Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeppiz (talk | contribs) at 09:00, 6 February 2013 (Paragraph removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic studies of Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Judaism B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Études génétiques sur les Juifs from fr.wikipedia.

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

"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. 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 Misplaced Pages rules this single genetic study can not go in the lead WP:UNDUE "Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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.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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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" 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 , 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 ; "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 ." "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 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 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 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 ." with the standing for this earlier study of Zoossmann-Diskin et al. "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 . 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 .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" 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, and G2c. 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 "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 ." leading to this next link again from Zoossmann-Diskin et al. and

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 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 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 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. "The studies of Atzmon et al. and Behar et al. 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 "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" 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 . 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 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. Misplaced Pages can not be used as mirror source for Misplaced Pages 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 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 . 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 02:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Elhaik has published the referees' comments on his paper . 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 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 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 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.

"Misplaced Pages 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.

2. New York Times

3. Scientific journals

4. Population genetic academic books and 5.

6. Jewish DNA

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

8. Jews having common genetic origin

9. Hebrew university genetic database

10-

11. Nature magazine

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, 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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." 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" 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 . 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 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". 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" 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 Misplaced Pages 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". 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zero 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, take a look for example on this comment 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

arbitrary break back to Elhaik

According to the finally published version of Elhaik "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." Let me try to reword that as something very neutral that might fit a listing of neutral listings of articles:

DRAFT: Elhaik (2012) analysed data from various studies and concluded that the DNA of European Jewish populations indicates that its ancestry is "a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries". The Caucasian component of ancestry was in turn taken to be consistent with the Khazarian Hypothesis as an explanation of part of the ancestry of European Jews."

Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it needs a little more clarification eg. that Armenians and Georgians were used as proxies for Khazars, Palestinians for ancient Hebrews, etc. I would also recommend changing "European Jews" to "Ashkenazi Jews" because he's clearly not talking about Sephardic, Romaniote, and Italqim Jews who had never even entered the area corresponding to modern Ukraine and Belarus.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are reasonable points which I also realized after proposing the first draft. I would suggest that instead of using the term Ashkenazi we could say Central and Eastern European, because this is closer to the article language and still quite clear.

DRAFT 2: Elhaik (2012) analysed data from various studies and concluded that the DNA of Eastern and Central European Jewish populations indicates that its ancestry is "a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries". A relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the closer similarity to modern Georgian, and especially modern Armenian DNA, as opposed to Palestinian DNA. This proposed Caucasian component of ancestry was in turn taken to be consistent with the Khazarian Hypothesis as an explanation of part of the ancestry of European Jews."

Again comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is good but I have one quibble. "analyzed data from various studies" is strictly speaking true, but might be misunderstood as saying that he conducted a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis usually involves combining the results of previous studies, rather than using the raw data that was the basis of other studies. At least in the autosomal case (the others are less clear), he did his own extraction of summary data (SNPs). Since that is not deterministic but relies on the overall scope of the sample and the settings of various parameters, it means he did not perform principle component analysis of exactly the same data that others had used. In a nutshell, he used the inputs to previous studies, not the outputs from them as it sounds now. If that makes sense, I'd suggest a small change: "analyzed data collected for previous studies". Zero 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems a small but reasonable tweak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this line should be amended: "A relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the closer similarity to modern Georgian, and especially modern Armenian DNA, as opposed to Palestinian DNA." That line comes off a little strong, if you ask me. I think you should just take the part where he arrives at this conclusion and put it in quotation marks.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong in what way? Not following yet. The reason I tweaked a bit beyond what is discussed above is that I read it again and saw several places where the author makes clear they really want to say that the "Caucasian" link is STRONGER than the "Semitic" one. (Funny that he found the same for Cypriots by the way. I'd personally say Armenians are clustering with the northern Middle East and the Palestinians are clustering a bit closer to another more southerly Middle East cluster. Most clustering analysis shows the Middle East as broken into at least two such clusters. There is not one Middle Eastern cluster.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I am convinced that this genetic analysis, full of obvious errors, done with non standard genetic procedures and with fringe conclusions is scientifically and by Misplaced Pages rules unworthy of being included to the page, If both Andrew and Evildoer agrees that this should be included, I wont actively oppose it. I remember times when Elhaik paper was included in this article with criticism, later altogether removed by Andrew.

However in such case, it should go to new section, named "views of geneticists" or smth similar, so we could finally have a section where geneticist views on this subject could be covered and this will partially balance the damage done by inclusion of this pesudoscientific work . In such hypothetical situation, I would support Andrew wording without any change to be included (version 1 from yesterday without mentioning Armenians and Georgians) Elhaik on his website demands 50$ to determine if individual are Khazars. As this is something so "innovative" that I never heard about it, it would be interesting to find out how this procedure is done.--Tritomex (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised you don't want the Armenians and Georgians (the proxies) mentioned, because I think by doing this we let readers see what the data really says, in as neutral as possible a way. If we do not say it like this then we are just going straight to saying "Khazar DNA". But the author does not hide that he is using proxies, so why should we? Second concern: won't making a special separate section also potential backfire? It would make it look like this is the only speculative interpretation of the data. As I have written above, I think most of the papers we report make questionable assumptions about proxies for ancient groups (whether openly or not). Perhaps the most common and important one is the papers that assume that whatever ancestry cluster is common between Palestinians and Jews must be the origin Hebrew population. (Some of these assumptions might very well be correct of course. But we are not supposed to be judging this, I think, but just making it clear for readers who the assumptions of each study can be understood.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Andrew. I do not think it good practice to make an exception of Elhaik by creating more or less a special section for him. By the way, good work. With a few tweaks, as suggested, you're almost there. ('Relatively strong' was moderate' since, Evildoer, Elhaik says 'large'. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As Elhaik "genetic study" like all regular genetic studies, is not covered by secondary sources, and as we have to rely solely on single primary source and due to additional problems raised with the pushing for inclusion of this paper, we have to find original ways to deal with this issue. It is well known that Armenians and Georgians are not Turkic peoples. This is one of numerous mistakes pointed out by Rhazib Khan. If Elhaik would like to use serious population genetic studies, to draw conclusions on eventual Khazar origin of the Jews, beyond standard procedures, he would use Turkic population samples, like Kazakhs.Armenians and Georgians have especially high Middle Eastern admixture and are "half way" between Middle Eastern and European populations. This is not the case for Turkic peoples like Göktürks who have genetic signature of the region of their origin. To promote another fringe claim that Armenians and Georgians are proto-Khazars, which is historically and ethnically not true would be another pseudoscientific innovation. Elhaik goes even further with his claim that even native Middle Eastern Druze are Turkic, but this is another question.

It is important to state that a single genetic analysis, going against all genetic studies and using unscientific methods which did not passed even fringie theory noticeboard can not go to any lead, or to sections for specific genetic studies, therefore it can be only excluded as it should be or a special chapter have to be created in order to accommodate this unscientific inventions.--Tritomex (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind you, I don't personally agree with the study myself. The arguments within overlook some very crucial facts eg. Arabian and Sub-Saharan ancestry in Palestinians (although the latter is also present in Ashkenazim), East Asian components in Khazars (they were a Turkic tribe after all) which are largely missing in Ashkenazi Jews, etc. However, it is not our right to squelch relevant research from being included into the article. The only issue now is making sure the data is not misrepresented, especially in a way that breaks WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. In that respect, I believe you should add that they found similar "Caucasian" frequencies in Druze and Cypriots, so as to represent the full picture. It might also be a good idea to follow it up with articles that have criticized Elhaik. However, I'll leave that up to consensus.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, you are wrong. This article uses other primary sources which have the same authority as Elhaik. There is no reason to push Elhaik out of the article except that it does not conform to your wishes. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes we know it, as it is specific to genetics many times primary sources are the only sources. However contrary to this "genetic study" most of regular genetic studies and their results are covered by secondary sources, and appropriate links are added in the article. I have no problem with the fact that Elhaik papers can be presented through primary source only, but I would have problem with any attempt to push ELhaik paper anywhere beyond special section as his "innovative technique" beyond being far from belonging to any lead does not belong to autosomal, mtDNA or YDNA chapters either. .--Tritomex (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tritomex. I still think you are taking some exaggerated positions. I do not see Elhaik call Druze Turkic for example. It is a little more subtle than that. (He does not assume that the Khazar DNA would be mainly Turkic, and that may well be a reasonable assumption.) And while he might claim to be innovative, so do many papers. And many/all such papers use proxy assumptions. FWIW I think the clustering of Jews (and Cypriots and Druze) and Armenians is real and interesting. I think if we let readers see that the author found this clustering, they can also better judge how seriously to take the conclusions the author then draws, which are much more speculative. Anyway, I think you can see that your idea of having a special Elhaik section is not very popular amongst other editors. This is not just because of editors who support Elhaik (are there any?), but actually also because it could over-emphasize Elhaik.

@Evildoer. Of course when we name that particular Middle Eastern cluster which is more common in Palestinians as "Arabian", we are also speculating beyond what the pure DNA data can tell us, just like Elhaik does with his ideas about what the Khazars would be like. (And if it were up to me I would probably call the cluster more common in the Armenians, Georgians, Cypriots and Druze something like "Fertile Crescent".) Might be a correct speculation mind you, but it is hard to prove it, and there really are not enough autosomal papers to talk about clear consensus yet. I know you probably realize this, but I point to it anyway so it is clear to everyone. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW Tritomex one of the reasons I do not think there are many strong autosomal articles yet is exactly the fact that it has been left to one time authors like Elhaik and Zoossman-Diskin to draw the public's attention to valid clusters (such as the northern Middle Eastern one, which Elhaik however calls Caucasian) that always were clear in the data. The big name multi-author groups have obscured some facts just as much as anyone. I believe the subject of Jewish autosomal studies is yet to have one really good article. Also witness how often we here on this talk page, independent of which side we are on in a discussion, need to refer to things like blogs occasionally as a way to keep our perspective. This is because unfortunately right now blogs are in effect the most comprehensive analyses of this data so far!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarantining Elhaik's paper into its own section on the basis of our own critique of it would obviously violate WP:NOR. Its objectively minority status is adequately addressed by that the proposed few sentence would only make up a tiny fraction of the article. Zero 09:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not based on my own criticism, but on simple fact that he applied non standard methods which do not exist in population genetics and we do not have sections beyond standard X,Y chromosome and autosomal studies, so we would have to create one which could be used for other wives beside Elhaik fringe theory, which is not supported by any secondary sources, academic books or journals (while I found numerous secondary sources for all regular genetic study which still miss this, and I will add them as it was proposed on FTN)

I do not propose "Quarantining Elhaik's paper" I propose the exclusion of Elhaik paper, but as I have stated I would not actively oppose it, if this inclusion would not make any more harm beyond one WP:UNDUE, or by other words if it would be written in section named "Views of Geneticists" or similar. I even accepted Andrew Lancaster's draft, although this "Elhaik paer" to remind you all, did not went through fringe theory noticeboard. Considering the study itself: Elhaik writes "Contemporary Eastern European Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, accounting for nearly 90% of over 13 million Jews worldwide" This is not true as Ashkenazi Jews, both Eastern European and Western European are altogether about 8-8,5 million, which nowhere comes to 90% from 14 million and this is the exact number of Jews. Elhaik continues that there are "two dominant hypotheses depicting either a sole Middle Eastern ancestry or a mixed Middle Eastern-Caucasus-European ancestry to explain the ancestry of Eastern European Jews." I never heard about "Middle Eastern-Caucasus-European ancestry theory" nor I know that this theory is "dominant" Reflecting on highly respected geneticist Atzmon and his studies covered by all major secondary sources from CNN to Jerusalem Post as well as to “Rhineland Hypothesis” Elhaik continues: "The “Rhineland Hypothesis”... proposes two mass migratory waves: the first occurred over the two hundred years following the Muslim conquest of Palestine (638 CE) and consisted of devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe" ... The second wave occurred at the beginning of the 15th century by a group of 50,000 German Jews who migrated eastward and ushered an apparent hyper-babyboom era for half a millennia (Atzmon et al. 2010). Nowhere Atzmon refer to hyper-babyboom era for half a millennia and this kind of irony is non existing in scientific world. Beside this I never heard that “Rhineland Hypothesis” equals "devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe" after Muslim conquest. The "Supplementary Note 1" proposed as reference leads nowhere. He continues "Biblical and archeological records allude to active trade relationships between Proto-Judeans and Armenians in the late centuries BCE (Polak 1951; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002), that likely resulted in a scale admixture between these populations and a Judean presence in the Caucasus" I also never heard for Proto-Judeans of Caucasus, although I red this sources. Finally Elhaik makes a remarkable invention of historic facts:"Khazarian Empire (Figure 1). Following the collapse of their Empire and the Black Death (1347-1348) the Judeo-Khazars fled eastwards" The Khazar empire was destroyed after Sviatoslav's sack of Atil in 968/9, and did not existed in 1347 by all consensus. Elhaik continues with inventions "The Khazarian Hypothesis posits that European Jews are comprised of Caucasus, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries." This is also not true. He continues "Some studies pointed to the genetic similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations like Adygei (Behar et al. 2003; Levy-Coffman 2005; Kopelman et al. 2009), others with Middle Eastern populations(Hammer et al. 2000; Nebelet al. 2000)," While Behar et al. 2003 does not point to similarity between European Jews and and Adygei,and Levy-Coffman is a self published website without any genetic studies probably made by some charlatan, Kopelman 2009 clearly states that "our findings do not support the Khazar theory" " and among other "theories" he forgot about 20 standard genetic studies and umerus academic books. He continues "Although both the Rhineland and Khazarian Hypotheses depict a Judean ancestry and are not mutually exclusive," this is also innovation and invention. I never heard that "Khazarian Hypotheses depict a Judean ancestry" but we may add this to clarify Elhaik..."Because, according to both hypotheses, Eastern European Jews arrived in Eastern Europe roughly at the same time (13th and 15th centuries)" Now Elhaik contradicts himself as he claimed that as per Rhineland theory Judeans arrived "following the Muslim conquest of Palestine (638 CE) and consisted of devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe" Than Elhaik explaines his pseudoscientific methods, and he continues with his "results" based on previous claims "We traced Druze biogeographical origin to the geographical coordinates:38.6±3.45° N, 36.25±1.41° E (Figure S4) in the Near East (Figure S1). Half of the Druze clustered tightly in Southeast Turkey, and the remaining was scattered along northern Syria and Iraq. He than again contradict himself "Although the Rhineland Hypothesis explains the Middle Eastern ancestry by stating that Jews migrated from Palestine to Europe in the 7th century, it fails to explain the large Caucasus ancestry, which is nearly endemic to Caucasus populations." Although I never heard for any author from population genetics claiming the existence of entity named "Caucasus ancestry, which is nearly endemic to Caucasus populations" now per Elhaik Ashkenazi jews did not arrived to Eastern Europe in "(13thand 15th centuries) Elhaik continues with inventions "According to the Khazarian Hypothesis, the Western European ancestry was imported to Khazaria by Greco-Romans Jews, whereas the Middle Eastern ancestry alludes to the contribution of both early Israelite Proto-Judeans as well as Mesopotamian Jews (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976; Sand 2009). Central and Eastern European Jews differ mostly in their Middle Eastern (30% and 25%, respectively) and Eastern European ancestries (3% and 12%, respectively), probably due to late admixture." Nowhere I can find this percentages. nor in population genetic books, nor at any genetic study. He continues "Druze exhibit a large Turkic ancestry (83%) in accordance with their Near Eastern origin" So the Druze are now Turkic people as well, while Turkic ancestry is not "consistent with Near Eastern origin" but with East and Central Asian ancestry. This is also reply to Andrew. Finally, Elhaik concludes that "Jewish population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan" I analyzed less than half of this article but even with this it is by all means and by all neutral points of view something than can not go to Misplaced Pages artickle.Khazar empire destroyed in 1347, Judeans arriving to Europe in 10th century, Druze who are 83% Turkic, Proto-Judeans of Caucasus, Slavic Hungarians, falls quotes and references+ "innovative techniques" primary source without any support from secondary sources, fringe conclusions made on self invented techniques, results which goes against all genetic study and academic books, and all the rest...--Tritomex (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In short, from your personal review and analysisof Elhaik's paper, you conclude it is pseudoscience, that though trained at John Hopkins in population genetics, the author uses methods that science does not employ; that you know more than the peer-reviewers who got the article accepted into a scientific journal,etc. Experts have been blindsided by a fraud. You alone stand, defensively, between him and the "truth". Is that it?Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This has become a behavioral problem, with Tritomex refusing to listen to reason. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I clearly stated that my views are solely based on Misplaced Pages guidelines.

a) WP:UNDUE, fringe theory, primary source etc. The statement above is only provided as explanation of how enormous are the obvious errors, which is the likely reason why this "study" is not covered by any WP:RS or why geneticists refuse to comment on this fringe theory.Btw specialized blogs which are full of Elhaik refutation are more reliable than this primary source. --Tritomex (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, again, the problems with this article are similar to the problems with many other articles, even if worse. We need to have an even playing field. Let's just try to present the most neutral bits of each article in a neutral way? By my proposition we are not even going to mention a lot of the issues that worry you, and everyone seems happy with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why I would oppose the inclusion of this "problematic issues"? Maybe smth like this: After applying innovative techniques Elhaik (2012) discovered that 83% of Druze genome is Turkic, which is consistent with their Near Eastern origin, while he determined that the homeland of the East European Jews stretches from Volga to the river Jordan, in line with Khazarian theory and as a result of Khazarian migration after the destruction of their empire in the year 1347. With this discovery he straightened the already dominant Middle Eastern-Caucasus-European ancestry theory of East European Jews, contrary to Rhineland Hypothesis which states that East European Jewry were formed as a result of Judean migrations from Islamic Palestine, after the Muslim conquest. Geneticists interviewed by Haaretz refused to comment on this issue. Okay excuse me for this digression, I already stated that I would not oppose your draft no1 if you are able to propose appropriate place for it, and it is clear that the only appropriate place for it would be in section named Geneticist views or smth similar.Also Andrew, please do not generalize if you know for similar problems with regular genetic studies, state it and provide some sources. Are you aware that this article did not went though fringe theory noticeboard? Anyway where you want to add this important scientific work? Tritomex (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, your posts are long, do not stay on subject, and are confusingly formatted. It makes discussion very difficult, and if discussion is difficult then making the article as good as possible is difficult. Concerning your digressions I think they have all been discussed enough. For example concerning the Fringe noticeboard you are simply misrepresenting it. BUT the subject now is a simple article structuring proposal you have made, which is to create a section called "Author opinions" and in that section to discuss only one published article. I think this proposal has no support and despite the length of your posts I find no justification for it in your posts either. Just creating a section called "Author opinions" does not resolve any of the issues you mention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether to use a blog to cite criticisms

Adobe Acrobat X detects more than 250 textual difference between the August preprint and the published version. Many are trivial, but quite a few are substantial. For this reason it would be original research to decide if a criticism of the preprint is also a criticism of the published version. Zero 09:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, this is presumably about this edit by Tritomex, which added the following text to the Elhaik paragraph which I added yesterday my time:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Critics, however pointed to possible mistakes made in this study; as to the using of Palestinians genome data as a reference to the Middle Eastern ancestors of Jews, which overlooks their Arabian genetic contribution, while the overall historic framework of the paper was described as "very skeletal, verging on incoherent"<ref>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/ashkenazi-jews-are-probably-not-descended-from-the-khazars/#.UPJwivIS89M</ref>

A few remarks:

• I should correct my edit summary by the way, the blog involved is not "anonymous", but written by Razib Khan.
• Looking at the relevant policy WP:SPS, a problem with this blog is that he is not a widely published, nor widely cited expert in this particular field, even though his comments are really interesting and he has the right professional qualifications. (This has been discussed before here I think?)
• One argument in favour might be that his blog is on the website of ] which is a decent popularized science magazine. So perhaps it could be argued he has the status of a scientific journalist, but it is really on the edge of what the community would normally accept, and certainly in an obviously controversial case like this I doubt you will get much agreement.
• One problem with the argument he is like a journalist, is that actually I do not think the community will accept that journalists are good sources for this subject to begin with, especially if there is some controversy. Even articles printed in the science section of good papers like NYT etc are generally not accepted in such contexts I think.
• Another policy-relevant point they will make is that the blog is obviously not edited by anyone other than the blogger, and so it is not normal journalism. But the place to go would be WP:RSN, if you want to pursue this.
• I also agree with Zero that it is relevant that the blog was about an earlier version of the paper.
• Tritomex is obviously not correct that WP:PRIMARY sources can not be used on WP, or else (as was pointed out on the FRINGE noticeboard recently) this whole article would have to be deleted. That seemed a particularly odd argument for Tritomex to be making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add:

• No other genetic study in the article is presented along with criticism, though many have been subject to criticism. There is still no rule-based cause to single out Elhaik's paper for special treatment.
• Razib Khan has qualifications in genetics, but not in history. Thus, while his criticism of the use of Palestinians on historical grounds might be valid (even though I think Tritomex summarizes it incorrectly), it is not admissible. i'll also note that Behar also includes Palestinians in his reference "Levant" population.

Zero 14:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Elhaik paper will have to go to WP:NPOV noticeboard due to obvious violations of Misplaced Pages polity made by its inclusion and due to other aspects which could be discussed at WP:OR and WP:RS and other noticeboards as well, if there is no intention to change this problems. As the current wording of the text solely derives from the article to which Rhazib Khan reflects, the censorship of secondary sources covering this primary source on this ground is not acceptable. Behar inclusion of Palestinians as Levantine population, which is factually correct is not equal with assuming them as "proto judeans" nor it is explanation for this claim. Rhazib Khan clearly speaks about genetic admixture of Palestinians, which is again firstly genetic and not historic question.--Tritomex (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Were there obvious violations of wikipedia polity the editors above would have noticed them. Only you assert this. You evidently do not understood the policies both you and others have cited. You persistently adopt an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach, not replying to clear statements and queries while adding still further examples of your creative approach to source criticism, to which replying appears pointless. You are free to go to all the boards (careful of forum shopping), but the answers will confirm that your objections are confused about how wikipedia works. We don't espouse theories here: we describe them according to WP:WEIGHT. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Razib Khan is perhaps arguably notable by himself. He is mentioned by the New York Times at the very top of an article about the new phenomenon of right-wing conservative Americans who are atheists, and they say Khan is a "data-driven scientist" who founded SecularRight.org. He is cited in the following Misplaced Pages articles: Urheimat, Hutu, Tutsi, Bioscience Resource Project, Ilana Mercer, Physical attractiveness, Secular liberalism, Peter Frost (anthropologist), , Human skin color and Dan Sperber. He blogs for Discovery magazine, his column called "Gene Expression", and he also blogs for the Guardian UK and the the National Review. His notability is probably not enough for a Misplaced Pages article at this time, but at least he is known internationally. I think his Discovery blog post is appropriate to use following the bit about Elhaik. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that background which suggests to me, on the contrary, that Razib Khan deserves a wiki page. He's certainly notable. The problem is, he commented on the earlier archiv paper, which as Zero noted, was substantially altered before the second version was accepted and published as Genome article. To use a blog (always questionable) to criticize, not the version we reference, but an earlier draft looks extremely dicey (WP:OR). By the way, he too slips up (as everyone does) (a.Hungarians are basically Europeans who speak a non-European language; to criticize Elhaik for mentioning the 'miracle' meme and sourcing it to Atzmon is pointy - that demographic problem with the Ashkenazi is a major, often cited, historical crux; The Palestinian majority historically have very mixed origins,(aside from Bosnians, tinkers, the (Salabyin), Turks, Kurds, Circassians, Egyptians, Armenians, Greeks, etc.etc.,) archaic and recent, and the post 7th cent. CE Arabian-Bedouin element he prioritizes espouses one popular theory as the true one or basic truth etc.) I don't think it fair to use a blog like that against Elhaik, while not adopting the same procedure against all other papers. We should not suffer from impatience. Elhaik's work will certainly come in for criticism in forthcoming genetics papers, and will be duly and dutifully noted.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a follower of Razib Khan's blog and it would be handy to use it as a source sometimes, but I think by normal standards which have been demanded (of me and others) over the years, he is not going to be accepted by the community as a source for anything controversial in a field he has not published in, and he is not cited in. As mentioned above, being a well known "phenomenon", something like a journalist or editorialist, might be ok for getting you a wikipedia article, and being used as a source in some areas, but I think if you take this particular one to WP:RSN you will not get it easily approved. OTOH, if you do, that would be fine by me, but do we then add blog criticisms to all the other sources we summarize? If we are trying to be neutral, how far do we take this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The following sentence solely derives from the paper to which Rhazib Khan reply: "Palestinians were assumed to be a valid genetic surrogate of ancient Jews, whereas the Druze were assumed to be non-Semitic immigrants into the Levant. Armenians and Georgians were also used as surrogate populations for the Khazars. On this basis, a relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the stronger genetic similarity of these Jewish groups to modern Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijani Jews, Druze and Cypriots, compared to a weaker genetic similarity with Palestinians." This sentence do not exist in source provided so it would be WP:OR, without the supporting paper.

Wikipeda policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is certainly not fact with this article as this claims to not exist in primary source provided. There are numerous problems with the inclusion and interpretation of this controversial primary source and as I tried to extract all possible efforts before going to noticeboards, and further, Rhazib Khan academic biologists view on this subject through secondary sources would be the minimal requirement to avoid a huge work to present all the problems with this article, from sockpuppetery to WP:UNDUE issues, and unchanged supplementary papers from whom de facto the current wording derives. Sources can not be "be handy to use it as a source sometimes" and sometimes not.

• No other genetic study in the article is presented along with criticism, though many have been subject to criticism.* Certainly no such kind of genetic study exists in this article. This has been already explained and will be explained in details if Elhaik paper and its interpretation reach the WP NPOV and other noticeboards. Also criticism of any particular study by WP:NPOV, has it place in the article as per WP:NPOV; in this and other cases as well. --Tritomex (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again a long, digressing and inconsistently indented post. Given the requests that keep being made to avoid this, is this deliberate? Anyway, I do not see any good case being made for using a blog as a source against a peer reviewed paper, only on one occasion. Or put it this way, the "case" being made is based on the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors. This comes down to cherry picking sources in order to get the effect wanted by certain Misplaced Pages editors. If you had ever actually read the comments made about this article on the FRINGE board you would know that any attempt to do this is totally against community norms. I think there is no point pushing this, because as soon as someone takes it to WP:RSN or any other community forum, then it will be almost certainly found to be against community policy. We might as well take it there early rather than spending time on it here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are accusing me Andrew Lancaster for something I did not say, despite the fact that I made more concessions than I would make to anyone. The "minimal requirement" question is based on Misplaced Pages policy that any Primary Source interpretation needs to have secondary sources and only through Rhazin Khan secondary source your violation of Misplaced Pages policy based on fact that you added a primary source+ interpretations (Armenians Palestinians, Georgians, Khazars) which does not exist in that primary source can be explained. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

Anyway, within a day or two this needs to be discussed, in relevant noticeboards.--Tritomex (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, a behavioral noticeboard. Zero 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Elhaik study

I propose it would certainly be relevant and significant enough to mention the fact that using Armenians and Georgians as surrogate populations for Khazars is a fallacy that does not have any factually established ground to stand on. Logician13 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So should we do the same for all the other proxies used in every study? If so, surely what we are do is picking winners ourselves? Apart from being against policy, please trust me that on genetics articles there is always one side who thinks proposing this will solve all their problems, thinking it will only be used by them. But once this way of working starts...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which one of the other studies presented also uses any particular population as a proxy of Khazars? Other than Elhaik I don't think any does. This is not about "one side who thinks proposing this will solve all their problems", the thing is that I simply don't remember ever seeing of any genetically/scientifically based conclusion that Armenians and Georgians are a reasonable proxy for Khazars. If I'm wrong then please feel free to correct me by presenting it black on white. Logician13 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Logician13, you are fully correct.--Tritomex (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Original Research is Still against the Rules. Zero 09:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are in the primary source used Armenians, Georgians or Palestinians?--Tritomex (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Go and discuss it somewhere appropriate. Talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for debating the subject of the article. Zero 09:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, just found lying around on my computer: Ellen Levy-Coffman, A Mosaic Of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence, Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33, 2005. Argues that several of the major genetic studies support a large component of Khazarian ancestry contrary to what their authors claim. If we can use a journalist's blog, then a peer-reviewed meta-study is even better! Zero 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Had we noted that earlier, huge walls of argument could have been avoided, and editing not been stalled by endless OR objections, since she everywhere contradicts Tritomex's presentation of (a) an unanimous genetic ME theory (b)the Khazar theory as pseudo-history (c) an argument for the latter an abuse of science. In fact, she sounds at times like Elhaik 7 years later. Damned copycat!::Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think Coffman-Levy's article is a lot more neutral, and it is not over-ambitious. Keep in mind this is an older paper, and it was aimed at making a summary for genealogists. I have defended use of this article in the past but it has been controversial because she is not a geneticist. (See Archives of this talk page, and the Khazars article.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked up 'Original Research' and if I understood it right, it's a rule forbidding editors adding comments into the article regarding anything that has a source? Alright, then I understand. I respect the rules of Misplaced Pages and might withdraw my proposal of adding my comment of logic in that case. But then, if the Elhaik study really is an unquestionable source, then I guess we could incorporate the Khazar connection into the genetics section of Armenians and Georgians article on Misplaced Pages just as well. "According to a recent genetic study by Elhaik, Armenians are a surrogate population for Khazars." For some reason I think that edit wouldn't last long. Logician13 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be good to see which policy you are looking at but my reading of the various relevant policies (and what I know of what is typically accepted on noticeboards where controversial cases are discussed) is that when we use primary sources, it can be acceptable to also add mention of criticisms. I think the bigger problem here is where we draw the line on which sources we can and can not use. In past discussions on this talk page everyone seems to agree we should try to stick to peer reviewed stuff, but then we get some people wanting to select certain exceptions for cases where they personally feel strongly. Concerning your second point, the connection between Khazars and Caucasians, I do not think it is relevant for the Armenian and Caucasian articles because Elhaik is not claiming to have discovered such a connection. He just assumes it is reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no geneticist named Ellen Levy-Coffman and she certainly has nothing to do with genetics . She claim to be an attorney in private practice --Tritomex (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. So what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question to Andrew Lancaster, from which source you added " For the study, Palestinians were assumed to be a valid genetic surrogate of ancient Jews, whereas the Druze were assumed to be non-Semitic immigrants into the Levant. Armenians and Georgians were also used as surrogate populations for the Khazars. On this basis, a relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the stronger genetic similarity of these Jewish groups to modern Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijani Jews, Druze and Cypriots, compared to a weaker genetic similarity with Palestinians." as it does not exist here: Also if "Elhaik is not claiming to have discovered such a connection" who discovered it? as it is not mentioned anywhere in genetics.--Tritomex (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone in this discussion including you knows the answer. Just as with of these proxy assumptions, in any of these articles, the author has simply made some basic assumptions such as that the Khazar empire was in the Caucasus, and was therefore likely genetically similar to groups living in the Caucasus today. Concerning the Druze and Cypriots, he is assuming that the ancestral component moved into their modern area from elsewhere because that component is most common in the Caucasus. If you just change the word "Caucasus" to "Northern Middle East" or "Fertile Crescent" then these specific assumptions are actually no more unreasonable than any of the other ones that get made in this style of article. The author has found real evidence of an ancestral population shared by Caucasians such as Georgians and Eastern European Jews. Authors who ignore the way in which European Jews cluster with the most northerly modern Middle Easterners, at least compared to Palestinians, are avoiding an issue which does in fact exist in the data. There might be many ways to handle better than Elhaik's but for now not many published authors have handled it. I wish they would.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So where in the primary source, you use, it is written that Elhaik asumed that "Palestinians are valid genetic surrogate of ancient Jews" or that "Armenians and Georgians are Proto Khazars? You are referring not to the published primary source, but to the Elhaik pre published article, without providing reference to it. Are you aware that this is a Primary source where no interpretations are allowed? "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material.WP:PRIMARY--Tritomex (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Descriptions of the assumptions are not only found in the pre-published article, but also the final peer-reviewed one. I think Elhaik is reasonably open and clear about assumptions, and in any case this is not the only primary source we use in this article, and not the only one with such assumptions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, using Armenians and Georgians as a proxy for Khazars because the empire was in the Caucasus and, in your words, "was therefore likely genetically similar to groups living in the Caucasus today", is an assumption that makes about as much sense as using Hungarians as a proxy for Avars because the empire was in the region of modern day Hungary and "was therefore likely genetically similar to groups living in Hungary today". And imagine, for example, that there was a theory about the Czech being descendants of Avars. Using the Hungarians as a proxy for Avars, the study could claim that the results actually confirm the theory. But untill Hungarians are genetically confirmed to be in a significant enough amount descended from Avars, all that the study would actually prove is the connection between the Czech and the Hungarians. To claim otherwise is simply misleading. Logician13 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is not an internet forum. Trying to set up a debate between Wikipedians is an abuse of a talkpage. The aim of Misplaced Pages is to summarize what published experts write. The basic choice faced for this article is whether it can manage to live within this requirement. The other alternative, which has already been raised by observers of it, is deletion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

...And given the ridiculous amounts of spin, WP:OR, and just plain bullshit that is evident on this talk page, deletion seems the most sensible suggestion. A list of primary sources concocted to 'prove' something isn't a legitimate basis for a Misplaced Pages article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse this is unlikely to happen I think. Lots of subjects have problems with "spin" (POV pushing) and not all such subjects can easily be removed from WP. So we need an approach which at least keeps most spin on the talk page. Personally I think the approach which keeps getting proposed but not followed here (sticking to short summaries of only peer reviewed stuff) can make the article acceptable, as it has been for periods. (Doubt it will ever be a really good article in my lifetime though!) So my proposal continues to be to stick to such simple rules which will annoy all sides equally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We have articles on genetic studies for numerous other populations, such as Serbs. It just so happens that this one in particular is controversial, for reasons that should be obvious. That's not an excuse for removing it though.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since when has the Jerusalem Post been a reliable source for studies of genetics?

"In August 2012, Dr. Harry Ostrer in his book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, which summarized his and other work in genetics of the last 20 years, concluded that all major Jewish groups share common Middle Eastern origin and refuted any large-scale genetic contribution from the Turkic Khazars". source cited - the Jerusalem Post: Really? We cite the Jerusalem Post for the contents of Ostrer's book, rather than the book itself? Can I ask why? Has anyone bothered to check what Ostrer actually wrote, rather than what the JP says he wrote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no one reads books anymore, at least editors appear not to. Even reading past the first page of a news article, let alone a wiki lead, finds most exasperated. By the way, a zippy overview of Ostrer's work, quite vernacular but in direct conversation at times (full of contradictions of course) can be found in Jeff Wheelwright (ex Life mag science editor), The Wandering Gene and the Indian Princess: Race, Religion, and DNA. W. W. Norton & Company, 2012, chapter 3 ('The Wandering Gene').Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the JP is clearly not a reliable source for scientific studies of genetics, and given that our article fails to make clear in the text body that it is citing a JP review, rather than Ostrer's book, I have marked this as possibly an unreliable source. I suggest that if Ostrer's book is to be cited, it should be done properly - including page references. Incidentally, it seems highly questionable to me for us to be asserting in Misplaced Pages's voice that Ostrer has 'refuted' anything. We can of course state that he claims to have done so (with proper sourcing), but we'd need a credible source to assert more than that - and in this context, the JP is clearly not such a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Note - I have now reworded the section to make it clear that this 'refutation' is a claim by Ostrer, rather than asserting it as fact. I have also tidied up the grammar etc a little. Apart from other problems, this article is in dire need of copyediting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?

Since it is evident that this 'article' is a de facto list of primary sources concerning 'genetic studies on Jews', can I ask what the criteria for inclusion are, and how these criteria were arrived at? I'd like also to know which sources were consulted to arrive at these criteria, and how it was determined that such sources were appropriate. Or am I making an assumption here that I should not? Have the criteria been defined at all? Has the subject been defined at all? Or is this an ad hoc list, which includes whatever contributors feel like including, and excludes anything they don't? If the latter is indeed the case (which from the discussion above seems entirely plausible), are there any grounds whatsoever for not deleting it as synthesis and/or a violation of Misplaced Pages neutral point of view policy? Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be about subjects defined externally to Misplaced Pages itself, and likewise Misplaced Pages lists are supposed to be based on criteria beyond the arbitrary wishes of those compiling them. I await a response - preferably one that explains how this article/list is compliant with policy, and which provides the necessary sources to demonstrate this compliance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All genetic studies carried out from 1990s, using standard procedures (X;Y;Autosomes) and being published in scientific journals have been included in this article. All of them with the exception of one which was not carried out in this way, are covered by huge amount of secondary and even tertiary sources (although links were not always provided) while primary sources are used in many cases for direct quotes (my observation). If you take a look to any ethnic group, from Turks to Croats, same patterns and articles exists in hundreds on Misplaced Pages sites. Concerning newspapers, they are also secondary WP:RS for covering science, although specialized journals would be more preferable.--Tritomex (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you recall the background of AndyTheGrump's question Tritomex, it came after you were insisting on putting a blog in this article as a source, and it was also noted that newspaper articles have been used. It is my belief that while such sources might make sense in a strongly sourced article, they are too borderline for any of the ethnic group genetics articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Beyond being a highly specialized blog that was an article from geneticist Rhazib Khan so its censorship was in my view WP:NPOV violation.You proposed one version, added another one, than you removed legitimate criticism regarding overlooking of Arabian admixture among Palestinians which was contrary to "Khazarian hypothesis" observed in population genetics from at least decade ago, (Genetic Evidence for the Expansion of Arabian Tribes into the Southern Levant and North Africa Almut Nebel,1.) through standard genetic study. Although this article is not perfect due to many primary sources,in most cases this primary sources were used for direct quotation, and not interpretations like you did. Also this situation is rapidly changing as contrary to Elhaik paper, all standard genetic studies are covered with reliable secondary sources which will be added to the article. Although currently I have no time to go deeper in this, your position of pushing one side of coin while restricting views from another one is not in line with WP guidelines. Considering my proposal to add section related to the wievs of geneticists, this would in my view solve the problem regarding many issues, from criticism, which is rare among geneticists themselves, to the fact that Elhaik paper is not classic autosomal genetic studies as you presented it. --Tritomex (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not see anything wrong with the inclusion of that source. Razib Khan is a high profile geneticist, and it is relevant to the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against Razib Khan. He has high profile, and he is a geneticist, but this is his personal un-moderated blog, and to use he needs to be high profile AS a published and cited geneticist. See WP:SPS.

Secondly, working on the edge of policy seems a bad idea on this article. Everyone wants to push for special exemptions. We need to have one very clear set of rules for everyone here, or else ... please see the posts of AndyTheGrump.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, apparently, Tritomex's last comments, this isn't "All genetic studies carried out from 1990s" at all - it is "All sources that Tritomex thinks are admissible, based on his own interpretation of what is relevant". That is of course completely and utterly incompatible with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I can see no alternatives at this point other than either (a) making a formal proposal that Tritomex be topic banned from the subject on the basis of non-compliance with core policy, (b) proposing that the article be deleted, as a breach of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, or (c) both. If this is intended to be an article about a scientific subject, it need to be based on the sources as they now exist, not on Tritomex's entirely unsourced and speculative claims: i.e. "this situation is rapidly changing as contrary to Elhaik paper". As for 'censorship', I see no reason to treat that comment as anything than the complete and utter bollocks it clearly is, given the continued efforts by Tritomex to exclude or discredit the Elhaik paper. Excluding material, or attempting to discredit it, on the basis that it is 'contrary to' other material is nothing short of scientific fraud - and Misplaced Pages is not a platform for such practices. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrum All your insults and threats pointed out to me are per WP:CIVIL unacceptable and and I will not further engage in dialogue with you. Concerning WP:UNDUE question, familiarize yourself with academic book from population genetics and secondary sources from this subject regarding "khazarian Hypotesis" Considering facts I have presented from primary and secondary sources, here and at fringe theory noticeboard I have nothing further to prove to you. Your threats will not distort my aim to continue to adhere to Misplaced Pages guildlines and will not influence my op pinion."Misplaced Pages 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" -Tritomex (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It was made perfectly clear at the fringe theories noticeboard that the Elhaik paper is no more 'fringe' than any of the other primary material cited. You are again attempting to impose your POV on this article, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy - and misrepresenting what others have said in order to do so. Parroting policy while ignoring it will convince nobody. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If Tritomex continues to abuse process to try to impose a higher bar for Elhaik then he should be brought to WP:RFCU. He is proving a nuisance. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are free to go, I am involved in this article from my first day at Misplaced Pages and I did not abuse any process with stating facts and references on this talk page, including WP:RS and WP:UNDUE issues, while your comments are nothing shorts of direct threats.I will not change my opinion based on your threats, nor I will be provoked to any response or any further dialogue with those making such threats. --Tritomex (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade in the NYT

It seems to me that if we are going to cite Nicholas Wade's New York Times piece , it is only reasonable that we should mention his conclusions. Wade writes (as is quoted in our article) that "The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long." - but he goes on to suggest that perhaps this 'separation' wasn't as complete as has previously been maintained: "One explanation is that they come from the same Jewish source population in Europe. The Atzmon-Ostrer team found that the genomic signature of Ashkenazim and Sephardim was very similar to that of Italian Jews, suggesting that an ancient population in northern Italy of Jews intermarried with Italians could have been the common origin... Another explanation, which may be complementary to the first, is that there was far more interchange and intermarriage than expected between the two communities in medieval times". To discuss the 'separation' without also discussing the evidence that the 'separation' wasn't complete looks misleading to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reuters

Are you stating that Reuters is not WP:RS or that per WP:V the article do not claim "(Reuters) - A new genetic analysis has reconstructed the history of North Africa's Jews, showing that these populations date to biblical-era Israel and are not largely the descendants of natives who converted to Judaism, scientists reported on Monday."--Tritomex (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am claiming neither - it was however misleading to quote a Reuters headline with the words 'As scientist involved in this study reported..'. The words quoted are those of the headline writer, not the scientists. I'm also sure that you meant 'revealed' rather than 'reviled', and it should read 'these findings show "...' rather than 'this findings are "showing...'. Also, the added text 'North Africa's Jews' would read better as 'North African Jews', and should be in square brackets (''), to indicate text not in the original. There are quite enough examples of poor English in the article as it is, without adding to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK--Tritomex (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Journalists

Someone thinks journalistic (mis-)summaries of academic studies add something to this article. I don't. But given that we are all seeking to write a neutral article, right?, we should quote this article too. Zero 00:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be sourced to Agence France-Presse, and consequently looks reliable as a journalistic source, if we are going to cite any at all. That AFP chose to report on Elhaik should perhaps to be taken as an indication that his ideas aren't on the 'fringe' as some have claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its nice that Elhaik paper is now covered by secondary sources although I did not found it on AFP official site. As far as I see everything from this source is already in the article. Also it seems that this article reflects mainly to Elhaik pre published material as it repeats among other things the thesis that Rhinland hypothesis claims that Jews left Palestine following the Muslim conquest, something that Elhaik did not included into his final paper. Certainly, there are now secondary sources emerging which means that reflection, especially from geneticists will be likely in coming future.--Tritomex (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

An op-ed piece by Mr Netanyahu's advisor on the complete judaization of Jerusalem, the political consultant Dore Gold, is not RS for either history or genetics.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a very good idea to base our inclusion criteria for this article on the activities of the Tritomex user. This will lead to incoherence as inclusion criteria will change from day to day depending on what happens to be most conducive to skewing the article towards the editor's POV at any given time. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dlv999, So it is not just me having that strange feeling?--Tritomex (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

When we have discussed the WP:UNDUE issue, I was not aware that within days secondary sources covering will come, as it happens. Jerusalem post has a new article, many of the issues underlined there was already discussed here:--Tritomex (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No again. Seth Franzman has a background in economics, and in any case gets much wrong in that op-ed. He attributes to Koestler an hypothesis Koestler simply popularized. The trick there is to dismiss as a writer's fantasy a theory long entertained by mainstream historians, which the writer summarizes and expands on. He forgot the content of the very book he mentions in this connection, Shlomo Sand. Koestler's theory was an 'unoriginal synthesis', mostly from Polyak. (Paul Wexler, Two-Tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect, Walter de Gruyter, 2002 p.537) The only sources that should be quoted here are those by professional geneticists on genetics.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Does AFP writer is geneticist?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The JPost article points to many relevant issues, although not all of them are relevant for this article. Shlomo Sand views are marginal among historians as are Wexler views are marginal among linguists. What Franzman points out is that Elhaik used them as reference, overlooking the most prominent historians of Khazars like D. M. Dunlop.

Considering Koestler, most of his theory is not based on any historic documents, as Seth Franzman correctly points out. Regarding Wexler, although he have plenty of critics from his own field, including Sorbian language experts, population genetics have showed that the most distant population from Ashkenazi Jews are in fact East European Slavic populations. (Russians and Poles 0.0137 ) Tian et. al. (2009).--Tritomex (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, complete selective misrepresentation of the field and sidestepping the issue (RS) in order to debate. By the looks of it, you have read neither Sand nor Koestler. If you wish to trust an economist whose opinionized and sniuppety partisan summaries appeal to you, fine, but he is not RS for genetics.Again, Douglas Morton Dunlop died 25 years ago, just as in his old age, Khazar studies began to enjoy a boom he missed. All great scholars, like Wexler, have their critics. That is what scholarship is about. It has no place for implacable certainties of the kind you push. His work is taken by peers as on the cutting edge, which explains why Peter Golden (Peter B. Golden, Haggai Ben-Shammai, András Róna-Tas (eds.) The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives, BRILL, 2007 pp.56,ff., 387-398), Ronny Po-Chia Hsia, (R. Po-Chia Hsia, Hartmut Lehmann (eds.) (In and out of the Ghetto: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany, Cambridge University Press, 2002 pp.109ff.; and Neil Jacobs (Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction,pp.xiv,6ff.) invite him to summarize it in the anthologies of scholarship they edit, or dedicate extensive space to his theories in their works. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some source that "Khazar studies began to enjoy a boom " from/in 1980s. Although the political propagation and missus of this theory (paraphrasing B.L) which was described by one of the greatest contemporary historian Bernard Lewis as "supported by no evidence whatsoever and abandoned by all serious scholars" certainly enjoyed boom from 1980s, this was not reflected in any science, certainly not in population genetics. Considering Wexler, he without any doubt deserves to get a Wiki article as currently almost all articles containing his name redirects to the famous American character actor. Yet, this is again mostly unrelated to this article. However I agree with you that this page should mostly cover professional geneticists views on genetics in the same way as for example professional microbiologists views should cover articles from that discipline. --Tritomex (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Khazar studies began to enjoy a boom " from/in 1980s. For goodness sake, don't you read what your interlocutors write? I already answered that over two weeks ago here, referring to Golden's overview, esp.pp.40-57 summarizing research from 1980, focusing particularly on breakthrough studies in 1980,1982, 1983,1984, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997,2000-2005. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So Bernard Lewis's comments, made in 1999 are "outdated" based on on breakthrough studies in 1980,1982, 1983,1984, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997,,2000-2005 This is WP:OR, as I do not see any academic verification for " breakthrough studies" in Khazarian hypothesis, nor did I see any authority disqualifying Lewis comments. Concerning Peter Golden your edits are are implying that he supports Khazar theory, namely that Ashkenazi Jews are direct descendants of Khazars which is again not the case (P 137-P 152). Therefore if you are claiming that this historians, and others whom you repeatedly mention support the assumption that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Turkic Khazars, please provide direct quote and link. --Tritomex (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That you can't distinguish between a reprint (1999) and the original (Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice,. W. W. Norton 1986) to date the time (middle of 1985 by a rough calculation) when Lewis wrote those words you cite p.48 on the 1987 reprint) as definitive on the Khazars, is the nth proof you simply are not attentive. I checked the original date some weeks ago before making my remarks, and you still haven't done the basic homework. Your second remark shows you haven't troubled to read my earlier remarks, and haven't troubled to read the source, Golden, I linked you to. It's pointless trying to repeatedly engage with someone who simply doesn't listen, or fails to read closely anything that might complicate or embarrass his POV.(WP:IDONTHEARTHAT)(WP:IDONTLIKETHAT).Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have red Golden, as I have red almost everything related to population genetics issue, and that is why I clearly state that Golden does not support the myth that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars. The main focus of his book is the history of Khazars through which he is debating the extent of adoption of Judaism among Khazar aristocracy, which is historical fact cited by Dunlop, Ben Sasson, Lewis and other historians. Citing Artamonov, Golden describes Pax Khazarica, and rift between the royal aristocracy which adopted a mix of Judaism combined with traditional pagan believes and the non Jewish Khazar population, which culminated with the destruction of Khazar empire. Pletenva cited also by Golden, describes this rift as a conflict between Jewish royal aristocracy and non Jewish Khazar population. Concerning Wexler theory, Golden describes it as "controversial" he states on page 56: "His conclusions went beyond evidence". All of this despite giving Wexler a space to present is.Al-Muqaddasi states that the population of Khzaria is mainly Muslim with huge pagan community. Al Istahri writes that by 10th century, beyond general population, Islam was wide spread in previously Jewish Khazar aristocracy. Both Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Al-Masudi are writing that by 940 the majority of Khazars were Muslims. Al Masudi even names a wezir of Khazar king as Ahmed b. Kuya. So to summarize, Golden nowhere supports Khazar theory, he does not deal with it extensively and points to the assimilation of Khazars into other people of the region.--Tritomex (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said Golden supports the Khazar theory. No scholar in his right mind would support any historical theory, since they are only provisory explanations of an uncertain past. Golden simply sums up various theories, all differing in emphasis, and says, much is still uncertain and research must proceed. When he states that Wexler 'goes beyond the evidence' (I'm minded to agree, but that is just my impression), that remains Golden's view, not a fact. Please note that you still, after several months, tend to read sources in order to evaluate who is right or wrong in historical controversies. Doing that goes way beyond our remit as editors. The only things we consider are the quality of sources, the weight to positions and the neutrality of exposition. We are strictly disallowed any leeway to fiddle with original research to favour one of several positions. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure that " No scholar in his right mind would support any historical theory, " because if we assume that "Khazar theory" is a historic theory, which in my personal opinion, based on all sources I have red is not the case, while we define Shlomo Sand and Elhaik as a scholars, which I believe is the case, this assertion, could allude to something offensive about them.--Tritomex (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is now a bit off track and maybe can be discussed elsewhere? It is now more about editors than editing decisions. The question was, I think, whether we should use journalistic sources, and if so, where will we draw the line? In the past this has always been a difficult question to agree upon. Everyone just wants the newspapers which support their own position right? Or is there any chance at all that editors on this article can agree on a guideline that they can all stick to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see that many peoples disagree to use non "peer review" sources. When I created this article it was obvious that this subject was so touchy that it was tricky to use Journalistic sources.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Very unbalanced

This article seems to fail to make a distinction between reliable sources and unreliable (or at least unsuitable) sources. Towards the end of the article, the findings of a recent study is presented. The study was conducted by specialists on DNA and published in good academic journal. Then, the article moves on to criticize that scientific study - by relying on some guy's blog! So a scientific article by established scientists and published in a respected journal is given equal weight as what some guy writing a blog has to say about the article. That's not serious, and it's not in line with Misplaced Pages's policies. I suggest the paragraph building on the blog be removed. If the academic study has problems, then future studies are likely to address those problems. Then we should of course include them, but what some guy writes in a blog is quite simply not relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is lunacy to give equal weighting to a peer reviewed study and a blog which criticizes it. We waited for the Elhaik study to appear in a peer reviewed journal before inclusion, why don't we just wait for criticisms of the paper to appear in the academic literature? Dlv999 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What's more, if you look at discussions above there is arguably a majority of editors who have looked at this who agree with these concerns. In summary the bit you mention is not stable and accepted yet. But the defenders of it are fast reverters. By the way, almost exactly the same issue has arisen with similar/same editors on Khazars.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you both. I can understand that the subject can be touchy, but that is not a reason for poor articles. Personally, I don't believe in the Khazar theory, but my personal opinion should not matter nor should the personal opinion of anyone else. What matters is that we have a scientific study in an academic journal, and we should publish that. What someone on a blog has to say about that study is not relevant. So unless someone objects, with very good reasons, I'll remove the paragraph building on the blog. If there are editors who revert such edits, then it is perhaps more of an issue for WP:ANI, as I have not seen any neutral, factual arguments for keeping the blog.Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph based on the consensus above, and also based on previous comments. If an academic article is published that criticises the study, we should of course include it. We should under no circumstances threat a blog as comparable to a peer-reviewed academic article. I should add that personally, I tend to agree more with the blogger than with the scientist in this case, and I can quite easily spot a few errors in the study myself. That does not matter, however. What matters is that the study has been published and peer-reviewed, the blog has not.Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles
• Pages translated from French Misplaced Pages