Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Recent edits by Skllagyook

Okay your last edits have some serious problems. First of all the study says that they they cluster on PCA “midway between europeans and middle easterners”, while you wrote this ambiguous “Mediterranean people”

second of all there are PCA results where AJ cluster much closer europeans like italians than ME as in lazaridis 2014, so the conclusion of goldestien study is not to be be generalized.

third of all, the Fst results is not “according to some studies”, it’s how it is in general, you won’t find any study showing a different result. ashkenazi jews are genetically closer italians and greeks than middle easterners, if you went to exploreyourdna.com and compared any ashkenazi jew sample from g25 to other samples, they always show much closer genetic distance with italians than middle easterners. I am okay with adding “according to some studies”, but only if you were somehow you were able to bring any single study that has ashkenazi jews having lower autosomal Fst value with levantines or middle easterners than italians Chafique (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think those are fair points, and accurate, as far as I know. My issues with your edits were other than that (see my topic above). But I don't think we disagree. And I think I can edit my additions to fix the problems you pointed out. Skllagyook (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reverted back the Criticism section. This section is sourced and quoted from articles. Stop interjecting you personal opinion here. Also citations in this section come from the parent article you're going to have to re-write the entire History section if you honestly believe this section is based on opinion because a source from that section is quoted in this section. Look, I understand that you personally have this believe and you have that right, but this should be based on scholarly sources not what you believe personally and that is what this section contains and quotes. I severely suggest you take a moment to remove yourself from the personal connection to this and then come back. You've engaged in edit warring and there is now a talk section on it as well a covering the injection of your personal opinions through misrepresentation of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illyduss (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Firstly, you appear to be the same user as one who was recently blocked. Also, there is already a discussion on the kind of statements you want to add (above). And there was never a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of them. Your recent edits consist in large part combing various sources to support your own condemnatory opinion/conclusions regarding the study of Jewish genetics when said conclusions are not stated explicitly in the sources, i.e. WP:SYN. Skllagyook (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

The lead contains the following line:

Behar and colleagues have remarked on an especially close relationship between Ashkenazi Jews and modern Italians.

But source 8 (Science) shows that it was a separate later study led by Martin Richards that concluded there was such a deep connection, and that Behar was actually less convinced by it. So it seems odd to attribute it to "Behar and colleagues". Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hypotheses" section

Is this whole section just a refutation of the Khazar hypotheses based on genetics? And if so, does it need to be labelled as such? Or is it even needed here? Genetics and the Khazar theory is its own section on the Khazar hypothesis page. If this is just pure duplication on two separate pages, one of the versions (probably here, if this section is as specific to that page and its subject as it seems) should simply summarize the material and link to the main page on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You're reshuffling of this alerted me to this query again, so fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be right. It feels like it's spun off from somewhere. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Are Levites a "priestly class"?

Should "priestly class" be changed to "a class which claims to have been predominately helpers of priests, but includes also priests"? AltheaCase (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I would go with the description from our article Levites: "Jewish males who claim patrilineal descent from the Tribe of Levi". The fact that it's a claim and that the claim is a genetic one are more important than the historical roles held by the Tribe of Levi. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Priestly class" is perfectly proper wording. We can get a clue from our well-sourced article about the Tribe of Levi:

"According to the Bible, the Tribe of Levi is one of the tribes of Israel, traditionally descended from Levi, son of Jacob. The descendants of Aaron, who was the first kohen gadol (high priest) of Israel, were designated as the priestly class, the Kohanim."

We can also get more clues from our article about Aaron#High Priest:

"The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants."

That's pretty clear. Only the descendants of Aaron, thus including Levites, can be priests. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Title change suggestion

Could the title of this page please be changed to “Genetic Studies Of Jews” instead of “on”? It may seem minor, but “of” does not provoke the thought of the heinous experimentations of Mengele and others. Tumbleweed42AC (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That does make sense to me. Let's see what other editors think. A title change is a very serious thing, so don't make such changes until a consensus has formed for the change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, the title should change. CGP05 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

seems ok to me Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very good. I'd often thought that this would be a better formulation.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased lede

Discussion compromised by block evading editor, WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biased lead/lede ... "Jewish migration" indicates genetic studies are about "Expulsions and exoduses of Jews" Change this... Genetic studies of Jews are part of the population genetics discipline and are used to analyze the chronology of Jewish migration To this... Genetic studies of Jews are part of the population genetics discipline and are used to analyze Jewish ethnogenesis. See examples... https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/702709 or search... The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis.pdf https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis#Jews ... this is also biased 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The paper you cite above represents a view that strongly differs from those of the majority of research in the field from some of the most prominent and cited researchers/reseach (which acknowledges both significant components of common ancestry as well as components if non-shared ancestry from host populations in most Jewish groups). To change the lede to reflect a minority view and ignore the rest of the sources would violate WP:NPOV and would be WP:UNDUE. Skllagyook (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The majority research you point to includes Harry Ostrer in many, if not most cases. He is clearly a Zionist and is biased. Eran Elhaik is also a Zionist but he is clearly not biased. Ostrer refuses to share his data with Elhaik, why? "unless research includes novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people." See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms Also see above ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_studies_of_Jews#The_Law_of_Return_and_the_Zionist_Campaign_to_Subvert_Science 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The IP is right that this article is over-reliant on Ostrer's nationalist POV. The article Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism covers this topic in a more balanced way. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC) To User:Onceinawhile and the IP: The research I am referring to is not only Ostrer (who is mainstream and widely cited) but several other researchers (including Xue and Shai Carmi, Behar et al., Hao, Atzmon, Hammer, Agranat-Tamir et al., the recent Ehrfurt study) who come to similar conclusions. Others, such as Falk have also acknowledged that the evidence supports the presence of a shared Middle Eastern component in major Jewish groups (along with substantial non-shared components) but is unsure by which processes by this occurred and to what extent (the horizontal vs. vertical models). I think the lede, for the most part reflects this understanding and is fairly neutral (though I would question the recent additions to it at the end, highlighting both Elhaik and Ostrer, as a lede should give an overview/summarize the research generally). Also, the idea that there is a single "Jewish gene/genes" or a uniquely Jewish genetic profile or "type" exclusive to Jews alone, does not seem to be endorsed or reflected in the article (nor should it be, since that is not what the majority of the sources support). To the IP: I do not think we have any basis to assume that Elhaik is not biased. His work and methodologies have been strongly criticized by other researchers. But it is not something we can know nor should assume (as Wikipedia editors) one way on the other. One thing that seems more important is how a researcher's work has been received by the community of experts in the field. Skllagyook (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Regarding your assertion ... "One thing that seems more important is how a researcher's work has been received by the community of experts in the field." Eran Elhiak's paper ... Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated ... is number 8 on the Nature Portfolio list out of 21,840 papers, indicating "how a researcher's work has been received by the community of experts in the field" https://www.nature.com/collections/jhjibhhicg See again ... "In terms of pure theory, Elhaik has published a critique of the methodology of PCA that undergirds the whole structure of population genetics. Re-analyzing 12 PCA applications he found that the method lends itself to generating desired outcomes, and is characterized by cherrypicking and circular reasoning. The design flexibility of PCA enables anyone to buttress preconceived claims about ethnogenesis. He illustrated the point by instancing the case of genetic studies of the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Of some 21,840 papers published by Nature Portfolio in 2022, this paper was ranked among the top 100 downloaded scientific papers for that year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eran_Elhaik#Research Also, "Middle Eastern component" is a wide net that includes countries in the region, like Turkey, and not specifically Palestine or the Levant which is argued by the "majority" as the source of all Jews in the world today. 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Again, a paper being frequently downloaded is not the same as it's arguments being widely accepted or favorably received by experts in the field (also, that paper is already cited in this article in a DUE manner in the "Hypotheses" section). The use of PCA is still widespread in population genetics. The claim that it is unreliable would be fairly radical. The Middle East can be a wide net yes. But the researchers I mentioned have concluded that that ancestral component is likely of Levantine origin (though a role for Mesopotamian ancestry has also been suggested by some). Skllagyook (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Jews may not have originated in Palestine, but rather in Anatolia and the Caucuses and on the Silk Road. See ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews#Ancient_Israelite_DNA Ancient Israelite DNA As of the current date, the sole study on ancient Israelite DNA pertains to genetic material recovered from the remains of ancient Israelites who lived during the First Temple period. These remains were excavated from the Kiryat Ye'arim site. Professor Israel Finkelstein spearheaded the research, during which two individuals - one male and one female - were examined. The study revealed that the male individual belonged to the J2 Y-DNA haplogroup, a set of closely-related DNA sequences thought to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, while the two different mitochondrial haplogroups identified were T1a and H87. The former haplogroup is very ancient, found in both Jordan and southern Europe, and later in Iran, the Baltic and Ural mountains areas, and among Canaanites. The latter has been detected in Basques, Tunisian Arabs and Iraqis, suggesting a Mediterranean or Near Eastern, perhaps Arabian origin. The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic, some of the likely Judaean progenitors, the ancient individuals clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews. Ashkenazic Jews clustered away from these ancient Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans. 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) It was explained to you why the study on Natufians does not belong in the Israelite DNA section. Natufians (and Neolithic Levantine) lived millennia before Israelites existed. They were not Israelites (and major admixtures occurred in the Levant after the Neolithic that made them different). There is a study on Canaanite DNA also, and Canaanites were the immediate ancestors of Israelites (much close to them than Natufians were). But we do not include it under "Israelite DNA". To include a study on Natufians there would be WP:OR. Also please see my reason for removing your last Talk page post. You do not seem to have reokied or engaged in any way (except to reinstate it) Skllagyook (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Do you know more than the author, Eran Elhaik? He says "The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis". So this text belongs in Ancient Israelite DNA. You seem to block everything that does not support the Zionist point of view. Why do you get to unilaterally make changes without consensus, and no one else? Your opinion of the research is not the final word. 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This is just one 8-year-old article in a field that is developing very quickly. It should not be given undue weight, especially if it's contradicted by more recent research. Alaexis¿question? 12:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) I have reverted a deletion of this thread because I do not see anything dramatic enough to justify that. Looking at the original which started it, things have gone towards an old circular discussion but I do wonder whether the IP was correct to suggest that our lead should not presuppose Jewish "expulsions and exoduses". I also don't like "ethnogenesis". Shouldn't it be something like "the ancestry of Jewish populations"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this article about "Expulsions and exoduses of Jews"

With regards to a previous interrupted discussion one aspect which we still need to discuss is whether it is really correct to suggest that our lead should not presuppose Jewish "expulsions and exoduses". I also don't like "ethnogenesis". Shouldn't it be something like "the ancestry of Jewish populations"?" Comments please. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) NOTE. This post has been rewritten after objections were raised. (Introductory discussion of recent context has been made deliberately vague. Main point is the same.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence sounds a bit weird. We could it replace with something along the lines of Population genetics research has been conducted on the ancestry of the Jewish people. We could keep the wikilink to the exoduses and expulsions in the lede, as one of the topics of research. Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not totally clear what that would look like. It does not look like a very conventional way to open an article. I'll just make a proposal.

• Current text: '''Genetic studies of Jews''' are part of the [[population genetics]] discipline and are used to analyze the chronology of [[Jews|Jewish]] [[Expulsions and exoduses of Jews|migration]] accompanied by research in other fields, such as [[Jewish history|history]], [[Jewish languages|linguistics]], archaeology, and paleontology. These studies investigate the origins of various [[Jewish ethnic divisions]]. In particular, they examine whether there is a common genetic heritage among them. The [[medical genetics of Jews]] are studied for population-specific diseases.
• Proposed text: '''Genetic studies of Jews''' are pursued within the discipline of [[population genetics]] and are used to analyze the ancestry of [[Jews|Jewish]] populations, by looking at the similarities and differences between the [[genome]]s typically found within various [[Jewish ethnic divisions|Jewish]] and non-Jewish populations. On the one hand, these studies therefore complement other disciplines which study the past such as [[Jewish history|history]], [[Jewish languages|linguistics]], archaeology, and paleontology. On the other hand, such studies are used to study [[medical genetics of Jews|population-specific]] diseases.

But in any case I think a minimum edit which is needed is that [[Expulsions and exoduses of Jews|migration]] should be replaced. I will adjust that already. However the logic is a bit twisted in the rest of the wording. Real scientists who study these things cannot just look for shared genetic heritage among Jewish groups. They will surely find something, but they won't be able to come to conclusions. (All human populations show evidence of shared genetic heritage.) They need to also look at non-Jewish groups, and they also need to look for differences, and not just what is shared. The readers are likely to need help to understand this when reading the mini reviews in the body, and this is a good place to make it clear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I was just commenting in a discussion at the Jews article talk page and now I see that collapsed thread, it seems that collapsing it might have been a bit premature, we need at least a cross check with the article Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Just on the side issue, I believe we need to see the "premature collapse" as a valid clash between two WP priorities. Anyway, no one is denying that the lead, like everything on WP, can be improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)