Talk:Javan

Is Javan's genealogy correct?
I thought Javan would be the ancestor of Javanese and Japanese.

April 2008
The reasons for the addition of "off topic" and "synth" tags to Hkavniel's latest addition, should be obvious; the sources cited do not make any mention whatsoever of the article topic, i.e. the Biblical figure Javan son of Japheth, and instead, the entire subject of Illyrian genetics belongs on another article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your email
Til...you deleted all my posts to Sons of Noah now you are doing it again on Javan. This is behaviour that is...childish. What's your email and I'll send you the article. If you can clearly demonstrate how my synthesis is inaccurate I won't object. I sent my synthesis to one of the writers of the original article...before you began this "edit war" again on Javan. This is the second time you're engaging in an edit war with me just so you realize it. Hkp-avniel (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not deleting it yet; I'm leaving it up with the synth tag, so other editors can evaluate whether your addition to Javan is on topic. I don't want any e-mail.  If you have an article that actually mentions the subject (ie Javan son of Japheth) somewhere, reproduce the relevant portion here and we can all take a look at how relevant it is. You can't use sources about Illyrian genetics to make some kind of WP:POINT about Javan, if the sources don't specifically mention Javan somehow. Please read WP:SYNT policy to familiarize yourself with the project standards on this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not saying your synthesis is incorrect; I'm saying it is original. (Thus the synt policy appears on the WP:OR page, another cornerstone policy). It could be perfectly correct, but we still cannot use it if it is an original; ie unpublished, synthesis or point being made. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussing Genetics on Sons of Noah Pages
ok...fair enough...I really didn't start editing on Wikipedia just so I can enter a new arena of warfare. Give me some pointers that you will agree with on how to include attempts by current ethnologists, geneticists and archaeologists, to try and figure out who Javan was and is.

So here point by point below indicate what you think so we can break through this deadlock Hkp-avniel (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) :

1. Dicussing genetics is not relevant to understanding ancient people groups, like the ancient Greeks?

Note, that precedent on Wikipedia shows that articles dealing with biblical figures, such as Aaron, Israelites (where I've made some changes to pre-existing page), and the Jewish priestly caste: Cohenim Y chromosomal Aaron, Samaritans, more I'm sure, do discuss genetics in relation to the Bible.


 * Hkp-avniel says: discussing genetics is appropriate Hkp-avniel (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel says: INSERT OPINION HERE

2. Listing various opinions based on sourced genetics papers and archaeological research is a valid source for discussions about the genetics of the Javan and all Sons of Noah for that matter.


 * Hkp-avniel says: gentics papers/archaeology are valid sources for use in this dicussion Hkp-avniel (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel says: INSERT OPINION HERE

3. Seeing where and how the Biblical text of Genesis 10 plays out in the real world (genetics, archaeology), is appropriately discussed under the specific wikipedia articles for the names and people groups in the text, such as Javan.


 * Hkp-avniel says: of course, this is the most interesting part Hkp-avniel (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel says: INSERT OPINION HERE

4. Javan may have refered to a geographical place name and not an actual person


 * Hkp-avniel says: likely a tradition of a historical person, but later a place name Hkp-avniel (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel says: INSERT OPINION HERE

5. Any other issue of discussion goes here


 * Wikipedia really isn't the place for us to be debating our OPINIONS. A lot of new people usually make this mistake, but the longer you spend here, the more hopefully you will realize that our opinions as editors are totally irrelevant.  Only opinions of published authors are relevant - provided they are on topic and mention the article subject.  We strictly aren't supposed to be developing our own theses here and testing them out; this isn't Wikiversity.
 * You asked "Give me some pointers that you will agree with on how to include attempts by current ethnologists, geneticists and archaeologists, to try and figure out who Javan was and is."
 * Here is my response: IF these said geneticists, archaeologists, ethnologists actually discuss Biblical Javan, they may certainly be considered as on-topic to this article. If they are talking about Illyrian or Greek genetics studies or whatever instead, and the name "Javan" does not even appear once in their writing anywhere, then you are making an Original synthesis by trying to use their writings to "prove" some kind of hitherto unpublished "point" about the Biblical Javan that these authors did not make.  I hope that is simple enough and fair enough, because it is what our 5 pillar policy says, if you look into it carefully. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over summary of Balkans-Illyrians
Original text of edit: "Historians and archaeologists indicate that the Balkan people groups were not related to the ancient Greeks, but are believed to descend from the Illyrians, an ancient people group that inhabitated the region of the modern Balkan states, located immediately North of ancient and modern Greece along the Western coast. While tradition states their origins to the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age, the Illyrians first enter the archaeological record in the 7th Century BCE [Source: Illyrians]. Geneticists have linked both haplogroups E and J and their subclades to the Balkans based on genetic studies of modern populations."


 * Please explain how to fix this summary so that it does not violate the "synthesis" claim. Hkp-avniel (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By showing where the author has ever discussed or addressed the article subject (Biblical Javan) in any way. Looks to me like he is talking about Illyrian genetics, so using him on this article is definitely a "synthesis", unless you produce a quote from him where he uses the name "Javan". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Biblical Javan is agreed to refer to ancient Greece. I define "ancient" as the earliest man to the end of the Roman Empire. Javan refers to Neolithic Greece when the first communities were found right up until Alexander the Great as some associate with the text of Daniel 8:21...a clear and definite reference to Javan. So I included a genetics article that discusses the ancient Greeks of the Neolithic period and revised it a bit. Here's the title of the article and the link to the summary where you can read it:


 * Title: Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic
 * Link: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00414.x


 * Is it a matter that you don't consider Neolithic history part of ancient history? Hkp-avniel (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all; it is a matter of, I haven't yet seen where any of your sources even mention "Javan" at all, and Wikipedia is simply not allowed to be the first one in the world to ever use these studies to try to define Javan, full stop. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "full stop" what does that mean? Who exactly do you think Javan refers to the Japanese? Javan equals ancient Greece it's just a different word used in the Bible. If they translate this article into modern Hebrew how do you think they will spell Greece? Here it is straight from Babylon online translator: יוון they just inserted an extra ו but it comes from the biblical Hebrew יון. In some sense its analogous to Cyprus: Biblical Hebrew: קפתרים modern Hebrew =  קפריסין. Javan = ancient Greece I don't think is "synthesis" a violation of NPOV or even remotely controversial.


 * Are you saying that an article in a differnt language other than English can't be used as a source for this article on Javan because they might spell it differently? By analogy look at a few instances of how "Greece" is spelt in different modern languages:


 * Hungarian: Gorogorszag
 * German: Griechenland
 * French: Grece
 * Spanish: Grecia
 * modern Hebrew: יוון
 * biblical Hebrew: יון
 * biblical Greek: ÔEllavß (Hellas)


 * So is what you are saying that I can't use an article that takes about ancient Hellas to refer to this article on Javan? Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is foremost about a Biblical character and discussions of the interpretation; if nobody before us has ever used this genetic material in Scriptural analysis, or in reference to the Biblical character, our then making that leap would seem to be a novel connection. We are supposed to avoid connecting dots that haven't been connected in print.  At most, I would recommend just making a "see also" to an article on Balkan genetics, where this info belongs. Aside from the fact that it is off topic here anyway, I can't even tell what point you are trying to make.  "A recent analysis (March 2008) on the archaeological record and genetic history of ancient Crete and ancient Greece (biblical Javan) identifed the modern Balkan states as a source population of the ancient Greek Mycenaean culture of the Late Bronze Age (1600 - 1100 BCE), which was principally located in ancient South-Eastern Greece."  Does this mean A) The ancient Greeks are descended from the modern Balkan states? B) The population of the modern Balkan states are descended from ancient Greeks? C) The ancient Greeks migrated from what is now the modern Balkan states, and modern genetics can somehow prove this? D) None of the above?  No matter which one the answer is, I can't see where anyone has ever related this to Bible study before us. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when is Wikipedia a "Bible Study"? I'm new here, but I think it is an encylopedia, isn't it? Please answer this question:


 * 1. Dicussing genetics is not relevant to understanding ancient people groups, like the ancient Greeks?


 * Note, that precedent on Wikipedia shows that articles dealing with biblical figures, such as Aaron, Israelites (where I've made some changes to pre-existing page), and the Jewish priestly caste: Cohenim Y chromosomal Aaron, Samaritans, more I'm sure, do discuss genetics in relation to the Bible.


 * It is highly relevant to the topic of ethnology and Genesis 10 is an "ancient ethnology" as described on the Sons of Noah page.


 * Dimadick added links to the specific haplogroups (genetic categories) on the Javan page in the revision as of 13:24, 8 April 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javan&oldid=204208145 so I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who wants this information added to this page. Is that not then two wikipedia editors who want this section on genetics on this page? Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (uid) If as you say, "it is highly relevant to the topic of ethnology and Genesis 10", then there will surely be some reference you can find that discusses the two together. I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm saying you haven't found any yet.  If nobody ever has, we must not "boldly go where no man has gone before" and be the first to do so. Note that I am apparently not the only editor who thinks this needs to go, either. No, Wikipedia as a whole is not a Bible study, but this specific article is squarely and solely about a study of a Bible name; tangential discussions not directly mentioning that name should perhaps be linked, but not included in this article as they are Undue weight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Undue weight? how in the world is that relevant? Isn't this an instance of wikilawyering or whatever they call it in reference to Gaming the system and Disruptive editing? Two editors want the genetics section in, and you don't? Doesn't that mean that you are going against consensus? There is no "synthesis" involved in this section at all. It's exactly on subject. If I'm studying Genesis 10 and I want to know more about Javan and I search Wikipedia, then it is directly related to know what and who scientists and historians think the ancient Greeks=Javan were. We do the same every day in archaeology. Try to figure out what people group belongs to the little bits of junk that are dug up at archaeology sites.


 * Hypothetical: Find something that seems to be related to the ancient Greeks in an ancient Israelite setting so look up the bible to figure out who the ancient Hebrews thought the ancient Greeks were and where a particular people group might be found. So now, ancient Greek finds in Israel linked to Javan...where is Javan today so we can investigate. Thanks to the geneticists we can look in Greece and Crete...might be Philistine since they are believed to be from Crete...and then geneticists say some Cretans around the Minoan period seem to be from Anatolia then check and yup, some Archaeologists believe the Philistines were from Anatolia...so maybe there is a relation to between the Minoans and the Philistines...double check...potsherd with picture of ship from ancient Knossos, Crete looks identical to potsherds/reliefs depicting Philistine ships, etc etc... I think you are engaging in Gaming the system and Disruptive editing...including using message boxes to attack content that you either don't agree with or maybe don't understand. I don't know what you do for a living or whatever...but archaeogenetics is now a reality...and it bears directly upon the Bible and the ancient people groups of the biblical world. Seriously, it's time to join us in the quest for the Genetics of the Ancient World.


 * I respectfully ask you to remove the message boxes as they are not valid objections. Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, all we want to know is, "whose hypothesis is that?" We have to have the name of a published author. We just can't attribute this hypothesis to User:Hkp-avniel.  Your final sentence "it's time to join us in the quest" says it all about what you think this is.  Again, try v:.  We don't quest here, we just report on what others have quested. Also, I am hardly going against consensus.  Aside from me, another editor removed the section, then put it back up for discussion with a comment that it doesn't belong (check the history tab).  Then we see on your talk page that all of the experienced editors who responded to your requests for assistance, told you the same thing. BpEps writes: "I do see the other editors point that the section my fall out of the scope of the article. It seems to infer (or is that my inference?) that Biblical Scholarship is as sound as modern Anthropology."  Hmmm, that could be the very reasoning why these geneticists never seem to talk about the character "Javan" in relation to any of this, so why should we?  Unless you can show where anyone else ever has, of course - that would be relevant. Then Peter Symonds also wrote about this article: "I think the section on Ethnogenetic studies does stray from the topic and should be cut down."  That makes four.  I say cut it down to a "see also" to Greeks, and let people read about it there.  Over here, it's still a synth unless it is a reference talking about Biblical Javan. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I just don't understand. Javan is about the ancient Greeks, is it not? Here are the names of the geneticists who authored the article about the genetics of the ancient Greeks: King, R. J.; Ozcan, S. S., Carter, T., Kalfoglu, E., Atasoy, S., Triantaphyllidis, C., Kouvatsi, A., Lin, A. A., Chow, C-E. T., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Michalodimitrakis, M., Underhill, P. A. ...see the references on Javan or a summary of the article at Genetics of the Ancient World under Mediterranean. Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but who, oh please who, has ever made any inferences about Genesis 10 on the basis of this genetic study? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for Hkp-avniel
Maybe I just haven't explained it simply enough; so let me try to rephrase what our policy says one more time. Has anyone, anywhere, at any time, ever once, made any kind of attempt to tie these Illyrian genetics studies in with the Biblical name "Javan"? If so, and if it is in any way meaningful, I would support its inclusion, and would even fight for its inclusion, because any sources about Javan should be mentioned here. But, if no one has ever done this before (which so far appears to be the case), then Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first one in the world to ever publish such a connection. We can only use connections that have already been made in print. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok...this is definitely a miscommunication. The article is NOT about Illyrian genetics. I inserted that since there is a link to this interesting Iron Age people group/kingdom known as the Illyrians and it is relevant to figure out who where the ancient Greeks. The article IS about ancient Greece or biblical Javan. They were trying to figure out who were the ancient Greeks and found them in haplogroup J2. This is like an article about the ancient Cohenim of Israel saying we checked and modern Cohenim are in J1 (and a bunch of other haplogroups as well). make sense? Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me a quote from the article that includes the word "Javan". If it doesn't, then it looks like nobody before us has ever thought of relating any of this to the Biblical Javan, and this is a novel argument in the field of Javan studies.  However, if the point has been made before, and someone will have written about it, that is the kind of source we can use.  The little message on the synthesis tag says it all: Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Javan". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again...this is directly analogous to an article on Aaron which discusses his DNA, the Cohen Modal Type (Y chromosomal Aaron) but never actually refers to Aaron. I can give you a list of articles that talk about the Cohen Modal Haplotype that make no direct reference to Aaron of Moses or Levi or Abraham. Aaron does include genetic data. Why is this an issue? Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is an article about Y chromosomal Aaron, then I would assume that some published reference has mentioned "Aaron" in connection with genetic studies. In this case, we are still wanting a published author who has mentioned "Javan" in connection with genetic studies.  But if you find one, let's add it and keep it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, since you say you have credentials, maybe you could write an journal article or book called "Y chromosomal Javan", and get it published and peer reviewed in the appropriate venue -- then I would even add it in for you (so that you wouldn't get accused of WP:COI!) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I've finally understood the point you were trying to imply that actually connects this with the topic, so I have given it some context and removed the tags. It's still a little tenuous as the sources really are not about Javan per se, but I will agree to this compromise if it means ending this dispute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnogenetic studies once again
While I can't, personally, evaluate genetic findings or even if they are used properly here (ie not violating synthesis etc; a second opinion of someone with knowledge of the field would be nice), -why- do genetics belong to an article about a Biblical ancestor and not to the article discussing Greek genetics, which is even linked in that section (Greeks)? The whole section should be moved to the Greeks article. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like it either. Parts of it should be merged into Greeks which allready has a pretty extensive genetics section anyway. In any event it doesn't say anything new. ALL humans have a single ancestor, probably going back to a single amoeba at that. The only reason I am not deleting out of hand is that someone has gone into alot of trouble to source extensively and I don't want to be a spoilsport. But could they please consider condensing it to a small para and moving to Greeks? I will try to read through it and condense it myself. Then it should be deleted.Xenovatis (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)