Talk:Genetic history of the Middle East/Archive 1

Comments
Discussion page created for: Genetics of the Ancient World by Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why No Israel, Iran, Arabian Peninsula?
Should there not be a section on the above regions, they are all regarded as the Near East too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Ancient and Ancient Peoples
For the purpose of this article ancient is the period of our past from the beginning of human history until the collapse of the Roman Empire in 410 CE.

An ancient people, are one that are generally believed to have an unbroken continuity with their ancient origins, both in terms of familial lineage and geographic location. Migratory ancient people groups like the Roma, Jewish populations, etc. are more problematic and controversial due to possible discontinuous relationships with their ancient origins, genetic admixture, and genetic drift. But this can be discussed on a case by case basis. If in doubt, post to this discussion page, or be prepared to have your article post subject to review on this page. IF the authors made explicit reference to the ancient origin of a people group in their paper, then this is the page to post it. Articles on CMH, etc. that make explicit arguments, as opposed to implied, to extend back to antiquity should be added here in chronological order and with summary. If in doubt, an article may still may be appropriate. Hkp-avniel (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some may wish to argue that "ancient" include articles up to the Early Middle Ages such as the article on the "ancient Hungarians" who settled the region of modern Hungary circa 900 - 1000 BCE (see FamilyTreeDNA's library). Make the case below...if there is some consensus to extend the date of ancient to 1000 BCE then that will be fine...otherwise the end of the Romans as above. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Format to follow when posting new article summaries
Please follow the below format:

People group header (placed under appropriate geographic region)

 * (Indented) Article Title: "Article title goes here," Journal or Media Source | Month Year


 * (Indented) Summary: data goes here

Format for References:

(ref tag)Journal article title, Journal, Month Year. Available online: http://www.xxxx.com [accessed: Month Day, Year](/ref tag)

"people group"?

 * This phrase "people group" sounds non-standard. Should these instances be replaced with "population," or simply "groups of people" or "groups"?
 * IanHerriott (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:MoS issues
The article is interesting and informative, but has severe concerns with WP:MoS. The section in the article are written like research papers on a science journal. It should be written in a well manner per WP:MoS and should include the sources in the form of inline citations.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. The style of this article is intentional: hybrid between general reader and technical genetics article. I can send you a style example from the European Journal of Genetics which is my "prototype" for the style I am following in this article if you want - not in the public domain. I think adding inline citations will be good for general references to genetics journal articles and footnotes for added information as per common practice. BUT why did you move the original article and create the redirect? If you can reverse this I would appreciate it and add a redirect for "Genetics in the ancient world" which I assume is a typo since there were no genetics in the ancient world. I've also contacted an administrator to help with this since I couldn't figure out how to restore this article to its original state without deleting and reposting. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to section to Annotated Bibliography
Changing the list of articles to an Annotated Bibliography format to avoid any further confusion. The main article is about what Genetics of the Ancient World refers to followed by an annotated bibliography. Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. This is an encyclopedia, not a bibliography. Feel free to cite these articles as references, but don't structure the entire article around commenting on them. Hut 8.5 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bad idea? The article is at the top of the page. Below it is the bibliography (annotated). These aren't journal articles used to write the article, this is a list of suggested readings: see ancient DNA for a regular bibliography (with a lot of articles). Here is a link to an website on annotated bibliographies used in the scholarly world: http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm All regular encyclopedias list a bibliography at the end of each article. I made the change before I saw your comment, but I'm guessing you'll understand and this was the original spirit of the composition of this article. This article was already added (not by me) to the WikiProject Human Genetic History at Wikipedia and run according to the style of wikipedia genetics articles. See Y chromosomal Aaron] or [[Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups (which doesn't actually have any body text just data. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * other question...do all Wikipedia articles have to be featured articles? This was intended as an intro to genetics and how it can be used to understand the ancient world and then list articles and summarize them so others could write specific articles about those areas. Of course, if you think this has potential to be a featured article ok...but then how do we create a resource that lists articles for others to write their featured articles? whatever Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * one final comment for the night (Israel time)...we can't even begin to refer to "featured article" for Genetics of the Ancient World until we have at least ONE(1) article for each region and respective ancient people group listed under the annotated bibliography. When that happens, then we can synthesize this (the good kind of synthesis) into a potential Featured Article and have it peer reviewed, etc. Until then we have A LOT of work. So please, don't change the format until we've acquired enough source material. This is with the best intentions...good articles take a lot of time to research and write. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not remotely suggesting that this is anything near featured article standard (there are only 2,000 of them and if every article had to be FA standard the encyclopedia would be a thousand times smaller). I merely gave you the link to featured articles to show you the sort of thing that is compliant with the manual of style.
 * Wikipedia articles are not written in the annotated bibliography style. Ancient DNA has a bibliography at the end of the article, whereas this one is entirely structured around the bibliography - the two are completely different. Y-chromosomal Aaron again is written according to the manual of style, with flowing paragraphs of text rather than a rigid structure around a bibliography. You can move the articles to a seperate bibliography at the end of the article, or cite them using inline citations, just don't structure the entire page around them. You can't just decide that a particular article isn't going to follow the manual of style - ALL articles have to be written this way. Hut 8.5 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok no problem, but whoever edited this did so in a manner that isn't even grammatically correct. Are you going to delete all the changes I make to this page? Just so I know in advance. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. The page looks a lot better now. Hut 8.5 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The annotated references in the article dont seem too disruptive. As long as the citations are given clearly first followed by the annotation.Suave24 (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

move
ok, since it turns out that all actual content of this article is about the archaeogenetics of the Near East, I propose a move to Archaeogenetics of the Near East (to parallel Archaeogenetics of Europe, Archaeogenetics of South Asia). dab (𒁳) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * in fact, the article appears to address the Levant exclusively, with Crete thrown in because of interest in the Philistines. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ancient turkey????
it is written: "They identified J2a parent haplogroup J2a-M410 (Crete: 25.9%) with the first ancient residents of Crete during the Neolithic (8500 BCE – 4300 BCE) suggesting Crete was founded by a Neolithic population expansion from ancient Turkey/Anatolia.[10]

As i know from history, ancient Turkey didnt exist in antiquity!If you mean the area which is now modern Turkey you should correct this misundernstanding.Is like you say ancient Serbia. the Turks have their origin in Central Asia and i think they arrived in Anatolia at around 1000 A.D.Its better to use the term Anatolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamia?
There's no Info in the article about it? Isn't this about near east? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.177.138 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * was wondering the same, why mesopotamia is not not included? well I can guess reasons. But anyway, there are few papers about it around. I don't have time to make section, but can list few here if any want to start it. Streamwave (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added Mesopotamia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Crete
I doubt if many people would see Crete as part of the Near East, particularly not the Greeks! The "redirect" title would seem to be better. Adresia (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, archeologically and genetically, it is, as the article suggests ! Hxseek (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic study
The quote from Wells which say:"The Phoenicians were the Canaanites—and the ancestors of today's Lebanese.", give the false impression that they are the ancestrs of lebanese only, because it is out of context. The study was about Lebanese people and it was trying to answer the question of weather the Phoenicians and the Canaanites were different people or the same. Dy yol (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DNA Section
There are a lot of "studies" quoted in this section, some of which overlap each other and some of which contradict each other. This content should be rationalised, but different editors have inserted different paragraphs. Thoughts? Wdford (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with this is people adding POV information. One user appears to have attempted to alter the accepted version on DNA sudies in Egypt to reflect an Afrocentric angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.28.183 (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Representation of sources
Checking two sources I believe that they were misrepresented. I've tried to fix this but I may not have gotten it entirely right. One problem is when editors pick out information from the body of the article that they like and add it. It's my opinion that we should normally be reporting what the introduction and the discussion/conclusion says. (I found this when I discovered once again that an editor had broken a number of links). Note that I also found Carlton Coon being used again, and Twenty-First Century Books which publishes for Grade 6 and up, obviously not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Clash with other articles
The information in this article on Egyptian DNA clashes with the similar topic in Population history of Egypt. We need to resolve this conflict - probably by putting all the info in one article (perhaps a new article dedicated to the DNA history of Ancient Egypt, and then referencing all other articles on the topic to that new article? Wdford (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

created spin-off article
Created new article at DNA history of Ancient Egypt as a spin-off, to collect and rationalize all the material on this topic that is currently replicated in various other articles, sometimes duplicating and sometimes clashing. Please help over there to clean up and remove remaining duplications. Wdford (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Genetic Studies on Rameses Dynasty Lineages
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, which "is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]"

What is the problem with the above? They are direct quotes and just as relevant as the ABO studies. Do not revert referenced material without cause again in order to push your pov. If you want to add disclaimers than do so with the article as well with the sources you have. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lol. I'm hardly the pov pusher here. Why should this specific issue be in this article? Surely not to push the Black Egyptian Hypothesis? And please read WP:SYN, you are combining two sources to make an argument, even though you are not making it explicit. And 'originated' is one thing, where these mummies got it from is quite another. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Took this to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another sock blocked
This was Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Archaeogenetics of the Near East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070826235517/http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu:80/nomenclature_system/fig1.html to http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/nomenclature_system/fig1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Archaeogenetics of the Near East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120121074929/http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text/5; to http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text/5;
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209230313/http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html to http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Archaeogenetics of the Near East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405232839/https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html to https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt And Bantu Haplogroup E1b1a
I want to know why the one reliable source about Egyptian DNA, this study published in the BMJ, is consistently removed, while the bad iGenea claim is still put up. Ramses III had his son had haplogroup E1b1a. Most likely Tutankhamon has too, however all we know about him is that his DNA is most like the people of Southern Africa today - where the main haplogroup is also E1b1a. Is the data that Ramses III has the same haplogroup as the people of the Bantu Expansion being kept from the public to maintain the myth of a white Egypt? My guess is that after the fall of their empire or one of the invasions before that, Ancient Egyptians fled south. This should not be a controversy. Dr. Zahi Hawass, an outspoken anti-Afrocentric critic, signed off on a study while found that Ramses III and his son are haplogroup E1b1a, which is associated with the later or contemporaneous Bantu Expansion.

The above should be in the article. Here is some supporting evindence, if any is required.

At the same time, DNA Tribes is considered not good, while iGenea and it's obviously false claims are still presented as the consensus. On DNA Tribes:

Maximum Likelihood Index

This is how it works. To see how much King Tut's dna matches people to day in different parts of the world, divide their MLI's with eachother. For example, King Tut's matchup with Southern African dna is 1519.03, which his matchup with Arabian dna is 10.91. Therefore 1519.03/10.91 = 139. King Tut's dna is *139 times* more like Southern African dna than Arabian dna.

Source: http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

More from the same source:

Microsatellite markers

Tutankhamon

DNATribes: "These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34)."

-- MrSativa (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is highly likely that after several invasions, Ancient Egyptians fled South into Africa, maybe also East into Asia. MrSativa (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

While I have no idea how many modern individuals hold probable descent from ancient Egypt, what makes you think that "Ancient Egyptians fled south"? During the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt (c. 1069-664 BC) we have evidence of foreign-born individuals in Egypt. The 22nd Dynasty were reportedly Meshwesh, an ancient tribe from Libya. They are thought to be Berbers. The 23rd Dynasty were apparently also Meshwesh. The 25th Dynasty were Nubians, from the Kingdom of Kush. We have evidence of people migrating to Egypt, not migrating from Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "While I have no idea how many modern individuals hold probable descent from ancient Egypt, what makes you think that "Ancient Egyptians fled south"?" Because... Tut's DNA is most like people in Southern Africa today; because there are likely cultural links including with the Ghana/Akan (Khem) kingdoms; links to domesticated animals (like the Basenji); because many origin stories of people in West Africa place their origin in the East; because like E1b1b, E1b1a comes from East Africa; because Ramses III and his son had E1b1a, most likely Tutankhamon too, and today E1b1a is pretty much absent from Egypt. Also, most of the invasions of Egypt were from the North, so it would make sense that the Egyptians would flee South. However, that's just why I generally believe that the Egyptians fled South. What is being kept out is the simple statement that Ramses III had haplogroup E1b1a, and that E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Expansion. These are two simple statements of fact, not 'original research'. MrSativa (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As I've told the editor before, this is original research. He's welcome to challenge this at WP:NORN. DNA tribes has been discussed at RSN and doesn't meet our criteria. iGenea isn't used in this article so far as I can see.  Doug Weller  talk 19:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither the statement that (1) Ramses III had haplogroup E1b1a, nor the statement that (2) E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Expansion and today occurs almost exclusively in 'Sub-Saharan Africa' is 'original research'. I suggest you re-read the Wikipedia description. It specifically states that NORN should be interpreted very broadly, not narrowly. It also states that you can use different sources, and doing so in itself does not constitute NORN.MrSativa (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * NORN-Using Sources
 * "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)'
 * "Using sources"
 * "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly MrSativa (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I get it that you are passionate about this, but the mission of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge. (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). You are grabbing bits and pieces of various sources, none of them very reliable, and assembling them here with WP:UNDUE weight.  You might want to try working at [Wikiversity] where this kind of OR is welcome. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "I get it that you are passionate about this" are you saying that I'm being emotional? Irrational, perhaps? Do you have any evidence for that? As to your statement that "You are grabbing bits and pieces of various sources" - example? Don't confuse my exasperation with having to explain very simple facts with 'being passionate' or 'being emotional'. I have shown that (1) Ramses III has haplogroup E1b1a (see Zahi Hawass et al) and that (2) haplogroup E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Expansion. Neither facts are under dispute. If you think that these sources are 'none of them very reliable' - be specific. Are you saying that the head of Egytpian antiquities is unreliable? Are you disputing that E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Expansion. It sounds like you are the one who is being irrational and emotional. MrSativa (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying either of those things. And yes you are gathering bits from various not-very-reliable sources. I am not going to get into the weeds of your OR.  Everything in WP starts with reliable sources and those really should be secondary or tertiary sources per WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS.  You are not going to get consensus for the edits you are proposing because the sources are poor and you are adding them up in ways that are not OK in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the URL. http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 (the number of the article was in the description. MrSativa (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * am aware of the refs you have put together. that is not a secondary source. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

New content
The following was added with one ref then restored with two by User:Oranjelo100:

Before Arab conquest the genetic structure of Levant was more similar to modern Europeans than to modern Middle Easterners.

Both of these refs are primary sources; content in this population genetics should be sourced to secondary (e.g literature reviews) or tertiary sources (textbooks), as the primary literature in the biomedical sciences is unreliable.Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the population genetic studies, in many cases only primary sources are available. All Wikipedia articles (including this one) related to population genetics are based on them. This study was published by MIT, Harvard and Oxford experts and their conclusions are presented under quotation mark with direct quotes. Tritomex (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * mmm, that is an unfortunate thing, if primary sources are used as widely as you say. They shouldn't be.   There was a pretty extensive RfC which failed, but where people commented on the generally bad quality of sourcing and poor handling of content related to population genetics.  see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups/Archive_15 Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even worse, often material is taken from the findings, etc rather than from the summary/discussion section of such articles. Doug Weller  talk 09:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The content on the 2016 Nat Comm paper
Here is the content

In the 2017 study published by Nature and Communication, the German scientist Johannes Krause looked at DNA from 151 mummified Egyptians, which were entombed from about 1400 BCE, to just after 400 ACE in the Roman period. The samples were studied by Schuenemann, V. J. et al and recovered from Middle Egypt and spanned around 1,300 years, showing a genetic continuity during this time. Researchers found that these ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. The genomes showed that, unlike modern Egyptians, ancient Egyptians had little to no genetic kinship with sub-Saharan populations. The closest genetic ties were to the peoples of ancient  Near East, especially  Levant, spanning parts of present-day Turkey as well as Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians. Johannes Krause, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History used next-generation sequencing methods to read stretches of DNA. Krause stated that "something did alter the genomes of Egyptians." Although the mummies contained almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa, some 15% to 20% of modern Egyptians’ mitochondrial (maternal) DNA reflects sub-Saharan ancestry. “It’s really unexpected that we see this very late shift,” Krause says. He suspects increased trade along the Nile—including the slave trade—or the spread of Islam in the Middle Ages may have intensified genetic admixture with sub-Saharan population.

So, a bunch of issues. Minor stuff like the journal's name being incorrect, but:
 * we don't belabor who wrote papers, where they are from, and what the journal is. That is all weirdly promotional - people do this to promote the authors or try to add luster to the Great Importance of The Findings the content describes
 * We don't use quotes to illustrate scientific findings. WP is not a newspaper or news magazine
 * This is a primary source, and a "hot news" one at that. We generally wait for actual secondary sources to appear in the scientific literature.   it is really dangerous to rush ahead, following hot news stories around primary scientific sources.  A few years ago there was big hype around a stem cell paper and someone rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP.  (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out)  only to delete it later when the paper was retracted.   (We actually have a whole article on that mess Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency)  We should not be jerking the public around like that.  There is no reason to do that - we have no deadline here.

This content should not be in the article now, and should definitely not have all this WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your removal as unjustified: You could improve the section, or discuss particular wording, or sources instead of blank removal. I see your act as violation of Wikipedia policies.

We do attribute properly and the form of attribution I gave is identical to the attribution already used in this article. f.e "In 2013, Nature announced the publication of the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing to ascertain the ancestral lineage of an Ancient Egyptian individual. The research was led by Carsten Pusch of the University of Tübingen in Germany and Rabab Khairat, who released their findings in the Journal of Applied Genetics. DNA was extracted from the heads of five Egyptian mummies that were housed at the institution. All the specimens were dated between 806 BC and 124 AD, a timeframe corresponding with the late Dynastic period. The researchers observed that one of the mummified individuals likely belonged to the mtDNA haplogroup I2, a maternal clade that is believed..." We do use quotation Quotations are a good way to comply with the no original research policy Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source, and all quotes I gave were from such sources. No, there were plenty of secondary sources provided, and even the removal of per reviewed academic primary source was not justified, as it was properly attributed and quoted. You removed many secondary source which are all WP:RS and the fact that so many RS covered this topic, disqualifies the WEIGHT issue. Finally, If you wanted constructively to help improve the article, you could propose an improved version, based on sources available without erasing the entire text. Certainly, this biggest and most comprehensive archeogenetic study of ancient Egypt, covered by dozens of secondary sources will not be ignored in this article. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT cant be an explanation. Tritomex (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * we don't belabor who wrote papers, where they are from, and what the journal is. to have originated in Western Asi
 * We don't use quotes to illustrate scientific findings. WP is not a newspaper or news magazine.
 * This is a primary source, and a "hot news" one at that.
 * Popular media are not reliable secondary sources for scientific content. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This question goes to WP/RSNTritomex (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is really basic - if you bring it there it will go down in flames. Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Than it will be my bad, but I dont believe so. I do not see Nature, Science mag as popular medias at all, while I consider Newsweek and Jerusalem Post being a reliable secondary sources too. In the case of the per reviewed primary source I consider it also reliable and usable for this content.Tritomex (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To be clear the part that would go down in flames is the popular media part.  The community is more divided with respect to the use of primary sources from the scientific literature.  Ideally everything is based from strong secondary sources (like reviews in the scientific literature or scientific books); some people are OK with tightly summarizing primary scientific sources (like the Nature Comm or Science pieces cited above).   If those were summarized more concisely they could probably fly. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you posted at RSN. It is good practice to tell people when you do that. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I told you Tritomex (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on prevailing opinion on RS/N that the the sources (Nature, Nature Communication and Science) are reliable and usable for this article and based on concerns and proposals raised on WP/RSN, I will add the following text to the article.

A 2017 study by German scientists by published by Nature Communications analyzed 90 mitochondrial genomes  from 151 mummified ancient Egyptian individuals, whose remains were recovered from Abusir el-Meleq in Middle Egypt. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period, showing genetic continuity during this time. The study found that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with ancient Near Easterners,  especially with the ancient people Levant than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. The researchers cautioned that the affinities of the examined ancient Egyptian specimens may not be representative of those of all ancient Egyptians since they were from a single archaeological site. The authors wrote:"'By comparing ancient individuals from Abusir el-Meleq with modern Egyptian reference populations, we found an influx of sub-Saharan African ancestry after the Roman Period, which corroborates the findings by Henn and colleagues. Further investigation would be needed to link this influx to particular historic processes. Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century. However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt.'" Considerations used in the wording
 * The text uses secondary sources (Nature and Science mag, found reliable by all at WP/RSN) as reliable, but could be fully sourced with the Nature and Communication per reviewed article.
 * The text names and describes the core issue of the study, namely the Sub-Saharan admixture of Modern day Egyptians, its possible reasons and the genetic distance, in precise and transparent way, by using direct and attributed quotes from the per-reviewed scientific journal (as per WP policies.)
 * The text is based on considerations and proposals raised in WP:RSN
 * The text mention's the possible lack of representatives regarding entire ancient Egypt
 * The need for further investigation as mentioned by auithors is cited.
 * The text is open for future enlargement/change/improvement and adjustment.
 * The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is contrasted by quoted additional historic and genetic research, which came to similar/identical conclusions (see the quotes from authors)
 * I hope the text will satisfy the concerns raised by Jytdog, yet it will contain the essence and core issues reflected by this study.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mischaracterize the RSN. In any case I added the language negotiated at DNA history of Egypt.  If anything this article should say less than that article, not more. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to force your version of the article in. Please build consensus. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the langauge that was negotiated to death at DNA history of Egypt, which I linked to at the RSN. What is your objection to this?
 * A study by published in 2017 described the extraction and analysis of DNA from 151 mummified ancient Egyptian individuals, whose remains were recovered from Abusir el-Meleq in Middle Egypt. The scientists said that obtaining well-preserved, uncontaminated DNA from mummies has been a problem for the field and that these samples provided "the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using high-throughput DNA sequencing methods". The specimens represented a period stretching from the late New Kingdom to the Roman era (1388BCE–426CE). Complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences were obtained for 90 of the mummies and were compared with each other and with several other ancient and modern datasets. The scientists found that the ancient Egyptian individuals in their own dataset possessed highly similar mitochondrial profiles throughout the examined period. Modern Egyptians generally shared this maternal haplogroup pattern, but also carried more African clades. However, analysis of the mummies' mtDNA haplogroups found that they shared greater mitochondrial affinities with modern populations from the Near East and the Levant compared to modern Egyptians. Additionally, three of the ancient Egyptian individuals were analysed for Y-DNA, and were observed to bear paternal lineages that are common in both the Middle East and North Africa. The researchers cautioned that the affinities of the examined ancient Egyptian specimens may not be representative of those of all ancient Egyptians since they were from a single archaeological site.


 * -- Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The problems with your text are the following:
 * 1) The essence of the study, the core issues are not even mentioned. Namely it does not cover the Sub-Saharan admixture of Modern day Egyptians, its proposed reasons and the population genetic distance between the population groups that were studied, (Ancient and Modern Egyptians and Levantine population) (which were clearly the points of the entire study) This is mentioned partially in only one sentence of your text. In addition, the claim that "Modern Egyptians generally shared the maternal haplogroup pattern of the mummies" could not be verified by this sources. The authors provided three hypothetical sources of admixture and all relaible secondary sources mentioned that. I believe that text also must include this issue.
 * 2) I asked you repeatedly to provide proposals that will include all the issues covered by this study and concerns raised at WP:RSN. You started with denying the reliability of the sources, and now based on same sources, you want your own text, which would be ok, if that text would cover this topic correctly. Yet it dosent.
 * 3)Please provide source for following claim "Additionally, three of the ancient Egyptian individuals were analysed for Y-DNA, and were observed to bear paternal lineages that are common in both the Middle East and North Africa." This is not in the summary of abstract, nor in the secondary sources. I believe that this is correct, but I hope to see exact source for this claim to avoid WP:OR.Tritomex (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)Also, please provide sources for the following claim " Modern Egyptians generally shared this maternal haplogroup patters (of mummies) contrary to the previous sentence, I do not believe that this claim is correct.Tritomex (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to let you cool off for a while, and will reply tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * btw, please do review the paper and the content that was agreed to at the DNA article; everything in the content, is in the Nature Comm paper. If you really cannot find these things I will provide the quotes but that should not be necessary. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try to go sentence by sentence.

"We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations" something that you did not mention in the text. Why you omitted Anatolian and European populations?
 * The text says: "The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa" J1/2  was not common in North Africa in ancient time,(even today only 15%-20% of Egyptians are in this haplo) as your text imply, nor the study claim this. You wrote:"Additionally, three of the ancient Egyptian individuals were analysed for Y-DNA, and were observed to bear paternal lineages that are common in both the Middle East and North Africa." If we use only primary sources, we must precisely cite them. So please improve this.
 * The text also says
 * As for the claim that Modern Egyptians generally shared this maternal haplogroup patters (of mummies) I failled to find this in the study.
 * The text have to include the authors views on possible sources of genetic admixture as this is mentioned by all secondary sources. The authors wrote: Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt49. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century50.  Tritomex (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have had time to review all this and the source as well. Do you still have all the questions above? Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources again
User:81.100.25.101 see the discussion above. every policy says we use primary sources, like the ones you used, with great care. You are interepreting them in ways that violate WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC
Please see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Name of the article
Why is it Genetic history of the Middle East? Should be Genetic history of West Asia. It doesn't make sense to cut Caucasus, especially when there is Genetic history of North Africa (Egypt should be moved there). Bogazicili (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeated unexplained deletions from the Levant section.
To the IP editor User:69.157.247.154. You have repeatedly deleted sourced information from the Genetic history of the Middle East claiming that it is a "misrepresentation" without explaining why, and have continued to revert me even after I quoted from the study where the the material is explicitly supported and asked you to explain in Talk your objection to the material. Here again is a section from the abstract. I have

"We report genome-wide DNA data for 73 individuals from five archaeological sites across the Bronze and Iron Ages Southern Levant. These individuals, who share the “Canaanite” material culture, can be modeled as descending from two sources: (1) earlier local Neolithic populations and (2) populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros or the Bronze Age Caucasus. The non-local contribution increased over time, as evinced by three outliers who can be modeled as descendants of recent migrants. We show evidence that different “Canaanite” groups genetically resemble each other more than other populations. We find that Levant-related modern populations typically have substantial ancestry coming from populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros and the Bronze Age Southern Levant." Study here: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf

I have read the study, and this is also supported there. The study clearly argues that Bronze Age Levantines derived from a mixture that occurred around the Chacolithic-Bronze Age, from Chacolithic-period migrants from the Zagros/West Iran/south Caucasus region and local Neolithic Levantines (a mixture that produced the genetic profile of Bronze Age inhabitants of the Levant such as the Canaanites analyzed in the study), and also suggests that modern Levantine and Levantine-descended groups are largel/substantially descended form Bronze Age Levantines (who themselves were of the aforementioned mixed origin).

Also from the study: "Combined, these results suggest that modern populations related to the Levant are consistent with having a substantial ancestry component from the Bronze Age Southern Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros. Nonetheless, other potential ancestry sources are possible, and more ancient samples might enable a refined picture (Table S4). The results show that since the Bronze Age, an additional East-African-related component was added to the region average 10.6%, excluding Ethiopian Jews who harbor 80% East African component), as well as a European-related component (on average 8.7%, excluding Ashkenazi Jews who harbor a 41% European-related component [with the remainder of their ancestry being Canaanite-like]). (pages 1152-1153)

And:

"Earlier genetic analyses modeled the genomes of Middle-to-Late Bronze Age people of the Southern Levant as having almost equal shares of earlier local populations (Levant_N) and popula- tions that are related to the Chalcolithic Zagros (Feldman et al.,2019; Haber et al., 2017; Lazaridis et al., 2016), suggesting a movement from the northeast into the Southern Levant. Here, we provide more details on this process, taking into account evidence from both archaeology and our temporally and geographically diverse genetic data. Because there is little archaeological evidence of a direct cultural connection between the Southern Levant and the Zagros region in this period, the Caucasus is a more likely source for this ancestry. We used our data to compare these two scenarios and concluded that the genetic data are compatible with both. (pages 153-1154) Also is Fig 5 and Fig S4 for admixture results for various populations.

Please explain your objections rather than reverting without explanation so we can reach WP:CONSENSUS. It is not enough to simply claim that information is misrepresented without explaining why or how, and simply tell another user to "read the study". If you want to make contested changes it is required to explain them (see WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN). Wikipedia is based on consensus. If you refuse to engage and/or continue to edit war, I will have to report you. Skllagyook (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Skllagyook Hello, can you try a report him its getting a bit much now JJNito197 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just about to report them at WP:ANI but they seem to have been blocked (albeit only for 24 hours). Skllagyook (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

About Egypt
There was a study that came out in 2017 about the genome of a ancient Egyptian mummy that was tested, and the results showed that the population of Ancient Egypt was much different than the one that is there today. The ancient Egyptians were much more closely related to modern day Syrians and Lebanese people than modern day Egyptians are, and this is due to Sub-Saharan African ancestry entering the Egyptian genepool in post-Roman periods [this is verified by the study and by DNA results]. That increase likely came from the trans-Saharan slave trade that began shortly after the Islamic conquest of Egypt in the middle of the 7th century.

Here are some sources:

2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:3113:BAED:43B1:DEE6 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkey
All of the sources except one seems to be primary sources in this section. Also, given how bunch of studies are grouped together, there is probably lots of original research too. For example this study doesn't even have anything to do with Turkey. Only this seems to be a secondary source, but the authors are in social science and anthropology, so not sure if it counts. The entire section needs to be re-written with secondary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, I just copy and pasted from another article. Let me know if there are any issues. Bogazicili (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Dubious Turkish IP edit (removal of sourced content)
I have recently added the findings of Mehrjoo et al. 2019. Not much time later, a Turkish IP reverted the inclusion, arguing to have deleted vandalism of a sock puppet. I have reincluded the content and also included inline citations, to verify the added content.

Here is the inline citation: "''Seven groups (Iranian Arabs, Azeris, Gilaks, Kurds, Mazanderanis, Lurs and Persians) strongly overlapped in their overall autosomal diversity in an MDS analysis (Fig 1B), suggesting the existence of a Central Iranian Cluster (CIC), notably also including Iranian Arabs and Azeris. On a global scale (Fig 2 including “Old World” populations only; see S2 Fig for all 1000G populations), CIC Iranians closely clustered with Europeans, while Iranian Turkmen showed similar yet distinct degrees of admixture compared to other South Asians. A local comparison corroborated the distinct genetic diversity of CIC Iranians relative to other geographically close populations [2, 6, 44] (Fig 3 and S3 Fig). Still, genetic substructure was much smaller among Iranian groups than in relation to any of the 1000G populations, supporting the view that the CIC groups form a distinct genetic entity, despite internal heterogeneity. European (FST~0.0105–0.0294), South Asians (FST~0.0141–0.0338), but also some Latin American populations (Puerto Ricans: FST~0.0153–0.0228; Colombians: FST~0.0170–0.0261) were closest to Iranians, whereas Sub-Saharan Africans and admixed Afro-Americans (FST~0.0764–0.1424) as well as East Asians (FST ~ 0.0645–0.1055) showed large degrees of differentiation with Iranians.''"

I hope this problem or dispute is settled now. Any further vandalism will be reported. To the IP, I suggest to read WP:NPOV and WP:V.2001:4BC9:920:35F3:962:8A60:ED4F:98D9 (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Zalloua and Wells
The Zalloua et al (not "and Wells") study is 2008 and not 2004 and is here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668035/). The current statements seem to reflect the 2008 conclusions. I can not find Zalloua et al saying that the J2 came from Anatolia and the Caucuses. This seems to have come from a different study mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172 However, I cannot find the claim "haplogroup J2 is found primarily in the Middle East, but also along the coasts of North Africa and Southern Europe, with especially high distribution among present-day Jewish populations (30%), Southern Italians (20%), and lower frequencies in Southern Spain (10%)" in the linked resource or anywhere else" from any source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172 has different numbers. Semino (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/) has some distribution percentages, but the three examples listed in this article are arbitrarily picked. Unfortunately, I do not know how to save this section, though deleting the second paragraph would be a good start. Mcdruid (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Added: the Anatolia and Caucus theory is contradicted by Semino: "The extent of differentiation of Hg J, observed both with the biallelic and microsatellite markers, points to the Middle East as its likely homeland. In this area, J-M172 and J-M267 are equally represented and show the highest degree of internal variation, indicating that it is most likely that these subclades also arose in the Middle East." Mcdruid (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Mischaracterization
"The cumulative frequency of typical sub-Saharan lineages (A, B, E1, E2, E3a, and E3b*) is 9% in Egypt ... whereas the haplogroups of Eurasian origin (Groups C, D, and F–Q) account for 59% [in Egypt]". There is so much wrong with that statement. First, "typical sub-Saharan lineages". Sub-Saharan is a construct, created to separate West, Central and Southern Africa from North Africa and East Africa and the 'Middle East'. I prefer using the actual population groups the tests are based on (Yoruba/YRI, A and B are very old - so are D and E. They are also quite high among the Nilotes of the Nile Valley, and also among the Bedouin of the Oases like the Tibou. Subclades of E1 are the majority haplogroup in all of Africa, East, West, North, South, Central. Eurasian: haplogroups C and D are almost as old as A and B. Haplogroups that spread with the Early European Farmers or EEF were E1b1b. In Asia, you'll find haplogroup D with really old, first Out Of Africa descended populations like the Andaman Islanders, Ainu, etc. And taking into account that Egypt was an exit/entry route for most of these haplogroups anyway, perhaps it is not safe to presume a backmigration from 'Eurasia' for haplogroups that are also rare in Eurasia. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:9489:5305:AA46:E924 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The New Kingdom Ancient Egyptians Of 3,000 Years Ago Were Relabeled 'Bantu'
I added: In 2012 DNA Tribes published data proving that the Amarna Dynasty's dna was consistently most like people today living in Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes.

This is what happened. They traveled up the Nile 3,000 years ago to form the Urewe Culture, which led to the '2nd Bantu Expansion'. This is why the Amarna Dynasty and the Bantu have identical dna. This is what DNA Tribes found and published, and why it is continuously being removed, preferring an emphasis on the fraudulent claims made about 1st millennium BC Late Period mummies from an anonymous graveyard called Abusir-El-Melek just south of Cairo in the Schuenemann-Krause study in Nature, elevated above the superior and clearly identified 2nd millennium BC Valley Of The Kings.

MLI score - the highest number consistently means 'most like':

Source: DNA Tribes® Digest January 1, 2012, "Last of the Amarna Pharaohs: King Tut and His Relatives", Table 1.

These results are indisputable. They are also repeated, in less detail, by prof. Keita and the BMJ itself when it already reported Ramses III's haplogroup being E1b1a a decade ago. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)