Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

L. Hao et al. (October 2009)[37]

Why are you saying that "This genetic study is inventented) There is no offitial page regarding this genetic study"? There is a citation and even a internet link to it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutboul (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Khazar origin of Ashenazim

I delete "Khazar" part because its not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.96.27 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced please read the two extracts hereafter:

• A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern European populations (54%-60%), at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow into Ashkenazi populations from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a greater extent all Eastern European populations in general, might have some partial Khazar ancestry.

• A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their local neighbouring populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.

If you have other sources saying the opposite please add them, but do not delete this section

--Boutboul (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no-one has any idea what the genetics of the Khazars were, there is no possible way a study could "show a genetic significant contribution coming from... Khazar among Ashkenazi". Indeed, the sources you have brought make no such claim. Rather, they hypothesize or present the possibility that up to 12% of Ashkenazi ancestry may be Khazar. That is a long, long way from "showing" such ancestry. In the future, please ensure that you do not distort claims made by sources. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayig, thank you for your information. However I did not write "show" but "tend to show", if the sentence is not correct we could change it by "suggest". Are you OK with that ?--Boutboul (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't say "suggest" either, because the authors of the studies themselves don't make that strong a claim. Rather, they hypothesize that Khazars might be a possible source of these genes (in 12% of Ashkenazi Jews). Another possibility is that these genes come from Eastern European populations. No geneticist could possibly say that a study "suggests" a Khazar contribution to any population, since we have no idea what the genetic makeup of the Khazars was. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So let's write may suggest a Khazar or East European origin ?--Boutboul (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, the authors don't make that claim. They are only willing to "hypothesize" a "possibility", which isn't strong enough for any real claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The exact sentence is "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars." I think that it is clear enough ?--Boutboul (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion goes on at length about possible a possible European origin for R-M17 chromosomes, and includes these statements: "Thus, R-M17 in Ashkenazi Jews could represent gene flow from Eastern European populations... these results support the hypothesis of a single male founder who introduced R-M17 into the Ashkenazi gene pool at the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora in Europe. Since then this haplogroup has expanded and spread among the Jewish communities across Europe." They leave the speculation about Khazars to the very last paragraph, in which they also say "if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~12% of the present-day Ashkenazim." In other words, you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to a single individual, who is much more likely to be Eastern European than Khazar. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll see that I never said that ashkenazi people come from Khazar, I tried to report Nebel paper. I remind that the Khazar assumption is in the Nebel paper abstract. I just wrote that genetic studies suggest that a significant but minority part may come from Khazar. I think that hypothethis is relevant, however it is possible that my english is not good enough to explain that but this information should be added in this paper. Please help me to write it correctly.--88.174.111.106 (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what you wrote in the article:

Current studies tend to show a genetic significant contribution coming from conversion of native population. This is particularly the case of Khazar among Ashkenazi or Berber people among the Jews of North Africa.

As we have seen, the studies themselves make no claims about "significant contribution coming from conversion of native population", nor do they state that it is "particularly the case of Khazar among Ashkenazi". In fact, what they state is that elevated levels of R-M17 may indicate a single Eastern European ancestor, or, they hypothesize, perhaps a single Khazar ancestor. This is too little to warrant any mention in an overview article, per WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot that I added the sentence "Whatsoever for the Berbers as the Khazar contributions are minority." And once again the Khazar assumption is in the abstract that is it is an important assumption. And anyway, if you do not like "Khazar" we can write "Khazar or east-european". ? --Boutboul (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The hypothesis is that the individual was East European. The speculation is that he might have been Khazar, so I still don't understand why you are proposing wordings that are contrary to the plain findings of the study. Again, we're talking about one individual, and the primary assumption is that the person was East European, while the speculation is that he might have been Khazar. This article is an overview of genetic studies, and I think this reference is WP:UNDUE weight under the circumstances. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And please don't add back essentially the same paragraph, particularly when we've already established that it places far too much weight on speculation about a single Khazar individual. You didn't even bother changing the last sentence, which only mentions Khazars, and not the primary hypothesis, an Eastern European individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not the only author suggesting some khazar origin for ashkenazim. In Kopelman 2009 it is written it is noteworthy that in some analyses as was observed in the recent study of Need et al. [10], we did detect similarity of the Adygei, a north Caucasian group from the area once occupied by the Khazars, to the Jewish populations.

If you do not like my wording could you please propose one wording instead of removing the sentence, I would appreciate that ? I would like to emphasis, that all genetic studies show that jewish people do not have only middle-eastern ancestries but also european for ashkenazim and berber for North African. And that a part of european ancestries may be Khazar as Nebel and Kopelman make the assumption.--Boutboul (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following wording:

• In addition to the common middle eastern origin for the main jewish populations, current studies tend to show a genetic contribution coming from conversion of native population. This is the case of west-European people and of East-European people (potentially identified as Khazar) among Ashkenazi or Berber people among the Jews of North Africa.--Boutboul (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, that misrepresents the source, in part because the Khazars were not an Eastern European people, but rather an Asian people. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"eastern-europeans" is not my word it comes from Nebel's paper and is consistent with Kopelman paper:

Ashkenazim have an elevated frequency of R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.

The north Caucasus is usually accepted to be on the European side of the "commonly accepted division" that separates Europe from Asia(Concise Atlas of the World, Second Edition). I do not write what I think it is but what the article say.

So now I think you do not have anymore remarks or comments ? Do you ?--Boutboul (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you've failed to address any of the issues I've raised! Nebel didn't refer to Khazars as an Eastern European people. Rather, he said the evidence suggests that up to 12% of Ashkenazi Jews had Eastern European genes, the result of a single individual. He also speculated that the genes could have come from a Khazar individual. As he pointed out, it's possible that Eastern Europeans themselves have some Khazar ancestry. Kopelman also just gives one throwaway sentence regarding possible "mysterious Khazar" ancestry. And indeed, anything is possible, since, as I've pointed out before, we have no idea what the genetic makeup of the Khazars was. Even if you were able to accurately represent what the studies actually said about possible Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews—and, until now, you've consistently failed to do so, instead making claims vastly stronger than those made by the authors—you still haven't dealt with the fact that this emphasis on speculation about a single individual fails WP:UNDUE. Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Kazhar = eastern european according to Nebel, please read carefully the following sentence coming from nebel:

Ashkenazim have an elevated frequency of R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.

R-M17 is Eastern European + R-M17 may represent Khazar ==> Khazar = Eastern European !

• "a single founder or a few closely related men". If you read genetic papers you'll see that it is common phenomena that's a founder can be ancestry of a large population. For example, 40% of the ashkenazim come from 4 womens. This man (or a few closely related men) is the ancestor of ~10 % of ashkenazim.
• All those assumptions are consistent with Kopelman's one.--Boutboul (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• If I understand, your main argument and what bothers you the most is that we have no idea of Khazars' genes. This criticism is a criticism that is actually addressed to all genetic studies and not simply to the case Khazar. For instance, we say that the majority of Jews come from the Middle East but it assumed that the current population of the Middle East is the same as the population of the Middle East 2000 or 3000 years ago and that the population of the Middle East is the only to have this type of gene (which is not the case). That's why all these statements are only assumptions and if it is not acceptable for wikipedia to accept this kind of hypothesis, there can not have an article called "genetic sudies on jews " even if I am the author.--Boutboul (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you have misrepresented what the studies say. The studies say Eastern Europeans may have some Khazar ancestry, not that Khazars are Eastern Europeans. When the Khazar kingdom was destroyed, the refugees went many places, including leaving their Asian homeland for Eastern Europe. In addition, genetic studies can indeed show relationships between various groups, but not between existing groups and groups for which we have no genetic evidence. Moreover, there is a vast different between making assumptions that a group that exists currently in an area also existed there (at least in significant part) 1000 years ago, versus making assumptions about a group that no longer exists. And finally, my main objection is WP:UNDUE weight on essentially idle speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• What about taking the exact Nebel sentence:

In addition to the common middle eastern origin for the main jewish populations, current studies tend to show a genetic contribution coming from conversion of native population. This is the case of western-European people and of Eastern-European people among Ashkenazim or Berber people among the Jews of North Africa. The Eastern-European contribution in "Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars."

Once again, the "Khazar theory" among Ashkenazim is mentioned in 4 papers by three different authors and so it is not WP:UNDUE.--Boutboul (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You have again misrepresented Nebel's thesis, in part by assuming that Khazars are the Eastern European people to whom Nebel refers, and in part by giving equal weight to his actual theory, as opposed to his speculation. And once again, the Khazar theory is mentioned speculatively and in passing by these papers - often as a mere sentence or two. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I really do not agree with you, for many reasons that I have already explained. However, I do not think that I can convince you, and I know that you are a Wikipedia admin for 5 years so I do not have a chance to let this sentence or a similar one in the introduction. Since I assume that you are of good faith (and I am sure you are), I suggest that you call other people that are capable to give their opinion on our quarrel and to make a new proposal. OK ?--Boutboul (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a sentence about Nebel's actual thesis, which is that Ashekazim may have had a single Eastern European ancestor? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you the founder effect is also an important and an interesting assumption. I would appreciate if you make a new proposal merging both assumptions (Founder effect and Khazar).--Boutboul (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. It seems to me that a direct quote of Nebel's article will not misrepresented his thesis! I think most of the readers will clearly understand that Nebels assume that Khazars are Eastern European (what is true, according to the place where they lived) when he states :

Ashkenazim have an elevated frequency of R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.

but if this interpretation is false, as claims Jayjg, then probably the readers will be more clever than me or Boutboul and will find the same interpretations as Jayjg. It seems to me unfair to refuse such a quote because you don't agree with the researchs (which can be false or misstated, I agree). Levochik (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As explained, Nebel does not assume that Khazars are Eastern European. Nebel has a lengthy paper, which barely mentions Khazars. Why quote that specific sentence? Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He said that Khazar is originaly an asiatic tribe (as hungarian people or turkic people are) but they lived in eastern Europe. And anyway the difference is small, it is at the border of both area: it is not a major issue. Nebel does not barley mentions Khazar, it is in the abstract of his article, that means that it is an important assumption for the author.--Boutboul (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the whole abstract:

Recent genetic studies, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. However, Ashkenazim have an elevated frequency of R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. In the present study of 495 Y chromosomes of Ashkenazim, 57 (11.5%) were found to belong to R-M17. Detailed analyses of haplotype structure, diversity and geographic distribution suggest a founder effect for this haplogroup, introduced at an early stage into the evolving Ashkenazi community in Europe. R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.

The only thing you seem to be focused on is that titillating bit at the end. What about the first sentence, for example? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the first sentence is the most important one (and it is not the only paper saying that) but I think that I take it into account in the Wikipedia abstract when I write:

However, most of these people have a common paternal genetic heritage that dates back to an old population whose members parted and followed different migration paths.[1] These discoveries trace the paternal lineage of ancestors of Jews in the Middle East.

If you feel that it is not the case you are welcome to make a new proposal. That's funny, because you gave me the impression to focus yourself on this word (Khazar) as if nothing else has been written in the wikipedia article and in its abstract. --Boutboul (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't take it into account by that statement at all, since it mentions nothing about being more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. As for the rest, I've removed all the unsourced, poorly sourced, unduly weighted, or misrepresented material I could find. It's just that you've been more adamant about the inappropriate Khazar material than the rest. Now, did you want to include a proper summary of Nebel's view? One that notes the close relationship of Ashkenazi Jews to other Jewish groups, and the effect of a single Eastern European ancestor? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, as I said if you think that this sentence is not well reported feel free to improve it. Just remember that the sentence you stressed is important but is not new, other authors has shown that before (for male heritage not for women). What is new in this paper it is the suggestion of a single ancestor (or few related man) and some Khazar origin for Ashkenazim. So yes I would appreciate that you make a proposal.--Boutboul (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just an other point, it seems that you think that I try to distort reference for a malicious purpose. Please, believe that is not the case at all, my only objective is to report what articles say as correctly as possible. The possibility of Khazar origin among Ashkenazim is only a small sentence in the whole Wikipedia article and this sentence is far to be the center of what I wrote. However, I strongly believe that it is an important part of Nebel's claims. There are many scientific papers on "genetic studies on Jews", I tried to report them sincerely and I think that I succeed even if it can be improved.--Boutboul (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your intent, shoving this sentence into the lead is clearly not in good faith. The undue weight material is already in the body, don't try to emphasize it even more, when by all rights it doesn't belong here at all. Also, what made you imagine this kind of editorial comment was acceptable in Wikipedia articles? Another editor has already removed it, of course, but still, on what grounds could you possibly justify its inclusion? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not an editorial comment it was a sentence from Goldstein's book (see below). I just wanted to give the exact reference.--Boutboul (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:Jayjg, I would like to summarize why I think that this kind of sentence should be added in the lead. The discussion of Khazar origin among ashkenazim is reported in five important documents dealing with Genetic studies on jews:

1. Nebel 2001 - on Y chromosome

   Alternatively, it is attractive to hypothesize that Ashkenazim with Eu 19 chromosomes represent descendents of the Khazars, originally a Turkic tribe from Central Asia, who settled in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine and converted en masse to Judaism in the ninth century of the present era, as described by Yehuda Ha-Levi in 1140

2. Behar 2003 - on Y chromosome of ashkenazim levi

   Although neither the NRY haplogroup composition of the majority of Ashkenazi Jews nor the microsatellite haplotype composition of the R1a1 haplogroup within Ashkenazi Levites is consistent with a major Khazar or other European origin, as has been speculated by some authors (Baron 1957; Dunlop 1967; Ben-Sasson 1976; Keys 1999), one cannot rule out the important contribution of a single or a few founders among contemporary Ashkenazi Levites.

3. Nebel 2005. In the abstract:

   However, Ashkenazim have an elevated frequency of R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. In the present study of 495 Y chromosomes of Ashkenazim, 57 (11.5%) were found to belong to R-M17. Detailed analyses of haplotype structure, diversity and geographic distribution suggest a founder effect for this haplogroup, introduced at an early stage into the evolving Ashkenazi community in Europe. R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.

4. Goldstein 2008 - A full chapter of his book (containing 6 chapters) deals with this possibility and he concludes by:

   And there is that troubling Y chromosome that is so common in the ashkenazi Levites but seemingly nowhere else to be found. I can not claim the evidence proves a Khazari connection. But it does raise the possibility, I confess that, although I can not prove it yet, the idea does now seem to me plausible, if not likely.

5. Kopelman 2009 - In an autosomal study

   One frequently discussed conversion that likely occurred in the 8th century at the far eastern edge of Europe, north of the Caucasus and Black Sea regions, is that of the Khazarian kingdom [60,62,64]. The demographic effect of this conversion is debated, so that only a small minority of the Khazars may have adopted Judaism. While the ultimate fate of the Khazar population remains unknown, the theory has been advanced that a large fraction of the ancestry of eastern European Jews derives from the Khazars [60,62-64]. This theory would predict ancestry for the eastern European Ashkenazi Jewish population to be distinct from that of the other Jewish populations in the study. Although we did not observe such a distinct ancestry, it is noteworthy that in some analyses (Figures ​(Figures22Figure 2 and ​and3),3Figure 3), as was observed in the recent study of Need et al. [10], we did detect similarity of the Adygei, a north Caucasian group from the area once occupied by the Khazars, to the Jewish populations.

This question is recurrent when talking about ashkenazim origins. Genetic studies can bring a new light on it. For all those reasons I think it worth mentioning something about the Khazar possibility in the lead and that it is not overweighted to do so. If the Nebel's sentence does not suit you, we can write something else. Please assume my good faith as I assume yours. It is as difficult for me to understand why you do not want that I write anything about Khazar in the lead than the opposite.Regards --Boutboul (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, all the sources indicate that it is at best a possibility, and no sources even hint that it could be proven in any way. Moreover, the sources indicate that the percentage of contribution, were it to come from Khazars, would be no more than around 12% of Ashkenazi Jews, and likely comes from a single individual. Goldstein refers to the Levites, and the higher percentage of this "troubling Y chromosome" among them - but, as we know, Levites comprise a mere 4% of Ashkenazi Jews, so the contribution is still minimal. Yes, it's exciting to speculate about Khazar contribution, very romantic and mysterious and all, but in reality the contribution, if it exists, can only be really tied to existing Eastern European populations (since they have much higher percentages), and can never be tied directly to Khazars. Please read WP:UNDUE again and again, since the article already devotes undue attention to this almost idle speculation that can never be proven. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with almost all what you say. It is probably because my english is very very bad that you do not understand what I try to say. I never said (and never tried to suggest) that Ashkenazim come from Khazar. What Genetic studies can show is that the massive conversion of the Khazar is unlikely but that some chromosomes are consistent with a small but significative genetic contribution of khazar ancestry (Goldstein explains why it is unlikely that thoses chromosomes come directly from eastern-european population).--Boutboul (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What did you think of the other changes I made to the section? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds good. I just have two remarks:

• I would not have inverted the sentences

  Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations.

  and

  The maternal lineages are generally more heterogeneous. They often have a unique feature which is the founders phenomenon. In many communities, a limited number of women are the source of much of these communities. Most of the time, the origin of the parent is unknown or disputed.

  because there were a logic in the lead: 1 - paternal lineage / 2 - Maternal lineage / 3 - Conclusion with autosomes.
• I would add some exemples of admixure with non-jewish polulation for ashkenazim and sephardim.

I was already told that the last sentence about "sensitive political context" should not appear in a wikipedia article. --Boutboul (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just understand that you were talking about ashkenazim Y-DNA section and not about the lead. I have some comments:

The haplogroups Eu19, R-M17 and R1a1 refer to the same thing. You should use only one of them otherwise it is difficult to understand. The paragraph on Nebel 2001 and Nebel 2005 should be merged and should be shorter. I think you insist a little bit too much about middle eastern origin, once or twice is enough. Why have you removed 23% of European origin from Hammer study ? I do not understand why you removed the last sentence: "Thus, the paternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jews has a Middle Eastern base with significant contributions from western, eastern and southern European populations and people of indeterminate origins.". It is not an editorial comment but a summarize? Why have you removed "In addition, the authors show a strong similarity with the non-Jewish Greek and Turkish populations". It comes from Hammer's paper. --Boutboul (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to standardize on one terminology, that's fine. Why should 2001 and 2005 be merged? You have two separate paragraphs for Behar et al (2004). Also, you say in the article "Behar et al (2004) gives a percentage of European contribution of 5%" - how does this square with the Hammer study? Hammer said the total amount was 12.5%, that's a direct quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think that 2001 and 2005 should be merged because they say almost the same thing at least both talk about Khazar origin. For Behar you are right it should be merged also it talks about the same thing.
• Hammer said the total amount was 12.5%, that's a direct quote.

Yes, it depends on which haplotypes you include when comparing to European population:

The m (admixture percentage) values based on haplotypes Med and 1L were ≈13% ± 10%, suggesting a rather small European contribution to the Ashkenazi paternal gene pool. When all haplotypes were included in the analysis, m increased to 23% ± 7%. This value was similar to the estimated Italian contribution to the Roman Jewish paternal gene pool.

• Greek and Turk:

  Of the Jewish populations in this cluster, the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations (specifically the Greeks) and also to the Turks.

• Behar et al (2004) gives a percentage of European contribution of 5%" - how does this square with the Hammer study

When these diagnostic haplogroups were used for analysis, the my value was 8.1%±11.4%, suggesting an even smaller contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazi paternal gene pool than in the previous study by Hammer et al. (2000). Because of the apparently high level of admixture in Dutch Jews (my value of 46.0%±18.3%), we repeated the admixture calculation excluding the Dutch sample and found a lower estimate of admixture (~5%).

I am suprised many links has been changed by other editors. You can find the good link for Behar Parper here: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutboul (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy and JOGG

The article had the following claims in it:

Ellen Coffman-Levy, in a review article in 2005<ref name="Coffman 2005"/> also reported that the significant presence of different subgroups (E1b1b1a E-M78 and E1b1b1b E-M81) of haplogroup E1b1b among Sephardic Jews, although that may result from a "genetic drift" was most likely due to a genetic contribution of Berbers and Spanish.<ref group = "Note">"The higher frequency of E-M78 among Sephardic groups may be the result of pronounced genetic drift, or more likely, gene flow from North African and Spanish populations. The likelihood of European and North African gene flow is further supported by the fact that another sub-clade, E-M81, occurs only among Sephardim (Semino et al. 2004). It is also found in very high percentages among North Africans. Its frequency among the Sephardim at 5% is comparable to that seen in Spanish populations, again suggesting possible gene flow from Spanish and Berber populations into Sephardic groups", Coffman-Levy 2005</ref>

Coffman-Levy is a family lawyer. JOGG is a hobby website run by non-geneticists. It in no way satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia for reliable sourcing. Please review WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK that's interesting. Let's remove this source.--Boutboul (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

The article had the following claims in it:

However, we must not forget that this haplogroup as haplogroup none is specifically "Jewish". It is present in many populations as the Kabyle of North Africa at the same frequency (10.50%{{#tag:ref|Among 19 Tamazigh Berber language in the region of Tizi Ouzu - The haplogroup is formerly E1b1b1c E3b3a known in the study Arredi et al. 2004<ref name="Arredi2004">{{cite journal |author=Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S, ''et al.'' |title=A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa |journal=American Journal of Human Genetics |volume=75 |issue=2 |pages=338–45 |year=2004 |month=August |pmid=15202071 |pmc=1216069 |doi=10.1086/423147}}</ref>|group= "Note"}}). Note, also, that in the article Lucotte a proportion of 8.4% of haplotype IV, which is found mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, is present among Jews of North Africa. There is no clear correlation between this haplotype and the YCC haplogroups. No component sub-Saharan Africa has been detected in other studies dealing with Sephardic Jews including articles referring to Jews of Morocco and those of Libya.

As is obvious, these are arguments being made by a Wikipedia editor (and in astonishingly non-encyclopedic language), not arguments made by any sources regarding Genetic studies on Jews, the topic of this article. If there are Genetic studies on Jews that make these arguments, please bring them forward. Until then, please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the style is not encyclopedic language, please help to correct it. However, the information are correct and sourced and are related to Genetic studies on Jews. Could you please explain exactly what is "original work".--Boutboul (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sources make those exact claims? Is the Arredi & Poloni paper a genetic study on Jews? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Arredi paper is not directly related to genetic study on jews but brings some clarification.
• With which claims exactly you don't agree ?--Boutboul (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Arredi paper is not directly related to genetic study on jews but brings some clarification" = WP:NOR.

"With which claims exactly you don't agree"? All claims not made by the sources. From what I can tell, none of the ones I removed were made by the sources. If you disagree, it's easy to prove me wrong; simply quote the sources making those claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a little bit suprised because all information have clear references. But I will try to detail them.

• "we must not forget that this haplogroup as haplogroup none is specifically "Jewish"." See Robert pollack claims. But anyway that's obvious, and I am sure that you agree with it. To illustrate this fact, I remind that this haplogroup is also present in other population and I give a reference.
• " 8.4% of haplotype IV, which is found mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, is present among Jews of North Africa". Do you have Lucotte paper, it is not free but I can send it to you ? you'll see this claim. I agree that is strange that's why I added the next sentence.
• No component sub-Saharan Africa has been detected in other studies dealing with Sephardic Jews including articles referring to Jews of Morocco and those of Libya.--Boutboul (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the haplogroups not being specifically Jewish, that may be true, but who makes this argument? You need a source that specifically makes the argument. Regarding the rest, are you saying the early Lucotte studies differ from more recent studies? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For jewish gene see Robert Pollack in the introduction. if there is no jewish gene there is no jewish haplogroup.

No I am not saying that Lucotte paper is different from other papers because the population studied is not exactly the same but the results are almost the same. In other papers the Algerian and Egyptian jews has not been tested, this could explain the difference. In addition, it is difficult to say that one paper is more recent than an other one because they have been written almost at the same time (that is from 2001 to 2005). Anyway, the sample number is not large enough to make a final conclusion, I think all sources should be given.--88.174.111.106 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)--Boutboul (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, there are a half dozen Lucotte papers used here, from many different years, so it's hard to tell which you meant. More importantly, you have not answered the question who makes this argument? Quote them arguing what you argue. And even more importantly, you added back the Arredi et al citation and material, when we've already established that the paper in question is not a Genetic study on Jews, and therefore its use is original research. Please don't do this kind of thing again, it's very disruptive. Discuss the inappropriate material here and make proposals, don't edit-war unsuitable text into articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that I feel the same when you remove my sentences. I thought it was clear for you, sorry. I was talking about Lucotte 2003 (Lucotte G, Mercier G (2003). "Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in Jews: comparisons with Lebanese and Palestinians". Genetic Testing. 7 (1): 67–71. doi:10.1089/109065703321560976. PMID 12820706.). In this paper it is written :

• Haplotype IV (A1C0D0F1I1) is the main haplotype in sub-Saharan Africa
• And in table 1 we can see that 8.4% of North African Jews own this halpotype.

For Arredi et al. I do not understand your point but since it is not an important point I agree we can remove this reference.

• Are you OK with that ?

--Boutboul (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you propose a new paragraph here on Talk:, and we can work on it together? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your suggestion. I will try to write a new paragraph here but since your english is much better than mine you also can start.--Boutboul (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

North African Jews

We can start from, my previous proposition. Please change as you wish, we'll see the result.

We can notice for example that over 70% of the Berbers of Morocco have haplogroup E1b1b. It also suggests that a significant proportion of haplogroup E1b1b1 is haplogroup E1b1b1c (E-M123) could be a candidate for a Jewish origin, the latter appearing in the same proportions (10 to 12%) among Ashkenazi and Sephardic. However, we must not forget that this haplogroup as none haplogroup is specifically "Jewish". It is present in many populations as the Kabyle of North Africa at the same frequency (10.50%).

In the Lucotte's article a proportion of 8.4% of haplotype IV, which is found mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, is present among Jews of North Africa. There is no clear correlation between this haplotype and the YCC haplogroups. No sub-Saharan component has been detected in other studies dealing with Sephardic Jews including articles referring to Jews of Morocco and those of Libya. --Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a starting point that removes the OR:

Haplogroup E1b1b1c (E-M123) could be a candidate for a Jewish origin, the latter appearing in the same proportions (10 to 12%) among Ashkenazi and Sephardic. In the Lucotte's article 8.4% of haplotype IV, which is found mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, is present among Jews of North Africa.

Now, from here you can add material, but only if the material is explicitly stated in genetic studies on Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence

Haplogroup E1b1b1c (E-M123) could be a candidate for a Jewish origin, the latter appearing in the same proportions (10 to 12%) among Ashkenazi and Sephardic

comes from Levy-Coffman paper so let's remove it. Finally, I would suggest to let

In the Lucotte's article (I will add the ref.) a proportion of 8.4% of haplotype IV, which is found mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, is present among Jews of North Africa. There is no clear correlation between this haplotype and the YCC haplogroups. No sub-Saharan component has been detected in other studies dealing with Sephardic Jews including articles referring to Jews of Morocco and those of Libya.

OK ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.108.83.254 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you source the following statements:

In Lucotte's article (I will add the ref.) a proportion of 8.4% of haplotype IV, which is found mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, is present among Jews of North Africa. There is no clear correlation between this haplotype and the YCC haplogroups. No sub-Saharan component has been detected in other studies dealing with Sephardic Jews including articles referring to Jews of Morocco and those of Libya.

Otherwise they look like WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

it is easy to give you reference but you'll tell me that they do not talk about "genetic and jews" ! Since I do not want to fight on this small issue let's remove this paragraph.--Boutboul (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Relatively high frequency of african haplotypes (27%) in North-African jews (Lucotte 2003)

Here are the frequencies of haplotypes in north-african jews reported by Lucotte in his 2003 study (Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in Jews: comparisons with Lebanese and Palestinians).

Haplotype VII and VIII are considered by Lucotte as Near-Eastern, Haplotype IV and V as african (IV is considered as characteristic of sub-Saharan populations and haplotype V as characteristic of north african populations), and Haplotype XI et XV as European :

• North African Jews (381)
  • Near-East ht (haplotype VII and VIII) : 54%
  • African ht (haplotype IV : 8.4% and V : 18.6%) : 27%
  • European ht (haplotype XI et XV) : 8.9%

• European Jews (256)
  • Near-East ht (haplotype VII and VIII) : 47.3%
  • European ht (haplotype XI and XV) : 26.1%
  • African ht (haplotype IV : 0% et V : 3.1%) : 3.1%

• Oriental Jews (56)
  • Near-East ht (haplotype VII and VIII) : 85.7%
  • African ht (haplotype IV : 1.8% and V : 8.9%) : 10.7%
  • European ht (haplotype XI and XV) : 1.8%

• Palestinians (69)
  • Near-East ht (haplotype VII and VIII) : 59.4%
  • African ht (haplotype IV : 1.4% and V : 15.9%) : 17.3%
  • European ht (haplotype XI and XV) : 5.8%

• Lebanese (54)
  • Near-East ht (haplotype VII and VIII) : 51.9%
  • Africa ht (haplotype IV : 3.7% and V : 16.7%) : 20.4%
  • Europe ht (haplotype XI and XV) : 9.3%

In his previous study in 1993 about North african jews and European jews (Y-chromosome-specific haplotype diversity in Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews), Lucotted concluded :

DNA samples from Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews were studied with Y-chromosome-specific DNA [...]. All 16 European haplotypes were found in Jews, but only 2 of them (VII and VIII) were widespread. Haplotype distributions in the two Jewish populations are similar, but haplotypes XI and XV [European] are more frequent in the Ashkenazim and haplotypes IV and V [African] are more frequent in the Sephardim, indicating their origins

Memmi--90.28.111.250 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You should also have notice that these haplotypes are also found among Lebanese and Palestinians as high as among North African Jews which show a connection.::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekarfi13 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Did the studies regarding these Jews say anything about these connections? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the paper does indicate the connection between North African jews and palestinian/libanese. It is already written in the wikipedia article. What is also true is that no other paper have shown any sub saharian haplotype among north african jews.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Haplotype Table

Why have you removed the bar graph, it comes from Lucotte 2003 table 1 ?--Boutboul (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sure I had created a section on this, but I see now I didn't. Strange. Anyway, the problem was that it was entirely unsourced. And if it comes only from Lucotte 2003, then it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single study. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All papers give similar data. But if I understand you prefer that I add other graphs coming from other paper (it is almost impossible to merge them because they do not use the same technic)?--Boutboul (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best not to use any graphs, unless you have one from a meta-study. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain why (I have not seen a graph coming from a meta study) ?--Boutboul (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of WP:UNDUE. The studies all give different results, highlighting a particular 2003 one gives it undue weight. Why did you not choose, for example, Behar et al (2004)? That, at least, is supposed to have been the largest study of Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1. We can put all graphs you want included data coming from Behar 2004, it was my suggestion (see above). The table "Haplogroup distribution among Ashkenazim" already gives all known data for Ashkenazim (except Lucotte and Hammer2000 because the link between the three methods is not explicitly given).
2. All papers give roughly the same results concerning haplogroup/haplotype distribution. The main difference is the interpretation.
3. Behar 2004 talks only about Ashkenazim and Lucotte gives data for more jewish communities (North African jews, Oriental jews and ashkenazim) that's why I have chosen this one.--Boutboul (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is your opinion ?--Michael Boutboul 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Same as before. If you use a graph, use one from a meta-study, rather than placing WP:UNDUE weight on an individual study. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What about giving three graphs coming from all studies dealing with many jewish communities ?--Michael Boutboul 13:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutboul (talk • contribs)

That would be better. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does better means that you are OK ?--Michael Boutboul 05:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutboul (talk • contribs)

Well, I'd like to see what the graphs look like when they're done, but in theory it should be fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

external links

It is not important but why have you removed external link ?--Boutboul (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; I left in all external links directly related to the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now that the external links are after the reference. No problem sorry.--Boutboul (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

However, when all haplotypes were included in the analysis, m (the admixture percentage) increased to 23% ± 7%.

What is the source for this sentence?

However, when all haplotypes were included in the analysis, m (the admixture percentage) increased to 23% ± 7%.

Can you quote the line from the study that states this? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This sentence comes directly from Hammer2000 paper without any change. The full sentence is the following:

The m values based on haplotypes Med and 1L were ≈13% ± 10%, suggesting a rather small European contribution to the Ashkenazi paternal gene pool. When all haplotypes were included in the analysis, m increased to 23% ± 7%. This value was similar to the estimated Italian contribution to the Roman Jewish paternal gene pool.

--Boutboul (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

mtDNA

The haplogroup K excitement should be in the mtDNA section!

Approximately 32% of people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry belongs to the mtDNA haplogroup K. This high percentage points to a genetic bottleneck occurring some 100 generations ago.
In Europe the level of haplogroup K appears to be highest in the Morbihan (17.5%) and Périgord-Limousin (15.3%) regions of France, and in Norway and Bulgaria (13.3%). The level is 12.5% in Belgium, 11% in Georgia and 10% in Austria and Great Britain.
CantorFriedman (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The paper is a little bit obsolete since the same author shown not only a bottleneck but also that 40% of Ashkenazim come from 4 women ancestors. I do not think that the other sentence has any interest in this article.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion in the introduction ?

Why did you remove "Corcos and Sand" in the introduction ? I agree those comments are stupid however it is not personal opinion (it is the opposite of mine), those remarks concern jews and genetics and should be included somewhere in the article ?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific edits you mean? Also, have you seen The study by Behar et al in the June 9, 2010 edition of Nature? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not read the new Behar paper. Thank's for the reference I will read it and it should be added.

I was talking about the following sentence:

Thus, the historian Shlomo Sand, who asserts that genetics in Israel was already in the 1950s, a "biased science entirely dependent on a historical and national conception trying to find consistency in national history of the Jewish people all over the world", believes, about the recent genetic studies, that" information on the method of selecting elements observed is tenuous and likely to arouse considerable doubt. Most often, hasty conclusions are drawn and strengthened through a rhetoric devoid of any connection with the scientific laboratory ". Finally, the biologist Alain F. Corcos in his book The Myth of the Jewish race: a biologist's point of view said it would have been useful to extract DNA from ancient skeletons and compare it to the DNA from non-Jews, in order to have a definitive interpretation of the data coming from population genetics. Such warnings, though necessary, are outside the scope of this article.

--Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The first part is a political statement by a historian of 19th century France. It's not relevant to this article, which gives the results of genetic studies. Not every opinion is notable. The second doesn't really add much; yes, it would be wonderful if we had the DNA of ancient Israelites, or even better, a time machine so we could go back and do wide-scale testing. Since we don't, this adds no information. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand is not French but Israeli (from polish origin) and he published its book in 2008. Yes, it is a political statement and the geneticist Kopelman refer to it

The discovery of shared Y chromosomes common in separate Jewish populations from different geographic regions has strengthened the evidence for shared Jewish genetic ancestry, but as evidenced in the considerable attention given in Israel to the 2008 scholarly book "When and how was the Jewish people invented" [20], debate continues regarding the issue of whether separate Jewish populations have any deep shared genetic ancestry beyond that shared with non-Jewish groups.

(Kopelman 2009). So even if this opinion is stupid I think it is relevant ot this article.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

His area of expertise is 19th French history. He's not a reliable source on the topic of this article, genetic studies. The New York Times source I just added today specifically points out his claims have been thoroughly refuted. Why would we promote the views of a non-expert whose views have been repudiated by actual genetic studies? Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion about his citizenship. We should not promote him but we should say that his opinion exits but has been clearly refuted? --Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, since he's not an reliable source on this topic, I don't think either his claim or its refutation are worth including here. It certainly would make sense to include it elsewhere, such as the article about him. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may be right but could we remove "New-York Time" and "News-Week" reference and put them at the end as we did up to now. We do not need those references, genetic journal are quite clear. OK?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The studies are more-or-less primary sources, the Newspaper/Newsmagazine articles secondary. It's generally better to summarize these kinds of things using secondary sources, I would think. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

New-York Times and News Week

Up to now we did not add any reference of non scientific journal. Could we keep this line ?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern European population

Why did you remove the sentence:

Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups

? --Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC). In addition, the author insists

Besides Southern European groups, the closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish populations are the Palestinians, Bedouins, and Druze. The observed differentiation of these groups reflects their histories of within-group endogamy.39 Yet, their genetic proximity to one another and to European and Syrian Jews suggests a shared genetic history of related Middle Eastern and non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestors who chose different religious and tribal affiliations.

. So could we add back this sentence? --Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the direct quotes

"suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry" and "is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs."

and replace them with unquoted, unclear material? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your remark I only used a quoted sentence. The full quote is the following:

Two major differences among the populations in this study were the high degree of European admixture (30%–60%) among the Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jews and the genetic proximity of these populations to each other compared to their proximity to Iranian and Iraqi Jews. This time of a split between Middle Eastern Iraqi and Iranian Jews and European/Syrian Jews, calculated by simulation and comparison of length distributions of IBD segments, is 100–150 generations, compatible with a historical divide that is reported to have occurred more than 2500 years ago.2,5 The Middle Eastern populations were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires who are thought to have remained geographically continuous in those locales. In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times, when proselytism was a common Jewish practice. During Greco-Roman times, recorded mass conversions led to 6 million people practicing Judaism in Roman times or up to 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs. The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies.

The sentence I used is quoted and according to me it is clear. So I would ask why did you remove the orignal quoted sentence ?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're quoting directly, why haven't you enclosed anything in quotation marks? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake sorry. --Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews

What you wrote about Ethiopian jews

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

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

Sourcing, particularly on the Ashkenazi-European admixture question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of sentences in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about:

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

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is nice but Eastern Europe exclude at least Germany and France.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but do all these articles include France and Germany in their definition of hosts/neighbours? Consider that currently the article states that the definition is always the same? But is that really correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure but not to south France (only in Rhin Valley). Because in the South of France Jewish were considered as sepharad.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, taking what you say, what about:-

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

Cheers--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's long but correct so OK.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but best we have so far I guess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The text I slightly adjusted, and which you frivolously reverted, had clear edit summaries indicating that the tweak was simply intended to remove any possibility that this sentence would be understood as claiming a consensus in the field. This is clearly what your supposedly preferred version does. Of course the main reason you prefer it is because it is not mine. I see no possible way to assume good faith on your reverts.

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

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

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

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

Please stop changing the subject and editing my posts. Again: The text you supposedly prefer clearly implies a consensus in the field which you have no source for. What's your answer? I did not see it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:NPA, and please respond to the questions asked: which studies disagree with these assessments? Where are they mentioned in this article? If there are "more articles in the field", they don't seem to be represented in this article. Why is the phrase "these studies" fine for the start of the paragraph, but not for this specific sentence in the middle of the paragraph? As I've stated before, the lede summarizes the article, not studies that may or may not exist elsewhere, but are undiscussed here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not make any claims about any other articles. What are you talking about? Again: The text you supposedly prefer clearly implies a consensus in the field which you have no source for. What's your answer? I did not see it. WP policy tells us to avoid such things unless we have strong secondary sources. That's all I am saying too.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the lede summarizes the article. The studies discussed in the article are referred to in the lede. If there are "more articles in the field", they don't seem to be represented in this article. Which studies disagree with these studies? Where are they mentioned in this article? Why is the phrase "these studies" fine for the start of the paragraph in the lede, but not for this specific sentence in the middle of the paragraph? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not care how we avoid implying a consensus, I just think we should avoid it. Do you disagree with the principle?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the article did imply a consensus, one should only "avoid implying" one if no such consensus exists. The reliable sources listed in this article all seem to reach the same conclusions on this. Are there reliable sources that reach different conclusions? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on the side of the person claiming consensus and WP encourages us not to do it unless we have good secondary sources. I do not make a big point out of this of course, because in practice you can not avoid needing to agree on some things that editors are willing not to challenge and to consider obvious. However, if a sentence can be made slightly less absolute with a simple and inoffensive modification, why not do that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the article did imply consensus, must every single sentence in a Wikipedia article have a source that not only supports the claim made in it, but also explicitly supports a claim that the claim made is also a "consensus"? Please quote the policy, if so. The reliable sources listed in this article all seem to reach the same conclusions on this. Are there reliable sources that reach different conclusions? Just as one should not imply consensus where there is none, one should also not imply lack of consensus when there is no such lack. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for there to be any implication of "no consensus" whatever that would mean. I am concerned about the opposite only. Similarly, I am making no claims about specific other articles at this time. I am noting that this article is however based off a small number of primary sources and the Y DNA section is almost all made up of old articles. A few years is, as mentioned to you already, important in this field. Most big headline conclusions from Y haplogroup papers around 2000 are proved wrong these days but it just so happens there has not been much done on Ashkenazi Y DNA in recent years. (Attention has gone to autosomal studies.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for there to be any implication of "no consensus" whatever that would mean. I am concerned about the opposite only. Exactly. Instead, you should be concerned that Wikipedia only reflect what reliable sources say, whether it implies a "consensus", or whether it implies a lack thereof. Either implication, if untrue, is equally problematic. The sources we have, and all the sources in the article, seem to be in general agreement on this specific point. We have no Wikipedia policy based reason or right to imply anything else, unless we find other reliable sources that contradict the first ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To repeat: we do have reason not to prefer to imply that there is a consensus, which is what you are apparently arguing for. Consider WP:PRIMARY by the way also. You are taking a strong position based on a small number of old articles in a field which has changed its conclusions enormously since they were published. Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote removed, editorial comment inserted

Andrew Lancaster had changed the following sentence:

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

to

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

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

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

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

I think the issue here is WP:CLUE, if it is not just bad intentions. Please at least read the edit summaries and if you do not understand them try talking before reverting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Jayjg:

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

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

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

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

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

Everything that makes you look wrong is not a personal attack. Please do look into that one day. Your other responses are all non answers, and fail to address anything of importance to editing this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you've written has made me "look wrong"; the exact opposite, in fact. Now, please address the issues raised here, rather than attacking me. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• What issue have you raised which is relevant to editing this article and not yet answered?
• Please stop editing my posts to your own advantage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concerning admixture first please note that Michael understands and is on to it. Second just note that all that is relevant here in this discussion is that there are differences. Do you say there are none?
• I asked you to state whether you are challenging my statement that 2000 is early in terms of genetics articles. Are you? If you aren't then this is also an irrelevant question. We don't have to footnote every word just because someone is having a bad hair day. BTW Michael agrees with me. See below.
• I have never stated that it is only one sentence where I have this concern about using early articles. Where do you get that from? Again, totally irrelevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "admixture". You asserted that there are possible alternate meanings, not me. Please back up your assertion, or at least explain what those possible alternate meanings are.

Re: "early". You asserted that the study was an "early" one. please provide a source stating that this study is an "early" one in this field. If you cannot do so, then this characterization cannot go in the article, per WP:V, WP:NOR. I object to all violations of Wikipedia's fundamental editing policies.

Re: "only one sentence". This is the only sentence in the article you have asserted needs to be characterized as from an "early" study. If any such claims need to be characerized this way, then they all do. Per WP:NPOV, this article will not characterize just one sentence this way, if the sentences do need to be characterize at all (which is unlikely, as in any event the characterization is WP:NOR). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are being silly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the issues raised, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. You are just off topic now. Everything you need is above. Please stop editing my descriptions of your arguments in order to make yourself look less silly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to my post of 20 September 2010. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You did lots of posts today, but I see none with open questions from you that are of any relevance to any constructive editing discussions about this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the relevant and constructive questions in my posts of 20:13, 20 September 2010 and 20:41, 20 September 2010. Thanks. Failure to do so in a meaningful way (i.e. actual responses, rather than saying You are being silly or the like) will indicate that you have no policy-based or constructive reasons for adding the tags. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"You are being silly" actually means something. As usual when I write to you, it is also not an ad hominem argument because it describes you only in terms of observations of what you have written, not what you have written in terms of other things about you. Kindly allow your fellow Wikipedians to communicate their observations about edits and posts without bullying them and editing their talk page posts.

Concerning the two posts you mention, what is silly is that you are willfully ignoring that I have already pointed that these questions simply are not relevant to anything concerning editing the article which is being discussed here. They are side issues which you now want to focus on instead. In the meantime, Michael and I are talking constructively because he is not pretending not to understand. Life goes on, on WP and elsewhere. Consider WP:LETGO.

You know I've challenged the relevance of the questions, and you know you are ignoring that relevance question and once more back-tracking to an earlier point in the conversation as if you do not know anything else had happened. If you had a response to my challenging of the relevance, you could have made that response. You have chosen to play an all-too-common game instead. See WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and META:DICK (Don't say you want one thing if you want another). Discussion is done on this point I believe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

May I give my opinion on this debate:

• "early": Yes, it is an early article but according to me the results have not changed that much. I believe that almost all papers dealing with "Y-DNA" of jews are in this article.

• "admixture": Yes, there are a lot of definiton for admixture and Hammer has clearly defined it. We could simply add this definition in a Note.

--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. I am OK with both those answers. The word early is not a big issue. My bigger concern, as expressed above, was to be careful of seeming to imply certainty about anything when we are using a small number of primary sources. The word admixture and some of the terms around it, can indeed probably be fixed by clarification and that was indeed all I was suggesting. I can not imagine why anyone would be against such a suggestion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)