to deny that the Palestinian people (Jews, Christians, Muslim) were indigenous to the area, 'Nishidani' found several academic sources which held that view, and added them to the page.' There is nothing 'disgusting' about following policy, and writing articles according to RS input. I don't think I have edited this page. My brief here as elsewhere is to ensure that all parties are duly represented through what is said of their claims in scholarly literature. When I found a source noting that the Palestinian population of Hebronwas in good part of late Bedouin (Arab) extraction, I added it. When I found two sources asserting that Hebron's Palestinians are said to have a a tradition of hostility to Jews, I added it. I don't cherry pick what I read to promote propaganda. Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Editor on this thread. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zero^talk 09:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion there is trending toward inclusion of Elhaik's paper because it is published in a respected journal and it was peer-reviewed. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think indeed that the discussion is heading towards inclusion, meaning that what is needed is better discussion about how to make short neutral summaries of published papers. There is little chance that the Wikipedia community will give a black and white ruling that will avoid this. I would like to make a suggestion (I do not have much time for editing at the moment): I think that the hard core of most of the published articles is much closer than is being made out by disputants on this talk page. Maybe this can be made clearer if editors of this article keep a clearer separation of data and interpretations in their minds, and in this article. For example it does not seem controversial that Sephardi and Ashkenazi cluster (a) together, (b) between Europeans and Middle Easterners (and Caucasians) (c) close to some Italian populations. Such things give a solid starting point? Some of the speculations about what this mean can then simply be listed without comment? We should all admit that there are very valid concerns coming from the fact that basically all such published speculations have tended to ignore certain data and focus on others. We can not start commenting on this ourselves but we should keep such valid concerns in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Another proposal: start making concrete editing proposals, section by section or even sentence by sentence if necessary, and make sure these are reasonable (not including some reasonable things, with other unreasonable things). I think all editors will be surprised how successful this strategy can be for achieving all the most important aims they have!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the "discussion is heading towards inclusion" nor that it is the purpose of that discussion. Fringe Theories Noticeboard has another important mission independent from the discussions going on this talk page.--Tritomex (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and concerning that specific mission it is clear no commenters think the proposed source article is fringe (which does not tell us exactly how to weight it), but the discussion did not stick to that mission. One of the biggest themes of discussion is how difficult it is to define a mainstream (or non mainstream) position in this particular type of literature, which is what makes weighting discussions difficult (but everyone seems to be against giving this article a weight of zero). Anyway, all my main points above remain worth considering in my humble opinion:

• It is best to make concrete and practical editing suggestions on this article talkpage. That is how to get the weight right. (My proposal is to give a LOW BUT NON-ZERO WEIGHT to all the speculative theories from all the sources. Focus more on objective things like data, clustering, etc.)
• Consider the concerns of others (in as far as they are within WP policy), and make practical compromises. (Several comments on the noticeboard pointed out that removing mention of a peer reviewed article would turn this article into one which violates policies such as WP:SYNTH and WP:NEUTRAL. That is a valid concern so just try to make editing proposals which keep that concern in mind.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Agricolae, Mangoe and Dougweller made points on this question which I support. Also as the discussion is ongoing there this is opportunity to attract broader audience to this question. My proposal is to wait until that process is finished, although I support your proposal, if I understood it correctly, to regulate further editing of this article through consensus on this talk page.--Tritomex (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the purpose of the noticeboard listing was to obtain the opinion of uninvolved editors. So it is not ok to ignore it. Zero^talk 13:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but to be honest I do not see any indication that anyone who responded sees any validity to calling the article "fringe". All other issues raised seem to be more concerning other matters?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. With only rare exceptions, the opinions of involved editors was either that it is not fringe or that the whole article needs rewriting or deleting. Zero^talk 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, take a look for example on this comment [53] although concerning myself this was primarily WP:UNDUE issue. Beyond those whom I already mentioned, I do agree with Shrike position as well.--Tritomex (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Noted. There was a "fringe" who thought it was fringe. :) Anyway in practical terms as you know I agree that the article takes a minority position but nearly every author group on this subject (and there are not many) takes a different position on interpretation fine points. So I think the bigger concern is that our article needs to focus mostly on what is common ground: do Ashkenazi cluster with Sephardi? Yes, all agree. Do they both cluster between various European and Middle Eastern groups (and Caucasians are in between these two also). Yes, all agree. What does this prove? Well it suggests that Ashkenazi and Sephardi have common ancestry. It suggest that like most people in the Mediterranean, Europe, Middle East and Caucasus, that this ancestry was a mixture of some un-named Middle Eastern and European populations who are also ancestral to many other peoples. Going beyond that is hard. By the standards of Mangoe everything is "fringe".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

i see that the fringe discussion is closed. How are we proceeding? I certainly think that a peer reviewed article belongs here.Do not collect (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC) blocked sock of banned user

Considering the question wetter this genetic studies named the Middle Eastern population from whom the contemporary Jewish population derived yes they do. Hammer named it in 2000, Behar named it in 2010, Atzmon named it, Frudakis, Moorijani named it, and academic books do name it. So this question is not hypothetical. Genetic science is very precise science and it goes hand in hand with history. We know exactly what are on one hand the genetic composition of Turkic people like Khazaks and we know on another hand the genetic composition of non Turkic Caucasian people like Armenains or Georgians, who share both European and Asian admixture . The common ancestry question is as much relevant to population genetics as population subgroups. It can be hardly constructed that for example that Libyan or Morocco Jews were Turkic people. I do not agree that there were very few genetic studies on Jews. In fact Jews are the most genetically examined population on earth, so as all sorts of standard genetic studies have been already applied we can hardly expect many new studies.--Tritomex (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

elhaik's paper clearly belongs here. It has already been included at the invention of the jewish people section. It is part of a continuing debate, and it claims to use a different method. All of this should be included here. We should only be discussing the wording, not the inclusion.~~,~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do not collect (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

By "Do not collect" blocked for abusing multiple accounts we had 5 consecutive sock puppet attacks on this and another 3 pages related to this subject.--Tritomex (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside that Tritomex, your longer post above in reply to Do not collect is not really a direct or constructive answer? I think that it is correct that the Elhaik article should be mentioned. You are right that most articles agree on some basic points such as Middle Eastern ancestry (which is something all populations in Europe, North Africa and the Caucasus show). But this avoids the issue: the question is not whether to remove mention of things said by sources, but whether to include certain things said by published sources that are currently not being said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Non standard genetic analysis which comes against all scientific genetic studies and academic books, a fringe primary source combined with a single secondary source pointing to refusal of any academic to even state their opinion on Elhaik work) carried out by someone who offers to determine anyone Khazarian origin for 50$ using unreliable methods through which "he determined X;Y;autosomes, altogether",failing to pass even fringe theory noticeboard with majority,can not be put in rank with standard genetic studies and academic books from this field, which are the only sources mentioned here. Therefore it has no place here in my opinion. Considering "Do not collect" he has been blocked for being another sockpuppet. It seems that targeting this article with "innovative techniques" home made genetic articles which promote non existing theory in genetic field, with non existing methods and non existing techniques, for non scientific reason has become very important to some.. Artificial disputes about the origin of Jewish population can not be created by inclusion of this source by whom Hungarians are "Slavic people" and Georgians and Armenians are "Proto-Khazars". This is bellow anything I have red in my life and clearly lacks any consensus here for inclusion as it is let me now say it openly, scientifically unworthy . --Tritomex (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This basically means you want to ignore the majority opinion that you saw from community members on the fringe noticeboard right? I think you need to consider giving some ground, not only because you are moving so clearly away from what any majority will support, but also because such long and over-dramatized responses are going to make you look more extreme and get your valid concerns even less hearing. You also deserve a comment about the technical point you raise: the proxy populations problem is in a sense the problem in all the papers we can cite for this article that go beyond saying that Ashkenazi and Sephardi share common ancestry, and that this ancestry seems to have included a mixture of both European and Middle eastern populations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"which is something all populations in Europe, North Africa and the Caucasus show"

That's not true for Eastern, Central, and North European populations, at least not to anywhere near the same extent that Jews and those other groups do. The ancestors of most indigenous European populations (i.e. non-Jewish and non-Gypsy) have been living on the continent since the Neolithic, if not earlier. In the case of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, they straddle the line between Southern Europeans (i.e. Greeks, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese) who do have a considerable amount of Middle Eastern ancestry, and Levantine groups. Ashkenazi Jews do have a slight pull towards Southern Europeans thanks to some recent Central/East European ancestry.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no majority opinion on FN. (See the page summary) The summary on FN page (of uninvolved editors) gave it as 4 undecided with certain but relevant objections, 3 for not being frigging,) while 1 against although not counted). This means it did not went through. No one deny the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have South European admixture, it is correctly stated in many places in our article and it is an established fact in population genetics. I personally edited those facts, so this was never disputed and never will be disputed.

(If you are familiar with genetics, you have to know that 20-23% of J1 (with almost 50% overall J) can not be "a slight pull" to South Europeans,(it is higher than in Egypt, or among Druze and almost equivalent to Syrians and Lebanese) with 11-12 % of R1a-b which is 50%+ in central and Western Europe, while J1 is at most at 7% in overall genetic composition of any South European ethnic groups and non existing in most of other parts of Europe (excluding isolated places like Tuscany (see genetic origin of Etruscan) and isolated parts of South European islands with high Semitic admixture.The same story goes for E1b1b-c etc... Yet this is now my personal observation.) ---Tritomex (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What percentage of the world's Jews have Middle Eastern ancestry, if you know?Evildoer187 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Evildoer: All Jews (with Jewish ancestry at least) will have Middle Eastern ancestry. But so do all Europeans, and all North Africans. The Middle East is quite clearly a source of many populations in all surrounding areas. I think this helps explain why the same data gets interpreted different ways by academics.

@Tritomex: Again, my main proposal to you is that your valid concerns are always being mixed with extreme and obviously silly or irrelevant positions as a kind of debating tactic. This is not going to help you, and could hurt your attempts to do good things. For example Tuscany is a major part of Italy, and most of the Fringe discussion's uncertain voters, who you want to count as voting against inclusion of any mention of Elhaik, were actually concerned with the whole article, including the way it presents all the sources you agree with and want most emphasized. But just to support you a little bit on Y DNA: concerning R1a and R1b I believe that we will see publications in the future that divide R1a and R1b into more clarifying sub-clades. I do not yet know for sure but it is likely from what I have heard that at least concerning Jewish R1b it might turn out not to look very European, but more Middle Eastern. Concerning E-M34, I think also you maybe under-rate what has been said about it. I think you will be able to find sources that suggest it is correlated with Semitic language groups and the Middle East.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew I did not counted them, they were counted as per rule by uninvolved editor. I answered now Evildoer on his talk page and although I love to discuss genetics, unrelated questions should be left for our own pages, I guess. As I will be absent until tomorrow and I will answer your question on R1b after that.--Tritomex (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex I do not think you have understood my remark, because I am saying just counting votes from the fringe discussion is not relevant for the particular question that we need to resolve: how can we justify not even mentioning a published article? If you look at the rationales (not the count) you are combining parts of arguments which are actually not possible to combine. When you get a chance please consider again. Maybe also look at my remarks on the fringe board (and the more or less positive reactions, I thought, which they received).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew: The vast majority of native European groups have been present since at least 4000 BC if not earlier, whereas Jews are a fairly recent arrival who had not shown up until thousands of years later. Hell, in many cases, this didn't happen until the 8th-11th centuries AD (eg. Poland, Ukraine, England, Scandinavia, etc). What I'm trying to say is that while Europeans do have Middle Eastern roots, it is extremely distant. Not so for Jews, who are generally much closer to other Middle Eastern groups than they are to Europeans, save for Greeks and Italians.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Evildoer, that is probably correct, but how is it relevant here? Part of the problem is that the types of articles published can not tell us when the Middle Eastern DNA came into each population. So all these articles contain a hard core of conclusions, plus some really speculative guesses.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The ancestors of most indigenous European populations (i.e. non-Jewish and non-Gypsy) have been living on the continent since the Neolithic, if not earlier.

The vast majority of native European groups have been present since at least 4000 BC if not earlier,

The sentences are meaningless, since indigenous and native are improperly used, and in the face of the evidence for several theories on the growth of not Neolithic, but late Neolithic-early Bronze age population movements (Cavalli-Sforza's five clinal patterns). I won't go into the subject of Indo-European languages and dispersion theories, but you might like to read a wiki hint or two here and Genetic history of Europe. None of this has to do however with the simple issue raised (and I think resolved) concerning Elhaik's article, which is, that unless we adopt double standards it qualifies for this article, and all we have so far is filibustering or the packing of an argument with misdirections (wello-meaning no doubt, but totally ignorant of the subject) like the one above that runs off this simple policy-based determination.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew: I am well aware of that. I was just adding to the discussion, and your post sort of came off as "well, Europeans have Middle Eastern ancestry too, so it doesn't mean much". On the contrary, it means quite a bit. Middle Eastern ancestry in Europeans, as I've pointed out, is far less significant and much more distant than it is for Jews.

@Nishidani: That's why I said 'most'. Either way, I agree that the article belongs here, and I see no reason not to include it. Putting it in the lead is a different story.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If only there were a clear definition of "less significant". :) Still not sure how to use this for the article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote that. What I meant to say is that even though modern Europeans do have some Middle Eastern ancestry, the vast majority of it is very distant (going back to 8000-6000 BC at the latest) and minor in comparison to Jews whose ancestors had been resident in the Levant for thousands of years. In addition, Canaan is where they first formed their identity, nation, culture, language, etc. I don't think the fact that Middle Eastern components have been found in Europeans is really relevant to this article anyway, because the studies are rather clear when they say there is a very close relationship between Jews and Palestinians, Druze, Samaritans, Lebanese, Syrians, etc.

I also took a peak at the Wiki articles Nishidani linked to, and they mostly seem to back up what I'm saying. However, there doesn't seem to be any consensus as to exactly how they entered Europe.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that these are your personal speculations and not all of this is quite sure if you have to restrict yourself to what is published. So once again, I am not sure if this particular line of discussion helps us write the Wikipedia article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I felt that I had to say something because I've occasionally come across a line in the intro that went something like "however, interpretation of this data is complex, because Europeans and North Africans also have these markers". That is irrelevant to the article, and also WP:SYNTH.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I might have put those words in but I can see how they verge on SYNTH. (I would say that it is just an observation to help explain the differences in interpretations, but it does not need to be pushed.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, you got it.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)