Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 4

arbitrary break back to Elhaik
According to the finally published version of Elhaik "Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry." Let me try to reword that as something very neutral that might fit a listing of neutral listings of articles: "DRAFT: Elhaik (2012) analysed data from various studies and concluded that the DNA of European Jewish populations indicates that its ancestry is 'a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries'. The Caucasian component of ancestry was in turn taken to be consistent with the Khazarian Hypothesis as an explanation of part of the ancestry of European Jews.'"Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Those are reasonable points which I also realized after proposing the first draft. I would suggest that instead of using the term Ashkenazi we could say Central and Eastern European, because this is closer to the article language and still quite clear."DRAFT 2: Elhaik (2012) analysed data from various studies and concluded that the DNA of Eastern and Central European Jewish populations indicates that its ancestry is 'a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries'. A relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the closer similarity to modern Georgian, and especially modern Armenian DNA, as opposed to Palestinian DNA. This proposed Caucasian component of ancestry was in turn taken to be consistent with the Khazarian Hypothesis as an explanation of part of the ancestry of European Jews.'" Again comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * I am a bit surprised you don't want the Armenians and Georgians (the proxies) mentioned, because I think by doing this we let readers see what the data really says, in as neutral as possible a way. If we do not say it like this then we are just going straight to saying "Khazar DNA". But the author does not hide that he is using proxies, so why should we? Second concern: won't making a special separate section also potential backfire? It would make it look like this is the only speculative interpretation of the data. As I have written above, I think most of the papers we report make questionable assumptions about proxies for ancient groups (whether openly or not). Perhaps the most common and important one is the papers that assume that whatever ancestry cluster is common between Palestinians and Jews must be the origin Hebrew population. (Some of these assumptions might very well be correct of course. But we are not supposed to be judging this, I think, but just making it clear for readers who the assumptions of each study can be understood.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Andrew. I do not think it good practice to make an exception of Elhaik by creating more or less a special section for him. By the way, good work. With a few tweaks, as suggested, you're almost there. ('Relatively strong' was moderate' since, Evildoer, Elhaik says 'large'. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As Elhaik "genetic study" like all regular genetic studies, is not covered by secondary sources, and as we have to rely solely on single primary source and due to additional problems raised with the pushing for inclusion of this paper, we have to find original ways to deal with this issue.  It is well known that Armenians  and Georgians are not Turkic peoples. This is one of numerous mistakes pointed out by Rhazib Khan. If Elhaik would like to use serious population genetic studies, to draw conclusions on eventual Khazar origin of the Jews, beyond standard procedures,  he would use Turkic population samples, like Kazakhs.Armenians and Georgians have especially high Middle Eastern admixture and are "half way" between Middle Eastern and European populations. This is not the case for Turkic peoples like Göktürks who have genetic signature of the region of their origin. To promote another fringe claim that Armenians and Georgians are proto-Khazars, which is historically and ethnically  not true would be another pseudoscientific innovation. Elhaik goes even further with his claim that even native Middle Eastern Druze are Turkic, but this is another question.

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

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


 * Tritomex, you are wrong. This article uses other primary sources which have the same authority as Elhaik. There is no reason to push Elhaik out of the article except that it does not conform to your wishes. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes we know it, as it is specific to genetics many times primary sources are the only sources. However contrary to this "genetic study" most of regular genetic studies and their results are covered by secondary sources, and appropriate links are added in the article. I have no problem with the fact that Elhaik papers can be presented through primary source only, but I would have problem with any attempt to push ELhaik paper anywhere beyond special section as  his "innovative technique"  beyond being far from belonging to any lead does not belong to autosomal, mtDNA or YDNA chapters either. .--Tritomex (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tritomex. I still think you are taking some exaggerated positions. I do not see Elhaik call Druze Turkic for example. It is a little more subtle than that. (He does not assume that the Khazar DNA would be mainly Turkic, and that may well be a reasonable assumption.) And while he might claim to be innovative, so do many papers. And many/all such papers use proxy assumptions. FWIW I think the clustering of Jews (and Cypriots and Druze) and Armenians is real and interesting. I think if we let readers see that the author found this clustering, they can also better judge how seriously to take the conclusions the author then draws, which are much more speculative. Anyway, I think you can see that your idea of having a special Elhaik section is not very popular amongst other editors. This is not just because of editors who support Elhaik (are there any?), but actually also because it could over-emphasize Elhaik.
 * @Evildoer. Of course when we name that particular Middle Eastern cluster which is more common in Palestinians as "Arabian", we are also speculating beyond what the pure DNA data can tell us, just like Elhaik does with his ideas about what the Khazars would be like. (And if it were up to me I would probably call the cluster more common in the Armenians, Georgians, Cypriots and Druze something like "Fertile Crescent".) Might be a correct speculation mind you, but it is hard to prove it, and there really are not enough autosomal papers to talk about clear consensus yet. I know you probably realize this, but I point to it anyway so it is clear to everyone. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW Tritomex one of the reasons I do not think there are many strong autosomal articles yet is exactly the fact that it has been left to one time authors like Elhaik and Zoossman-Diskin to draw the public's attention to valid clusters (such as the northern Middle Eastern one, which Elhaik however calls Caucasian) that always were clear in the data. The big name multi-author groups have obscured some facts just as much as anyone. I believe the subject of Jewish autosomal studies is yet to have one really good article. Also witness how often we here on this talk page, independent of which side we are on in a discussion, need to refer to things like blogs occasionally as a way to keep our perspective. This is because unfortunately right now blogs are in effect the most comprehensive analyses of this data so far!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarantining Elhaik's paper into its own section on the basis of our own critique of it would obviously violate WP:NOR. Its objectively minority status is adequately addressed by that the proposed few sentence would only make up a tiny fraction of the article. Zerotalk 09:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not based on my own criticism, but on simple fact that he applied non standard methods which do not exist in population genetics and we do not have sections beyond standard X,Y chromosome and autosomal studies, so we would have to create one which could be used for other wives beside Elhaik fringe theory, which is not supported by any secondary sources, academic books or journals (while I found numerous secondary sources for all regular genetic study which still miss this, and I will add them as it was proposed on FTN)

I do not propose "Quarantining Elhaik's paper" I propose the exclusion of Elhaik paper, but as I have stated I would not actively oppose it, if this inclusion would not make any more harm beyond one WP:UNDUE, or by other words if it would be written in section named "Views of Geneticists" or similar. I even accepted Andrew Lancaster's draft, although this "Elhaik paer" to remind you all, did not went through fringe theory noticeboard. Considering the study itself: Elhaik writes "Contemporary Eastern European Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, accounting for nearly 90% of over 13 million Jews worldwide" This is not true as Ashkenazi Jews, both Eastern European and Western European are altogether about 8-8,5 million, which nowhere comes to 90% from 14 million and this is the exact number of Jews. Elhaik continues that there are "two dominant hypotheses depicting either a sole Middle Eastern ancestry or a mixed Middle Eastern-Caucasus-European ancestry to explain the ancestry of Eastern European Jews." I never heard about "Middle Eastern-Caucasus-European ancestry theory" nor I know that this theory is "dominant" Reflecting on highly respected geneticist Atzmon and his studies covered by all major secondary sources from CNN to Jerusalem Post as well as to “Rhineland Hypothesis” Elhaik continues: "The “Rhineland Hypothesis”... proposes two mass migratory waves: the first occurred over the two hundred years following the Muslim conquest of Palestine (638 CE) and consisted of devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe" ... The second wave occurred at the beginning of the 15th century by a group of 50,000 German Jews who migrated eastward and ushered an apparent hyper-babyboom era for half a millennia (Atzmon et al. 2010). Nowhere Atzmon refer to hyper-babyboom era for half a millennia and this kind of irony is non existing in scientific world. Beside this I never heard that “Rhineland Hypothesis” equals "devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe" after Muslim conquest. The "Supplementary Note 1" proposed as reference leads nowhere. He continues "Biblical and archeological records allude to active trade relationships between Proto-Judeans and Armenians in the late centuries BCE (Polak 1951; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002), that likely resulted in a scale admixture between these populations and a Judean presence in the Caucasus" I also never heard for Proto-Judeans of Caucasus, although I red this sources. Finally Elhaik makes a remarkable invention of historic facts:"Khazarian Empire (Figure 1). Following the collapse of their Empire and the Black Death (1347-1348) the Judeo-Khazars fled eastwards" The Khazar empire was destroyed after Sviatoslav's sack of Atil in 968/9, and did not existed in 1347 by all consensus. Elhaik continues with inventions "The Khazarian Hypothesis posits that European Jews are comprised of Caucasus, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries." This is also not true. He continues "Some studies pointed to the genetic similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations like Adygei (Behar et al. 2003; Levy-Coffman 2005; Kopelman et al. 2009), others with Middle Eastern populations(Hammer et al. 2000; Nebelet al. 2000)," While Behar et al. 2003 does not point to similarity between European Jews and and Adygei,and Levy-Coffman is a self published website without any genetic studies probably made by some charlatan, Kopelman 2009 clearly states that "our findings do not support the Khazar theory"  " and among other "theories" he forgot about 20 standard genetic studies and umerus academic books. He continues "Although both the Rhineland and Khazarian Hypotheses depict a Judean ancestry and are not mutually exclusive," this is also innovation and invention. I never heard that "Khazarian Hypotheses depict a Judean ancestry" but we may add this to clarify Elhaik..."Because, according to both hypotheses, Eastern European Jews arrived in Eastern Europe roughly at the same time (13th and 15th centuries)" Now Elhaik contradicts himself as he claimed that as per Rhineland theory Judeans arrived "following the Muslim conquest of Palestine (638 CE) and consisted of devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe"  Than Elhaik explaines his pseudoscientific methods, and he continues with his "results" based on previous  claims "We traced Druze biogeographical origin to the geographical coordinates:38.6±3.45° N, 36.25±1.41° E (Figure S4) in the Near East (Figure S1). Half of the Druze clustered tightly in Southeast Turkey, and the remaining was scattered along northern Syria and Iraq. He than again contradict himself  "Although the Rhineland Hypothesis explains the Middle Eastern ancestry by stating that Jews migrated from Palestine to Europe in the 7th century, it fails to explain the large Caucasus ancestry, which is nearly endemic to Caucasus populations." Although I never heard for any author from population genetics claiming  the existence of entity named "Caucasus ancestry, which is nearly endemic to Caucasus populations" now per Elhaik Ashkenazi jews did not arrived to Eastern Europe in "(13thand 15th centuries) Elhaik continues with inventions "According to the Khazarian Hypothesis, the Western European ancestry was imported to Khazaria by Greco-Romans Jews, whereas the Middle Eastern ancestry alludes to the contribution of both early Israelite Proto-Judeans as well as Mesopotamian Jews (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976; Sand 2009). Central and Eastern European Jews differ mostly in their Middle Eastern (30% and 25%, respectively) and Eastern European ancestries (3% and 12%, respectively), probably due to late admixture." Nowhere I can find this percentages. nor in population genetic books, nor at any genetic study. He continues "Druze exhibit a large Turkic ancestry (83%) in accordance with their Near Eastern origin" So the Druze are now Turkic people as well, while Turkic ancestry is not "consistent with Near Eastern origin" but with East and Central Asian ancestry. This is also reply to Andrew. Finally, Elhaik concludes that "Jewish  population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan" I analyzed less than half of this article but even with this it is by all means and by all neutral points of view something than can not go to Wikipedia artickle.Khazar empire destroyed in 1347, Judeans arriving to Europe in 10th century, Druze who are 83% Turkic,  Proto-Judeans of Caucasus, Slavic Hungarians, falls quotes and references+ "innovative techniques" primary source without any support from secondary sources, fringe conclusions made on self invented techniques, results which goes against all genetic study and academic books, and all the rest...--Tritomex (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In short, from your personal review and analysisof Elhaik's paper, you conclude it is pseudoscience, that though trained at John Hopkins in population genetics, the author uses methods that science does not employ; that you know more than the peer-reviewers who got the article accepted into a scientific journal,etc. Experts have been blindsided by a fraud. You alone stand, defensively, between him and the "truth". Is that it?Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This has become a behavioral problem, with Tritomex refusing to listen to reason. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I clearly stated that my views are solely based on Wikipedia guidelines.

a) WP:UNDUE, fringe theory, primary source etc. The statement above is only provided as explanation of how enormous are the obvious errors, which is the likely reason why this "study" is not covered by any WP:RS or why geneticists refuse to comment on this fringe theory.Btw specialized blogs which are full of Elhaik refutation are more reliable than this primary source. --Tritomex (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tritomex, again, the problems with this article are similar to the problems with many other articles, even if worse. We need to have an even playing field. Let's just try to present the most neutral bits of each article in a neutral way? By my proposition we are not even going to mention a lot of the issues that worry you, and everyone seems happy with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why I would oppose the inclusion of this "problematic issues"? Maybe smth like this: After applying innovative techniques Elhaik (2012) discovered that 83% of Druze genome is Turkic, which is consistent with their Near Eastern origin, while he determined that the homeland of the East European Jews stretches from Volga to the river Jordan, in line with Khazarian theory and as a result of Khazarian migration after the destruction of their empire in the year 1347. With this discovery  he straightened the already dominant Middle Eastern-Caucasus-European ancestry theory of East European Jews, contrary to Rhineland Hypothesis which states that East European Jewry were formed as a result of Judean migrations from Islamic Palestine, after the Muslim conquest. Geneticists interviewed by Haaretz refused to comment on this issue. Okay excuse me for this digression, I already stated that I would not oppose your draft no1 if you are able to propose appropriate  place for it, and it is clear  that the only appropriate place for it would be in section named Geneticist views or smth similar.Also Andrew, please do not generalize if you know for similar problems with regular genetic studies, state it and provide some sources. Are you aware that this article did not went though fringe theory noticeboard? Anyway where you want to add this important scientific work? Tritomex (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tritomex, your posts are long, do not stay on subject, and are confusingly formatted. It makes discussion very difficult, and if discussion is difficult then making the article as good as possible is difficult. Concerning your digressions I think they have all been discussed enough. For example concerning the Fringe noticeboard you are simply misrepresenting it. BUT the subject now is a simple article structuring proposal you have made, which is to create a section called "Author opinions" and in that section to discuss only one published article. I think this proposal has no support and despite the length of your posts I find no justification for it in your posts either. Just creating a section called "Author opinions" does not resolve any of the issues you mention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether to use a blog to cite criticisms
Adobe Acrobat X detects more than 250 textual difference between the August preprint and the published version. Many are trivial, but quite a few are substantial. For this reason it would be original research to decide if a criticism of the preprint is also a criticism of the published version. Zerotalk 09:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, this is presumably about this edit by Tritomex, which added the following text to the Elhaik paragraph which I added yesterday my time:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

I'll add: Zerotalk 14:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No other genetic study in the article is presented along with criticism, though many have been subject to criticism. There is still no rule-based cause to single out Elhaik's paper for special treatment.
 * Razib Khan has qualifications in genetics, but not in history. Thus, while his criticism of the use of Palestinians on historical grounds might be valid (even though I think Tritomex summarizes it incorrectly), it is not admissible.  i'll also note that Behar also includes Palestinians in his reference "Levant" population.
 * Elhaik paper will have to go to WP:NPOV noticeboard due to obvious violations of Wikipedia polity made by its inclusion and due to other aspects which could be discussed at WP:OR and WP:RS and other noticeboards as well, if there is no intention to change this problems. As the current wording of the text solely derives from the article to which Rhazib Khan reflects, the censorship of secondary sources covering this primary source on this ground is not acceptable. Behar inclusion of Palestinians as Levantine population, which is factually correct is not equal with assuming them as "proto judeans" nor it is explanation for this claim. Rhazib Khan clearly speaks about genetic admixture of Palestinians, which is again firstly genetic and not historic question.--Tritomex (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Were there obvious violations of wikipedia polity the editors above would have noticed them. Only you assert this. You evidently do not understood the policies both you and others have cited. You persistently adopt an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach, not replying to clear statements and queries while adding still further examples of your creative approach to source criticism, to which replying appears pointless. You are free to go to all the boards (careful of forum shopping), but the answers will confirm that your objections are confused about how wikipedia works. We don't espouse theories here: we describe them according to WP:WEIGHT. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Razib Khan is perhaps arguably notable by himself. He is mentioned by the New York Times at the very top of an article about the new phenomenon of right-wing conservative Americans who are atheists, and they say Khan is a "data-driven scientist" who founded SecularRight.org. He is cited in the following Wikipedia articles: Urheimat, Hutu, Tutsi, Bioscience Resource Project, Ilana Mercer, Physical attractiveness, Secular liberalism, Peter Frost (anthropologist), Dark skin], [[Human skin color and Dan Sperber. He blogs for Discovery magazine, his column called "Gene Expression", and he also blogs for the Guardian UK and the the National Review. His notability is probably not enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, but at least he is known internationally. I think his Discovery blog post is appropriate to use following the bit about Elhaik. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that background which suggests to me, on the contrary, that Razib Khan deserves a wiki page. He's certainly notable. The problem is, he commented on the earlier archiv paper, which as Zero noted, was substantially altered before the second version was accepted and published as Genome article. To use a blog (always questionable) to criticize, not the version we reference, but an earlier draft looks extremely dicey (WP:OR). By the way, he too slips up (as everyone does) (a.Hungarians are basically Europeans who speak a non-European language; to criticize Elhaik for mentioning the 'miracle' meme and sourcing it to Atzmon is pointy - that demographic problem with the Ashkenazi is a major, often cited, historical crux; The Palestinian majority historically have very mixed origins,(aside from Bosnians, tinkers, the (Salabyin), Turks, Kurds, Circassians, Egyptians, Armenians, Greeks, etc.etc.,)  archaic and recent, and the post 7th cent. CE Arabian-Bedouin element he prioritizes espouses one popular theory as the true one or basic truth etc.) I don't think it fair to use a blog like that against Elhaik, while not adopting the same procedure against all other papers. We should not suffer from impatience. Elhaik's work will certainly come in for criticism in forthcoming genetics papers, and will be duly and dutifully noted.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a follower of Razib Khan's blog and it would be handy to use it as a source sometimes, but I think by normal standards which have been demanded (of me and others) over the years, he is not going to be accepted by the community as a source for anything controversial in a field he has not published in, and he is not cited in. As mentioned above, being a well known "phenomenon", something like a journalist or editorialist, might be ok for getting you a wikipedia article, and being used as a source in some areas, but I think if you take this particular one to WP:RSN you will not get it easily approved. OTOH, if you do, that would be fine by me, but do we then add blog criticisms to all the other sources we summarize? If we are trying to be neutral, how far do we take this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The following sentence solely derives from the paper to which Rhazib Khan reply: "Palestinians were assumed to be a valid genetic surrogate of ancient Jews, whereas the Druze were assumed to be non-Semitic immigrants into the Levant. Armenians and Georgians were also used as surrogate populations for the Khazars. On this basis, a relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the stronger genetic similarity of these Jewish groups to modern Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijani Jews, Druze and Cypriots, compared to a weaker genetic similarity with Palestinians." This sentence do not exist in source provided so it would be WP:OR, without the supporting paper.

Wikipeda policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is certainly not fact with this article as this claims to not exist in primary source provided. There are numerous problems with the inclusion and interpretation of this controversial primary source and as I tried to extract all possible efforts before going to noticeboards, and further,  Rhazib Khan academic biologists view on this subject through secondary sources would be the minimal requirement to avoid a  huge work  to present all the problems with this article, from sockpuppetery to WP:UNDUE issues, and unchanged supplementary papers from whom de facto the current wording derives. Sources can not be "be handy to use it as a source sometimes" and sometimes not.
 * No other genetic study in the article is presented along with criticism, though many have been subject to criticism.* Certainly no such kind of genetic study exists in this article. This has been already explained and will be explained in details if Elhaik paper and its interpretation reach the WP NPOV and other noticeboards. Also criticism of any particular study by WP:NPOV, has it place in the article  as per WP:NPOV; in this and other cases as well. --Tritomex (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again a long, digressing and inconsistently indented post. Given the requests that keep being made to avoid this, is this deliberate? Anyway, I do not see any good case being made for using a blog as a source against a peer reviewed paper, only on one occasion. Or put it this way, the "case" being made is based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. This comes down to cherry picking sources in order to get the effect wanted by certain Wikipedia editors. If you had ever actually read the comments made about this article on the FRINGE board you would know that any attempt to do this is totally against community norms. I think there is no point pushing this, because as soon as someone takes it to WP:RSN or any other community forum, then it will be almost certainly found to be against community policy. We might as well take it there early rather than spending time on it here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again you are accusing me Andrew Lancaster for something I did not say, despite the fact that I made more concessions than I would make to anyone. The "minimal requirement" question is based on Wikipedia policy that any Primary Source interpretation needs to have secondary sources and only through Rhazin Khan secondary source your violation of Wikipedia policy based on fact that you added a primary source+ interpretations (Armenians Palestinians, Georgians, Khazars) which does not exist in that primary source can be explained. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

Anyway, within a day or two this needs to be discussed, in relevant noticeboards.--Tritomex (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a behavioral noticeboard. Zerotalk 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Elhaik study
I propose it would certainly be relevant and significant enough to mention the fact that using Armenians and Georgians as surrogate populations for Khazars is a fallacy that does not have any factually established ground to stand on. Logician13 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So should we do the same for all the other proxies used in every study? If so, surely what we are do is picking winners ourselves? Apart from being against policy, please trust me that on genetics articles there is always one side who thinks proposing this will solve all their problems, thinking it will only be used by them. But once this way of working starts...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one of the other studies presented also uses any particular population as a proxy of Khazars? Other than Elhaik I don't think any does. This is not about "one side who thinks proposing this will solve all their problems", the thing is that I simply don't remember ever seeing of any genetically/scientifically based conclusion that Armenians and Georgians are a reasonable proxy for Khazars. If I'm wrong then please feel free to correct me by presenting it black on white. Logician13 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Logician13, you are fully correct.--Tritomex (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Original Research is Still against the Rules. Zerotalk 09:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are in the primary source used Armenians, Georgians or Palestinians?--Tritomex (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Go and discuss it somewhere appropriate. Talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for debating the subject of the article. Zerotalk 09:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, just found lying around on my computer: Ellen Levy-Coffman, A Mosaic Of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence, Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33, 2005. Argues that several of the major genetic studies support a large component of Khazarian ancestry contrary to what their authors claim. If we can use a journalist's blog, then a peer-reviewed meta-study is even better! Zerotalk 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Had we noted that earlier, huge walls of argument could have been avoided, and editing not been stalled by endless OR objections, since she everywhere contradicts Tritomex's presentation of (a) an unanimous genetic ME theory (b)the Khazar theory as pseudo-history (c) an argument for the latter an abuse of science. In fact, she sounds at times like Elhaik 7 years later. Damned copycat!::Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I think Coffman-Levy's article is a lot more neutral, and it is not over-ambitious. Keep in mind this is an older paper, and it was aimed at making a summary for genealogists. I have defended use of this article in the past but it has been controversial because she is not a geneticist. (See Archives of this talk page, and the Khazars article.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked up 'Original Research' and if I understood it right, it's a rule forbidding editors adding comments into the article regarding anything that has a source? Alright, then I understand. I respect the rules of Wikipedia and might withdraw my proposal of adding my comment of logic in that case. But then, if the Elhaik study really is an unquestionable source, then I guess we could incorporate the Khazar connection into the genetics section of Armenians and Georgians article on Wikipedia just as well. "According to a recent genetic study by Elhaik, Armenians are a surrogate population for Khazars." For some reason I think that edit wouldn't last long. Logician13 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be good to see which policy you are looking at but my reading of the various relevant policies (and what I know of what is typically accepted on noticeboards where controversial cases are discussed) is that when we use primary sources, it can be acceptable to also add mention of criticisms. I think the bigger problem here is where we draw the line on which sources we can and can not use. In past discussions on this talk page everyone seems to agree we should try to stick to peer reviewed stuff, but then we get some people wanting to select certain exceptions for cases where they personally feel strongly. Concerning your second point, the connection between Khazars and Caucasians, I do not think it is relevant for the Armenian and Caucasian articles because Elhaik is not claiming to have discovered such a connection. He just assumes it is reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no geneticist named Ellen Levy-Coffman and she certainly has nothing to do with genetics . She claim to be an attorney in private practice --Tritomex (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. So what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question to Andrew Lancaster, from which source you added " For the study, Palestinians were assumed to be a valid genetic surrogate of ancient Jews, whereas the Druze were assumed to be non-Semitic immigrants into the Levant. Armenians and Georgians were also used as surrogate populations for the Khazars. On this basis, a relatively strong connection to the Caucasus was proposed because of the stronger genetic similarity of these Jewish groups to modern Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijani Jews, Druze and Cypriots, compared to a weaker genetic similarity with Palestinians." as it does not exist here: Also if  "Elhaik is not claiming to have discovered such a connection" who discovered it? as it is not mentioned anywhere in genetics.--Tritomex (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think everyone in this discussion including you knows the answer. Just as with of these proxy assumptions, in any of these articles, the author has simply made some basic assumptions such as that the Khazar empire was in the Caucasus, and was therefore likely genetically similar to groups living in the Caucasus today. Concerning the Druze and Cypriots, he is assuming that the ancestral component moved into their modern area from elsewhere because that component is most common in the Caucasus. If you just change the word "Caucasus" to "Northern Middle East" or "Fertile Crescent" then these specific assumptions are actually no more unreasonable than any of the other ones that get made in this style of article. The author has found real evidence of an ancestral population shared by Caucasians such as Georgians and Eastern European Jews. Authors who ignore the way in which European Jews cluster with the most northerly modern Middle Easterners, at least compared to Palestinians, are avoiding an issue which does in fact exist in the data. There might be many ways to handle better than Elhaik's but for now not many published authors have handled it. I wish they would.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So where in the primary source, you use, it is written that Elhaik asumed that "Palestinians are valid genetic surrogate of ancient Jews" or that "Armenians and Georgians are Proto Khazars? You are referring not to the published primary source, but to the Elhaik pre published article, without providing reference to it. Are you aware that this is a Primary source where no interpretations are allowed? "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.WP:PRIMARY--Tritomex (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Descriptions of the assumptions are not only found in the pre-published article, but also the final peer-reviewed one. I think Elhaik is reasonably open and clear about assumptions, and in any case this is not the only primary source we use in this article, and not the only one with such assumptions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, using Armenians and Georgians as a proxy for Khazars because the empire was in the Caucasus and, in your words, "was therefore likely genetically similar to groups living in the Caucasus today", is an assumption that makes about as much sense as using Hungarians as a proxy for Avars because the empire was in the region of modern day Hungary and "was therefore likely genetically similar to groups living in Hungary today". And imagine, for example, that there was a theory about the Czech being descendants of Avars. Using the Hungarians as a proxy for Avars, the study could claim that the results actually confirm the theory. But untill Hungarians are genetically confirmed to be in a significant enough amount descended from Avars, all that the study would actually prove is the connection between the Czech and the Hungarians. To claim otherwise is simply misleading. Logician13 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not an internet forum. Trying to set up a debate between Wikipedians is an abuse of a talkpage. The aim of Wikipedia is to summarize what published experts write. The basic choice faced for this article is whether it can manage to live within this requirement. The other alternative, which has already been raised by observers of it, is deletion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And given the ridiculous amounts of spin, WP:OR, and just plain bullshit that is evident on this talk page, deletion seems the most sensible suggestion. A list of primary sources concocted to 'prove' something isn't a legitimate basis for a Wikipedia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For better or worse this is unlikely to happen I think. Lots of subjects have problems with "spin" (POV pushing) and not all such subjects can easily be removed from WP. So we need an approach which at least keeps most spin on the talk page. Personally I think the approach which keeps getting proposed but not followed here (sticking to short summaries of only peer reviewed stuff) can make the article acceptable, as it has been for periods. (Doubt it will ever be a really good article in my lifetime though!) So my proposal continues to be to stick to such simple rules which will annoy all sides equally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have articles on genetic studies for numerous other populations, such as Serbs. It just so happens that this one in particular is controversial, for reasons that should be obvious. That's not an excuse for removing it though.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since when has the Jerusalem Post been a reliable source for studies of genetics?
"In August 2012, Dr. Harry Ostrer in his book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, which summarized his and other work in genetics of the last 20 years, concluded that all major Jewish groups share common Middle Eastern origin and refuted any large-scale genetic contribution from the Turkic Khazars". source cited - the Jerusalem Post: Really? We cite the Jerusalem Post for the contents of Ostrer's book, rather than the book itself? Can I ask why? Has anyone bothered to check what Ostrer actually wrote, rather than what the JP says he wrote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no one reads books anymore, at least editors appear not to. Even reading past the first page of a news article, let alone a wiki lead, finds most exasperated. By the way, a zippy overview of Ostrer's work, quite vernacular but in direct conversation at times (full of contradictions of course) can be found in Jeff Wheelwright (ex Life mag science editor), The Wandering Gene and the Indian Princess: Race, Religion, and DNA. W. W. Norton & Company, 2012, chapter 3 ('The Wandering Gene').Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the JP is clearly not a reliable source for scientific studies of genetics, and given that our article fails to make clear in the text body that it is citing a JP review, rather than Ostrer's book, I have marked this as possibly an unreliable source. I suggest that if Ostrer's book is to be cited, it should be done properly - including page references. Incidentally, it seems highly questionable to me for us to be asserting in Wikipedia's voice that Ostrer has 'refuted' anything. We can of course state that he claims to have done so (with proper sourcing), but we'd need a credible source to assert more than that - and in this context, the JP is clearly not such a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - I have now reworded the section to make it clear that this 'refutation' is a claim by Ostrer, rather than asserting it as fact. I have also tidied up the grammar etc a little. Apart from other problems, this article is in dire need of copyediting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?
Since it is evident that this 'article' is a de facto list of primary sources concerning 'genetic studies on Jews', can I ask what the criteria for inclusion are, and how these criteria were arrived at? I'd like also to know which sources were consulted to arrive at these criteria, and how it was determined that such sources were appropriate. Or am I making an assumption here that I should not? Have the criteria been defined at all? Has the subject been defined at all? Or is this an ad hoc list, which includes whatever contributors feel like including, and excludes anything they don't? If the latter is indeed the case (which from the discussion above seems entirely plausible), are there any grounds whatsoever for not deleting it as synthesis and/or a violation of Wikipedia neutral point of view policy? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about subjects defined externally to Wikipedia itself, and likewise Wikipedia lists are supposed to be based on criteria beyond the arbitrary wishes of those compiling them. I await a response - preferably one that explains how this article/list is compliant with policy, and which provides the necessary sources to demonstrate this compliance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All genetic studies carried out from 1990s, using standard procedures (X;Y;Autosomes) and being published in scientific journals have been included in this article. All of them with the exception of one which was not carried out in this way, are covered by huge amount of secondary and even tertiary sources (although links were not always provided) while primary sources  are  used in many cases  for direct quotes (my observation). If you take a look to any ethnic group, from Turks to Croats, same patterns and articles exists in hundreds on Wikipedia sites. Concerning newspapers, they are also secondary  WP:RS for covering science, although specialized journals would be more preferable.--Tritomex (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you recall the background of AndyTheGrump's question Tritomex, it came after you were insisting on putting a blog in this article as a source, and it was also noted that newspaper articles have been used. It is my belief that while such sources might make sense in a strongly sourced article, they are too borderline for any of the ethnic group genetics articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond being a highly specialized blog that was an article from geneticist Rhazib Khan so its censorship was in my view WP:NPOV violation.You proposed  one version, added another one, than you removed legitimate criticism regarding overlooking of Arabian admixture among Palestinians which was contrary to "Khazarian hypothesis" observed in population genetics from at least decade ago, (Genetic Evidence for the Expansion of Arabian Tribes into the Southern Levant and North Africa Almut Nebel,1.) through standard genetic study.  Although this article is not perfect due to many primary sources,in most cases this primary sources were used for direct quotation, and not interpretations like you did. Also this situation is rapidly changing as contrary to Elhaik paper, all standard genetic studies are covered with reliable secondary sources which will be added to the article. Although currently I have no time to go deeper in this, your position of pushing one side of coin while restricting views from another one is not in line with WP guidelines. Considering my proposal to add section related to the wievs of geneticists, this would in my view solve the problem regarding many issues, from criticism, which is rare among geneticists themselves, to the fact that Elhaik paper is not classic autosomal genetic studies as you presented it. --Tritomex (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not see anything wrong with the inclusion of that source. Razib Khan is a high profile geneticist, and it is relevant to the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Razib Khan. He has high profile, and he is a geneticist, but this is his personal un-moderated blog, and to use he needs to be high profile AS a published and cited geneticist. See WP:SPS.
 * Secondly, working on the edge of policy seems a bad idea on this article. Everyone wants to push for special exemptions. We need to have one very clear set of rules for everyone here, or else ... please see the posts of AndyTheGrump.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, apparently, Tritomex's last comments, this isn't "All genetic studies carried out from 1990s" at all - it is "All sources that Tritomex thinks are admissible, based on his own interpretation of what is relevant". That is of course completely and utterly incompatible with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I can see no alternatives at this point other than either (a) making a formal proposal that Tritomex be topic banned from the subject on the basis of non-compliance with core policy, (b) proposing that the article be deleted, as a breach of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, or (c) both. If this is intended to be an article about a scientific subject, it need to be based on the sources as they now exist, not on Tritomex's entirely unsourced and speculative claims: i.e. "this situation is rapidly changing as contrary to Elhaik paper". As for 'censorship', I see no reason to treat that comment as anything than the complete and utter bollocks it clearly is, given the continued efforts by Tritomex to exclude or discredit the Elhaik paper. Excluding material, or attempting to discredit it, on the basis that it is 'contrary to' other material is nothing short of scientific fraud - and Wikipedia is not a platform for such practices. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrum All your insults and threats pointed out to me are per WP:CIVIL unacceptable and  and I will not further engage in dialogue with you. Concerning WP:UNDUE question, familiarize yourself with academic book from population genetics and secondary sources from this subject  regarding "khazarian Hypotesis" Considering facts I have presented from primary and secondary sources, here and at fringe theory noticeboard I have nothing further to prove to you. Your threats will not distort my aim to continue to adhere to Wikipedia guildlines and will not influence my op pinion."Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" -Tritomex (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was made perfectly clear at the fringe theories noticeboard that the Elhaik paper is no more 'fringe' than any of the other primary material cited. You are again attempting to impose your POV on this article, contrary to Wikipedia policy - and misrepresenting what others have said in order to do so. Parroting policy while ignoring it will convince nobody. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If Tritomex continues to abuse process to try to impose a higher bar for Elhaik then he should be brought to WP:RFCU. He is proving a nuisance. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to go, I am involved in this article from my first day at Wikipedia and I did not abuse any process with stating facts and references on this talk page, including WP:RS and WP:UNDUE issues, while your comments are nothing shorts of direct threats.I will not change my opinion based on your threats, nor I will be provoked to any response or any further dialogue with those making such threats. --Tritomex (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * I am claiming neither - it was however misleading to quote a Reuters headline with the words 'As scientist involved in this study reported..'. The words quoted are those of the headline writer, not the scientists. I'm also sure that you meant 'revealed' rather than 'reviled', and it should read 'these findings show "...' rather than 'this findings are "showing...'. Also, the added text 'North Africa's Jews' would read better as 'North African Jews', and should be in square brackets ('[' & ']'), to indicate text not in the original. There are quite enough examples of poor English in the article as it is, without adding to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK--Tritomex (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Very unbalanced
This article seems to fail to make a distinction between reliable sources and unreliable (or at least unsuitable) sources. Towards the end of the article, the findings of a recent study is presented. The study was conducted by specialists on DNA and published in good academic journal. Then, the article moves on to criticize that scientific study - by relying on some guy's blog! So a scientific article by established scientists and published in a respected journal is given equal weight as what some guy writing a blog has to say about the article. That's not serious, and it's not in line with Wikipedia's policies. I suggest the paragraph building on the blog be removed. If the academic study has problems, then future studies are likely to address those problems. Then we should of course include them, but what some guy writes in a blog is quite simply not relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is lunacy to give equal weighting to a peer reviewed study and a blog which criticizes it. We waited for the Elhaik study to appear in a peer reviewed journal before inclusion, why don't we just wait for criticisms of the paper to appear in the academic literature? Dlv999 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's more, if you look at discussions above there is arguably a majority of editors who have looked at this who agree with these concerns. In summary the bit you mention is not stable and accepted yet. But the defenders of it are fast reverters. By the way, almost exactly the same issue has arisen with similar/same editors on Khazars.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both. I can understand that the subject can be touchy, but that is not a reason for poor articles. Personally, I don't believe in the Khazar theory, but my personal opinion should not matter nor should the personal opinion of anyone else. What matters is that we have a scientific study in an academic journal, and we should publish that. What someone on a blog has to say about that study is not relevant. So unless someone objects, with very good reasons, I'll remove the paragraph building on the blog. If there are editors who revert such edits, then it is perhaps more of an issue for WP:ANI, as I have not seen any neutral, factual arguments for keeping the blog.Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews
In the section "Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews"I have restored the words "many of European origin" in the quotation from Atzmon which were deleted by Gilisa on 19 December. He said "Removal of original research, the study don't indicate that the rest of the mtDNA haplogroups is of European origin, actually it say the exact opposite." In fact what Atzmon wrote was “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool, whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin" Occasional (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the opening quotation mark in your edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually I have removed the quotation mark at the end of the edit, as there was no opening quotation mark in the existing text.Occasional (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * It seems to be sourced to Agence France-Presse, and consequently looks reliable as a journalistic source, if we are going to cite any at all. That AFP chose to report on Elhaik should perhaps to be taken as an indication that his ideas aren't on the 'fringe' as some have claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its nice that Elhaik paper is now covered by secondary sources although I did not found it on AFP official site. As far as I see everything from this source is already in the article. Also it seems that this article reflects mainly to Elhaik pre published material as it repeats among other things the thesis that Rhinland hypothesis claims that Jews left Palestine following the Muslim conquest, something that Elhaik did not included into his final paper. Certainly, there are now secondary sources emerging which means that reflection, especially from geneticists will be likely in coming future.--Tritomex (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An op-ed piece by Mr Netanyahu's advisor on the complete judaization of Jerusalem, the political consultant Dore Gold, is not RS for either history or genetics.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a very good idea to base our inclusion criteria for this article on the activities of the Tritomex user. This will lead to incoherence as inclusion criteria will change from day to day depending on what happens to be most conducive to skewing the article towards the editor's POV at any given time. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dlv999, So it is not just me having that strange feeling?--Tritomex (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When we have discussed the WP:UNDUE issue, I was not aware that within days secondary sources covering will come, as it happens. Jerusalem post has a new article, many of the issues underlined there was already discussed here:--Tritomex (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No again. Seth Franzman has a background in economics, and in any case gets much wrong in that op-ed. He attributes to Koestler an hypothesis Koestler simply popularized. The trick there is to dismiss as a writer's fantasy a theory long entertained by mainstream historians, which the writer summarizes and expands on. He forgot the content of the very book he mentions in this connection, Shlomo Sand. Koestler's theory was an 'unoriginal synthesis', mostly from Polyak. (Paul Wexler, Two-Tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect, Walter de Gruyter, 2002 p.537) The only sources that should be quoted here are those by professional geneticists on genetics.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Does AFP writer is geneticist?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The JPost article points to many relevant issues, although not all of them are relevant for this article. Shlomo Sand views are marginal among historians as are Wexler views are marginal among linguists. What Franzman points out is that Elhaik used them as reference, overlooking the most prominent historians of Khazars like D. M. Dunlop.

Considering Koestler, most of his theory is not based on any historic documents, as Seth Franzman correctly points out. Regarding Wexler, although he have plenty of critics from his own field, including Sorbian language experts, population genetics have showed that the most distant population from Ashkenazi Jews are in fact East European Slavic populations. (Russians and Poles 0.0137 ) Tian et. al. (2009).--Tritomex (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, complete selective misrepresentation of the field and sidestepping the issue (RS) in order to debate. By the looks of it, you have read neither Sand nor Koestler. If you wish to trust an economist whose opinionized and sniuppety partisan summaries appeal to you, fine, but he is not RS for genetics.Again, Douglas Morton Dunlop died 25 years ago, just as in his old age, Khazar studies began to enjoy a boom he missed. All great scholars, like Wexler, have their critics. That is what scholarship is about. It has no place for implacable certainties of the kind you push. His work is taken by peers as on the cutting edge, which explains why Peter Golden (Peter B. Golden, Haggai Ben-Shammai, András Róna-Tas (eds.) The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives, BRILL, 2007 pp.56,ff., 387-398), Ronny Po-Chia Hsia, (R. Po-Chia Hsia, Hartmut Lehmann (eds.) (In and out of the Ghetto: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany, Cambridge University Press, 2002 pp.109ff.; and Neil Jacobs (Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction,pp.xiv,6ff.) invite him to summarize it in the anthologies of scholarship they edit, or dedicate extensive space to his theories in their works. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some source that "Khazar studies began to enjoy a boom " from/in 1980s. Although the political propagation and missus of this theory (paraphrasing B.L)  which was described by one of the greatest contemporary historian Bernard Lewis as "supported by no evidence whatsoever and abandoned by all serious scholars"  certainly enjoyed boom from 1980s, this was not reflected in any science, certainly not in population genetics. Considering Wexler, he without any doubt deserves to get a Wiki article as currently almost all articles containing his name redirects to the famous American character actor. Yet, this is  again mostly unrelated to this article. However I agree with you that this page should mostly cover professional geneticists views on genetics in the same way as for example professional microbiologists views should cover articles from that discipline. --Tritomex (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Khazar studies began to enjoy a boom " from/in 1980s. For goodness sake, don't you read what your interlocutors write? I already answered that over two weeks ago here, referring to Golden's overview, esp.pp.40-57 summarizing research from 1980, focusing particularly on breakthrough studies in 1980,1982, 1983,1984, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997,2000-2005. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So Bernard Lewis's comments, made in 1999 are "outdated" based on on breakthrough studies in 1980,1982, 1983,1984, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997,,2000-2005  This is WP:OR, as I do  not see any academic verification for " breakthrough studies" in Khazarian hypothesis, nor did I see any authority disqualifying Lewis comments. Concerning Peter Golden your edits are are implying that he supports Khazar theory, namely that Ashkenazi Jews are direct descendants of Khazars which is again not the case (P 137-P 152). Therefore if you are claiming that this historians, and others whom you repeatedly mention support the assumption that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Turkic Khazars, please provide direct quote and link.  --Tritomex (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That you can't distinguish between a reprint (1999) and the original (Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice,. W. W. Norton 1986) to date the time (middle of 1985 by a rough calculation) when Lewis wrote those words you cite p.48 on the 1987 reprint) as definitive on the Khazars, is the nth proof you simply are not attentive. I checked the original date some weeks ago before making my remarks, and you still haven't done the basic homework. Your second remark shows you haven't troubled to read my earlier remarks, and haven't troubled to read the source, Golden, I linked you to. It's pointless trying to repeatedly engage with someone who simply doesn't listen, or fails to read  closely anything that might complicate or embarrass his POV.(WP:IDONTHEARTHAT)(WP:IDONTLIKETHAT).Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I have red Golden, as I have red almost everything related to population genetics issue, and that is why I clearly state that Golden does not support the myth that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars. The main focus of his book is the history of Khazars through which he is debating the extent of adoption of Judaism among Khazar aristocracy, which is historical fact cited by Dunlop, Ben Sasson, Lewis and other historians.  Citing Artamonov, Golden describes Pax Khazarica, and rift between the royal aristocracy which adopted a mix of Judaism combined with traditional pagan  believes and the non Jewish Khazar population, which  culminated with the destruction of Khazar empire. Pletenva cited also by Golden,  describes this rift as a conflict between Jewish royal aristocracy and non Jewish Khazar population. Concerning Wexler theory, Golden describes it as "controversial" he  states on page 56: "His conclusions went  beyond  evidence". All of this despite giving Wexler a space to present is.Al-Muqaddasi states that the population of Khzaria is mainly Muslim with huge pagan community. Al Istahri writes that by 10th century, beyond general population, Islam was wide spread in previously Jewish Khazar aristocracy. Both Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Al-Masudi are  writing that by 940 the majority of Khazars were Muslims. Al Masudi even names a wezir of Khazar king as Ahmed b. Kuya. So to summarize, Golden nowhere supports Khazar theory, he does not deal with it extensively and points to the assimilation of Khazars into other people of the region.--Tritomex (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said Golden supports the Khazar theory. No scholar in his right mind would support any historical theory, since they are only provisory explanations of an uncertain past. Golden simply sums up various theories, all differing in emphasis, and says, much is still uncertain and research must proceed. When he states that Wexler 'goes beyond the evidence' (I'm minded to agree, but that is just my impression), that remains Golden's view, not a fact. Please note that you still, after several months, tend to read sources in order to evaluate who is right or wrong in historical controversies. Doing that goes way beyond our remit as editors. The only things we consider are the quality of sources, the weight to positions and the neutrality of exposition. We are strictly disallowed any leeway to fiddle with original research to favour one of several positions. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure that " No scholar in his right mind would support any historical theory, " because if we assume that "Khazar theory" is a historic theory, which in my personal opinion, based on all sources I have red is not the case, while we define Shlomo Sand and Elhaik as a scholars, which I believe is the case, this assertion, could allude to something offensive about them.--Tritomex (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is now a bit off track and maybe can be discussed elsewhere? It is now more about editors than editing decisions. The question was, I think, whether we should use journalistic sources, and if so, where will we draw the line? In the past this has always been a difficult question to agree upon. Everyone just wants the newspapers which support their own position right? Or is there any chance at all that editors on this article can agree on a guideline that they can all stick to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see that many peoples disagree to use non "peer review" sources. When I created this article it was obvious that this subject was so touchy that it was tricky to use Journalistic sources.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * New reflections on Elhaik papers: []--Tritomex (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is indeed interesting but just to confirm, this is also a blog or forum right? So I am presuming this is not a source we should use. If I am missing something, let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Sources
This looks like an important one for this article. Though not centrally about Jewish DNA it's comments about the subject tie together in a "secondary" way what has been found in other articles that primary articles that have been controversial to report. I'll mark it up for use already: And here are some interesting quotes: I think we can develop a single paragraph or so for the autosomal section of this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I'll put this in already. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Very interesting indeed. It confirms some of my own predictions as well, including a heavy Arabian contribution to modern Muslim Levantines, and the Ashkenazi pull away from Sephardi Jews being the result of recent Central/East European contribution. As for the presence of Arabian components in the other Middle Eastern groups, I suspect there was some contact between Levantines and Arabians going back to the Kingdom of Israel, but obviously to a lesser extent than the later Muslim conquests. There are some grammatical and spelling errors that need to be fixed. I'll get to it later.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is very good that Andrew Lancaster brought this study to this page, as it directly deals with ancient Levantine genome which certainly attracts heavy attentions both in general public and particularly among those who visits this page. Regarding this issue, this study seems to be unique and could clearly have multiple impacts on future genetic studies.

I just wish to suggest a small change in order to ensure that this findings are understandable for those who are uninvolved in population genetics. In this sense I think we missed something very important namely that the authors  reconstructed the genetic structure of ancient Levantines. Confusion can be avoided if we points out that the authors  made distinction between Pre Islamic Levant and the rest of Midddle East, which is geographically many times today mentioned as synonyms. Here is my proposal: The study by Haber et al (2013) noted that while previous studies of the Levant, which had focused mainly on diaspora Jewish populations, showed that the "Jews form a distinctive cluster in the Middle East", these studies did not make clear "whether the factors driving this structure would also involve other groups in the Levant". The authors found strong evidence that modern Levant populations descend from two major apparent ancestral populations. One set of genetic characteristics which is shared with modern-day Europeans and Central Asians is most prominent in the Levant amongst "Lebanese, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze and Jews, as well as Turks, Iranians and Caucasian populations". The second set of inherited genetic characteristics is shared with populations in other parts of the Middle East as well as some African populations. Levant populations in this category today include "Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, as well as North Africans, Ethiopians, Saudis, and Bedouins". Concerning this second component of ancestry, the authors remark that while it correlates with "the pattern of the Islamic expansion" they also say that "its presence in Lebanese Christians, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, Cypriots and Armenians might suggest that its spread to the Levant could also represent an earlier event". The authors also found a strong correlation between religion and apparent ancestry in the Levant: "all Jews (Sephardi and Ashkenazi) cluster in one branch; Druze from Mount Lebanon and Druze from Mount Carmel are depicted on a private branch; and Lebanese Christians form a private branch with the Christian populations of Armenia and Cyprus placing the Lebanese Muslims as an outer group. The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen" '''as a result of Islamic expansion, which according to the authors brought major rearrangements in affected populations and genetic admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations. The authors reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levant and found that pre-Islamic  Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners,"'''--Tritomex (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Tritomex, I can not quit follow why you are making this proposal a day after you already inserted something and I adjusted it. If there is something wrong with me edit please explain it more directly. In summary it is clear that the authors do suggest a restructuring of populations happened in early Islamic times, and I have placed it at a point where it fits in the discussion.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No generally your edition is not wrong, what I miss is that you should add that this study aimed to  reconstruct the genetic structure of ancient Levantines and in my opinion as in the text itself (author summary) the main conclusion, namely that  pre-Islamic  Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners should be placed as closing sentence. This follows the pattern used by authors (in authors summary) as well.

My proposal based on your text (note that I used almost entirely your text)


 * You do not clearly mark the changed parts in the proposal, but by my reading you are proposing sticking a bit on the end which partly repeats what is already in the main paragraph? That is approximately the edit you already made. Then I made it fit better (I hope) into the part of the text about the same subject. I notice that in your proposal above, you are perhaps not clearly aware of my edit? Please check the current version in the article. By the way I disagree with your edit summary that this is the most important point from the article. That is certainly not how the authors portray it, because they clearly state that the Islamic period might not be the full explanation of what they find. But it is certainly an important point, and worth mentioning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think with current wording (inserted between two different subjects) we downplayed a little the closing sentence of authors summary regarding genetic similarity of ancient Levant and Europeans. Also, the wording "while it correlates with the pattern of the Islamic expansion" does not fully explains the authors views "In particular, conversion of the region's populations to Islam appears to have introduced major rearrangements in populations' relations through admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations, leading to genetic similarities between remarkably distant populations like Jordanians, Moroccans, and Yemenis." as we missed "admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations" so the current wording in my view can be understood differently.--Tritomex (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning downplaying the importance of the Islamic period restructuring, I think my version follows the authors better, because they say that other factors might be involved. By your own account (your edit comment) you seem to want to make it the most important thing.
 * Concerning cultural similarity the quote we have used so far makes a clear reference to shared religion in these groups, and it seems clear these are for geneticists just two ways of saying the same thing. To me this is also a question of good writing. We must try to avoid making quotes repetive or unnecessarily big. If you read your draft above it is not polished yet with proper quotation marks showing which parts are direct citation (it would be more convincing if you made a proposal that was easy to read), but this sentence seems to be yours, and I find it unnecessarily awkward because it tries to double mention the cultural/religious aspect: "The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen as a result of genetic admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to leave out comments regarding other factors that may have influenced population restructuring beyond Islam, In this case I fully copied your version. Also, I did not wish to make it the most important thing. By placing it in  the most prominent place, as a final and closing sentence of "Authors summary" section, the authors themselves  did this. This is in collision with our text where this findings are mentioned only between the lines.

I do not insist on my proposal and as I said your version is not bad. I just wish to suggest you small corrections which would make the results of this study understandable.--Tritomex (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can agree with you on avoiding repetitions, however the term which is missing in my opinion is "genetic admixture" This term, used by the authors in explaining the most probable reason for genetic similarity between Arab speaking populations is fully left out of our text.