Talk:Haplogroup J-M267/Archive 2

Syria, Jordan, the Levant, and Jewish populations
This is NOT neutral, again. The Levant includes Syria, Lebenon, Jordon, and Israel. If you are going to name nations as well as people, then you must name Israel. Again you sacrifice accuracy to avoid for political rather than scientific rationale. The other example is taking the political naming for Macedonia that is partisan rather than using the UN sanctioned name for the Albanian speaking population.


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

A viewpoint's prevalence is established in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Also, if you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See: No original research and Verifiability. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your point? Is there something that needs to be changed? Please name the words that need to be changed, and what you suggest they should say. If you propose changing the title of the regional sub-section you name above to just "Levant" no problem. But concerning FYROM and all that, please discuss elsewhere. When reverting your revert, I am just following decisions discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Controversial naming conventions on Wikipedia are subject to special decisions, and it was not me that adapted the name, but another editer who was adjusting the article according to a community decision. See Naming conventions (Macedonia), which is also where you can debate the decision. Once again you accuse me of all kinds of vaguely defined things, without checking the edit history or what is happening. You could have, for example, read my edit summary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You left out naming Israel. Why? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it is part of the Levant. By the way, was that your original question, and did you ever have any actual concrete proposal to make?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You left out naming Israel WHY? Because J1 is more common among Arab Palestinians (direct descendants of REAL JUDEANS) than those Goyim European Ashkinazi Jews whom occupying Palestine.

Play dumb. You seem to be better at it. You named Syria and Jordan, but left out Lebanon and Israel. Are you really that ignorant of the fact that Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan are all part of the Levant? You need to stop gaming and leave the page to someone who can keep the facts straight. You knew they were because I recommend them specifically before. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I am dumb, I felt that Lebanon and Israel were the most obvious places in the Levant, whereas Syria and Jordan are not what everyone thinks of as the Levant. But I am not married to this proposal, and if you would have just explained what your point was we could have fixed it. I have changed it. It is a big problem that you constantly write accusations of bad faith before you even try to explain what you want. See WP:AGF, which I know is a page which has been cited to you by many editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No previous reference to Berbers
North Africa, Horn Of Africa, Canary islands, and Comoros islands

As discussed above, Arabic and Berber speaking populations in Africa seem to have received migrations of men from the Middle East, speaking semitic languages, possibly Arabic. There is no reference above that statement referencing Berbers.

The words "seem" and "possibly are weasel words.


 * No they are not weasel words, and you should examine your understanding of this term. Experts in this field are sure that they are not sure. Trying to portray consensus or certainty about points concerning which there is no consensus or certainty is not how we work on Wikipedia. By the way you are looking at the caption of a summary table. The main discussion is immediately above and covered in footnotes. The table itself also contains what is obviously sourced data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. They are weasel words. I understand the terms perfectly. You are minimizing.

Do not roll back into your errors without fixing them.

Your sentence makes no sense to a reader who has not read the paper it comes from because you had not mentioned "Berbers" in a sentence "above." . It is just rambling the reader has no understanding of the context of, which is the referenced paper itself. The table itself is not in the Wikipedia article and you are alluding to an argument or discussion made, perhaps, in the original referenced paper, but not what was written in the paragraph. You mention, at no time Berbers in the previous text in the article.

Think before you respond to me.

Your automatic assumption of superiority is tiresome. You need to start acting responsibly.

You rolled back without correcting your misinformation regarding "one of the most commonly", about the J1 Haplogroup, which is certainly not true of the general geographic areas you claim. It is not in the Horn of Africa or the Caucasus. Your bias is showing, if not your ignorance of the populations involved. J1 is in the minority in most of the Caucasus except Dargestan. It is definitely in the minority in the Horn of Africa, throughout. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

By "Experts in this field are sure that they are not sure" you must have a solipsistic viewpoint and presume you are an "Expert." Refer to the article as I posted for you to look at. You are in denial. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

''Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. Other than to YOU, to whom do they "seem''" and why? "Possibly" is a term denoting some degree of probability. Who decided it is "probable" and to what magnitude is that probability? It is masking your bias and is not verifiable by the citations you list. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are writing about clearly sourced passages, so you know very well, and any reader would know, who is being attributed with not claiming certainty. If you say that the published geneticists involved expressed themselves in terms which claimed certainty, please demonstrate that with very strong proof. Claiming a certainty requires stronger evidence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you do not have strong enough evidence, so you use weasel words. All science is based on probability rather than certainty. That is why the math for probability and statistics was invented - to describe the magnitude of the probability. "Possibly" says nothing about the magnitude of that probability. Perhaps this is too far over your head and clouds your judgement as to what a weasel word is and why it implies bias. The real problem, however, is when you claim something not confirmed by what you cite as a source, then it is not sourced, like saying J1 is "most commonly" found in areas where they are clearly in a minority, like the Horn of Africa and in the Caucasus (outside of one country). Balanovsky names several ethic groups with high concentrations that are in the flatlands near the coast of the Caspian Sea, but the rest of that geographic area is F or G. The Horn of Africa, includes four nations, of which E is the most common, by a huge majority. J1 is very low on the distribution outside of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula. Most research in those areas include from a handful to a dozen.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please explain which words in the article you are actually talking about, and say clearly what is wrong with them and how they should be improved. None of what you write above seems to apply to the sentence you posted at the start of this sub-section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your gaming is over. I am not going to accept that response again. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Refusing to respond to requests that you phrase your point clearly in terms of what you want changed in an article is not really something you can insist upon if you want to be working on Wikipedia. .--**Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The work of Balanovsky is almost exclusively within Dagestan
As a very common variant of human Y DNA, passed from father to son, it is one of the most commonly shared paternal lineages found amongst men in many parts of North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus[citation needed], and the Horn of Africa.

The North Ossetians of the Caucasus Mountains are 57% Haplogroup G. Among the South Ossetians, the most is F*-M89 with 41%. J2 is second with 24%. http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Nasidze.AnHG.2004.pdf

Also see: MtDNA and Y-Chromosome Variation in the Caucasus Table 3 Y chromosomal haplogroup frequencies and haplogroup diversities in the Caucasus, Iran and Turkey. Haplogroup designations are according to the nomenclature proposed by the Y chromosome consortium (2002)

http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf

J1[xP58] is restricted mostly to the shores of the Caspian Sea, if the distribution maps are relevant. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your point? Is there something that needs to be changed? Please name the words that need to be changed, and what you suggest they should say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your statement is wrong. It is not backed by the research for the whole area. You are cherry picking. You are in denial about the relevant issue and not reading the research correctly. They have J2 listed and J-12f2, the marker for J tested. What do you think they did? Throw out untested samples? Did you actually read the data or conclusions? The point is your "most commonly" phase is not true. It is fiction with regard to the Caucasus or the Horn of Africa. It is, at best, weasel words. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are AGAIN deliberately ignoring words (one of the...many parts of) in order to say I wrote something I did not wrote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, the two Nasidze papers you mention did not test for J1, or even J*(xJ2), but if you are saying it would be good to have a few more sources about Caucasian J1, I agree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Y-SNP Haplogroups in the Caucasus Eleven Y-SNP haplogroups were found in the Caucasus (Table 3, Figure 1). The most frequent haplogroupswere F∗, G∗ and J2 ∗ ; together the frequency of these three haplogroups was 0.53-1.00 in almost all groups except for the Darginians and Abkhazians (where the frequencies were 0.35 and 0.25 respectively). North Ossetians from Digora had the highest frequency of the haplogroup G∗ (0.74). Three populations from the highland region of the Caucasus – Rutulians (present study), and Lezgi and Svans reported by Wells et al. (2001) - had a high frequency of haplogroup F ∗ (0.58,0.58 and 0.92 respectively). Haplogroup I∗ was at high frequency in Darginians (0.58), Abkhazians (0.33), and North Ossetians from Ardon (0.32). This haplogroup was found elsewhere in the Caucasus at a frequency of only 0.13 or less, although it was also at high frequency in the Turks (0.26) and Iranians from Tehran (0.34). The Georgian population from Kazbegi had a high frequency of haplogroup J2∗ (0.72) (Wells et al.2001). 
 * Annals of Human Genetics (2004) 68,210-211.


 * JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, just to confirm, J1 was not tested for, and neither was J*(xJ2). More sources for the Caucasus welcome, as long as they actually have something to say about J1. On the other hand, the article now has a reasonably good small collection of data, and certainly not only from Dagestan. No one is arguing against putting in more, and I see that since I did my burst of work on this article several constructive editors have added more into the format I've established.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.John Lloyd Scharf 10:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography 101
The Levant is the area of Western Asia bounded by the Mediterranean to the west, the Taurus Mountains to the north, the Arabian Desert to the south, and the Syrian Desert to the east. The Levant includes modern Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories and is similar to the historic area called Syria, Greater Syria, or the Bilad al-Sham. The Levant has been described as the "crossroads of western Asia, the eastern Mediterranean and northeast Africa".http://www.levantine.plus.com/index.htm http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Levant.html

Le·vant 1 (l-vnt) The countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt. the former name for the geographical area of the eastern Mediterranean that is now occupied by Lebanon, Syria, and Israel wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn The Levant (بلاد الشام ', also known as المشرق''' ) describes, traditionally, the Eastern Mediterranean at large, but can be used as a geographical term that denotes a large area in Western Asia formed by the lands bordering the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, roughly bounded on the north ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant

== As a very common variant of human Y DNA, passed from father to son, it is one of the most commonly shared paternal lineages found amongst men in many parts of North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the [[H ==

''As a very common variant of human Y DNA, passed from father to son, it is one of the most commonly shared paternal lineages found amongst men in many parts of North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Horn of Africa. It is also found in Europe and in significant frequencies it is found as far east as the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia.'' DELETED

It is not very common. It is not the most commonly shared in all the regions claimed. Middle East is a meaningless term that can include every one of the other regions claimed to the point of making it all meaningless. The statement is factually wrong and full of weasel words. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please post your talk page comments in a threaded format. Please stop creating new sub-sections. Keep all comments about one point in one sub-section. Also, do not make format key sentences as section titles. Sorry for quoting WP policy at you, but it is what it is, and you should start following community norms.
 * Concerning what I can make of your point, the version of the lead you are talking about does not say J1 is the "most commonly shared" anything. You are simply mis-quoting in order to make it wrong, which is what you've done over and over in recent talk page postings. That J1 is common (we can remove "very" of course, if it is a big issue) is however obvious, because that is what major haplogroups are. J1 would be in the top 20, if not the top 10, of all haplogroups found in men alive today. We are talking about millions upon millions of men. Don't you agree? And being 30% of a population like Tunisia does of course count as being common in Tunisia, according to normal English usage. (But not the "most common".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JohnLloydScharf, 21 August 2011
Please remove this map from this page and Wikipedia for the reasons stated on the image page.You can see visually there is no 60-80% of J1 in East Africa if the J parent, which includes it, has less than 30%?

'''If Haplogroup J can look like this,..................................................... how can J1 look like that?'''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y).

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you surely know, this is because the J map you are showing is wrong. I do not know who made it or when but presumably it was made before the Hassan et al study of Sudan. I think you are not seriously proposing anything different? What is your point please. Are you proposing that the J map is right? The J1 map on the other hands is a non slavish copy of similar maps which can be found in several recent publications.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The J map on the left is absolutely correct in showing over 10% and less than the next step up of 30%. You are looking at the colors, but I am looking at the 60-100% stated on the J1 map which is not true by any means. The references for Sudan and Ethiopia show E Haplogroup predominating. To me a "Hassan et al" is as meaningful as "Smith et al" without a title. However if you mean Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese:Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History, Hassan et al (2009) which you did not reference, then you have said the thing which is not. See Pg.317, Figure 2. E3 with 230 far exceeds J1 111 for the 15 Sudanese and two Ethiopian groups. If you stick just to that study's 445 men in 15 Sudanese populations, 94 are J1, which is 21%. E3a=4/0.9%, E3b=34/7.6%, and E3b1=114/25.6% for a total of n=154/34%  http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf

'So, unequivocally, the study you must be citing shows J1 is not only not'' 60%+, but J1 is not even the most prevalent haplogroup. '''

The map you are promoting is as "slavish" as any map and a recognizable copy of Tofanelli's 2009 map with values depicted that he did not give and bear no relationship to the statistics in the references given. I only took two statistics math courses and three research classes while in college, but even I know how to read a research paper. The policy for Wikipedia is if you make your own image, it must be backed by the references cited and this is not. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in whatever arguments are going on here, but I have critiqued Scharf's new map on my userpage. In my opinion, despite being quite noticeable flawed, Scharf's is easier the better of the two maps. --Yalens (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) edit: it seems the map is Maulucioni's, not Scharf's. In any case, same applies.


 * JLS, no, the Khartoum region of Sudan is not mostly E1b1b but in fact 75 percent J1, just for example. Published maps such as those by Tofanelli do not ignore such major things and I can not see why we should. After looking at your history of edit warring on this subject, on several articles, it appears you have often had strong disagreements with all other editors about any mention of African J1? Yalens can you please give a link to your critique? It is not clear which map you consider to be "Scharf's". I agree Maulucioni's is best, if that is what you mean, but Scharf is arguing against it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Who knows if it represents Khartoum at all. The source was university students, which is made plain in the methods section, which you need to read. Tofanelli did not put in the claim of 60-100% for the areas depicted for Sudan. QED. The one who created the map is not an authority in the field and his numbers are not even backed by Tofanelli. He has has problems before with images. He should sign in and justify his work or it should be deleted. SEE: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maulucioni John Lloyd Scharf 08:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I did not create the map on the left. I suspect it has copyright problems. It is not a map of J1. It is a map of J Haplogroup. J1 cannot have a greater percentage than J. Andrew Lancaster was the first to name Hassan et al, (2008) and now is contradicting his own claims. Hassan does not compare J1 and E3 directly, but if you add up the samples by haplogroup the J1 is far outstripped by E3 and definitely not near 60%. John Lloyd Scharf 09:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is, obviously, no contradiction. Two haplogroups can be common in one place. Surreal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not about being "common." Review the citations in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)#The_Horn_of_Africa.27s_most_commonly_shared_paternal_lineage_is_E1b1b and attempt to stay with the issue at hand. Sometimes it is not all about you. John Lloyd Scharf 21:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The point about the map is being discussed in another sub-section, or indeed in several. If you would stop spreading your remarks about each subject into numerous sub-sections, it would make discussion easier.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.John Lloyd Scharf 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Blech
I see, several hundred lines of text in the last few days and I knew Andrew was at it again. The R1A page as I suspected would not be maintained, I found numerous errors on the page, this is a consequence of the hard-core politics that Andrew played that eventually drove the experienced editors away (not wanting to deal with his behaviors on the complaint admin boards).

John, when Andrew is around just don't edit, wait until he has a wiki absence and go in and make the changes you think are best. Take my advice, dont argue with him on these talk pages, he apparently has 16 hours in the day which he obsesses over his wiki works.

Having got that out of the way lets see whats going on here.

J1 page
Has introduction but then drops one in a long section dealing with "Subclades and proposed origins". Again, this is a problem with so many Y-chromosomal pages, they are technical and not encyclopedic. I hammered Andrew so many times on this issue. You cannot expect the reader to simultaneously comprehend the complexities of nomenclature structure and markers (e.g. P58) unless you create an 'enticing' graphic. That is the place to create subclades. Wiki has a cladogram graphic maker (See R1a page). and you can tinker with it. The section is long an boring.

The tables at the end of the page are large and do not attact readers, the important information is people/frequency, and this can be graphically presented also.

Go around wikipedia, look at the style of pages with high ratings (featured articles, etc). Look at how they are written, the combination of tables, text and graphics. From this come back to this page and see how its style deviates encyclopedic acceptability. No need to transform the whole article, start on the most deviant areas and fix a little bit at a time. Learn how to simplify tables, create subpages, etc. Use images to place text and then hightlight important parts of images.

Problems on this page
I get a head-ache just reading this page, i am not, in its current state going to waste any length of time trying to figure it; as I suspect how you stepped on Andys toes.

Common is not a scientific word. Common alleles from HLA might be in the 5 to 10% range since most alleles fall below 15% frequency. Whereas if the major allele frequency is 90% and minor allele frequency is 10%, 10 percent would be considered uncommon. I know in NW africa there is a common biasing for E1 Y chromosomes, so if the frequency is below 25% in these areas I would not use the word common.

Maps. The principle argument concerns the maps. We have had this argument before and for good reason. Reasons 1. Conflicting frequencies are common in the literature. Why? While I get in trouble for saying this if the authors do not calculate the confidence interval, you should. In some cases with low n (population sample size) the CI can vary widely. This variance is entirely predictable and is based simply on binomial probability distribution. The range of certainty can be reverse extracted from the Fisher Exact Test or from BDP. It is not necessarily due to 'sampling college students, it can be random variance. I wanted wiki to changes its policies and allow us to present confidence intervals instead of frequencies. Some of the their math experts even pointed this out to them, but they called it original research. On a couple of occasions I caught them in the conundrum in which they backed off and restated policy (which means they could not resolve the issue within this failed aspect of policy). So even though you cannot present the confidence ranges, you should know what they are when you present the frequencies. Low relative frequencies and small sample sizes are notoriously prone to error. You have to know that i have refereed quite a few papers, and i have sent a few comments to the journal editors regarding mistakes made in papers. Frequently authors do not present confidence intervals because it makes their data look weak or favored conclusions unsupported. Currently I reject about 95% of all MS that I referee, however it is not uncommon to see rejected papers then published in another journal (some times in more than one journal). There is an increasing amount of bad stuff out there, so the reader needs to be aware. Wiki prefers secondary research articles, however these are sometime outdated and dumbed-down so that their information is not useful. What I would argue is rely on secondary literature (reviews) when the information is good, and strong primary literature with good statistics. (hah-hah, see how well that works with Y)

2. Maps are idealizations of reality, the literature maps may be more elegant, but they may not best represent the data as well. This I noted on several occasions when making maps, particularly in Africa, there are alot of isolates, and sample studies frequently target groups (e.g. within an oasis) that represent a largely uppopulated surrounding regoin. Draw your own maps using the wikitemplates, find out from each paper which exact areas the sample covers. If the sample does not cover a tribal enclave then grey it out of the map. Third thing is that authors may not combined the results of their study and anothers study, but you can, without independent research you can multistripe regions on the map where duplicate studies give different results. I would use my discretion also, if a study has five males, a 1 in 5 occurrence could be represent a population relative frequency of 0.01 or 0.70. In such instances look for alternative samples representing proximal regions.

3. Andrew has gotten in trouble for this, maps in papers are frequently copyright protected, near copies, and low resolution copies have been pulled from this site. As a consequence its best to find an alternative.

Maps are hard, you have to both follow wikis, often silly, rules (And they are, for instance if two papers give to ranges for dates say 85 to 135, and 125 to 235, both studies cannot be correct, but you cant then say the date range is 85 to 235, that is a synthesis, even though the wiki admins cannnot decide which is best or correct to give in the article, IOW they force a concensus to cherry pick rather than actually represent scientific range) and avoid the legal issues. At the same time you can't assume one author did correct research in reading others M and M section of papers included in his graph, so you have to actually read papers and see where these study points represent.

So if you like the page, work on the maps and expect critiques (some people, however, its best to ignore). Some common sense decisions need to be made, and in most cases you are not going to have the most attractive outcome, and folks will bitch at you. However the goal is to improve the encyclopedic content of the page. As per me, I will never edit another Y page, it is obvious to me that most of the participants are not concerned with improving the encyclopedia as much as getting their opinions to the front of the page. That is the reason that only one Y page has reached GA status and none have ever been promoted beyond despite enormous numbers of edits.

[There is a current line of thought that suggest that the Y chromosome is the biggest risk factor for untimely death/accident. The reason being is that the Y chromosome associated hormones are effectors of risky behaviors. Risky behaviors have both risk and sometimes great rewards. However looking at the Y chromosomal pages here and participated in the discussions, I find that Y chromosome produces very little 'great reward'. Testosterone crazed editors with adgenda and ego go beyond any literature/history article in the unwillingness to work to a common better and compromise. Until such time as we can get away from 10,000 line talk pages that argue essentially nothing, the status of these Y pages will never improve.]

See you back in MolAnthro.PB666 yap 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say the Y chromosome is not highly adaptive to conflict resolution without coercion or charisma rather than internalized seeking of logical argument.... JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pdeitiker is always willing to publish an essay without first reading what you asked him to comment on. (He states himself he had no time to look properly.) But let's consider if there is anything relevant:
 * 1. He agrees with me that common is a common sense word which applies to percentages lower than 100 percent, not that I think there can be any doubt.
 * 2. I have no idea what he means by saying that I have gotten in trouble with maps. I have done only a few on WP and I know of no controversy. The discussion relevant to this WP article is that JLS has suddenly started defending an old Wikipedia map; which understates the presence of J1 in Africa, over a new map which is a good non slavish copy of what can be found in the published literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reinterpretation of the comments of others is inappropriate and inaccurate for both Pdeitiker and myself. Further, I did not defending the old map. The problem with the map is not the contours. It is the statement of "60-100%," which is clearly not born out by the citations given or any research paper. Your attempt to recast the issue is also a failure. John Lloyd Scharf 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to argue with you Andrew, to do so is counterproductive and futile to no end. You have had images pulled because they infringed on copyrighted material. This is part of the overall what is the best map strategy discussion. In terms of an essay, this is a case of the black cat calling the kettle black. I have seen you obsessively post 17 hours a day in some talk pages, a warning to all here, don't argue with Andy, just wait until he moves onto another argument and make changes.PB666 yap 21:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That type of attitude is what watchlists are for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Laughing
There has been pretty much nothing of value added to this page other than squabbling. Genie is not a sock-puppet, do not make spurious accusations. Andrew and whoever, do not make spurious accusations about someones religious beliefs, there is enough bad Y chromosomal literature out their to support any foolish position. Andrew, the constant Tag throwing is nothing more the smoke.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012 [Note the emphasis on underestimating Y branching dates]

I told you guys about the danger of using Y phylogenetics and molecular clocking when doing the R1A page. Everyone step back and take a deep breath, the Y chromosomal studies are not really powerful in any direction and there are alot of errors. It is only the Testosterone of authors and wiki-editors that make these studies seem strong.

Diaspora has more symbolic importance than anything else. There are at least 3 emigration events if one follows the bible, the first is now heavily contested as myth. The current thinking on the Hebraic origins is that they are peasantry that united when the egyptians left canaan, and are likely of multiple Y lineages. The second (first) which appears to have historical backing represents a minority of Jews that dispersed during the 'exile'. But partof the jewish population remained behind and interdispersed with other palestinians, some migrated to other areas. The third event, which solidified the synagogue Judaism, created multiple groups.

The reconquest of Spain resulted in the sephardic Jews fleeing either west (to Mexico, friday night jews) or to N. Africa and eventually other parts of Europe. Prior to this exodus Jews traveled amongst and intermingled Arabic speakers in N. Africa and the rest of the middle east. In 1920-22 there were ~70,000 Jews living in the Palestinian Mandate (mostly in the north near the Lebanon/syrian Israeli border), also approximately 70,000 Orthodox christians and around 600,000 Muslims, and an unknown number of migratory bedohins of the Wahabbi affiliation who migrated between Western Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Israel and the Sinai. During the period between 1918 and 1928 there was very little enter-ethnic violence between Jews and Arabs in palestine, and not too much evidence elsewhere in the muslim world, muslims and jews readily intermingled. This changed when it became widely recognized that Jewish squatters were taking 'public' grazing land away from migratory arabs and with the British expulsions in the 1930s violence escalated until the purging of Jews from many muslim countries in the 1940s to 1970s. Thus old-world Jews went from a dispersed distribution to a highly punctate distribution in a matter of 4 decades.

According to my last read of Israel census, Ashkenazim jews represent, barely, the majority of Israeli Jews, followed by Sephardic Jews, with a small number of Jews of other origin and including Israeli Arabs. Jews by HLA tend to more closely affiliate with Anatolians, Greeks and Assyrians relative to any other group. They have lower genetic affinity to N.E. Africans or Gaza Palestinians, higher genetic affinity with NE Mediteraneans. There is little genetic evidence suggesting Jews originated from Mesopotamia or other part of the Arabian peninsula. This could reflect a common origin NW Euphates origin for Hebrews, or it might represent the intermingling of Greek and Anatolians peoples with Jews over the long history. Tracing Jewish ancestry backwards has proven to be more an effort of desire than actual science, people have cherry picked markers based on half-arsed studies in which the surrounding populations have been inadequately typed. This concept of a Coheni Y chromosome has now been largely discredited. Some anthropologist now discredit the concept of single Mosaic contribution, Moses being a borrowed hero figure in the bible (Noah was clearly a borrowed mythology) and therefore there is no credence that he had a brother named Aaron. So that the basis for the so-called Coheni Y chromosome appears to be debatable in its own right. Religion is a matter of belief, people contrive origin stories out of social desire/competition/necessity and not because of great historians. Scolars now suggest that the hebrews were illiterate until a few decades before the kingdom of David appears, and that there was no concensus pentateuch until after the babylonian exile. If this is the case it would place several 100 years between the 'Mosaic' exodus and the writing of the bible as we know it. Others argue that the Pentateuch was written by 3 to 5 different scribes, each with their own version of the story. I would argue here that the Y-chromosomal data should lead us to a conclusion, not belief. There is nothing particularly notable about Jewish Y chromosomal studies to suggest that they have an origin unique or separate from other males in the region. I could make a better case for a unique origin of the Basque, Welsh and Irish.

I thought the idea of handling Jewish Diaspora with other N.African Arabic peoples are reasonable idea, given all the ambiguities. This is not perfect, but because of the intermingling issue the Sephardic/N. African branches will tend less to distinquish themselves.PB666 yap 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect PD, as has been discussed with you before, WP is not a blog for your "laughing" and musings on the world in general. Your random thoughts above show no sign of having read what you are commenting on, but they take up a lot of space on a talkpage which is already messy. I doubt that this helps?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes instead it is the place for Andrew Lancaster to argue with people adnauseum without 1 Iota of content. It is the place were we keep pages like /PB666 ('wiuth all do respect seems shallow from you') as our little war trove to start new conflicts. At least I give a justification for supporting Genies contention, whereas you just plain argue with people for stuff (.e.g ad hominem and character attacks) completely unrelated to the edit conflicts in the article. You are what I'm laughing at, we can excuse John as a new editor, but you should know better, and most importantly no matter what anyone says you will continue spewing out 1000s of lines of talk page garbage.


 * The whole of the Y-pages are a shamble of shambles, progess is made on letter at a time, no-one follows WP manual of style or bothers to make these pages more readable or more encyclopedic. When people try to improve these pages you attack them and engage in revert wars. You are the primary purveyor of the 1000 line table page, which, in fact, has too much information and generally lacks the most important information, scope of study area and 96% confidence intervals. On top of that you and so many others are conveyors of crap, like that crazy Russian thinking he can clock STRs and publishing in all-but unrefereed journals. This and other shouldn've been published studies, drafted in to wiki by an excess of Testosterone are the reason that progress cannot be made.


 * If you have a problem with a study, you need, as I have done, explain why you think the study is problematic, if you are not going to carefully do that, then don't harass people or play little wiki-tag games with them, dont create personal war pages, don't screw up the talk pages because your disgruntled.PB666 yap 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No thousands of lines from me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa's most commonly shared paternal lineage is E1b1b
As a very common variant of human Y DNA, passed from father to son, it is one of the most commonly shared paternal lineages found amongst men in many parts of North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Horn of Africa.

E1b1b1(E-M35) previously known as E3b is the most common in Ethiopia and Somalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/fig_tab/5201390f1.html#figure-title

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/abs/5201390a.html Could this statement not be a neutral as you thought when you edited it in? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are ignoring the words "one of the most" and "parts of". Of course if you ignore words in a correct sentence you can say the sentence is wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not even "one of the most." You need to actually look at the data, but thanks for pointing out more weasel words. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These are just normal words, and your constant pursuit of new problems to complain about makes you look like someone on a mission.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not concerned about what I "look like." Your constant use of over generalizations and use of weasel words and phrases like "in many parts," shows a bias and if anyone looks like they have a mission, it is you by insistence on making broad claims lacking verifiable references. You complain if I list all your misinformation at once. You complain if I do it piece meal. You have an excuse for everything.

If you do not have a mission, walk away from the article.

You are not improving it with that language. Again, I see you making me the object of another personal attack without even attempting to justify your claim with a logical argument. As long as you engage in that, expect to receive that in return. You cite policies as if you interpretation has anything to do with what is written in them. Your reading and writing skills are lacking. If you think they are "just the facts," I have to tell you they do not reach the level of a preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not concerned about what I "look like." Your constant use of over generalizations and use of weasel words and phrases like "in many parts," shows a bias and if anyone looks like they have a mission, it is you by insistence on making broad claims lacking verifiable references. You complain if I list all your misinformation at once. You complain if I do it piece meal. You have an excuse for everything.

If you do not have a mission, walk away from the article. You are not improving it with that language. Again, I see you making me the object of another personal attack without even attempting to justify your claim with a logical argument. As long as you engage in that, expect to receive that in return. You cite policies as if you interpretation has anything to do with what is written in them. Your reading and writing skills are lacking. If you think they are "just the facts," I have to tell you they do not reach the level of a preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So in concrete what are you suggesting? You seem to be saying that if we imply that scientists might not be sure about something, this is poor "writing" and "language" skills. Don't you think that reporting certainty and reporting uncertainty are more than just a question of style? If we change wording to make it seem like things are more certain than they are, that is just wrong, not better style. If we use individual research articles to report certainty then we need very good sources, showing very clear certainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.John Lloyd Scharf 10:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing no nos
I have been asked by the editor in question to address issues about his or her editing here on the article talk page, and not on his or her personal talk page. The editor involved also does not appear to read edit summaries, so to explain some problems we are having...

1. Editorial comments such as writing out your reasons for not liking something in an article, should never be included in the real article, not even in a footnote. See WP:COMMENTARY "please do not take discussion into articles".

2. Demanding sources for the same information in many places, when it appears several times in one article or passage, is not a generally accepted way of editing and is considered WP:Tendentious editing. In particular, leads, captions of tables, titles of sub-sections, etc, often contain information which is explained in more detail in a specific passage. In such cases it is normal practice only to attach extensive source information to the specific detailed passage. Please consider WP:TAGBOMB.

The references I have given show that these problems are old and well-known ones on Wikipedia. There is already a clear consensus about them being unacceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the editor. Did you have a good conversation with yourself? I did not change the article itself. Perhaps you should accept your responsibilities for your behaviors that include your personal biases. You did not correct your errors. Instead, you make excuses and minimize while leaving your errors in tact. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are are just some examples of your work, and only looking at this article for now, and only the last few days. A more complete dossier can be built up if you make it necessary. So I strongly recommend that you change your ways.
 * 1. Editorial comment
 * "The cited workd says:"The criteria to deduce J1e status involved the filter of DYS388 ≥15 repeats and YCAII A, B allele sizes of either 19, 22 or 22, 22." Leaving out YCAIIa/b=19/22 makes your statement wrong"
 * And again "The cited workd says:"The criteria to deduce J1e status involved the filter of DYS388 ≥15 repeats and YCAII A, B allele sizes of either 19, 22 or 22, 22." Leaving out YCAIIa/b=19/22 makes your statement wrong".
 * 2. Demanding sources by tagging leads, or parts of paragraphs, where the sources are given elsewhere already:, , . In many cases you've put the tag right next to the footnote.
 * If you say that I am reading something wrong then post here on this talk page, but write clearly and to the point and check your facts first. State which text you think should be changed and why. But generally speaking as shown by wave after wave of sloppy complaints, you are just looking for anything to say, and then pasting in lumps of text along with comments about how I should not consider myself superior to you and I should not compromise with people from Qatar, and so on. For example YCA19-20 can not be used to define J-P58 as it is found in other clusters. YCA22-22 is used to define a cluster which is ASSOCIATED with J-P58. That is the word used in the source cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your sources cited do not confirm your contentions. My holding you responsible is not sloppy on my part but yours and that is yet another personal attack. Again, you made an assumption without looking at what you cited. It says IN THE PAPER that it is associated with both 19/22 and 22/22. I made it clear. Three times now. Why are you having such problems with what has been straight forward and plain, both in my description of the issue and what is in the cited paper. You are gaming this. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the article before tagging it you will see that it ALREADY mentions that 19-22 and 22-22 are both found in J-P58. It states the the second type is a major cluster WITHIN J-P58. It says the cluster is not the same as J-P58, but it is associated with it in several sources as an important part of it. But you are wrong to say that 19-22 can be used to "filter" for J-P58, because it is found more widely within J1.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

3. Just calling edits you disagree with "vandalism" when you revert them, and refusing discussion on talk pages, is a no-no also. This is not just my opinion, this is a community norm with a strong consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.John Lloyd Scharf 10:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of  other editors  without their permission.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf  (talk • contribs)  25 June 2011 (UTC) (note date)

Edit request from JohnLloydScharf, 21 August 2011
The box refers to highest frequencies. The current version is muddled, biased, and not properly resourced. "Highest frequencies" should not be so broad as to be meaningless. Dagestan has the highest rate of those who are not P58. Yeman has the highest rate for that SNP marker, which is officially for J1c3. Both of them have frequencies near 100%.

Highest frequencies WP:SUBSTANTIATE WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=7vp6810373074738&size=largest

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to limit the information we provide in such an artificial way, and this is certainly not how similar articles have been made. Why, for example, would be not mention Khartoum with 75 percent? Or Tunisia with 30 percent? This seems tendentious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My house is 100% of one haplogroup. I suspect you would find Manhanttan is over 5% and it has the highest population density in the world. Tofanelli chose to use a study using university students and I suspect the most common language was Arabic rather than one of the tribal languages. Other studies done with outlying groups really contradicted that one and show how a student population can differ even genetically from the greater population. They use statistics which should only apply to specific populations and even then many of these studies are 30 or less in the population they represent. I do not like maps or stats particularly, but twisting them to make them say what the research papers do not is over the line. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you are seriously going to argue that for example 70 percent should not be considered common?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt to reinterpret and reconstruct to the logical argument with a strawman argument. is pathetic. You can claim 70% is common for the university in Khartoum, not Khartoum,any other educational institution in Sudan, or Sudan as a whole. If an extraterrestial took samples from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and assumed J1c3d was common for the planet earth, that is the equivalent of the argument you are making. It is a violation of several accepted principles of research. You can only state properties of the population samples are taken from. The university students at Khartoum are statistically significantly different from all other populations in Sudan and Ethiopia. John Lloyd Scharf 21:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All the studies cited for this entire article and all similar ones deal with relatively small samples. Whether they are big enough is not for us to decide on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then it is not verifiable and you cannot make the claims made on the map. John Lloyd Scharf 16:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us to decide. We can claim, verifiably, what it is that other people have claimed. That is our aim. Generally speaking, the scientists we are citing are also quite cautious in their language, and therefore (as I explained to you before) we also should write in the same way. Saying that you want to let in some data from this field full of weak data but not others would not be acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not use verifiable statements or maps. Who is this "We" because it certainly is not Wikipedia. John Lloyd Scharf 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned Personal attacks and misrepresentation of information addressed to John Lloyd Scharf 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
JohnLloydScharf: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk • contribs)
 * I do not like maps or stats particularly: --Respond-Atleast Maps and stats present more accurate and factual data than the speculative unproven jargon called HG Dating, which you desperately trying to prove.
 * Why should a group of university students in Khartoum be special?--Answer-To avoid taking samples from the same Family, Tribes, clans..etc.
 * Chiaroni et al. (2010) got his samples from Khartoum where as Tofanelli et al. (2009)  from wad Madani. These two places(Metro Khartoum and Madani)have a combined number of population ranging from 13 to 15 + millions, representing   45-50%of the entire current population of today Sudan.
 * So if you are seriously want to argue that 74% is common— why then should consider J1 common among Cohanim and it is only 44%?!!

Response I can see why the above did not sign in:
 * 1) The map did not represent the facts in the cited references. Your avoidance in dealing with the issue where it is the topic is noted and is yet another example of why this article needs a Silver Lock.
 * 2) University students may not even represent the national population and the question of tribal membership is not answered. In fact, that you do not know what family, tribe, or clan they represent adds to the problem of knowing how representative the sampling is. It is bad research methodology to make any claim beyond the group you test, which is limited to university students, not Sudan as a whole.
 * 3) Chaironi et al states,"The majority of the samples were experimentally analyzed for the haplogroup J1e-deﬁning SNP by either RFLP or DHPLC methodology, except for 55 reported as being of J1 membership from the Sudanese from Khartoum; Amhara from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and Iraqis from Nassiriya. These were inferred to belong to J1e based on companion YSTR haplotype data. That means the other 448 of the 553 are NOT from Tofanelli et al. Again, you are ignoring the work of Hassan et al: See Pg.317, Figure 2. E3 with 230 far exceeds J1 111 for the 15 Sudanese and two Ethiopian groups. If you stick just to that study's 445 men in 15 Sudanese populations, 94 are J1, which is 21%. E3a=4/0.9%, E3b=34/7.6%, and E3b1=114/25.6% for a total of n=154/34% http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf

John Lloyd Scharf 04:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to the fallacies of John Lloyd Scharf 1.The map did not represent the facts in the cited references-- EXPLIAN WHY WITH TESTBLE PROVES? 2.University students may not even represent the national population- - What about Hassan et al and Chiaroni et al. (2010) Their results are quitley matching Tofanelli et al. (2009)....It is bad research methodology to make any claim beyond the group you test, which is limited to university students, not Sudan as a whole'''..Compare this study with the one of  Dr. Karl Skorecki, the founder of CMH,and see who has the more logical argument and why!! Atleast Tofanelli took his Y-dna samples from different Family surnames,different tribes which similarly correlate between genetic and geographic distances of North Sudan,unlike Dr. Karl Skorecki and others whom only pinpointed/selecting a specific closely related families (e.g "GOYIM"Jews with Cohen Surnames 3% of the entire Jews)and place it to all Jews simply to prove the fallacy of the common "Jewish Gene".''' 3.you are ignoring the work of Hassan et: al:-The statement of representation of your given source contradicts yourself procalim assertions. Just look at it again.See Pg.317,Figure 2.''' Example Nubians J1e=16/41%, E3b1=6/15%,E3b=3/7.7%.Arakiens J1e=16/66%  E3b1=4/16:7%. Galieen E3b1=9/18% .J1e by far is the most dominant HG in North Sudan.If you group the Nubians Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese," (I.e.today Republic of Sudan) then the frequency of haplogroup J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7 to 45% reaching to 75% arond  the vicinity Khartom-Wad Madani Area .Which means the MAP posted by Andrew Lancaster is correct,represent the facts in the cited references. ''http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf

So take your self contradictory claims and slap yourself with them,if you could not see how your statements entirely contradict Hassan .et.al paper. I have no confidence that you be able to understand the complex and intrigued true essence of genetics. It is very strange that a crucial and important subject such as genetics is actually been studied, lead and monopolize by group of buffoons.

I am not sure if you can help me out with the following question. I have been unsuccessfully with wrestling myself as to which is the funnier statement,to prove the unverifiable common contemporary jewish(whom are converted goyim) ancestory from one biblical mythical man named " Israel the myth" or placing confidence in your self contradictory claims?

I hope you understand what I mean, and you can help me to resolve this dilemma.

Cheers and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk • contribs)

SNPs, Geographic origin, etc
SNP stands for single nucleotide polymorphism ('SNiPs') is commonly used particularly with regard to genome wide studies. SNPs are a form of markers, other markers include STRs, indels and deletes. Geographic origin is largely determined by cladistic analysis of a marker, that is to say the branching from that original haplotype into its daughter haplotypes will have basal diversity as one approaches the point of origin. In North Africa however, all bets are off. There is adequate evidence to suggest marked depopulation and repopulation of the region. Other issues I see above in this talk-page-- alot of WP:I_HATE_YOU tags thrown in by Andrew. He loves to cover his opinion by saturate new comers with his knowledge of tags.PB666 yap 23:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect people to: As a bit of a Taoist, I went against my principles by having expectations. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Stick to the point
 * 2) Be concise.
 * 3) Use a logical argument.

As requested, I have reviewed this article. I agree with the point made above that subclades and proposed origins are perhaps better discussed under separate headings, though I understand the reason that they were merged here. I have created separate sections, adding references to clarify the source of statements linking J1 to the Neolithic and specifically to pastorialism. It makes sense to me to follow chronology and discuss the Neolithic first under origins. The Arabic expansion is of course important, but the Jewish diaspora rates a mention in the same paragraph. Following the same logic, I made a minor change to the first paragraph to read "This haplogroup is found in high frequencies the Middle East, the Caucasus, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and in Jewish populations."

--Genie (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong- J1 is not common among the Jewish population .In Jewish populations J1 has a rate of around 15%, with haplogroup J2 (M172) (of eight sub-Haplogroups) being almost twice as common as J1 among Jews (<29%). Jews are not one single ethnicity but a mixture of multi ethnic people See A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE by Ellen Levy-Coffman http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm Which proves that most (if not all of today Jews) are proselytized Jews.


 * What it proves is not for us on a Wikipedia talk page to argue about, and it would not be a simple discussion. But 15% is "common" and that is therefore at least one thing we can say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrew Lancaster
 * Wrong- Jews are not one ethinc people.Jews are multiethnic people ith differet cultures dfferent languages.They ONLY share the Jewish Faith,just like the Muslims,Christians..etc. So treat Jews as one ethnic people in this articel is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk • contribs)


 * I think you are, to say the least, over-simplfying in a controversial way, but anyway we are not here to debate that subject. We are just trying to report what has been published on the subject of this Wikipedia article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you responding to yourself or to the sock puppet? John Lloyd Scharf 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you believe someone is a sock puppet (it is as usual not really clear what you are saying) please go through the routine. Please stop throwing around comments like this. Stick to the subject if you are going to be involved with this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since they make personal attacks and contentious unsourced maps without signing in to avoid being banned, they are either already banned or trying to avoid that. See the Wikipedia definition of a sock puppet. Since you continued without separating yoru comment, I can only assume the remark is yours, since you are defending it.


 * The citation given is not from a peer reviewed journal or one that is cited and he is mischaracterising the meaning and intent. Of all people, you should not be throwing stones about being topical. Stick to what is verifiable.
 * Gene's call for inclusion of the Jewish Diaspora with mentioning the Arab Expansion shows the article has been biased, as I have pointed out on multiple occasions. The Jews ARE of ONE ethnicity AND they have more than one or two haplogroups, just like any other ethnic group - even Arabs. Language and religion are what determine ethnic groups, not geographic displacement.
 * The sock puppet did not stick to the topic, which is SNPs, Geographic origin, etc . Ultimately, you are demonstrably unable to judge of what is appropriate or on topic.John Lloyd Scharf 22:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, explain this statement if it is not biased: "Which proves that most (if not all of today Jews) are proselytized Jews." Judaism has a long history not allowing people to become Jews. Find a document from antiquity where Jews have even forced others to pay an extra tax, much less force conversions at sword point or threatening to burn them at the stake. At a minimum, I have to point out that this is coming from a biased perspective, such as would come from a Sockpuppet (Internet). John Lloyd Scharf 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The term sock puppet has a specific meaning, and it appears you have no reason to have made that accusation. Concerning problems such as trying to impose personal bias upon Wikipedia and not sticking to the subject, you are not exemplary yourself in my opinion. And the post you have just written is a pretty good example. If you want discussion on this talk page to get on to subject, I reckon your best bet is to act in a more exemplary way yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, Genie's remark about including mention of the Jewish diaspora is entirely in line with my edits, but not yours recently. She made two edits. One helped by re-structuring the most complex section, which already mentioned Jews, not only Arabs, editing of which got stopped by edit warring and talk page silliness involving yourself. In the case of her adjustment to the lead she has basically re-inserted something you were deleting only a few days ago! Remember?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: John Lloyd Scharf 07:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Recently, I have not made any edits except with regard to the age and place of origin. You are lying about what I did and I am tired of that crap. I said if you name the Jews, then you have to name all the other ethnic groups. It is biased to say a few countries and then the Jews, of which there are just as many in the US as there are in Israel. I asked you why you kept doing that and I think I know I originally said you should say the nations in the Levant and you insisted on leaving Israel out. That is biased and bigoted behavior, not neutral, which is why I tagged the article.
 * You are also deliberately being thick about the issue of what a sock puppet is and whoever is doing edits and inserts without signing in meets at least two of the four qualifications, but only needs to be one. At this point, I am beginning to believe it must be you. I quoted the two of four here word for word at one point. You and your sock puppet precipitated the edit war. I tried to report your bias before and was ignored. I asked that there be a Silver lock before so you have to sign in to edit and I was ignored. Your attempt to refine the term is inappropriate.
 * 1) Creating new accounts to avoid detection
 * 2) Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP
 * 3) Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users
 * 4) Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)
 * Obviously #2 is being used. Others of that list have come and gone already, of which this recent one seems to be one. Your remarks and characterizations, like the sock puppet's, are inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * I do not think 2 is obvious at all, nor is the editing so much worse than that of others to be particularly interested, but the place to go is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Handling_suspected_sock_puppets and I see no need to fill this talk page with discussion about what might or might not be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And I did not insist on leaving Jews out. You did:, . In this respect you are agreeing with your debating partner. I do not find that just a funny coincidence. It is typical of people pushing opposite extreme positions that they end up looking like each other. I have no problem calling Jews a single ethnic group, but insisting that they are just like any geographically defined one is as silly as insisting they are just a religiously defined one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE to John Lloyd Scharf  - 'The following are brief rebuttals to the main diversionary arguments that  advanced   by you, as well as for those who were skilfully  like to enter and indulge into impotent arguments  just to  serve as a panacea for all their ills.

•	"..The Jews ARE of ONE ethnicity AND.."''..If the Jews are " one Ethnic People", THEN DEFINE US WHAT IS YOUR MEANING OF THE WORD " ETHNICITY" ? AND DO YOU CONSIDER THE MUSLIMS, THE CHRISTIANS, THE HINDUS, THE BUDDAHIST ETHNICS ?..How was the Jewish People Invented?(מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי ؟‎) Jews are NOT one ethnicity. It is an Invention called the Jewish people. There never was, is something called a Jewish ETHNICITY. Hence the NAME GOYIM JEWS,JEWS FROM NATIONS.

•	Expulsion is a HOAX. It NEVER happened .Otherwise do you believe Romans did bring down their 747 Jumbo jets, aircraft carriers, TGV Trains to expel the Judeans(Arab Palestinians) from Palestine 2000 years ago ?!!!

•	Many if not all geneticists appears to match Arab israelis and Palestinians to be descendants( if not the DIRECT descendants) of core population that lived in the area since prehistoric time. Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinians "Muslim Arabs " are the descendants from Christians and REAL JUDEANS who lived in the southern Levant, a region that include Sinai Israel, and Jordan. Even Most if not nearly allearly Zionist leaders like "David Ben Gurion", Asher "Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (Ehad Ha'am)"and "Yitzhak Ben Zvi" and many others believed that  the vast majority  Judeans  later embraced Islam during the 7th century and became what you call them today the "Palestinian Arabs ".

•	Incidentally, if you really want to know where” Real mass forced conversions, expulsions and mass crimes against the Gentiles) “ is taught, you need go no where further than the “Jewish religious scriptures and global practices ”.The exposures’ realization of which would in future would lead  to serve backlashes from the world’s top down trodden masse.

So to treat the Jews as one ethnic people is a fallacy an invention. Jews are NOT Israelites. Israelites defined to be the biological blood descendants of man name "Jacob/Israel the myth" Gen 35:11-12, while Jew is anyone whom adhere to the faith of Judaism( aka jewishness) regardless of his or her race.


 * This is off topic and clearly going in a direction which could get your editing rights blocked. If you want to participate in discussion about this article, stop now please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DearAndrew Lancaster

The reason why John Lloyd Scharf indulging with you into an impotent endless argument is because of religo-poltical ideology ( based on a myths and ancient folklores ).He rather should enter into tha constructive debate based on scientific testable evidences or quit. He should not bring us mythical unproven stories such as kingdom of Solomon and David into this Pure scientific based article.
 * What is most important to note here is that you are BOTH off topic. There are no sources being cited which connect this frankly silly argument with J1. This debate is not for here. Please both of you go find a forum to flame each other. Or, if either of you claim to be rational, then prove it do not feed the people who consider trolls. Act like you would want others to act?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Lancaster

Going through his impotent endless argument in the discussion page,  John Lloyd Scharf wants to prove his  religo-poltical Zionist Mythical Ideology.not only that  but also  forcing us   to believe in it. Inserting unrelated unproven mythical biblical fallacies (from the same bible that attest Cosmos age to be less than 6000 years)in to this pure scientific based article is crime against science itself !!!! Religion/Ideology are NOT science, NOT FACTS, therefore his unrelated shenanigan bugbugs must not be  entertained or even bothered to look at. I have no issue against any constructive criticism providing it is based on factual evidences. I hope Wikipedia will do the same.

Cheers mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, you guys are like magnets to each other, and you are causing the other to write what they write. So here is the trick: if one of you stops first the other will have no one to talk to. Whoever is first will look best. And just remember: This "scientific based article" is currently expressing NO opinion about Jewish ethnic origins, because the sources do not relate this subject to J1. No one has any good argument that it should, so it is unlikely this will change. So there is nothing to argue about here on this talk page. Do you have anything to say about J1 that comes from published sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish origins topic: off topic. Find sources or quit please
I think it needs to be pointed out that both of you are off topic. If either of you can find any strong source which directly and clearly relates the J1 haplogroup to the question of Jewish origins, bring it. Otherwise, please stop posting about it - either arguments for or against.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, 217.137.120.107, please cease putting statistical details into the lead, ,. No one is trying to hide that information but a lead is a short summary and the details are ALREADY below, in the body of the article. So can you remove the unnecessary details please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sudanese Arabs. Change to data table by 217.137.120.107
217.137.120.107, thank you for fixing my mistake on the Hammer et al non-Cohanim Jewish statistic. But please justify, because I checked twice and you seem to be mistaken: You changed "Sudan Arabs" from the Chiaroni et al article from 17.1% to 41.1% of 35 people. Chiaroni clearly reports 6 out of 35 in this category and I think we want to stick to Chiaroni's report on this sample because Hassan et al in the original report did not test for J1. I am guessing you are trying to derive a bigger number from the Hassan article yourself, by using the J*(xJ2) of all 3 groups they had: 50+28+24. I know this is a point you were fired up about in your argument above, and I get your point because looking at the J* it seems likely that J1 was very high in these groups. I certainly agree with you that JLS is wrong to underplay northern Sudanese J1 frequencies. But we can't do this extrapolation ourselves. I think we need to wait for a better article. So can you please revert this to reflect the 6 out of 35 in Chiaroni?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Lancaster Please try to obtaine the right statistic for "Sudan Arabs" the figure I got was from Hassan et al. I am not sure if it is right.I thought the 17.1% figure a typing mistake.But if you have a more accruate data, please do not hesitate to paste it.

Cheers and Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I double and triple checked it. I would love it if we had more data. (Just like I said to John about the Caucasus.) So anyway, I'll fix it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

________________________ http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. John Lloyd Scharf 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 35x73.4%=26.005 or 26 J1-Khartoum Students
 * 35x17.1%= 5.985 or 6 J1-Arabic
 * 61x04.9%= 2.989 or 3 J1-Nilo-Saharan
 * 131x26.7%= 34.979 or 35 J1 total
 * "We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan...Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan."
 * 445x34.4%=153.08 E Haplogroup


 * I think no one disagrees--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The numbers you have posted above from Hassan et al seem to match our article perfectly now? So no problem. Just to remind, Hassan et al did not test for J1, but we are citing this data set as tested and reported by Chiaroni et al.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BOLD AND BOGUS STATEMENT.John Lloyd Scharf 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Lancaster

According to Hassan. et .al, " We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populationsby typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated malesrepresenting the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts,and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakersfrom the Fulani ethnic group".

The 34% of HG E  Together (with A and B) falls  mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking Sudanese Fur,Nilotic, Borgu and Masalit. Haplogroup E  accounts for the majority (34.4%) For all former Sudan (North plus South). Today Sudan is yesterday North Sudan So HG E % is different from 34%. Plus if you would group the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Arab speaking Northern Sudanese," then the frequency of J1 haplogroup is not 17% Let alone the Nubins Housa and Copts see Fig 2.Page 319.


 * Nubians J1~16/41%, E3b1~6/15%,E3b~3/7.7%.
 * Arakiens J1~16/66% E3b1~4/16:7%.
 * Galieen E3b1~9/18% J1~36%.
 * Mesiriah J1~42% E3b1~14.3%.
 * Copts J1~39%
 * So Arabs (Galieen,Arakiens Mesiriah )(No 50+28+24) J1 ~48%,E~ 16.3%

http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls Please Inform us if this is wrong and why? http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls
 * J1 and J1e are not tested for in the Hassan et al study? So I guess you are using J* as a proxy? But otherwise I think you are basically right in terms of a basic summary of best guesses (not necessary the summary we should put in the Wikipedia article though). I did not check your exact numbers again, because I am guessing that is not the meaning of your question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * J1e is not relevant and you lied about Hassan etl al not testing for J1, even given your own source, Tof, 2009:


 * http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls John Lloyd Scharf 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * J1e is relevant to this discussion because it was mentioned above. I also did not lie about anything, and you should stop acting like a dick.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bold and BOGUS statement. You lied about Hassan et al not testing for J1. John Lloyd Scharf 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Dear Andrew Lancaster J1 and J1e are not tested for in the Hassan et al study?Italic text ....Response... Same as A, B, E,  F, I,and K. The aim was not to study a specifig  HG. The aim was to study to " Study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populationsby ...and related to the three linguistic families in Sudan"  from which " Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J(J1 and J2), K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arab.."language, geography, and cultural traits may have played a significant role in the genetic structure of Sudanese populations, in a country wit diverse linguistic and cultural traits ".

According to Hassan. et.al Fig 2 page 319  Y-CHROMOSOME VARIATION AMONG SUDANES (A3b1,A3b2,A2,B,D,E1,E2,E3a,E3,E3b,E3b1,G,H,F,I,G,J1,J2,L,K2,O,K*,P,R1,R1b). Page 317 "J-12f2(J1) and J-M172(J2) represents 94% and 6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequencies among Nubians, Copts, and Arabs".

Just looking at the table Fig 2 page 319   Arabs(Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) J1 is roughly above 40%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, but if all you are saying is that there are strong signs of very high levels of J1 in Arab Sudanese in the north, then I already agree, and I think our article reflects that as well as it can with the Chiaroni et al data. I agree with you that JLS's arguments against this data are not appropriate. I would not to want to make that argument based on my own guess though, (even though I agree with yours), but rather on the simple fact that we are accurately reporting a proper published journal article. Removing this bit of it would be cherry picking and against WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, yet again. Look at the supplemental data from Tofinelli where it says the samples Hassan et al(2008) collected had J1 and used the data. What is verifiable is that Sudan is not 60%+ J1 and it is not even the primary haplogroup. Again, you are trying to justify a map that has no verifiable reference to justify it and now I have caught you in a lie. John Lloyd Scharf 16:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect I think you misunderstand. What often happens in this field is that someone collects some samples, publishes a paper, and then a year later, other researchers are allowed to use the SAME samples, but give it further tests (or maybe the tests are done by the original researcher). In other words, for one sample set it is often the case that there are new results which are not mentioned in the original paper. This is why I have put two columns on some of the data tables. I did try to explain this to you before.
 * Anyway, concerning the map, you are not getting the main point which has been explained to you several times and which you have never grappled with. The map is a non-slavish copy of a published map. That's good enough. Peer reviewed experts interpreted the data and made the map of Sudan how they understood that it should be. The details you and 217.137.120.107 are arguing about, while you are clearly wrong and he is clearly right (because in making the map they treated Sudan as broken into regions, while you are insisting on treating this enormous country as one block), are not the main point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I believe every article you edited in the haplogroups should be checked because you are willing to lie, such as the claim you made about Hassan et al John Lloyd Scharf 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This link is not to Hassan et al. Please READ what I wrote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * JLS: I now presume you have never read the Hassan et al paper. How else can I understand you calling me a liar based on URLs which do not link to it? Please note that our IP friend has given an working URL to a copy of the paper just above. You can go see for yourself if it reported J1.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, then you are calling Tofanelli a liar because that is the data from HIS paper describing data from Hassan et al and THEREFORE, your map is from an unreliable and unverifiable source. QED, delete the map. But, then, you know that and are engaging in a bald faced lie. John Lloyd Scharf 19:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I am wrong, and Hassan et al tested for J1, it would not even matter, because we are already citing later articles which report J1 testing of the EXACT SAME samples from Sudan. But I looked several times and they do not seem to have done that. So this is a point about a technicality. OTOH, you keep copying the same extremism all over the place, but never once have you shown any sign of responding in one thread of direct conversation in one place, to the attempts I made to explain how these articles cite old articles as their sample source but add new tests. You are acting in a way which is very disruptive, for no apparent good cause, and making yourself look silly I am afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

John Lloyd Scharf Where the figure 17.1% of J1 in Sudan-Arabic come from? It is not in Chiaroni et al. (2010) paper and Hassan et al. (2008) attest that J1 among Sudan-Arabic Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) J1 is roughly between 40-to 48%. see Fig2page 319  Y-CHROMOSOME VARIATION AMONG SUDANES(A3b1,A3b2,A2,B,D,E1,E2,E3a,E3,E3b,E3b1,G,H,F,I,G,J1,J2,L,K2,O,K*,P,R1,R1b). Page 317  "J-12f2(J1) and J-M172(J2) represents 94% and 6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequencies among Nubians, Copts, and Arabs". http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls So either  prove that  17%  figure are ammend/remove it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As was already discussed above, 17.1% is 6 out of 35 and it is definitely in the Chiaroni paper!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes yes correct I have got it..Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively" ERGO: A=16.9%, B=7.9%, E=34.4% F=3.1% I=1.3% J=22.5% K=0.9% and R=13% Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History Hisham Y. Hassan, 1 Peter A. Underhill, 2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, 2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1 * http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf John Lloyd Scharf 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok who are these Sudanese populations ,and where are they located according to Hassan et.all ?? We need to know so to match them with the map!!

Hassan. et.al Fig 2 page 319  Y-CHROMOSOME VARIATION AMONG SUDANES (A3b1,A3b2,A2,B,D,E1,E2,E3a,E3,E3b,E3b1,G,H,F,I,G,J1,J2,L,K2,O,K*,P,R1,R1b). Page 317 "J-12f2(J1) and J-M172(J2) represents 94% and 6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequencies among Nubians, Copts, and Arabs". So the map is fine

A couple of points by the anonymous poster
"• Expulsion is a HOAX. It NEVER happened .Otherwise do you believe Romans did bring down their 747 Jumbo jets, aircraft carriers, TGV Trains to expel the Judeans(Arab Palestinians) from Palestine 2000 years ago ?!!!" Well yes and no, we are lead to beleive that Israel was destroyed in 69-70 AD. This in fact did not happen, the Romans conquered the city of Jeruselem basically destroying the capital of any Jewish resistance. Romans did not expell the Jews either, they did not need to, the zionist isolated themselves in the City, given the length of the seige and the ultimate failure many jews simply left, seeking to live among the Romans rather than be impaled by the Romans. Two more purges were to follow, each directed and more and more isolated elements of the resistance.

115-117 CE - second rebellion, called Kitos War 132-135 CE - third rebellion, Bar Kokhba's revolt

"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and the army are in health.'"

That number is close to the total number of people living in the Palestinian mandate in 1920. The battle for Palestine was bloody, and only remnants of the Jewish population remained; however over the period from exile to 135 CE marked migrations of Jews had voluntarily left Israel and established themselves in cities all around the Mediterranean. It didn't take much during that period to move, Romans were poor sailors, they actively recruited people to man their ships and support their armies. Paul is a good example, his occupation was that of a roman tent maker, and while he was from damascus, he traveled to many parts of the roman empire with the Romans. In many cases the Romans demanded 'hostages', this was a means of assuring loyalty, and they used similar means to build their army. You can probably bet on the fact that of those "Romans" (i.e. soldiers) that died in the 3rd revolt, some where neutral Jews 'drafted' in the wrong place at the wrong time. Think about how the roman army fed itself for those 3 years? War is inherently a messy occupation, with the Romans, even more so. The bottom line here, and really important for the conversion from Temple Judaism to Synagog Judaism, if you were a Jew in Israel after the 3rd revolt, you probably did not want to highlight that fact to the Romans, and there was no heart left to rebuild the Temple and thus the diaspora Jews reconciled themselves to a dispersed church. Temple Judaism was effectively purged from Palestine, there was no replacement in form or political movement capable of resurrecting the form.

" • Many if not all geneticists appears to match Arab israelis and Palestinians to be descendants( if not the DIRECT descendants) of core population that lived in the area since prehistoric time. Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinians "Muslim Arabs " are the descendants from Christians and REAL JUDEANS who lived in the southern Levant, a region that include Sinai Israel, and Jordan. Even Most if not nearly allearly Zionist leaders like "David Ben Gurion", Asher "Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (Ehad Ha'am)"and "Yitzhak Ben Zvi" and many others believed that the vast majority Judeans later embraced Islam during the 7th century and became what you call them today the "Palestinian Arabs ". "

Actually, the genetic studies suggests that Israelis and West bank Palestinians share common origin with Syrian and other NW Euphrates dwellers. However there were 3 other groups living in Palestine at the time of the mandate. There were the Gaza Palestinians, the Orthodox Catholics, and the Wahhabi Bedouins. Wahhabi bedouins 100,000?) were politically removed from Palestine by the British and the 'Jordanian' army, although some changed loyalties and settled in Jordon during the Mandate period, those that did not and survived subsequently limited their migrations to eastern Saudi Arabia. The British did not keep accurate records on how many bedouins they killed, it is my understanding that their convertees used guerilla tactics, and neither do we know how many settled in the west bank region or southern Israel, during the 1928 to 1948 period. There was a decadal hiatus of British from Palestine during WWII and after 1933 the British were notoriously bad at population census taking. Jews show increased genetic distance to the the Gaza Palestinians, as with the Wahhabi Bedouins. The Jews and most of the palestinians to which we refer lived in the northern half of palestinian mandate, and as might be expected they show genetic similarity with people to the north.

It is likely that both Palestinians and Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine) migrated back into palestine following the roman conquest. It is likely that both groups repopulated from the north and it is likely this explains at least some similarities between Jews and Palestinians. The genetics, IMHO, cannot distinguish the ancestry of the Jews without dealing with transmigration issue. Another problem with the Jewish studies, several of the HLA identifiers are shared all across the mediterranean basin at levels consistent with early east-west colonization (neolithic) with levels that cannot be explained solely based on Jewish migration. There is a reasonable probability that both palestinian and Jews can attribute much of their ancestry to migrants from Eastern Anatolia in the prehistoric period. However I would contend based on Y DNA and certain markers (like A*6901) that both population are admixtures between migrants and the original inhabitants of the region. It seems however, that for migrants, the major contributor was the upper Euphrates. The Levant is a crossroads, archaeologically, it has shown itself to be a place of morhological substitution over time. There is nothing evident that suggest this would have stopped for the prehistoric and early biblical period. If these TRUE (blech) Jews living in the Southern Levant embraced islam, then it is not at all evident in the genetic makeup of G. Palestinians who carry many NE African markers. Indeed the fact that much of southern Israel population was a transient at the onset of the Mandate suggests that the region between the dead sea, Negrev and Aqaba was more or less unoccupied during part of the year. This is part of the reason the palestinians lost so much of their territory, by purging the bedouins from the south, the more or less undermined the public lands claim. So if these S. Jews became Muslim, by and large they migrated northward before the Israeli state formed.

This Israeli chronology is immaterial, by the time of 1920, diaspora Jews greatly outnumber the entire population of Palestine (excluding Bedouins, Gaza Ps and Catholics) by a magnitude and more. The 70,000 jews that remained are likely migrants who drifted back in under Turkic rule, and the palestinians also represent transmigrants from other parts of the region.

Can I offer a suggestion, is the whole Jew/Arab divide issue really an important topic for the main page. Can the main page be written avoiding the emphasis on migratory events that have multiple possible chronologies, and where the size of the migration and degree of post-migration admixture is drawn into question? PB666 yap 22:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any published source at all which explicitly connects anything you have written above to the Y DNA haplogroup J1? I think you do not. If you do not have anything to say about sources which explicitly mention haplogroup J1, then I believe it is inappropriate to post on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.John Lloyd Scharf 10:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is there any reason you are posting this all over the talk page? This editing behaviour appears to be tendentious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In every case where I posted, you have violated that Wikipedia policy. You are making them up as you go along, now. Like moving the comments of others. Pathetic. Grow up. John Lloyd Scharf 15:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is correcting two mis-statements made on this page. In terms of sources, historical sources are the League of Nation annual reports on the Palestinian Mandate (1922 to 1937), which are available through the United Nations Website. The Palestinian HLA data has been published although the original report was retracted for political reasons, along with several papers on Jewish HLA. These are available at allelefrequencies.net, along with the haplotypes. The source on pre-Mandate Jewish settlement comes from wikipedia, but are also mentioned in the league of Nations documents. Correct knowledge of migrations is essential (in the case where purges are near complete or where migrations are a major source of current genetic makeup) to the argument of origins or ancestral types. Misstatements or misassumptions lead to inaccurate pages subject to unnecessary edit wars). The historic facts minimizes the singular importance of diaspora in considering J1a and supports the merging of the two under on subtitle dealing with arab migrations.
 * It is interesting that you two are criticizing me when most of what has been written on this page and the main page is not encyclopedic, and not fit for either page. I completely justify my stance, I have established that the chronology of J1 evolution is intrinsically debatable (due to lousy Y molecular clocking), and therefore difficult to tie to a single historical migration event. I have established that the clarity of genetic association (ancestral versus admixture) is questionable, and refuted arguments pertaining to persistent Jewish settlement in Palestine after 135 AD. So what everyone here needs to do is back off and consider the data, and minimize promoting and interpreting conclusions from the lousy literature out there. This is the fundemental underlying cause for the pages of debate on this page, 100s of lines before I showed up between you two justify the fact that you are circumventing the core issues and focused on folly.PB666 yap 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PD, I agree that chronology of Y DNA is intrinsically debatable and difficult to tie to specific migrations. That is also how the experts write and I suggest that is also how this article should be written. JLS has of course argued that this leads to bad writing style. I believe you have not really looked closely at the subject under discussion, nor the discussions on the talk page.
 * Anyway, you propose "merging of the two". What are the two?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

PB666, it is useless. He cannot read a sentence, much less a paragraph. I agree with you on the incompatibility of the molecular clock with historic migrations as verified by carbon 14 dating, et cetera. John Lloyd Scharf 17:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Complaint of JohnLloydScharf about Andrew Lancaster moving things around
It really does not matter. Andrew is moving around what others post according to his whim. I caught his manipulative move of my post today. John Lloyd Scharf 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC) BOTTOM LINE-the Map is wrong: ________________________ http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. John Lloyd Scharf 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 35x73.4%=26.005 or 26 J1-Khartoum Students
 * 35x17.1%= 5.985 or 6 J1-Arabic
 * 61x04.9%= 2.989 or 3 J1-Nilo-Saharan
 * 131x26.7%= 34.979 or 35 J1 total
 * "We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan...Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan."
 * 445x34.4%=153.08 E Haplogroup


 * John, I have been constantly refactoring your posts in order to meet community norms since I first encountered you. I have also constantly been asking you to do it instead, but you have in fact at least once asked me to feel welcome to do it for you. Pasting random blocks of text into any place at all is not going to make this article better is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not have the faculties or the authority to do that. Since you deleted the request and lied about Hassan, [http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls} you cannot assert anything about community norms. John Lloyd Scharf 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You went over the line when you deleted one of my two edit requests. "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of  other editors  without their permission.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf  (talk • contribs)  25 June 2011 (UTC) (note date)


 * Are you talking about the archiving of discussions which were no longer active? (Except for your pasting of blocks of identical text into all sections of the talk page.) This is normal on Wikipedia, and archiving more diligently become very important when we have Pdeitiker turning up, especially when you and our IP friend are already making a mess here. Everything can still be referred to by diffs and is in the archive. Your habit of constantly wanting half a dozen sections mixing discussion about the same subjects is also not one I am going to help or support. The neatness of this talk page is important in order to allow proper discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC0
 * Nice try. No joy. You are lying. Like you did about Hassan not testing for J1. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls John Lloyd Scharf 16:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do not want your posts refactored please format them properly and do not post comments about other talk page sections in the wrong places. There is another place to discuss Hassan et al, above, and I have responded. Concerning this complaint of yours above, it is up to you if you want to explain yourself. I asked what deletions you are referring to. If you want to make half-cocked accusations and then refuse to back them up you will end up looking like a dick. Please note that I have been trying to help you, whereas most people would not. One main complaint I get, including from you in the case of the IP editor, is that I try to help people who should not be helped. If you try to work the way you are working much longer you are eventually going to hit much less flexible and helpful responses from other editors. I am going to presume you were just referring to the archiving, and you did not want to back down when you realized.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are always making the wrong assumptions, like you did about Hassan et al, http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls The last archive would not have moved that, given the dates. John Lloyd Scharf 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look in the archives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Making matters here worse
WTH, since obviously my point is not being understood, lets focus on the damn article, stop fighting with each other.

"Though the greatest density of J1 today centres on the southern Levant, Jacques Chiaroni, Roy King and their colleagues found that the highest haplotype diversity of the sub-clade J1c3 (J-P58) was in the Taurus and Zagros mountain region, the cradle of the Neolithic. High diversity provides a clue to origin. They propose that populations carrying haplogroup J1c3 were involved in the first disposals of Semitic languages across the region."

Development of agriculture within the upper euphrates region occurred appreciably around 10,000 years ago, both the genetic coalescence studies and the archaeological sampling place the TMRCA and PMRCA about 50 miles from the Syrian/Turkish border along the upper euphrates at that time. The developement of hexaploid wheat and the variety that is used in the Levant (dry adapted wheat) came later. Hexaploid wheat was domesticated couple 1000 years later in Armenia/Iranian border region, the third genome, Aegilops tsauschi strangulata, PMRCAs to this region. There is no evidence linking the Semetic languages with the domestication of wheat or developement of agriculture. The earliest signs of civilization in the region are along the Syrian/Iraqi border some 4000 years later, well after the domestication of hexaploid wheat, by this time wheat agriculture had already spread significantly eastward and well beyond mesopotamia. The site in which wheat was domesticated lies on the margin between the Indo-European languages and the semitic languages, but lies also within the ill-defined Hattatic language region. Semetic languages are part of the Afro-asiatic language branch that was clearly represented by civilizations that appearred in mesopotamia, but also the assyrians. These were surrounded on all but the SW sides by other language families. It is dubious that semetic languages can be tied to expansion from Anatolia.PB666 yap 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

" Concerning more recent movements of peoples, J1c3 (J-P58) has also been associated with the spread of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries AD, which spread Arabic-speakers across North Africa and and into Iberia in the West and throughout the Middle East and into Iran.[4][5] Likewise it has been associated with the Jewish diaspora.[6] However Chiaroni et al. (2010) agree with Tofanelli et al. (2009) in doubting that the Islamic expansions are old enough to completely explain the patterns of J1 frequencies, especially in areas such as Turkey, the Caucausus, and Ethiopia. These areas are notably high in J1* (see below under distribution) and are also regions where the Neolithic arrived with people from the Near East, but were not heavily penetrated at a later date by Arabs. "

The problem with this hypothesis is that evidence from E1b1b1b indicates a significant east to west expansion (associated with the berber peoples somewhere between 3000 and 10000 years ago). If this is the case the E1b1b1b displaced other Y haplotypes within the N.African region prior recent Arabization of north Africa. Many genetic studies now indicated that the level of gene flow from Arabia into North Africa is far less than believed, that there was alot of cultural assimilation that went along. Prior to the Islamic movement there was the genetic effect of the Hyksos and the Phonecians (western canaanites) on North Africa. The Hyksos were eventually dispersed to points unknown and after the punic wars the assimilated citizens of Carthage.PB666 yap 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

" Apart from the Jewish "Cohen" haplotype, Semino et al. (2000) associated this DNA profile with the Arab expansion in the seventh century AD, and noted that it was most frequent amongst J1 men in the Middle East and North Africa, but less frequent in Ethiopia and Europe.

PB666 yap

SEE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771134/ John Lloyd Scharf 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) "

SEE:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239/?tool=pubmed In this paper you will find that they put forth evidence of social selection for a Y chromosome based on surnames. They place the TMRCA at 1700 years, which is probably overstating the age given the method they are using and the temporal depth to which they refer. The so-called biblical Aaron would have lived 3500 years ago, more than enough time for a younger gravitation toward a y chromosome based on surname selection. Again, one has to resist draw conclusions based on Y chromosome because of it effective population size and haploid nature, it tends to evolve idiosyncratically.PB666 yap 00:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is conjecture, it has very little meaning in genetics. If you folks read what I wrote about and stop dissing it, you'de realize that these types of conclusions are what is wrong with the Y chromosomal studies.PB666 yap 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the Tofanelli et al. (2009) paper in the conclusions, it says,"To resume, our results clearly reject the scenario put forward so far of a strict correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes." When he says something cannot be proven, that is about the only time I can agree with him. John Lloyd Scharf 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There must be a tribal war over who is the most pure tribe as many Saudis are testing. They have filled the J1c3d2 subclade on ysearch. Their haplotype is 388 STR=17 almost exclusively and the exceptions are even higher. John Lloyd Scharf 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations they are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Their estimates of the coalescence time also lend support to the hypothesis that the extended CMH represents a unique founding lineage of the ancient Hebrews that has been paternally inherited along with the Jewish priesthood. However, the sharing of several less frequent haplogroups (and modal haplotypes within these haplogroups) between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities, as well as evidence for the persistence of population-specific Cohanim haplogroups, supports the formulation that males from other remote lineages also contributed to the Jewish priesthood, both before and after the separation of Jewish populations in the Diaspora. Genotyping a larger sample of Cohanim Y chromosomes from other divergent haplogroups may further elucidate the complex paternal history of Jewish priests, and aid in the identification of lost tribes claiming ancient Hebrew ancestry.John Lloyd Scharf 20:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you guys use your personal talkpages for this discussion? This one is just about Y DNA haplogroup J1.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * you are either ignorant or can't read, Andrew, this is exactly about quotes from the main page, unlike what you ahve been discussing on this talk page.PB666 yap 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So just by putting a quote into your massive posts you think they become relevant? Which part of the Wikipedia article under discussion are you discussing, and what changes are you suggesting, based on which reliable sources? You do not even show signs of having read the Wikipedia article, or of being familiar with the positions of the editors here. You are just blogging.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to at least chuckle about your remark. You know, just about any statement made somewhere on the net can be googled. That is why it is impossible to get away with plagiarizer if you know enough about Boolean Algebra and other search techniques. I certainly know about who is editing and what their biases are.

JSL:This is not a topic for your religious gibberish, it is about Y DNA haplogroup J1.Discuss your gibberish in other place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is JSL and where is the religious jibberish?PB666 yap 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * JSL=JohnLloydScharf. I think it is not possible you would not even know what this IP post was referring to, if you have any familiarity with the actual postings of JSL and his argument with the IP. How it appears to me is that essentially JSL wants Jews as a continuous and homogeneous population to be the core of the J1 story, which is something no reliable source gives us, and this is why he has consistently taken any position possible which would de-emphasize the African aspect of J1, no matter what the sources say. We now see him below even apparently taking the new position that for example modern Tunisians have 30% J1 not because of Arabs but because of Jews. On the other hand, the IP wants modern Jews not to be treated as a single ethnic group at all. These are two untenable extremes, but at least our IP editor is not demanding that the article be changed to reflect his position. Your digressions are just allowing this mess to take over more and more of the talk page in a form that makes the real issues unclear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is from Hammer et al on J1e. Obviously, this 217.137.120.107 has some sort of religious bigotry motivating him/her/it. John Lloyd Scharf 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, they ignorantly believe calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2 Kybp (95% CI: 4.5 – 8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought, and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp). I guess they think Judaism sprang into being while Christianity was in its infancy. However, they are also not ready to reject the scenario put forward so far of a correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes. John Lloyd Scharf 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

John Lloyd Scharf

"I guess they think Judaism sprang into being while Christianity was in its infancy"...What bunch of religious gibberish..No one has reconstructed Aaron's body to verify his haplogroup/ haplotype.

Okay if you want to resort to Religious mythical scriptures rather than the scientific testable facts, then Jews are NOT  the Israelites. Israelites in the e scriptures Gen 35:11-12 defined to be the biological blood descendants of a mythical man named Jacob the Israel,while a Jew is anyone whom adhere to the later self invented faith called Judaism( aka jewishness)regardless of his or her race. So John ( according to the scriptures, according Breshit/Genesis 35:11-12)if you are not a direct biological blood descendant of a mytical man named Jacob/Israel you are then ,a GOY a, GENTILE even if you happen to be a cohen Jew with a Y-DNA J1( that if  Aaron the myth is proven to be J1 not J2, E, R1b1 or Q).

The question is how can you prove yourself to be a direct biological blood descendant of a man named Jacob the Israel(who is a myth) to be called an Isralite not a Gentile/Goy ?

Plus do you know that there is NO one single word " Jew יְהוּדִי‎ " bing mentioned in the "Allegedly" five books of Moses or even in minor books (e.g Kings, Samuel(I&II)...etc ??... When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודיIt is an invention Called 'The Jewish People.There never were Jewish people.

So it is better not to continue into this religious bug bugs borrowed from pagan Canaanite-Ugaritic shenanigan belief.

Cheers mate

How does one grow into adulthood without knowing about the Dead Sea Scrolls? You have to be raised by inbred Aryan Airheads to to call the Torah "allegedly." If that were so, then you need to dispense with all history from at least before the invention of moveable type. John Lloyd Scharf 17:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 @ John Lloyd Scharf The Dead Sea Scrolls shed a light to the Pagan Canaanite-Ugaritic origin of Judiaisim

4QDeutj: "When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]בְּנֵי אֵלִים ). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance". Dead Sea Scrolls the original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:8-9

"El", was the name of the chief Ugaritic-Caananite god. El had 70 sons, one of which was purported to be YHWH. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in Dead Sea Scrolls is usually cited in support of this.Interestingly, the Masoretes altered this verse(to sons of Israel) in the middle ages in an attempt to remove this link to Canaanite religion from the Bible. It was (and is) a fairly embarrassing scripture. Also of interest: despite the conclusive evidence that the Masoretic rendition of this scripture is a later "correction", not the original text, the New World Translation continues to use the Masoretic fudged version instead of the original rendering.

The Dead Sea Scrolls attest(and support the Septuagint) that YHWH is nothing more than a Pagan minor Ugaritic god Under EL in the council/ Pantheon of gods.

Other interesting texts


 * Psalm 82:1: Elohim has taken his place in the assembly of EL, in the midst of the elohim He holds judgment.


 * Psalm 29:1: Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of EL, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.


 * Psalm 89:6: For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh,

This explains why the OT YHWH was such a jealous and vengeful god; the Isrealites were his inheritance from El, and he needed to make sure they weren't buggering off and worshipping any of his 69 brothers.

I think you should quit Paganism and resort to science John.

Merger proposal
After having looked over it, it appears there are a series of sub-clade articles related to this one, which are all in a messy state, and all using the same sources to say (or not say) the same things. Please consider WP:MERGE which says that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." Comments welcome, but I think these articles should be rolled into one and then at least people's efforts will also be focussed on one place. These articles need improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am dancing as fast as I can. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Andrew on this one. --Genie (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done this merger now, after having asked for comments for some time. I believe that this article currently overlaps perfectly, in terms of what we can source, with any of the child clades of J1.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is just the problem. Your changes cannot be trusted because you make assumptions or outright lie about the fact, as you did with Hassan et al.


 * You don't need to trust me. What was your own opinion? So you were against the merger? It did not seem so previously. Did you ever give any argument against the merger?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your involvement in the merger tainted that. John Lloyd Scharf 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that constructive comment. So the merger is OK, but you were just wanting to make a big point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:APayan
I have contacted User talk:APayan about the most recent edits on this article, but as I see there are now two of us posting on that person's talkpage, I copy the discussion here and suggest that discussion should continue here:---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New Comment. I do not see anything in the comments of User:JohnLloydScharf which alleviates the basic concern which is that none of the sources he or APayan are proposing to use discuss J1 at all, and they certainly do not propose that modern north Africans received their J1 from ancient Jewish immigrants. This is a fairly basic problem unless I am missing something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted the edits in question, but if anyone can find a real source for this, which clearly says J1 in Maghrebian non Jews comes from either Phoenicians or Jews, please say so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In for a dime in for a dollar. The punic wars ended 2000 years ago and carthage was obliterated, the molecular clocking is not that accurate, phonecians settled in many areas of north Africa, and there was transmigration from iberia to north africa up until the punic wars. The extent of gene flow is an unknown. I have placed the citation needed tag on several references, I removed the sentence about what Semino thought in 2000 about 7th century expansion, this is a dated reference, and the Y chromosomal stuff done that that time was sub-par, the statement is more opinion and speculation than fact, and the statistics speak against such a narrow interpretation when such a broad confidence interval exists for the molecular coalescence, which we all know to be fact.PB666 yap 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I reiterate, build a consensus on factoids and sturdy results, avoid opinion and speculation. Recognize that the moleuclar clocking of Y by SNPs is both statistically (power) and calibrationally challenged. That the molecular clocking by STRs in real time is markedly different from the correction used commonly used. Avoid opinion from the literature, particularly opinions over 5 years in age because much of these results can be scientifically challenged due to low sample density and low statistical power.PB666 yap 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This section about North Africa is not talking especially about J1 but says "Arabic and Berber speaking populations in Africa seem to have received migrations of men from the Middle East, possibly Arabic". So this extremely inaccurate as most historians agree that Phoenician and Jewish migrations to  North Africa were very likely more important than Arab migrations. So if you refer to genetic studies that talk about J1 in North Africa, in this case you must write something like this "Regarding J1 contribution to North Africa, it could be due to Arab migrations ..." . APayan (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for replying. I think this clears things up and makes sense. Actually the section you are referring to, except for its first sentence, is meant to be about J1, not migrations in general. Is that not clear? On the other hand, I notice now that the introductory sentence is a general remark but it does mention Phoenicians and Jews. I will try to tweak the wording to clear your concern up. Thanks!!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's better better now. However there is one sentence that is also inaccurate : "Their J1 is dominated by J-P58, and noticeably more common amongst Arabic speakers". Thats not correct as shown by all recent studies. In the Tunisian samples, for example, we clearly see that Sened Berbers (31.4%) have much more J1 than Jerbian Arabs (8.7%). As indicated in the section the main difference is not between Arab or Berber speaking populations but between rural and urban areas...APayan (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I see now you had already adjusted it and I was reading your own work back to you, but I think my adjustments help further. Your new point is an interesting one, and I think it comes from studies others have added to this article since I started re-building it. I will tweak. Thanks again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)