Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 2

their host populations in Europe
What in this expression has to be clarified ?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article as it is currently is written as if there would never be a question about which populations were or are the "host populations" of the Ashkenazi population of today. It also implies that all of the small number of articles that have used such terms agreed on how to define them. Would you not agree that this could also be cleared up a bit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the beggining of the paragraph "Y-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews" I define exactly who are the ashkenazim according to papers. The host population are the population were jews used to live. Don't you think it is sufficient ?--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No I did even wonder if that might be the intention, so it is not that I was not reading carefully. But maybe you could tweak the words to make it clear that this definition above is what is used to define host? A primitive by perhaps very clear trick might be just to say "host (Eastern European as explained above)" or something like that. Also I know you've worked on it already, but I suggest more could be done to explain the differences in terms of what haplotypes are defined as "host" etc. The differences are sometimes big and as you probably realize if these articles were written today they would not be published because of some of those particular assumptions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW also answered you above on a similar subject tonight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree to add this kind of sentence (Eastern European as explained above) but I think it is very difficult to say that one haplotype is THE host population haplotype because according to me a population always have an haplotype/haplogroup distribution. Besides, I think that all those papers are still correct today. For example there are one new book (2008) and one new paper (2008) that at least use the results obtained previously. When there is a big mistake on one subject (for example on Cohen haplotype) there is one new paper that make the correction. I know that you write papers on genetics so you should write a new one on this subject and it will be take into account here. ;-) --Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael. The biggest reliance on older papers in this article is concerning the Y haplogroups. You already know about the problem with these old papers concerning the way they lumped some types of J together. Genetic genealogy played an important role in spotting the problems, because it uses more refined testing using more STRs (because of its aims it needs to be more accurate). (See for example this article by King and Jobling.)
 * I see that you've distinguished E1b1b1a and E1b1b1c where possible, which is critical in Jewish discussion. There are also important divisions within E1b1b1a. (You can find sourcing on the WP article.)
 * I am a little weak on G, which is possibly important for this subject.
 * Concerning R1a and R1b I can say that the world has turned upside down in the last year or two, once again led by the hobbyists. (As stated in Myres, Natalie (2010), "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene effect in Central and Western Europe", European Journal of Human Genetics.) R1b is not seen as basically Western European anymore. It is a Middle Eastern haplogroup with a common branch in Western Europe, which is actually a sub branch of a branch in SE Europe.
 * R1a also appears to be more complex than previously known. (For a Middle Eastern story see for example: Flores, C; Maca-Meyer, N; Larruga, JM; Cabrera, VM; Karadsheh, N; Gonzalez, AM (2005). "Isolates in a corridor of migrations: a high-resolution analysis of Y-chromosome variation in Jordan.". Journal of human genetics 50 (9): 435–41. doi:10.1007/s10038-005-0274-4. but of course the big one for R1a was Underhill et al. (2009), "Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a", European Journal of Human Genetics, doi:doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.194)
 * Obviously I do not propose that we synthesize our own theories but I think the implications are obvious and that we can say that it shows why we should be cautious, and what we should be cautious of when deciding how to weight things. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point however I don't agree with you, not because of the substance of what you say but because I don't think that we can "weight things" on Wikipedia when they are coming from reliable source. I used to think like you before but after many discussion with other editors I changed my mind. I think that on a so touchy subject we have to stick on papers and not give weight on any papers when they are written in reliable Journals.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What you describe sounds very much like how my thoughts have evolved concerning these articles: report everything fairly neutrally. So I think we agree and a concrete example would show it. My main point was not so much about weighting indeed (I think I should not have used this word), but more about what to do when we have a choice between reporting strong definite sounding conclusions (like "genetics has proven beyond a doubt"), or weaker sounding conclusions such as "studies so far have shown" to use a classic cliche. Hope that makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we agree.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Assumption of "Ashkenazi were never in those region"
Andrew,

You write "Effectively it means that the studies assume for simplicity that the ancestors of the Ashkenazi were never in those regions for any significant period, but only in either the Middle East or the above-mentioned central and eastern European regions" I think it is not correct at all. If you take for example Hammer's paper, he evaluates the genetic distance between different jewish populations one with each other and with non jewish population around the world without any assumption. He shows (actually he confirms because other papers have shown it before) that paternal gene pool of the main jewish populations form a cluster and that this cluster overlap middle eastern population cluster. It is similar for Lucotte, Behar or Nebel. Hammer's even point out that ashkenazi's paternal gene pool is close to southern european paternal gene pool ! What you say could be correct for "admixture evaluation" but even in this case it is not so simple.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe I have not worded it correctly. (I would argue that within the "maths" of their analysis, this is the assumption being made, even if the people making those analyses do not themselves assume it.) Anyway, I think the sentence before captures what I was trying to say and you left that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to argue with you indefinitely, however your answer puzzled me a little bit. I don't think that the "math" of their analysis hide this assumption but even if I thought that I don't think that wikipedia is the place to say it. Nevertheless, in 2010 Bray writes "Using these proxy ancestral populations, we calculated the amount of European admixture in the AJ population to be 35 to 55%. Previous estimates of admixture levels have varied widely depending on the chromosome or specific locus being considered, with studies of Y-chromosome haplogroups estimating from 5 to 23% European admixture (Hammer2010). Our higher estimate is in part a result of the use of different proxies for the Jewish ancestral population. Our analysis used the Middle Eastern population frequencies as the putative Jewish ancestor, similar to a previous approach (18), whereas the studies of Y-chromosome admixture used a combination of several Jewish Diaspora populations. Our calculations will have overestimated the level of admixture if the true Jewish ancestor is genetically closer to Europeans than Middle Easterners; however, using the Jewish Diaspora populations as the reference Jewish ancestor will naturally underestimate the true level of admixture, as the modern Jewish Diaspora has also undergone admixture since their dispersion." You can use this argument but only for admixture not for genetic distance calculation (be careful not to mix both claims).--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No argument necessary. I was just explaining my edit. As mentioned above I am happy enough with what remains in the article which is indeed about the "proxies":-"The term 'Ashkenazi' is relatively well defined in these studies, it refers to Jews living or whose 'paternal' ancestors lived in the following parts of central and eastern Europe: the Rhine Valley in France, Germany, Holland, Austria, Hungary, former Czechoslovakia, Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. This excludes the Jews of southern Europe (Balkans, Iberia and Italy) and this also means that non Jews in these regions are outside the definitions used for estimating the genetic make-up of the ancestral 'neighbor' or 'host' populations of Ashkenazim." I would be interested to understand better what you mean with your last sentence: "You can use this argument but only for admixture not for genetic distance calculation (be careful not to mix both claims)." What genetic distance calculation are your referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a follow up, I presume the genetic distances you are referring to are the FST ones for autosomal DNA? It is indeed the case that my remark above applied especially to the Y DNA studies, but also these are the studies that do not include Italians and Greeks, which is what we were talking about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to that. According to me in this "Y-DNA ashkenazi" paragraph we use only one result about genetic distance it is the Hammer's paper and Hammer does include Greeks and Italian in its study and he founds that Ashkenazi are close to southern European population.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to edit the Y DNA section to try to clarify this point, distinguishing it from the Autosomal section. Thanks for the constructive responses.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hazaras in Pakistan?
Most of the Hazaras are living in Afghanistan! Hazarastan is a region of Afghanistan. It will be nice to correct this point--Mreg93 (talk) 15:27, 30 november 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but we have genetic testing only published for Hazaras living in Pakistan. I guess for practical reasons?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

neutrality
This article is in desperate need of NPOV editing. Specifically, it's difficult to reconcile multiple confirmed haplogroups for Jewish populations, and the claim that Jews are a homogeneous and monolithic group. It's romantically inspiring, but scientifically false. Only a very selective reading of the sources linked here would support that conclusion. MrOakes (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is done by volunteers. If you think sources are missing please see if you can find time to add more.
 * On the other hand please be careful about demanding that we try to make better conclusions than the sources that are actually published. I think many people would say the problems you mention are unfortunately actually already in the scientific published literature and when that happens it becomes a little difficult for us to try to improve upon what published authors say, because other Wikipedia editors will view that critically. If you look at discussions on this talk page you will for example even see an example where just trying to add some cautious language about what admixture analysis does not mean, in order to put one paper's rather simplistic sounding conclusions in context, was resisted heavily. I think unfortunately that some academics in this field think that writing conclusions in a slightly over-emphatic way is part of the art of being a modern professional academic, and they assume most people reading academic articles are fellow experts who know how to read between the lines. On the other hand I have felt that more recent articles are more clearly written than those from 5 or more years ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * MrOakes, I don't think that this paper claims "that jews are homogeneous and monolithic group". We have reported as honnestly as possible paper coming from scientific journals.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"French" Rhine valley
The French gained access to the Rhine only under Louis XIV, in the 17th century. Before that date and the annexations it involved, in particular during the period where Jews lived in large numbers in the Rhine valley, the valley was German, from one end to the other. Noula69 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right but here we are talking about the current situation otherwise we could not talk about Italy or Romania, ...--88.174.111.106 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The history of the Rhineland community is largely the history of ShUM cities leage (known from their Takkanot Shum) and ethnicity questions relating to that area have nothing to do with talk about Italy or Romania (in the sense of discussing the ethnic input to Jewry in the Romance-speaking areas of Italy and France). Noula69 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On this particular point, we are not talking about ethnicity but about geographic area. In addition, papers are talking about "French Rhin Valley" so please respect the source. It is said that samples has been taken from French jewish people living in the "French Rhin Valley", that's all.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since 1945, a short span of the left bank of the Rhine is now definitely under French political control, but the Jewish communities we're talking about were established to the North of that, mostly between Mayence (Mainz) and Cologne (Köln), which were German territories at that time and still are so today. In this context, it does NOT make sense to talk about a "French" Rhine in connection to the origin of the Jews from there that settled in the East, carrying with them a dialect of German (that became Yiddish), not a dialect of French. Anyway, the reference to a "French" Rhine valley is NOT sourced in any way and therefore, cannot be maintained. I'm a native Rhine valley Jew, and if there was ou had been something like "French Rhine valley Jews", I think I would know about it. Best, Noula69 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boutboul. Arguing about the whether this area is properly French or German at different times is pointless. The aim is to make it clear to a modern reader which geographical area is intended. From memory the sources also use such terms. I am sure everyone is open to compromises, but on the basis of making the terms clear, not on the basis of being political correct for medieval readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that there are no sources that indicate that Jews from a region that could be called the "French Rhine valley" ever migrated to Eastern Europe. What can be effectively shown is that the Rhine Jews came from areas that were German at the time of migration and are German today. It would not make sense to associate Jews from the ShUM cities or from any where between Mainz and Cologne (who made up the vast majority of the Jews who could be labeled Rhine valley Jews in the history of the Ostsiedlung and where more numerous than Jews from anywhere else in Germany) with the concept of a "French Rhine valley" origin that has no historical or geographical basis. Noula69 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I sourced my position with Weinreich 1973 (based on research going back to earlier work in 1923) whose views are generally accepted by those scolars who do not subscribe to the Khazar hypothesis. Best, Noula69 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Noula69 with all due respect you have clearly not read the sources being cited, so you should not be so confident that they do not mention the part of the Rhine Valley which is today in France. Read the Behar article. The term is sourced and relates to the real genetics studies this article is about. Your insertion of comments from a source which has no connection to genetics studies seems irrelevant to me, and bordering on WP:SYNTH?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Genetic distinction at an individual level
User:Utopial has been inserting the following into the article: However, on a purely technical level, there is no genetic screen that can sort Jews from non-Jews. There are a number of issues with the insertion. Utopial, please get consensus on this material before trying to re-insert it. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It's argumentative: why has he even brought this up? No-one made any claim to the contrary in this article.
 * 2) The sources aren't geneticists. In this case, the authors of the Jerusalem Post article are Diana Muir Appelbaum, a historian of New England, and Paul S. Appelbaum, a doctor who "writes about the ethics of genetic testing and research". This claim does not come from the authors of any of the studies on Jewish genetics, and neither author of the Jerusalem Post article is an expert on the topic.
 * 3) It's factually incorrect. See, for example, this 2009 study.


 * I tend to agree, but I would add that well sourced remarks about how to interpret genetic evidence might very well be welcome. There certainly are misunderstandings around. Problems though:-
 * I know from experience however that it is hard to find sources which are not going to be questioned by someone unfortunately and this does lead to controversies with all such articles every now and then.
 * Another problem with what I am saying is that newer autosomal studies really are getting more accurate now, and so our target is moving. This makes it even harder to find good uncontroversial sources.
 * But this raises one last question, which is especially difficult here, and that is how we should present the connection between genetic background (one's "blood") and something like the concept of being Jewish, which is not purely racial or genetic. A similar problem exists for all such articles, because whenever geneticists write about people of ethnicity "x" they are (whether they mention the assumption or not) clearly writing about people who are both of that ethnicity and also of ancestry of that ethnicity. This third question can probably normally be handled with careful wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Below are my comments from the other article. It's easier if we all talk about it here.
 * It's a direct quote from an article. Debating the reliable source findings is original research. I brought it up because firstly it was noteworthy enough to be brought up in the article's conclusion itself, and secondly because it is a misconclusion that people are likely to make unless informed otherwise (in fact it was a misconclusion that i was making until I opened the source and read the article, hence the reason for me including it). I don't understand why it is so controversial to include it. That study you referred to only compares to European Americans, not to the rest of the world's population, e.g. arabs. It's like saying u can genetically distinguish asians who like carrot cake from africans, therefore asians who like carrot cake are distinct genetically at an individual level. i regret that u called me argumentative. id prefer to be referred to as free thinking. if u can find a better source that shows that at an individual level jews can be genetically distinguished from other humans, id naturally consider the above insertion trumped Utopial (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Utopial, you haven't responded to any of the points raised. Sources have varying levels of reliability, depending on context, and a local historian and an ethicist aren't nearly reliable enough to be making these kinds of sweeping claims about genetics - they have no "findings", they have merely voiced their opinions. Again, the author of that quote is not the author of the genetic studies. In addition, there was no "misconclusion" - rather, as pointed out, you seem to be arguing against a point our article doesn't even make. Third, I have actually provided a reliable source that "shows that at an individual level jews can be genetically distinguished from other humans". Please try again, this time actually responding to the points I have made. Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Andrew says, it is important to guide people in interpreting genetic evidence. Making this statement guides peoples understanding that there are genetic factors common among Jews, but these cant be used to distinguish jews from non jews. a lot of people dont understand that, so why not help them understand? wikipedia is meant to be informative, not misleading by leaving out information that could lead to misunderstanding. and no, as i said, that study does not provide that jews are distinct at an individual level from humans. just from european americans. not all humans, such as arabs.Utopial (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "it is important to guide people in interpreting genetic evidence" - This sounds like an agenda, which is not Wikipeda's purpose. The study in question compared Jews with various other groups, including Arab groups, not just "European Americans" - please make more accurate Talk: page statements. You still haven't responded to the points raised. Please do so. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the article already covers my point so there is no need to make it again. It's pretty much general knowledge anyway, so it really makes me wonder what was behind Jayjg's attempt to hide the truth:
 * "With one exception,[5] these studies do not attempt to determine any Jewish gene. During a scientific conference in 2003 in the United States, the Jewish American biologist Robert Pollack, Columbia University and several scientists have clearly rejected the fact that we can determine the biologically "Jewishness" of an individual because there is simply no DNA sequence that is present among Jews and absent among non-Jews.[6]"
 * Adeus irmãosUtopial (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposed addition was problematic for the reasons listed above. That statement in this article misrepresented its sourced and has been fixed. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

close proximity with Tuscans and Italians generally
"Close proximity with Tuscans and Italians generally" is clearly indicated in the following articles:


 * Kopelman 2009
 * "The European populations that cluster closest to the pooled Jewish populations are the Tuscan, Italian, Sardinian, and Adygei populations"


 * Atzmon 2010
 * "Of the European populations, the Northern Italians showed the greatest proximity to the Jews, followed by Sardinians and French"


 * Bray 2010
 * "there is a closer relationship between the Ashkenazim and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the Ashkenazim and Middle Eastern populations"


 * Tian 2009
 * "Ashkenazi Jewish participants showed smaller paired Fst values with southern European populations (for example, Ashkenazi/Italian, Fst = 0.004) than with northern populations (for example, Ashkenazi/Swedish, Fst = 0.0120). "

Please do not remove the sentence.Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Close" is a relative thing - of all European population, the closest to Jews are Tuscans. How close is that, though? Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I Am not more expert than experts. When they write "common middle-eastern ancestry" then I write "common middle-eastern ancestry". If they say "close to Italian" I write "close to Italian". It is not a POV. I wrote this sentence more than 6 month ago and nobody changed it up to recently, why should it be a problem now? Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As close as a published expert would call close? I would agree however that the wording could be made less "black and white" as if population geneticists were specifically pointing to Tuscans only. I think Tuscans just happened to have had a study done and the bigger picture here by my understanding is that there is a Mediterranean genetic component shared by many southern European populations and Middle Eastern ones. I might try tweaking the text to see if that is more widely acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have made a proposal. Just some advice for things to seek that might make this more balanced in the future, but I am guessing one concern of Jayjg might be the fact that there are less comparisons available for other Jewish and Levantine populations to Europeans. There is a focus upon Ashkenazi in published literature which maybe gives a distorted impression. I know from blogs and other sources we can not use that Middle Eastern populations show signs of about 3 apparent ancestral populations which appear to be Arabian, Mesopotamian/Caucasian and Mediterranean/Southern European. Places like Sardinia are good examples of populations with a high % of the third in their ancestry. There may well be handy articles around which can help paint a broader picture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have any big concern about the new wording from Andrew Lancaster.Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what wording Andrew Lancaster is proposing. Anyway, I've removed it from the lede for now, for several reasons:
 * It's unclear what exactly "close" means.
 * If "close" is not clear enough let's fine an other wording. The one proposed by Andrew Lancaster was clear enough according to me.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why some studies indicate "closeness" to Tuscan populations, while others say "Italian" or "Italian and French", "Northern Italians, then Sardinians and French", etc. It appears the closest relationship is to Tuscans, though.
 * All those populations (Tuscan, Sarde, Italian, French) belong to the same geographic area. So, I don't understand why you feel that it is unclear.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In any event, none of this belongs in the lede. The lede is for discussing genetics studies on Jews in general; we don't discuss the genetic relationships of various other Jewish populations to, for example, Libyans or Iraqis or Ethiopians or any other non-Jewish group.
 * In this case the sentence "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." shall also be removed from the lede. Ashkenazim represent more than 70% of the total Jewish population. It is not suprising to talk about them in the lede. In addition, Kopelman and Atzmon talk about jews in general so we can remove Ashkenazim if you want.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition is too much detail for the lede; we're trying to hit the main points. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your bold insertion, but please review WP:BRD. We're now at the Discuss phase, so let's discuss here the proper wording and sourcing for the insertion, and where exactly we'll put it in the section on Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is the lede, the rest of the article is detailed enough.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael, please clarify. I have maybe wrongly now reverted Jayjg's deletion of the sentence, as adapted. If you two agree to just leave the sentence out though, I have no big problem. I think we are probably all aiming at the same type of thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please review WP:UNDUE; the insertion gives way too much prominence to this fact. The main point found in all the studies is that all Jewish populations are related to each other (except Ethiopians), and they all have Middle Eastern origin. The other details belong in the body. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As you well know, all the studies don't contain this so-called main point, though you and some others have seemingly been desperately trying to suppress mention of this recent one by Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin in wikipedia. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently one WP:REDFLAG study came to a conclusion that contradicts all other studies of which I am aware. As for the rest, assume good faith and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the southern European component is of a similar order of magnitude of importance? (That "southern European" component, a component of ancestry shared with southern European in order words, may well have Levantine origins and be common amongst most Middle Easterners living near the coast.) I have no really enormous problem with removing mention of it in the lead, but the logic for doing this is a little problematic. I fear it looks like you want to emphasize one fact over another fact which is equally notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To begin with, the single largest (and therefore most notable) genetic component of Ashkenazi Jews is the Middle Eastern component. In addition, most of the studies have basically been attempts to find out whether Ashkenazi Jews are related to other Jewish groups, and whether their primary ancestry is Middle Eastern, or (as is often claimed) Eastern European or even Khazar. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Michael's remarks on my talk page I think I can say both of us feel a bit uncomfortable removing any mention of this major and significant component of Jewish ancestry which is also frequently described as significant in the literature. It is true that some published researchers, especially some of them a few years ago, and also some Wikipedians, are mainly interested in the Middle Eastern question (which one could almost perhaps call genetic arguments for and against Zionism?). But we have to report on the broad conclusions of a whole field, and I think that the field's publications and conclusions cover more than this. So can we try to find a compromise sentence which avoids your main concerns? Let me start slowly with a discussion point, not a proposal: it has become more clear these days that European genetic diversity, perhaps excluding the extreme NE to some extent, is like a branch of the Middle Eastern bush, and so the idea of treating Middle Eastern and Southern European as two distinct types of ancestry is a bit wrong. The Middle Eastern populations are all made of several bundles of correlated genes, each representing a presumed ancestral population. The southern European or Mediterranean one is one of these, and may have a Middle Eastern origin itself. Let's read around and discuss, but I do think we should aim to have something about major ancestral components in the lead, which is not "filtered" so as to emphasize one. The Dienekes blog has a good collection of reading material: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Jews --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently I think we have only one citation of one of the most recent and important articles on the above point: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html. I think this is something we can use to improve this article, and also to address this point in a way which can satisfy most people. Because it is handy, I quote a blog, which was giving commentary on this article concerning a point of interest I understand to be pretty much the same interest as Jayjg?
 * The smoking gun of an ancestral Jewish gene pool is still missing. Note, for example, the emergence of a "purple" Mozabite cluster in the global ADMIXTURE analysis, or of three distinct Palestinian- Druze- and Bedouin- centered clusters in the regional analysis.
 * If modern Jews are descended from an ancient Jewish population, we would expect the emergence of such a Jewish-centered component in the ADMIXTURE analysis. Such a component would be centered on Jews but might also spill out to some degree to other populations.
 * Rather, Jews appear to be variable mixtures of three components (in the regional figure): pink, which is shared by them and Arab speakers; very light blue, which is shared by them and non-Arab West Asians and south Europeans; medium blue, which is centered on southern Europe.
 * The lack of a Jewish-centered cluster could be either due to a lack of a common core of shared ancestry in various Jewish groups, or to a lack of sufficient resolution in the genetic markers used. There is a common thread among Jewish groups (the pink element), but it is not specific to them.
 * Nonetheless, we can credit the two new studies with shrinking our universe of viable hypotheses: Ashkenazic Jews don't appear to be either Khazar or converted Slavs/Germans; Iraqi Jews don't appear to have any noticeable Arab-specific ancestry; the Jewish origin of Ethiopian Jews is a fable; Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews appear to be closely related; and so on.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * After some first readings, I think it can be safely said that this article does not really clearly agree with Jayjg's reading of the literature above that says that "the single largest (and therefore most notable) genetic component of Ashkenazi Jews is the Middle Eastern component". The reality is more complex.
 * This study describes Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Moroccan Jews as being somewhere between Middle Eastern and European cultures, in terms of its apparent ancestral components (see the PCA analysis, page 3).
 * In the 8 component ADMIXTURE analysis, these three groups show more "European" component than Cypriots or Georgians (the data set and type of analysis in the main article did not split up into multiple European components, which might have been helpful).
 * What the authors do argue is that the European-ness of these groups shows signs of being due to more relatively recent inter-marriage with host populations, whilst the Middle Eastern components are more ancestral. That is quite different from the point Jayjg is making.
 * The ASD table, which perhaps comes closest to addressing Jayjg's point, actually says that each of the Jewish diaspora populations (except the Morroccan and Uzbek ones) appears to be a bit closer to their host population than to Levantine populations. That is more or less the opposite of what Jayjg claims to be known.
 * What they do not really discuss, but what you can see (I add this remark because I think it is helpful and in any case interesting) is that the particular mixture of Middle Eastern components is important. The Middle Eastern populations all have at least three big components:
 * one is shared with Europeans, who have more of it, but always relatively less in the south, verging on the Jewish pattern.
 * one is highest in northern Middle Eastern areas like the Caucasus,
 * the other is highest amongst Bedouins.
 * If we just look at these last TWO, the Meditteranean Jews compared to Levantine populations have less of BOTH, but in the same proportions. Europeans tend to have less of that Caucasian component, and Caucasians, Iraqis, Iranians tend to have less of that Bedouin component.
 * I do not really see anywhere where the authors claim that modern Ashkenazi and Sephardi are more Middle Eastern than European. It is more interested in their shared ancestry, which is only part of their ancestry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Supplementary table 4b shows analysis not discussed in the main article. The similarity is clear between southern Europeans and Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Morrocan Jews. It is a good table, and shows that Sardinians and French are not quite as close as Tuscans. Spaniards and Romanians are probably closer than the Sardinians and French in this particular study. The Sardinians when studied at this level of detail are quite a special group, which makes sense of course because they live on a relatively remote island. The similarity to Tuscans might have various explanations, but as an objective fact it is real. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal I think there are several issues including poor sources, poor flow of discussion, etc, that can be improved in the final sentence of the lede. I think this has the potential to please more editors also. I believe the Behar 2010 source is the one which will help us best. Currently we have:
 * Autosomal studies have shown that Jewish populations share a common Middle Eastern and Mediterranean ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations. Additionally, people with ancestry within specific Jewish populations, such as Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews tend to be very genetically close to each other.

Proposal:
 * Studies of autosomal DNA, which are now considered the most complete way to judge genetic ancestry, show that Jewish populations tend to form relatively closely related groups, which have much of their ancestry in common. For all non Middle-eastern Jewish populations, with the exception of Ethiopian and Indian jews, this shared ancestry has been found to best match modern populations found in the Levant, near modern Israel and Lebanon. This common Jewish ancestry is complemented by significant but varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish historical host populations. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, the non Jewish component is mainly southern European, like it is in Sephardi and Moroccan Jews, with whom they are apparently closely related.

Discussion welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I could not write a better sentence.Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this small re-wording: Proposal 2: "Studies of autosomal DNA, which are now considered the most complete way to judge genetic ancestry, show that Jewish populations tend to form relatively closely related groups, which have much of their ancestry in common. For all non Middle-eastern Jewish populations, with the exception of Ethiopian and Indian Jews, this shared ancestry has been found to best match modern populations found in the Levant, near modern Israel and Lebanon. This common Jewish ancestry is complemented by significant but varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish historical host populations. In the case of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Moroccan Jews, who are apparently closely related, the non-Jewish component is mainly southern European." This seems to better focus on the general themes. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Difference seems just a tweak, so hardly worth mention if the basic idea is considered an improvement. Michael (or anyone else interested) what do you think? I propose by the way that the Behar et al 2010 article would be the footnote ref, not the newspapers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking my english is not so good so I can not appreciate the difference. Both proposals are suitabe for me. I would prefere to avoid using newspapers in this wikipedia article since scientific papers are quite understandable and give more weight. I would have added "southern European (Tuscans, Italian and French)" but I am not stuck on this point. I have other small concerns but I don't want to argue indefinitely.Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I bet no one thinks it is perfect, and editing does not stop, so it can be improved further as people find ways to improve it. I also notice we've not mentioned the Tuscan match at all now, and maybe that is not perfect, but in any case the text does not distract in any case the text now seems more neutral and better sourced. Perhaps the Tuscan/Italian thing can be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

break, back to same subject
The real problem is that the whole thrust of the paragraph is contradicted by more recent autosomal studies.

The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin1,2,3

Abstract

Background: This study aims to establish the likely origin of EEJ (Eastern European Jews) by genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers and haplogroups on the X and Y chromosomes and mtDNA.

Results: According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations.

''The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. In contrast according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean. MtDNA shows a mixed pattern, but overall EEJ are more distant from most populations and hold a marginal rather than a central position. The autosomal genetic distance matrix has a very high correlation {0.789) with geography, whereas the X-chromosomal, Y-chromosomal and mtDNA matrices have a lower correlation (0.540, 0.395 and 0.641 respectively).''

''Conclusions: The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. The reasons for the discrepancy between the biparental markers and the uniparental markers are discussed.''

See Table 1 on Page 3 in particular.

Some reference to the fact that recent autosomal studies are not unanimous about the issue of the alleged commom ancestry of Jews should be made in that paragraph. Which means it needs to be totally rewritten or removed. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Tuscan/Italian is already mentioned in the body. Let's keep as it is. thank you.Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "more recent autosomal studies"? "it needs to be totally rewritten or removed"? Nonsense. There have been several studies of Ashkenazi Jews in 2009 and 2010, all cited in this article, all of which contradict the WP:REDFLAG study you keep promoting. I suggest you review WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course all the studies cited in the article support your position. You won't allow others to be mentioned, anywhere. Yes, many candidate WP rules are being offered as to why a peer-reviewed study which happens to draw an inconvenient conclusion must not be included. In fact, Zoossmann-Diskin references several of the papers cited by the article. In particular he points out that despite  the use of a slightly different metric for autosomal genetic distance, Tian et al, from which the table on Fst autosomal genetic distances used in the article is drawn, shows that Italians and Greeks are closer to Middle East populations than Ashkenazi Jews are. The problem for you and others is the fact that Zoossman-Diskin goes further and gives the genetic distances of Ashkenazis to Middle East Jewish populations alongside those to European populations  in Table1, page 3. What Tian et al hints at becomes unavoidably clear. If, as the article claims, autosomal studies are now considered "the most complete way to judge genetic ancestry", then you better hope he falsified his results for some reason. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I "won't allow others to be mentioned, anywhere"? Please stop talking nonsense, make more truthful talk page comments, and comment on content, not on the contributor. To repeat factual and relevant statements, there have been several studies of Ashkenazi Jews in 2009 and 2010, all cited in this article, all of which contradict the WP:REDFLAG study you keep promoting. I suggest you review WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not yet looked, but I am not sure that this article really does contradict the others? What exactly is the contradiction? Is it just the conclusion the authors draw about conversions? Given that we are trying to use primary sources, to make a summary of the latest information I would see that as a detail and a speculation? The main thing, as Michael says, is that the sources are agreeing about a link between southern Europeans and Eastern European Jews and Middle Easterners?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article now quickly and I see nothing redflag about it. I see no problem mentioning it at all, but I also do not see that it disagrees with what we have in the article already. I am starting to understand that what Devils Advocate is probably pointing at is the claim that Ashkenazi might be more European (probably Italian) than Middle Eastern, to put it in simplistic terms. But our article already says that other authors have also mentioned this possibility. So thanks to Devil's Advocate for the tip. I think this article is a reasonably interesting one. Here is a remark about assumptions for fellow editors interested in the subject: they assume the common element in Sephardi and Ashkenazi is probably European, not Middle Eastern. Other articles cited do the same, but not all; they also assume that the European element of common ancestry in Italians and many Jews is originally European, not originally Middle Eastern (so they consider only one direction of conversion, a problematic assumption in my opinion but I do not see any of our sources dwelling on this). Anyway, the differences are in emphasis but not the basics. Anyone want to have a go at making a simple and un-exaggerated summary paragraph to fit in our autosomal section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have that wrong. Zoossmann-Diskin is saying that there is no notable common element between Middle Eastern Jews and Eastern European Jews based on autosomal genetic distances. A neutral description of the autosomal studies is certainly possible but I think there are editors that don't want that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devils Advocate1000 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DevilsAdvocate, it is possible I missed something but I do not see the authors make quite such an extreme statement. It would be odd to say that any serious geneticist would say there is "no notable common element" of ancestry between any Middle Eastern population and any European population, especially a population which is more of a genetically southern European population. The way they write is, as in most papers, all about relative weights. Let me make a first proposal...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was using my own words to describe what he shows. In his matrix on autosomal genetic distances, he shows all the possible interelationships between all the chosen populations. I think we can agree that his selection of populations is pretty comprehensive. The reason why he is talking about the EEJ-Italian connection is because it is clearly notable  within this context. By the same token, EEJs  and Middle East Jews are notable  by the degree of separation in terms of autosomal genetic distance.  Palestinians are a little closer but that would be explained by a common Mediterranean origin, rather than  a common Middle Eastern one, given the above.


 * Now if it is believed that autosomal studies are the best means of identifying ancestry - intuitively, 22 chromosomes ought to be better than one - then that should be the end of the argument. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me address what I think is your main interest in different words. It is clear that various Italian sub-populations and various Jewish sub-populations and Middle Eastern sub-populations are all generally accepted by all the sources as being fairly closely related, and sharing the same basic components of ancestry. But there is no clear consensus in the field about whether Ashkenazi are more European than Middle Eastern or the other way around. You and Jayjg are interested in this one single simplified question, and what Wikipedia should say about it, but the science of today is not really up to the task of speaking with a single clear voice on this one question. It does however say lots of other things which are equally interesting, if not so simple to explain. It is not that the scientists find different patterns, but there is a problem of how to interpret them. Consider:-
 * Italians are relatively Middle Eastern compared to other Europeans, so if Ashkenazi are close to Italians, does that make them more European than Middle Eastern? We have to know what made the Italians so Middle Eastern to begin with?
 * Different Middle Eastern populations are clearly distinguishable from each other genetically. If an Iraqi Jew has DNA which looks more like an Iraqi than an Italian, does this mean he is necessarily more like someone the Levant?
 * Essentially different authors answer these types of questions by making different assumptions. As long as we see that, then we can see the essential agreement they have about a lot of other things, and we can just point to the assumptions needing to be considered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

drafts
'''DRAFT 1. Andrew Lancaster'''
 * "Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) has similar analytical results to other recent studies, but is critical of the interpretation of some other authors. He accepts that there are signs that Eastern European Jewish populations appear to have a mainly Levantine Y DNA ancestry, but he argues that the X chromosome and autosomal DNA evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry. He argues that Eastern European Jews are more Italian than Levantine, and probably largely descended from converts in Rome. In order to reach these conclusions, the uses the following approach compared to the approach of other authors:"
 * "*As a reference for what Middle Eastern ancestry would look like this author takes Iranian, Iraqi, and Yemenite Jews, along with non-Jewish Turks and Palestinians. Other authors have tended not to treat the Middle East as one block like this, and have described the signs of common ancestry amongst these groups, which varies from region to region, as signs of non Jewish and non Levantine ancestry components from other parts of the Middle East."
 * "*In reverse, the author does not use the admitted genetic closeness between Eastern European Jews and Sephardic Jews as a sign of common Levantine ancestry, saying that it 'is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don’t know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews'. Instead he considers it 'likely' that the genetic affinities of both groups 'stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel'."
 * "*The author says is it 'unlikely' that the ancestry of modern Italian populations, his reference point, genetically constitutes a mixture of non-Italian Mediterranean populations."
 * Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Way too long - your version devotes more space to this study then basically every other study on this page. The first three sentences aren't bad, though. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair comment about length. But maybe rather than deleting the second section (after the first 3 sentences) it helps us improve it by turning it into something else. The second part was really written by me as a kind of closing point for the whole section, because what it really does is leads into a "compare and contrast" section, giving the now sourceable reasons, as explained in this article, that different articles have similar data but apparently different conclusions. I think that is very much needed in this subject. So one of the reasons I actually like this article for WP purposes is that, being a bit controversialist, it is actually also playing a bit of a WP:SECONDARY role, of comparing different articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

'''DRAFT 2. Andrew Lancaster'''
 * Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) has similar analytical results to other recent studies, but is critical of the historical interpretations of this type of data of some other authors. He accepts that there are signs that Eastern European Jewish populations appear to have a mainly Levantine Y DNA ancestry, but he argues that especially the X chromosome and autosomal DNA evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry. He argues that Eastern European Jews are more Italian than Levantine, and probably largely descended from converts during the Roman empire.
 * Comparing the approaches of different studies discussed above, and the reasons for different conclusions:
 * 1. There needs to be a method of understanding the original ancient Jewish genetic profile and how this compares and contrasts to other Middle Eastern populations.
 * Above it can be seen that many authors studying this question have tried to look at the Middle East broken into regions and sub-populations, for example trying to distinguish ancestry shared by Iranians and Iranian Jews, from the presumed original Levantine Jewish component, which they in turn try to infer by contrasting with modern Levantine populations living in the region near Israel, such as the Druze and Palestinians. These authors have tended to conclude that Jews from Iran and Iraq have a high level of ancestry from non Jewish populations in the areas they had moved to.
 * In contrast, Zoossmann-Diskin's standard for what this original Jewish genetic component would be like is based upon the Middle East as a whole, and mainly Jews, using the common ancestry of Iranian, Iraqi, and Yemenite Jews, along with non-Jewish Turks and Palestinians. In other words, this author assumes that all common ancestral elements of Middle Eastern Jews are likely to be from the original ancient Jewish population.
 * 2. There needs to be a method of understanding the original ancient Jewish genetic profile and how this compares and contrasts to other Mediterranean populations.
 * One important conclusion which is widely agreed upon is the genetic closeness between Eastern European Jews and Sephardic Jews. Many authors presume this is coming from the common Levantine ancestry, in their case therefore assuming that these two populations have very separate histories. Zoossmann-Diskin's different conclusions come from his different assumption, namely that it "is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don’t know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews". Instead he considers it "likely" that the genetic affinities of both groups "stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel".
 * Another issue when comparing Jewish, Levantine and other Mediterranean populations is to consider whether modern populations such as Italians might themselves be descended to some large extent from populations from other areas in the Mediterranean, including converted Jews. Zoossmann-Diskin's analysis requires that it is "unlikely" that the ancestry of modern Italian populations genetically constitutes the right type of mixture of non-Italian Mediterranean populations in order to explain their close match to Eastern European Jews by anything other than conversions of Italians to Jews.

I agree with Andrew and Jayjg, Zoossmann-Diskin's does not bring much more information than previous papers. However, it is one more article confirming that Ashkenazim are partially originated from Italy. According to me this information should be in the lead.Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is getting harder to justify not mentioning Italy specifically, rather than southern Europe or the Mediterranean. Not only is the consensus in publications building up, but also the consensus of editors here about this. On the other hand, what the genetic similarity means does not yet seem to be something there is a clear consensus about. It seems likely to me that modern Italians have more Jewish converts, as well as other Levantine immigrants, in their ancestry than Spaniards for example? So I think in the lead we should for now avoid taking a strong position?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. I would propose to let the reader deem what the sentence means exactly by taking a sentence coming from one paper. We can take for instance the sentence from Atzmon: "Of the European populations, the Northern Italians showed the greatest proximity to the Jews, followed by Sardinians and French". What do you think ?Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I already made a quick edit directly into the article intro. I felt it was not a very controversial one, but let me know what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course that suits me even if I would have been a little bit more straitght. Thank you.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that's positive. :) I should look at the French version and see what you are doing there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Les études réalisées sur un très grand nombre de gènes (non sexués) montrent que juifs ashkénazes, séfarades (Grèce, Turquie), marocains, syriens et moyen-orientaux (Iran, Irak) font partie d'un groupe génétique commun ayant des origines au Moyen-Orient. Ce groupe est divisé en deux sous-groupes les juifs ashkénazes-séfarades-marocains-syriens d'une part et les juifs moyen-orientaux d'autre part. La différence entre ces deux sous-groupes est l'apport génétique sud-européen (en particulier Italien) plus ou moins important dans le premier." I am interested what the source would be for the Syrian Jews. I do not think we mentioned that in the English version. One thing I like about the English version of this paragraph is that I tried to make a parallel between local admixture amongst both these groups. So Iranian Jews also show signs of local admixture. The French version does not do this. I thought it good in a Wikipedia way, because it covers most options.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Syrian Jews it is on Atzmon 2010 (it is in the english version too but in the core not in the lead).
 * Regarding the Iranian jews, you are right, thank's for your advice I will change the lead in the French version. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

break, more on Zoossman-Diskin
When I read the included edit, if I hadn't known that Zoossmann-Diskin had baldly stated that, based on autosomal genetic distances, Jews did not have common ancestry, I would not have got that from the edit. It is as if you are trying to bury bad news. Zoossmann-Diskin goes to considerable lengths to explain why, in his opinion, the uniparental markers are not as reliable a guide to ancestry as the biparental ones. Once you start talking about the fact that genetic distances based on Y-DNA contradicts his overall conclusion then you have to explain why he downplays it. You can disagree with his argument but if you leave a false impression that his results don't offer a completely different conclusion re-Jewish ancestry to much of the other work mentioned, then you are effectively guilty of synthesis. Anyone can see the details of his arguments by reading his paper. Less verbiage, and more clarity, please. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I do not consider it bad news or good news. Secondly, what we do have to "bury", or at least "not over-emphasize", is anything which is so specifically the idea of only one author that it would effectively make Wikipedia either a debating forum or even worse a place where a particular position is being taken that is not a consensus in the field. So in other words we can mention different opinions but we must avoid making Wikipedia take the position of one author or one minority of authors.
 * But you are burying his main result as described in his abstract, in a paragraph supposedly about his work. I am quite happy that other different conclusions from the work of others are included in paragraphs about their work. Why should his be hidden? Many wikipedia articles have differing conclusions side by sideDevils Advocate1000 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Secondly, and perhaps more to the point, where does Zoossmann-Diskin baldly state that, based on autosomal genetic distances, "Jews did not have common ancestry"? Please give an exact quote. Are you sure your interpretation of Zoossman-Diskin is the same as Zoossman-Diskin's? To me you seem to have a rather extreme reading of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave just such a quote when I first entered this discussion. From his abstract:-
 *  Results:  According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. In contrast according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean. MtDNA shows a mixed pattern, but overall EEJ are more distant from most populations and hold a marginal rather than a central position. The autosomal genetic distance matrix has a very high correlation (0.789) with geography, whereas the X-chromosomal, Y-chromosomal and mtDNA matrices have a lower correlation (0.540, 0.395 and 0.641 respectively).
 * I am having difficulty understanding how you could have missed that. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. But you do not mean the same thing as the author. No two distinct population have exactly the same origin and the same ancestry, but you are saying that no two Jewish populations share any ancestry, and the author certainly does not say that, and if he did it would be lunacy, because all human populations share common ancestry. Let's see how the author uses the terms:-
 * First paragraph, the author contrasts two different beliefs that are going to be tested. He opposes having "a common origin", to "Jews are a very diverse group". So this paragraph implies that what that what is meant by not having a common origin is that Jews are very diverse. I think the summary I have put in our article says this also.
 * I don't understand what do you want to explain? If "Jews are very diverse [genectic] group" they don't have a common genetic origin, according to me it is a straight forward statement?Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From the discussion section, where they admit that Y DNA tells a different story: "Thus smaller contributions from several populations, including possibly the original Middle Eastern Jewish population, and a major contribution from Italy combined with the unique demography of EEJ can create the current genetic picture". So the author clearly does say that Eastern European Jews probably do have a Middle Eastern ancestry, just less than their Italian ancestry.
 * Yes but he finishes the paragraph by saying " their uniparental markers were subjected to stronger genetic drift than the biparental markers and thus should not be used to trace their origin."Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The author also actually does admit that Ashkenazi are not only close matches to Italians, but also to Sephardi Jews, but he does not want to discuss this because "It is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel". So in other words the author says clearly that there are TWO major Jewish groups do share their ancestry, and the author just says he does not know why.
 * Yes, but when comparing with Iraqi, marocan, Yemenite and iranian Jews it does not match anymore. In this case sephardic group is restricted to a very small population. In addition, the full sentence is the following: "It is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel."Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The author is also aware that by his account, Italians are quite Middle Eastern, and not typical European. He needs to make certain assumptions, for example that it is unlikely that "current-day Italians themselves not only have absorbed foreign genetic contributions, but actually constitute such a mixture", "of people from different places in the Mediterranean basin". This is just something mentioned in a quick way when challenged by a reviewer, and not really demonstrated. Anyone knowing anything about the history of Rome would have to wonder at this assumption.
 * Yes, but this statement does not contradict the 'fact' that jewish populations do not share a common origin.Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I could go on and on. What the article is saying, which is controversial, but still rational, is that eastern European Jews have relatively more "autochtonous" Italian ancestry than Middle Eastern ancestry. To quote what we currently have "a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry. He argues that Eastern European Jews are more Italian than Levantine, and probably largely descended from converts during the Roman empire". I do not see that this is burying anything the author truly wrote, if you read it carefully.
 * (If this author had consider the Mediterranean to be a major population area, like a continent, then his results showing Jews to be more like Italians than like Iraqis would not have been so interesting sounding? It would have been better to have had more Mediterranean populations in the study, such as Lebanese, Tunisians, Libyans, Coastal Syrians, Coastal Palestinians, etc.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you can go on and on. However that doesn't concern me anywhere near as much as your attempt to traduce my words. I have said nothing that could be interpreted as saying that there was no common ancestry at all between any EEJ's and Middle Eastern Jews. I simply accurately reflected his words within  the context of a brief summary. You try your best to obscure his main conclusion by both burying it in weasel words and focusing on  what he says about the metric whose value he contests.  I was hoping that I would not have to write anything myself, but when I get time, I will propose a draft that accurately (but briefly) reflects his work.


 * One other point. You seem to be tying yourself into knots about his comments re Sephardic Jews. What he is saying is that, if the only Jewish population that is as close in genetic distance terms to EEJs as the non-Jewish Mediterranean populations are is the only one that is Mediterranean in origin, then it is reasonable to conclude that the source of that common closeness is the Mediterranean origin. There is simply no reason at all to bring the Middle East into that "equation" because, in autosomal distance terms, non-Mediteranean Jewish populations are "miles away". That is simple, cold logic.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Miles away" are your words. I will wait to see your proposal, so we can discuss.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the following sentence: "Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) is more adamants he claims that 'According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and Eastern European Jews are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. ' He explains the apparent paradoxe that Y-chromosome studies show a common origin and not autosomal studies by the fact that the number of males contributing to ashkenazim population must be small. In additon, he indicates also that previous autosomal studies have bias explaining why they found opposite results."Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Current version, for comparison: "Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) has similar analytical results to other recent studies, but is critical of the historical interpretations of this type of data of some other authors. He accepts that there are signs that Eastern European Jewish populations appear to have a mainly Levantine Y DNA ancestry, but he argues that especially the X chromosome and autosomal DNA evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry. He argues that Eastern European Jews are more Italian than Levantine, and probably largely descended from converts during the Roman empire. This conclusion partly results from his understanding that the common ancestry of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews is 'Mediterranean' but not the original Jewish 'Middle Eastern' profile, because it is relatively more similar to modern Italians than to modern Jews with ancestry in Iraq, Iran and Yemen. Concerning mitochondrial DNA, this author perceives a 'mixed pattern' in between that shown by Y DNA and both autosomal and X DNA.[3]" So your version removes is shorter, and avoids some things. Is that the intention? I am thinking that just giving the most extreme wording of this author, without explaining how he grants certain things in agreement with other authors, and how he came to such different conclusions, makes our report of this author seem a little hard to interpret for readers? For example it maybe makes him look like a crack pot if we do not give some context?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My version reflect exactly what I read in zoossmann's paper but may be I missed something. It is difficult to give an other meaning to the following sentence "The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin. The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population." This kind of sentence is given twice, once in the abstract and an other time in the conclusion. This is what he wants to tell, it is obvious. He does not say that EEJ are more Italian than Levantine. I would suggest to explain by an extract of the original text each sentence of our version ? Anyway, it is not because he says something that he is right.Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that the sentence you are choosing is something like an attention-grabbing headline on a newspaper? I think the question we have to deal with is whether it headlines are always the best summaries of an article. Does that makes sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I do not agree with you on that. I think that the whole paper try to demonstrate the headline. for example he writes "However these conclusions are ill-founded, because, they used a highly selected set of SNPs, which were selected specifically for the purpose of distinguishing between Ashkenazi Jews and other populations and they inferred the origin of Ashkenazi Jews from principal components analysis (PCA)," or when he writes "When one compares the autosomal distances of EEJ (current study) or Ashkenazi Jews (in Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54]) from the Jewish populations that were investigated in the current study, Iraqi, Iranian, Moroccan, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews, one finds perfect agreement. EEJ or Ashkenazi Jews are much closer to non-Jewish Europeans than to these Jewish populations in all three studies."Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientists, as publicists of their work, sometimes write extreme sentences, and you are of course right that is really what they want to say. But I would think that when we as editors chose how to summarize a scientist, we are free to add context, and not only quote someone's headline grabbers. (I believe that the spirit of WP:NEUTRAL says we should be more critical of people who want to take away things, or filter things, than people who want to ADD context? So putting in the sentences you mention is not something I am complaining about.) I think in fact that we are supposed to do this if there is controversy about an article and whether it is fringe or redline and not widely cited, which is pretty much where this discussion started? There are less extreme statements in the article. Why not use them as context at least?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that there are less extreme statements in the article but I can not see them. Could you please extract them ? Anyway, I agree with you if there are less extreme sentence they should appear in the wikipedia text but extreme sentences should appear too. There are least 7 papers claiming that there is a common origin for jewish populations so it is clear that it is the main opinion but we should not hide that there is one article claiming the opposite.Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a sort of quick attempt to summarize some other material in my post above 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC). Comments welcome.
 * I agree that we could just make the summary simple and extreme and leave readers to see that this paper is extreme compared to others. That is more or less what I meant by saying that if we do not do this right we might make this article look "crack-pot" which I think would not consider to be ideal for WP. Also from a WP editing perspective, if we do that, some editor will one day delete it, because we would have made it look "fringe". I actually feel the paper has something to say, but more in the details about how this author approaches things differently, than in the headline grabbing comments.
 * Concerning the importance of details beyond the headlines in academic papers, I do not think this is just my personal preference. My general impression, confirmed by the two reviews and replies at the end of the article, is that this is one of those articles which is trying to grab attention, BUT, when criticized the author will say, himself, that readers who think he is being extreme should read the paper more carefully to see that he already had comments allowing for various weak points. Because academics unfortunately do this a lot, I think this is a normal type of problem we need to deal with by doing what they say, and reading not only the headlines, but the "provisos". Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just answered to your comments. Besides, if you take any articles you can find position weaker than the position of the headline but up to now we did not do it for other articles why doing it for this one? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Andrew Lancaster's version more accurately represents the source. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael, I think I normally work like this when trying to cite single journal articles, but I am open to discussion on this. I do not disagree with using this authors "headline grabbers" but I think that as editors we do not need to be naive about how headline grabbing works. A similar situation arises with the academics who reported that English DNA shows sign of an "apartheid" in early Anglo Saxon times. Yes, we can report that "line" (he got a lot of press), but I think we know very well that the author himself would demand of us that we read beyond those headline grabbers and see that his argument is not crack pot, and has subtle variations considered in the text. I am open to discussion on how to improve this, but I am most worried about the idea of ONLY emphasizing the headline grabbers from an article, and removing anything else. Removing explanation does not seem to be a way to make explanation better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, if Jayjg and you think that your version represents the source more accurately it may be because I missed something. I still beleive that the headline represents the core of the text however I won't argue indefinetly. RegardsMichael Boutboul (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Personally I am open to further changes, but I am interested to make sure they do not un-balance the report we give.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting again
Boutboul proposal: "Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) is more adamants he claims that 'According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and Eastern European Jews are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. ' He explains the apparent paradoxe that Y-chromosome studies show a common origin and not autosomal studies by the fact that the number of males contributing to ashkenazim population must be small. In additon, he indicates also that previous autosomal studies have bias explaining why they found opposite results."

Current version, by Andrew Lancaster, for comparison: "Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) has similar analytical results to other recent studies, but is critical of the historical interpretations of this type of data of some other authors. He accepts that there are signs that Eastern European Jewish populations appear to have a mainly Levantine Y DNA ancestry, but he argues that especially the X chromosome and autosomal DNA evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry. He argues that Eastern European Jews are more Italian than Levantine, and probably largely descended from converts during the Roman empire. This conclusion partly results from his understanding that the common ancestry of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews is 'Mediterranean' but not the original Jewish 'Middle Eastern' profile, because it is relatively more similar to modern Italians than to modern Jews with ancestry in Iraq, Iran and Yemen. Concerning mitochondrial DNA, this author perceives a 'mixed pattern' in between that shown by Y DNA and both autosomal and X DNA.[3]"

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Components of a draft:
 * Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) is critical of the interpretations made by other authors of autosomal DNA data from Jewish populations.
 * He argues that based upon X chromosome and autosomal DNA evidence, Middle Eastern and Eastern European Jewish populations do not have the same genetic origins.
 * He argues that for Eastern European Jews, this evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry.
 * He argues that this is probably a result of conversions during the Roman empire.
 * Concerning the similarity between Sephardi and Ashkenazi, he argues that the reasons are uncertain, but that it is likely to be caused by Sephardic Jews having "Mediterranean" ancestry also, like the Ashkenazi.
 * Concerning mitochondrial DNA, and particularly Y DNA, he accepts that there are superficial signs of a Middle Eastern origins, but he argues that this can be ignored as it is may came from a small number of ancestors.

Anything missing or distorted in this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would like to thank you for your impressive work and your continuous effort to find a trade off. I agree with all your points just above.Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! OK, trying to make a single paragraph:-"Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) is critical of the interpretations made by other authors of autosomal DNA data from Jewish populations. He argues that based upon X chromosome and autosomal DNA evidence, Middle Eastern and Eastern European Jewish populations do not have the same genetic origins. In particular, concerning Eastern European Jews, he believes the evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry, which he argues is probably a result of conversions during the Roman empire. Concerning the similarity between Sephardi and Ashkenazi, he argues that the reasons are uncertain, but that it is likely to be caused by Sephardic Jews having 'Mediterranean' ancestry also, like the Ashkenazi. Concerning mitochondrial DNA, and particularly Y DNA, he accepts that there are superficial signs of a Middle Eastern origins, but he argues that this can be ignored as it is may came from a small number of ancestors." Make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Middle Eastern Jewish populations" here? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. By this the author really only means "Jews with ancestry in Iraq, Iran and Yemen" which was therefore better in Michael's version. We could change to that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a good start, as each of those Jewish populations are distinct sub-groups with unique ancestries, and there are (or until recently were) Jewish populations in many other countries in the Middle East. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. This author effectively does the mirror image of what he criticizes in other authors. He assumes that Middle Eastern Jews are more "original Jewish" (to try to find a short term for it) because similar to each other and to other Middle Easterners. Other authors, perhaps equally wrongly, assume that this similarity is coming from intermarriage with local Middle Eastern populations and assume that the similarity of Ashkenazi and Sephardi proves that they are more "original Jewish". This is in fact a good point that he makes even though he does the same thing in a different way. The fact of the matter is that automsomal DNA analysis is complicated, and hard to explain. And surely no reasonable person will dispute that the different Jewish populations of the world have diverse histories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jews of North Africa maternal lineages comment
Andrew Lancaster

Your edition in to the section regarding the Mt-DNA of Jews from North Africa "The study of D. Behar also shows that the Jews of North Africa do not share their main maternal lineages with Jews in the Middle East." lacks any reference, you should post it.Also can you explain/show to which particular study(and which part of it) you do refer? --Tritomex (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here. The information is not something I inserted, but I did revert a deletion. The sentence clearly refers to the study of D. Behar. And there is a study of D. Behar amongst the sources given in the article. Therefore it is not immediately clear why you are saying it is not sourced. Sourcing does not need to be by footnote. Perhaps the formatting of this citation could be questioned and the information could be double checked against the article by Behar, but a deletion based on no sourcing seemed inappropriate. Please advise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand why the previous version has been changed ? Could you explain ?Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for my own edit which was an attempt to compress and copy-edit. The section seemed repetitive and requiring copy-editing at that time. Recent editing in this and another section was initiated by User:Tritomex. Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did anyone have a chance to look at those edits? (I did not.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Journal
Up to now we have avoided using none scientific Journal because scientif journal are clear enough on this field. Other sources are not necessary.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quoting the guy who did the study, about what it means - it's not just a random quotation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Michael is suggesting it does not add anything. I am neutral about it. Certainly newspaper comments by scientists can help give colour, but sometimes the colour is also somewhat less worthwhile than the article. Adding words like "In a newspaper article one of the authors said..." can help at least avoid readers from getting the wrong impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Style to be used in the wikipedia article
@Tritomex Sorry to have removed your sentence but it seems that using journalistic style is not recommended here? Why do you want to specify Harry Ostrer belong to "Albert Einstein College" and that the paper is published in PNAS? Why not doing it for all paper? --Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It have to be noticed that not all genetic studies carried out recently have scientific value. I think therefore its important to underline who carried those studies out. For example we have one recent autosomal DNA "study" which did not even tested people but used samples from studies of other authors. The authors of this study claimed that Hungarians and Romanians are Slavic People and Armenians and Georgians are classified as Turkic. This reveled terrible ignorance and classified the authors out of all scientific domain. However, for people unfamiliar to this subject, this may look as any other population genetic study.Tritomex (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you there is a problem when we comparing two articles, it is very difficult to say that one is better than the other. I think that was a good idea to point out the assumption of Elhaik. Anyway most of the people read only the lead. Usually we cite the first author of an article not the leader.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If this genetic study is mentioned, arguments about its findings have to be mentioned too.-Tritomex (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure to understand about what you are talking about exactly? --Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"By principal component analysis, these North African groups were orthogonal to contemporary populations from North and South Morocco, Western Sahara, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Thus, this study is compatible with the history of North African Jews—founding during Classical Antiquity with proselytism of local populations, followed by genetic isolation with the rise of Christianity and then Islam, and admixture following the emigration of Sephardic Jews during the Inquisition"

This section is copyrighted material. You have to rewrite this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is just the opposite, please read Quotations.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you dont believe me that by copyright you violated rules of Wikipedia. /the whole of your edition is copyright /We can ask the administrative body to review your quotation. Short quotations in exceptional cases are allowed. However all of your edition is copyright put under quotation marks.Tritomex (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also read

Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. However, just as with fair-use images, fair-use quotation has limitations:
 * The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work. In one extreme case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement. Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful of the fact that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In thius case 144 out of 144 words you have edited is copied material Tritomex (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just one person's opinion but I believe in the context of a clearly attributed quote for an encylopedic non profit work like this, we are not coming near anything that is likely to be called copyright.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to report this, because I am personally againt copyright Howerver, be sure It would not stand Wiki-administrative revision for copyrighted material. This is not encylopedic non profit work, yet even encylopedic non profit work can not be copy-violated according to Wikipedia rulesTritomex (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Andrew said I would like to point out that I did not quote 144 out of 144 words but I quoted 144 words out of a full article. I have the full article if you want to read it. Regards.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs from scientific magazines, written by well known genetic experts like in this case are fully legitimate sources. Tritomex (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK for the blog. But anyway don't worry it is one article among several. Other paper will come. Don't give too much importance for such article written in an unknown journal. --Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also not a very aggresive person about removing such blogs. I know this blog quite well and like it. But it is worth pointing out that in the long run it is not what most Wikipedians would accept. Razib does have some qualifications and notability and his blog is on a magazine webspace, but on the other hand he is not really a well known author in the more normally recognized ways, like John Hawks would be. My experience is that even John Hawks is normally not accepted as a source on Wikipedia. I think that in any case Michael's bigger and more important point is that we need to be careful to try to avoid turning the article into a fast changing attempt to keep notes about all the latest research. For better or worse, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, aims to be just behind the "cutting edge", not the cutting edge itself. Of course mentioning things like pre-prints and debates in the popular press can add colour, but we need to be careful to distinguish those things from fully peer reviewed papers, so that our readers can see which is which.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)