Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron/Archive 5

Chris you have NOT answered these questions
1. DNA mutation rates, coalescence, 9,12,25,37,67 markers results means nothing if you have not established FIRST what the true Haplogroup of Pinchas the Offspring of Aaron is.

2. what make you and other believe and absolutely so sure that J2 is the only Pinchas' haplogroup not J1,R1,E etc?

3. According to the Bible Table of nations Gen 10 ,Arabs of the south Hazarmaveth, Sheba, Jocktanites are close related to Abraham, Ishmael ,Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Aaron, and we can not ignore them if we mention the Origin and Ancestry of pinchas Zadokites, since they are all Hebrews come from Eber. All direct descendants of Eber the most recent common grand father of all of them.According to the Hebrew Bible Eber died at age 464 when Jacob was 20 Gen 11:14-17.

4. What make you speculate that Pinchas and hence Aaron is J2 not J1 while most Arabs Hebrews are J1? Have you reconstituted Pinchas body or just speculation that goes against irrefutable scientific testable facts at hands(That Hebrew Arabs are most if not all J1) and even against the TaNach that testify Hebranic Male y-Origin of Aaron and Pinchas?

5. All that come if we supposed that Pinchas is a legitimate true biological blood grand son of Aaron not a sheketz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.139.13 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User, it is about a full precisely combination such as coalescence, mutation rates, botleneck, common ancestral, time-frame, 9,12,25,37,67 markers and etc. J1 is not related to a ancestral that lived on the times of Pinchas. Buy and read the full article on Nature. Cohanim J1e*-P58* - A common ancestor lived 1,075 ± 130 ybp, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. A common ancestor of all the J1e* Cohanim lived around the tenth century AD. There are three main lineages derived from the common ancestor, with their common ancestors who lived approximately between 625 and 875 ybp. (It cannot be from anyone from the Bible). User, please bring your reliable sources, not your own personal view. Bring us an article published by official scientific paper, stating that there are any other Cohens in haplogroup besides J2aM140 that has a the coalescence time, common ancestral and time-fram of Pinchas, precisely 3,200 years. Bring reliable source. The current article is based on published material by world top geneticists and companies, not from a especulative arquments. You simply seem not to understand the basic of DNA genetic.

Do not delete material from the main article, whitout the consensus, or we will block you from editing. See your talk page, other editors already warned you. --MCohenNY (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris You are AVOIDING answering the question

Question is what make you believe that J2 is Pinchas y-Dna? Have you re-constituted Pinchas's body and took and examine his DNA or just speculation?

Again I repeat DNA mutation rates, coalescence, 9,12,25,37,67 markers results means nothing,if you have not established FIRST what the true Haplogroup of Pinchas the Offspring of Aaron is.Coalesecence markers do not indicate what exactly Pinchas actual y-haplogroup is.

The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C/J-P58*/J1e* mutation,which is prevalent in the Near East.Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58*/J1e* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim.The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years.

89.211.139.13 (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hammer et al (2009a), Klysov (2009), Hammer et al (2009b)
Enough.

Per WP's most fundamental core principles, this article needs to be based principally on what the published sources say. In this case that means the three papers:


 * Michael Hammer et al (2009a), Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood, Human Genetics, 126(5), 707–717 (open access)
 * Anatole Klyosov (2009), Comment on the paper: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood, Human Genetics, 126(5), 719–724
 * Michael Hammer et al (2009b), Response, Human Genetics, 126(5), 725–726

The Hammer paper is important, because substantially it confirms all of the grouping patterns, currently identified by our article on only a preliminary basis. Klyosov indeed commends it as being "remarkable with respect to the haplogroups and haplotype typing and the large number of individuals tested, including Cohanim". So the article needs to be updated, to reflect the support in Hammer et al (2009a) for what is set out here.

The disagreement between the two is narrow and quite focussed. It relates to the dating. Hammer et al follow Zhivotovsky (2004), who found that the original method used by Thomas et al systematically under-estimates the time back to the most recent Y-chomosomal common ancestor, both in simulation, and when real population data is compared to known historical events. They therefore apply a x3 correction factor. They also use the standard Bayesian alternative program (BATWING), which gives a very similar estimate. Klyosov rejects this.

It is not for us to decide who is right and wrong in this. What we as WP have to do is report the difference of opinion. Though we should also note that Hammer, Behar, Karafet and Zhivotovsky are very established in this field. Klyosov is not. (As their response to him spares no feelings in pointing out). That is not to say that WP should say he is wrong; but he should be recognised as the outside contender. So we need to report Hammer et al 's conclusions, but also note that they are not universally accepted.

Finally, we need to consider the interpretation, particularly of the small (14%) population with the J2-M410* lineage. Hammer et al are clear in their assessment, based on the dating: "These results support the hypothesis that J-M410* represents a second major founding lineage of the Cohanim, coalescing to a point within the early history of the ancient Hebrews of the Near East."
 * Interpretation and J2

They then continue explicitly to discuss what explanations could be considered for the presence of several founding lineages within the Cohanim: "One possibility is that multiple males were designated as Cohanim early in the establishment of the priesthood." They do simulations, and find "there would be a reasonably high probability that more than a single Cohen haplogroup could have survived in the Ashkenazi population since the initial founding of the priesthood ~3,000 years ago if we would be willing to accept an initial founding population size of >50 priests. However, our simulation results also suggest that it is highly unlikely that as many haplogroups as we actually observe would persist under this simple model."

An alternative model they suggest is "metapopulation": "in which semi-isolated communities maintain multiple Cohen lineages, each with a certain probability of extinction and replacement." so that "new lineages would be expected to accrue among Cohanim over time; and (aggregating all these different populations together), multiple Cohanim lineages would then persist"

These are the kind of serious scientific scenarios we should be reporting, that have been discussed in the reliable sources, rather than unverifiable, unsupported, unscientific games with names, such as the introduction of specific so-called "Zadokites". Jheald (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jheald, thank you for input. The article have to be re-write from begining to end. I agree. The current secion that you worked for so long in this article, has since March 2009, a banner asking to improve the article with references, because it may contain original research or unverified claims. You did not came with reliable sources since March. I also think that your work on the sections must be re-write. As to who is correct, if Skorecki - Hammer or Anatole it is something that it is not up to us to decide. Put on your mind, that Anatole is espcialized in mutations, not Hammer or Skorecki who did not graduated in this specific topic, as Anatole. But, it was Skorecki announced in 2007, during a Conference for Kohanim in Jerusalem, the Pinchas relationship to J2Cohens. Pinchas-Zadok is the line that we are talking in this case, based on his claim, results, and also from Anatole. So if you think we need to re-write the article immeadetely, why dont you start from the section that you spend years writing, and admin-editors from Wikipedia placed a banner indication that the section is full of unverified claims. Count with me... Regards.

--MCohenNY (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Those sections need to be brought up to date, certainly. They are largely confirmed by what is in Hammer et al (2009), so it's mostly just a question of adding some more references.  But now there are up-to-date papers, we need to accurately reflect what is in them; and that is what the article needs to be built on.  Jheald (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: Your online version of Klyosov's paper appears to be gone. Will it be coming back?  Jheald (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jheald, thank you again. Yes, I will put back ASAP, the online version of Anatole latest work. We are reformulationg and updating the website. I will leave a message to you on your talk page. I want to mention that there is no work published about Cohanim that used the deepclade nomemclature for them. The most we can advance is J1eP58 and J2aM410. This is because the big majoroty of Cohanim J1e P58 and J2aM40 dont have the results of their Deepclade. All those L24,L25,L26 (and etc) nomeclature cannot be used for Cohanim, neither in the article. So, based on the three papers, these deepclade nomenclature must also leave the article,until we see a official publication that uses it for Cohanim. Count with me, for a full re-write of the article. Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Per WP:NPOV, if the lead is to discuss dating, it must cite the view of the mainstream scientists Hammer et al, not just the fringe view of Klyosov.

I have offered a lead which, as far as I can see, introduces both claims fairly and with proper citation. 

I am disappointed by the continual reverts to a one-sided presentation, which only presents Klyosov's POV -- explicitly rejected by the mainstream scientists who have published in this area. And furthermore, that the reverts have been accompanied by no discussion or even engagement with the text I have proposed (quite the opposite of what is suggested eg at WP:DRNC).

I am raising the issue at WP:3O and WT:HGH to try to get wider input. Jheald (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hi there, I found this article through the Third Opinion page, and I'll do my best to help. Jheald's version of the lede is certainly more WP:NPOV. All judgments about whether the science is correct aside, it is clear from Jheald's sources that there is ongoing scientific debate about this topic, and that should be reflected in the lede. Articles that deal with intersections of religion and science are particularly difficult to deal with, so editors should strive to include all relevant information on the topic.

Chriscohen, you should try to address specific concerns you have about Jheald's edits, instead of unilaterally reverting them. He made a good-faith effort to improve the article to conform to Wikipedia's policies, and you do not own this article. It also seems you are dangerously close to having a conflict of interest with this article, judging by your user name, page, and your actions. Some of your comments on Jheald's talk page are particularly disturbing, when you refer to yourself as "we" and refer to research you have performed about this subject. Please make an effort to edit this article in a more neutral manner. Mildly MadTC 18:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jheald,

I am very very open to edit this article as we agreed before. Here is exactly what is going on, after I read your edits. You are pending your edits completly to Hammer-Skorecki results. However, Anatole Klyosov did step foward and proved for everyone, with all letters, that Hammer-Skorecki results were wrong. This is how science move. You cannot simply say this is wrong. In science one must proof with all letters. After the comment of Anatole Klyosov was published what happened to Hammer-Skorecki?

They send only one piece of paper that has nothing on scientific basics, nothing that could disprove the final results. Now, the Hammer's response was riduculed, and rightly so, on RootsWeb forum. It does not contain arguments and no scientific value. What it does contain?

1) That Anatole Klyosov was too fast with his article 2) The Zhivotovsky method can be good 3) That the haplotype trees are interesting.

Now are you trying to place Hammer results, insted of Anatole Klyosov on the article? The final results published by Nature- Journal of Human Genetics, about Cohanim, belongs to Anatole Klyosov, not Hammer. Don`t come out saying the X is better than Y. In science what counts is the last results published until someone proves that is wrong, not names or labels. The results for Cohanim that must be add on the article, must come from the LAST published article. Put that on your mind. --MCohenNY (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for such a debate about who is right. We just have to summarize what is out there in the non Wikipedia world. Jheald is correct that Wikipedia should show both arguments, no disrespect to Anatole Klyosov intended. Furthermore it has to be pointed out the other lede being proposed is not up to scratch in that it does not explain its sourcing in a clear way to begin with, making the Klyosov case unclear. It is actually easier to understand both sides of the argument from Jheald's proposal? What is supposed to be wrong with Jheald's proposal? The only way I read it he is being reverted simply for mentioning a theory some editors do not personally agree with. That seems wrong to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would take considerable secondary sourcing to relegate somebody's science so deep into the fringe that it couldn't be mentioned. The editors here should read WP:UNDUE to understand the consensus on this matter. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes, I agree also. This is what Wikipedia tells us also, lets not forget it or ignore? Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent ALL significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Below I will point what is going on.

1) Jheald wants to use only Hammer (August 2009) results on the article as you can notice below:

"The J1e and J2a Cohen clusters have been estimated as descending from most recent common ancestors living 3,200 ± 1,100 and 4,200 ± 1,300 years ago respectively"

2) Jheald don’t want to place the results from Anatole Klyosov article (October 2009), that were published on the same reliable source - NATURE - Journal of Human. Below is what Jheald wanted to add on the article regarding the results from Anatole Klyosov, published by Nature – Journal of Human Genetics two months later, AFTER the results presented by Hammer.

"However, these dates are disputed by some who believe the methodology to be flawed, and the dates systematically to be overstated by a factor of three."

What is this? What is that Jheald is doing (or trying to do) or intented to do in the article? He is placing only the old results from Hammer and ignoring the results new results from Anatole Klyosov? Where is the neutrality and proportion from the same reliable source? In Science what counts is final results published. Anatole has the latest results about Cohanim published by Nature - Journal of Human Genetics.

It is okay to put some material from Hammer, but editors from Nature approved later the results from Anatole Klyosov. They accepted, and granted him a publication on their paper just a month ago. This paper point the correct results for Cohanim J1e and J2aM410. No other results were presented, accepted or published by Nature – Journal of Humman Genetics, after it, that denies the results from Anatole Klyosov. Anatole Klyosov` results are the latest accepted results from Cohanim published by a reliable source such as Nature - Journal of Human Genetic.

So, Jheald, let`s work on the article prior to delete and add information on the article. Here is how it should be writed taking in consideration the neutrality and proportion that Wikipedia Policies grants:

Correct possible version: (Seek approve)

According to Hammer results published by Nature – Journal of Human Genetic on August 2009, J1e and J2a Cohen clusters have been estimated as descending from most recent common ancestors living 3,200 ± 1,100 and 4,200 ± 1,300 years ago respectively. Using the BATCHING methodology the results from the author indicates on the article that J2aM410 share the TMRCA in 3,000 ± 200 years ago.

Later, the same paper accepted and published an article from Anatole Klyosov pointing that the  common ancestor of J1e Cohanim lived 1075±130 years before present, and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes. Common ancestral of J2a Cohanim lived 3.000±200 years ago and this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes.

As you can see, above we have neutrality and proportion on the article, not the way Jheald intended to write before. --MCohenNY (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, before I start to respond on specifics, please note:
 * The journal Human Genetics is published by Springer, not Nature. It has nothing to do with the Nature Publishing Group.
 * WP takes the three revert rule seriously. This fourth revert, despite a warning on your talk page that you were already at three reverts, is the kind of thing that can get a user blocked.  Please in future don't do it again.


 * Now, as regards your proposal. Firstly, I take it that there is no disagreement about the first three paragraphs of the lead, so what you are suggesting is an alternative for the fourth paragraph.  I have to say that, while I am glad you are now discussing the text, I prefer the version that is there at the moment.


 * Making the lead general and informative


 * My reason for doing that is that the lead is for people who are coming completely new to the subject, and therefore needs to be kept as simple as possible. It needs to set out what the most important issues are, but with as little confusing and distracting unnecessary detail as possible.  That is why I do not mention either Hammer or Klyosov by name in the main text -- instead there is a footnote which gives the references with full bibliographic detail.


 * I do set out the disagreement about dating. In particular I say (1) that some (citing Klyosov) believe the Hammer methodology to be flawed; (2) that the systematic flaw is to overstate the ages by a factor of three; (3) that this would mean that both the clusters identified in the Hammer paper would be a little over 1000 years old; and (4) that that would allow for a wider range of haplotypes in J2a to be compatible with shared ancestry from the period 1000 to 2000 BCE.


 * It seems to me that your version doesn't make any of these points as clearly. It doesn't locate the difference between Klyosov and Hammer as a systematic methodological issue. It doesn't identify that this comes down to a systematic difference of a factor of three in dating. It doesn't make clear that Klyosov dates the Hammer cluster in J2a at a little over 1000 years old. And it doesn't introduce that the group that Klyosov presents as appropriate in J2a is more diffuse than that which Hammer presents.  All of these, I submit, are the kind of general qualitative points that the lead should introduce.


 * Compatible variances


 * Instead, you make a meal of the claim that "this timing is reproducible for 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes". But this is just the kind of detail, rather than broad principle, which is not very enlightening for somebody coming cold to the subject, and ought to be in the body of the article rather than the lead.  In actual fact, what "the 9-, 12-, 17-, 22- and 67-marker haplotypes" have that is compatible between them is their STR variances, which are common to both Hammer and Klyosov's calculations.  This isn't a point of distinction between the two - which is why in my view it is a point of detail, rather than headline news.  The difference between Hammer and Klyosov is not the variances they calculate.  This they have in common.  The difference is how the variances should then be turned into dates.  That's the difference that my text accentuates; but gets lost in the detail in Chris's text.


 * I think the text I have proposed is preferable, though I am very open to hearing what other people think.


 * The question of the dating


 * But one final comment about the dating issue itself. Hammer et al have given cited the reasons that they calculate the way they do, referencing Zhivotovsky et al (2004), and previous problems identified with blindly using the method Klyosov falls back to.  The real missed opportunity in this exchange is that Klyosov never engaged with this at all: he never discussed why he rejects the analysis, theoretical and empirical, in Zhivotovsky (2004).  And so, when it comes to Hammer et al in their response to Klyosov, there is nothing for them to respond to.  It is as if Klyosov has never even read Zhivotovsky (2004).  Hammer et al are left having to box against empty air.


 * There are issues with the Zhivotovsky rate. In my opinion Dienekes Pontikos has given the most useful critique of it that I have seen .  He find reasons to believe that the Zhivotovsky correction factor may be overstated; but that the effect it corrects for is real.


 * Jheald (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jheald,

I am very surprise with the changes that you promoted by yourself on the article. I just saw it now, and I truly dont understand you. Why are you pushing this article to Hammer-Skorecki? Put on your mind that; Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent ALL significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

First, the results that you added on the article points only Hammer-Skorecki. (No neutrality at all).

Second, the article should fairly represent ALL significant viewpoints. Why are you using the results from Hammer-Skorecki as the standard basic information from the article? What about Anatole Klyosov at all, from the same (published by a reliable source)

Third. Read again Hammer-Skorecki article and see that J2M410- has the coalescence to 3,200 years, according to their results made from a second approach. This is what also, Anatole has it. (and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each). You simply did not take in consideration the correct results, neither equalized the article. That is very wrong. You cannot write by yourself. So, I am here to work with you, together, but dont jump to the article with your parcial beliefs and writtings.

So, the best we can do, is to use the whole paragraph below to describe results from Hammer-Skorecki:

More recent research, using a larger number of Y-STR markers to gain higher resolution more specific genetic signatures, has indicated that about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim, who share Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1e (also called J-P58), do indeed appear to be very closely related. A further approximately 15% of Kohanim fall into a second distinct group, sharing a different but similarly tightly related ancestry. This second group fall under haplogroup J2a (J-M410). A number of other smaller lineage groups are also observed.

(Above all from Hammer-Skorecki results)

Below, only two setences with Anatole Klyosov results:

The J1e and J2a Cohen clusters have been estimated as descending from most recent common ancestors living 4,200 ± 1,300 and 3,200 ± 1,100 years ago respectively.[1]

So, now, we see that Wiki policy is taking in consideration; (Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent ALL significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each)

Regards,

Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A 6/6 match is totally unrelated to cohen status ?
It is clear that someone edited the article trying to prove that a full 6/6 match in J1 means nothing and can be found in many populations who have no cohen ancestry. The author also states that this is "clear now". But he gives no sources stating or proving that a full 6/6 match can be found in non jewish populations just as often as in jewish cohen populations. There are only studies that prove that jewish people or people who claim jewish ancestry, just like the lemba in south africa, have the highest amounts of full 6/6 matches in J1. Nor arabs, nor any other non-jewish group, have the same high amounts of full 6/6 matches, not even close to. So this statement is totally false and should be deleted. Very unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.24.184 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 May 2010

6/6 match alone is irrelevant since it occurs in many haplogroups J1,J2,E and also in R1b ,and R1a. What account is in which haplogroup the 6/6 match lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.184.161 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 May 2010


 * What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997).
 * So nearly half of them Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in haplogroups other than J1. Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004).  Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1
 * Additionally, many other haplogroups among the Ashkenazim, and among the Cohanim in particular, appear to be of Israelite/Middle Eastern origin.
 * According to Behar (2003), the Cohanim possess an unusually high frequency of haplogroup J in general, reported to comprise nearly 87% of the total Cohanim results. Among the Sephardim, the frequency of 75% is also notably high (Behar 2003).  Both groups have dramatically lower percentages of other haplogroups, including haplogroup E.  Given the high frequency of haplogroup J among Ashkenazi Cohanim, it appears that J2 may be only slightly less common than J1, perhaps indicating multiple J lineages among the priestly Cohanim dating back to the ancient Israelite kingdom.
 * However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations, with a very low frequency in Italy and Greece as well (Semino et al. 2004).The group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant. Its presence among contemporary Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations indicates the preservation of Israelite Semitic ancestry, despite their long settlement in Europe and North Africa.  Further, the CMH is considered the putative ancestral haplotype of haplogroup J1 (Di Giacomo et al. 2004).
 * Table 1 compares the Jewish J1 CMH to the J1 modal haplotypes of other Middle Eastern populations:
 * Table 1
 * Modal Haplotypes* in J1 Populations
 * Please see the document. It shows how the Haplotype differs from the Haplotype of the Bedouins (DYS388&393] and the Palestinians (DYS,388,390,&393).


 * A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence, E. Levy-Coffman - Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 2005
 * http://jewsandjoes.com/dnajewshapq.pdf http://jogg.info/11/coffman.pdf
 * The paper deals with the issues of E, R1b ,and R1a in detail.


 * Let me know of your response here on my comments section of my talk page, please. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To respond to the original poster first:
 * The article merely reports what the numbers say about a 6/6 match. If you're Jewish and you have a 6/6 match, just based on that data, the chances that you have male-line Cohen ancestry go up from about 5% to about 25%.  That figure comes out as a trade-off between two things (see Bayesian inference for more details).  On the one hand, the proportion of Cohens who have a 6/6 match for the CMH is much higher than in the general Jewish population; but on the other hand, the general Jewish population is much bigger than the Cohen population, so a priori you're much less likely to be a Cohen.  Doing the maths to trade-off between these two gives the (roughly) 25% figure.
 * So it's not the case that a full 6/6 match "means nothing". But even if you are Jewish, it is not conclusive proof -- it doesn't even make it more likely than not.
 * If you are not Jewish, because the 6/6 match can occur by coincidence, even though it may be rare, it is much more likely that that is indeed what has happened, rather than it indicating Cohen ancestry.
 * More on this can be found at e.g. Base rate fallacy. It is something very important to take account of in, for example, medical tests.  Suppose a test is 100% accurate in the sense that it has no false negatives -- the test will register positive for everyone who has the condition.  But suppose it has a 1% rate for false positives -- i.e. so that if you don't have the condition, the test might come up positive.  Now suppose the condition occurs in the population at a rate of 1 in a million.  If you test 1 million people, the (statistically average) 1 person with the condition will test positive.  But so will 10,000 people without it.  So even with a positive result from a test that specific, the odds against having the condition may still be 10,000 to 1 against.  That is essentially the point that was being made about the significance of a 6/6 match in a non-Jewish person.


 * In response to the second anonymous poster:
 * You are essentially right. A 6/6 match won't actually occur in haplogroups E, R1a or R1b -- the STR values in those groups tend to be very different.  But it could occur in haplogroup J1 or J2.  And the tightly-related Cohen ancestry which matches 6/6 comes from haplogroup J1.
 * So testing the haplogroup does give important additional information. I don't have access to the numbers to calculate the updated odds -- possibly they could be dug out from some of the papers that have been published; but the updated odds of having Cohen ancestry, given that you are Jewish, 6/6 for the CMH, and a member of J1, probably are significantly higher than 25% (given the numbers one could work it out) -- though the odds will still not be 100%, because there are some Jewish J1 6/6 people who don't match the tightly-related Cohen ancestry when you look at more markers.  (See for example the tables of people's detailed STR results at the FTDNA haplogroup J project).  So one could only really be confidently sure of a close relation to that particular ancestry having tested more markers.  Jheald (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally, JohnLloydScharf makes a very good point, underlining that we now can clearly recognise that there are several different ancient ancestries with a very ancient Cohen connection. The J1 ancestry that matches the CMH may be the ancestry that is most numerically prevalent amongst modern-day Cohens, but it is not the only ancient Cohen ancestry.
 * The other thing that is important to recognise is that the ancient Israelites were not genetically homogenous -- there was haplogroup J1 there, haplogroup J2, haplogroup E, probably some haplogroup R1a, and others. Ancient Israel was made up of many haplogroups, and it is likely that several haplogroups contributed some of the first Kohens.
 * I think JohnLloydScharf makes that point; but I'm slightly concerned with the identification of J1 as "the only Semitic haplogroup". The first comment I'd make is that the mutation which defines J1 is a lot older than the time of the ancient Israelites -- perhaps 20,000 years ago, though there are at least two schools of thought on how to estimate when such mutations occurred, which give very different numbers.  So it would be very misleading to identify "Semitic" with "ancient Israelite" in this context.  Also, since the papers written in the early 2000s some very high rates of haplogroup J1 have been found in the Caucasus; this may speak to an origin further north and further east than previously had been thought.  The CMH J1 Cohen ancestry appears to be associated with the J1 subgroup Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA), which may have arisen 9,000 to 10,000 years ago.  Current thinking is that the subgroup may have arisen in "northeast Syria, northern Iraq [or] eastern Turkey".  J1c3 then appears to have spread out, including west towards the Mediterranean, its descendents mixing with other groups who were already there.  Jheald (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Phinehas
Just fixed a quotation attributed to Prof. Scorecky about Phinehas.

I'm also going to remove the word "Zadokites" from a subtitle.

m656 (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculations about the ancient Cohen Zadok known from Bible
Just deleted the words "around the times of Zadok, the High Priest that anointed King David".

This looks like a new idea, if not, reference should be provided.

m656 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is Italy on the Migration Map?
Since we know that Jews went -- or were taken-- to Rome, why does Italy play no role in the «immigration», i.e. spread of Jews throughout the Western World? That map looks like fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.31.66 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputes
added the following paragraph:

Academic Professor Uzi Ritte has completely rejected any distinguishing characteristics about the supposed "Cohan Modal haplotype"; "No newspaper bothered to publish the findings of Professor Uzi Ritte, of the Department of Genetics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who had examined the same priestly haplotypes on the Y-chromosome and found nothing distinctive about them." . And further a study by Sergio Tofanelli et al. 2009 (associated with the University of Pisa) says the supposed "Cohan modal haplotype" must be older than 4,500 years old and is around 8,600 years old making it long before the supposed origin of the Cohanim all together.

If Ritte's view has been ignored in the press, why should we suddenly quote it? Because Shlomo Sand mentions it in The Invention of the Jewish People? This seems to me a clear problem with WP:WEIGHT. As for Tofanelli et al 2009, this would require the full reference before we can add this. I imagine it might be 10.1038/ejhg.2009.58, but one can't tell for sure. Also, it is a primary research study rather than a secondary source. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't be in. I love the "academic professsor" - a nice contrast I guess to "unacademic professor"? This POV editing is getting tiresome. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What shouldn't be in an actual professional article is someone like Skorecki and company and their fake "cohanim haplotype" claims that have been shown to be completely farcical. Professor Sergio Tofanelli and company at the University of Pisa showed Skorecki (and his cult followers) claims of a "cohanim marker" are baseless and their supposed jocular "cohanim haplotype" is much older than 4,500 years old and is as much as 8,600 years old actually. Making it impossible for it to match any "Biblical" character from the start; as Skorecki and his devotees want to claim. Professor Shlomo Sand showed that, along with Professor Uzi Ritte debunking this supposed "marker", among other issues with Skorekci's claims are: "The amusing aspect of this story is that the 'priestly gene' could just as easily be a 'non-Jewish gene.' Since Judaism is inherited from the mother, it is not far-fetched to appropriate since the nineteenth century a good many of non-believing priests have married 'gentile' women, although the Halakhah forbids them to do so. These priests may have fathered 'non-Jewish' offspring, who, according to Skorecki's research, would bear the 'genetic seal' of the priests." Showing more of the ridiculousness of Skorecki (a highly questionable "source") and his "research" (versus say unbiased individuals Professor Uzi Ritte, Professor Sergio Tofanelli, etc). The biases of individuals like Skorecki are further analyzed and exposed by writers like Katya Gibel Mevorach and her insightful piece "Not an Innocent Pursuit: The Politics of a 'Jewish' Genetic Signature." To conclude I bring sources that should be included, as any honest person can clearly see.Historylover4 (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please have a look at WP:NPOV. The tone of your edits (and your comments here) shows your personal views on the matter.
 * Secondly, you may have provided sources, but they're not necessarily suitable. The comments by Sand in a book widely regarded as polemical rather than purely analytic are not going to provide an unbiased view.
 * As for the Tofanelli source, you didn't provide an academic citation so we can only guess which piece of research you are actually referring to. How are we (or the reader) supposed to judge the work on its merits? JFW &#124; T@lk  19:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Professor Sand is a valid source, quoting other academics so your attempts to exclude sourced information simply shows your clear biases and personal views not mine.Historylover4 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, let's see. What is my bias and personal view, please?
 * You really should stop reinserting the same stuff without gaining consensus. Are you going to provide the full reference for the study you wanted to quote? JFW &#124; T@lk  23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Professor Sand quoting Professor Ritte, in Professor Sand's bestselling book that won numerous awards is by default valid anyone trying to exclude it is again simply showing their bias. And the study of Sergio Tofanelli et al. 2009 at the University of Pisa is already quoted on wikipedia and thus should be included.Historylover4 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And for "JFW" to respond to your statement: "If Ritte's view has been ignored in the press, why should we suddenly quote it?" If you read Professor Sand's work you can see that he is saying the media (in this case the Israeli mainstream media) went with sensationalistic headlines as Professor Sand says on Page 279 of "The Invention of the Jewish People" "Yet so far, no research had found unique and unifying characteristics of Jewish heredity based on a random sampling of genetic material whose ethnic origin is not known in advance.  By and large, what little is known about the methods of selecting test subjects seems very questionable.  Moreover, the hasty findings are all too often constructed and supported by historical rhetoric unconnected to the research laboratories.  The bottom line is that, after all the costly 'scientific' endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever." It is thus clear that the reason Professor Uzi Ritte's scientific findings wouldn't "bother" to be published by any newspaper (particularly Professor Sand is noting the Israeli mainstream media) as Professor Sand notes is because the newspapers would again go with the sensationalistic headlines tied up with unrelated "historical" claims which is again why Sand says these "studies" must be viewed with a huge grain of skepticism as what is known about them is as he says makes them "very questionable". A similar point is raised by academic Katya Gibel Mevorach in her "Not an Innocent Pursuit: The Politics of a 'Jewish' Genetic Signature". So your attempt to minimize or claim that because newspapers didn't print Professor Ritte's claims widely it somehow shouldn't be included here (even though it is an academic being quoted by another academic in award winning academic literature) ignores the context of what Professor Sand was noting about the propaganda of the Israeli mainstream media versus actual scholarship.Historylover4 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This editor has been indefinitely blocked, see . Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious Bias?
It seems from my reading that this article makes little effort to explain to the reader that Aaron is a legendary character, and thus it is very unlikely that he has any descedents in the real world. The Bible is recognised by scholars to not be a work of history, but is a religious book and thus not at all reliable as a source. Current consensus archaeology finds no support in the ground for the patriarchs, Exodus, Davidic/Solomonic Israel etc; rather, the Judeans and other ancient Palestians simply arose from local populations. It is thus very unlikely that Moses or Aaron existed; rather, they are cult heroes in folk tales. To claim descent from them is equivalent to claiming descent from Odysseus, King Arthur or Beowulf. The article however talks of Aaron in an overly-historic manner, for instance-

"Nevertheless, various opinions exist about which Haplogroup the direct descendants of Biblical Aaron belong to."

-as if he really existed. It is worrying that Wikipedia may be encouraging young readers to believe that these ancient tribal myths are in some sense true. At least a hint of rational scepticism should be represented in articles like this.82.71.30.178 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Such statements are against our WP:NPOV policy and I've edited the article, hopefully bringing it more into line with policy. Thanks for your post. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaron descendants in Italy
Etruscans, a kingdom defeated by Romans, according to the legend after the Roman woman Lucretia was raped by a son of the Etruscan king, were supposedly of "Semitic" origin, and their language was Semitic too, whatever "Semitic" may mean, thus, it's not surprising finding in Italy people with a genetic background akin to groups in the former kingdoms of Judah and Israel.--Jgrosay (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Shapiro family originating in Morocco?
I find this claim highly suspect. For one, Moroccan Jewry has cohanic lineages of its own, and the name "Shapiro" does not appear once. The fact of the matter is, Shapiro is an Eastern European Ashkenazi name. --108.48.53.11 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arabs
Why doesn't the article mention Arabs, who frequently have Y-chromosomes of the J-haplotype? --41.151.140.174 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
The article obviously is going to attract proponents of various ideas about the subject, so it is difficult to keep balanced. I came here because of a new editor adding redundant material about the Hammer et al paper ""Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood". Upon looking into this I find that the paper's findings are disputed, which is not reflected in the article. See for instance the forward to Race, Color, Identity: Rethinking Discourses About "Jews" in the Twenty-First Century which says "The notion that there is a "Jcwish-by-discasc” aspect of any definition of the Jews and on the status of claims to identify a gene for descent horn Jewish priests, the Cohen Modal Haplotypc, remains highly contested.22 Subsequently, there has been compelling evidence that the Cohen Modal Haplotype may not exist as a singular marker for a Jewish identity" - the footnote to this is "22. Michael F. Hammer et al., "Extended Y Chromosome Haplotypes Resolve Multiple and Unique Lineages of the Jewish Priesthood," Human Genetics 126, no. 5 (2009), DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5; Anatole Klvosov, "Comment on the Paper: Extended Y Chromosome Haplotypes Resolve Multiple and Unique Lineages of the Jewish Priesthood,” Human Genetics 126, no. 5 (2009): 719-724, D01:10.1007/s00439-009-0739-l. But see also Michael Hammer et al., “Response,” Human Genetics 126, no. 5 (2009): 725-726, DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0747-1."

Also see the discussion of Hammer in The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology (Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning). This book is directly relevant to this article and would add balance and perspective.

As an aside, the short section called "Responses" looks like a response to Hammer although it clearly isn't as the sources date to before the Hammer 2009 publication. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've re-organised the existing material, so I hope that the development of research is now a lot clearer.
 * Wrt to the pov tag, I'm not sure that I see it -- can you clarify which points of view you think are not being properly represented, and whether you think the pov tag is really still needed?
 * The point that "the Cohen Modal Haplotype may not exist as a singular marker for a Jewish identity" I would have thought is made at length in the article.
 * With the second link, it's hard to see which passage(s) you're particularly trying to draw attention to, as the link pulls up so many pages.
 * As for Klyosov's response to Hammer (2009), IIRC the most valuable point Klyosov made was to query Hammer et al's dating of the Cohen J1e cluster, questioning their use of the Zhivotovski adjusted rate, and suggesting that most of the cluster was so closely related that its main proliferation was likely to be medieval. Jheald (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not being sarcastic, but have I misssed the bit where Hammer is specifically discussed (not what the paper Hammer et al but responses to it? The book is one that I am saying would be useful for the whole article. If for instance you look at - scroll down to read an excerpt and look at the excerpt it will be more obvious. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The extract appears to be all about the 1997 and 1998 papers. We do discuss the limitations of that early research in detail, at least at a scientific level.  (One could perhaps flag that the error estimates for the dating were based on bad statistics, and also that the age estimate was conditioned on assumptions that turned out not to be entirely true; but I'm not sure if there are reliable sources that have bothered to make the point).
 * The more sociological angles about identity construction are interesting, but it's difficult to know how to approach because so much of the construction that it's critiquing on early (over-)interpretations of the science that we now know were not correct. Jheald (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs to be Rewritten to Summarize Much of the Content
The main issue with this article is much of the information is now outdated, yet nearly all of the content goes into excruciating detail about the old outdated information.

Non-religious genetic scientists and researchers have located the Y-chromosomal Aaron and it's located very far down the J1 (m267) tree in a small group called Z18271. This undisputed finding is mentioned as two sentences in the article. Everything else in this article is simply outdated background and should be briefly referenced as such. The initial studies of the past 20 years were too general and included too many other genetic groups -- that is no longer the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.2.23 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Kohen/Cohen
Gentlemen, can we get a consensus on changing the often repeated word to the (correct) spelling with a k? (aside for the CMH, which appears to be an outdated acronym)--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The plural form, though, should be Kohanim, not Kohens (explained after first use). --Wiking (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What about italics though?--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Descended from Aaron" doesn't mean he is the most recent common ancestor.
The first and the second sentence of this article are in conflict with each other. According to the Hebrew Bible, the Kohanim are descendants of Aaron. However, this does not mean that Aaron is the most recent comment ancestor, which is what the first sentence talks about. Given the long history of persecution of the Jewish people, it would be not at all surprising if some branches of Aaron's descendants were to go extinct. I would change the second sentence to read "According to the Hebrew Bible, the Kohanim are all descendants of Aaron and so share a common ancestor. Stellaathena (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Most Kohens are not y-chromosomal Aaron (Z18271). Your comment should be in a different article about the religion.  This is about genetics.

Edit reversion and biblical content/background
The most recent edit(s) undid an edit that I made which updated the article and replaced poorly sourced (self-published) content with content based on reliable sources. Additionally, where the article made mention of the traditional perspective of priestly lineage based on the Hebrew Bible, I supplemented that with the historical-critical perspective of modern academic biblical scholarship. The given reason for removing this content was "Sceientific genetic discussion article not religious."

Ironically, the more "religious"/traditional content remained (as it should), it was only the modern academic perspective that was removed. While this article is primarily based on scientific genetic research, the biblical background/basis cannot be ignored. (Skorecki, who carried out the initial study, said: "I was interested in the question: To what extent was our shared oral tradition matched by other evidence?".) I should also note that I provided sources connecting the modern academic biblical scholarship with the genetic studies & research into Y-chromosomal Aaron.

(I also noticed that this IP previously added some of the poorly sourced content, which I had removed (leading me wonder if that's not the primary reason for the revision). So to avoid an edit war, I'm bring the issue to the talk page.) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Page Vandalism
This article is heavily vandalized with 49,923 bytes of changes with each revision. The scope of this article is limited to the existing genetic studies of Y-chromosomal Aaron and the history of the genetic research into it. There are 16 other articles about the religious aspects of this topic, and any religious submissions should go in one of those articles. Furthermore, the veracity of the links to the current genetic studies are not well supported because of the esoteric nature of this topic and the lack of widespread reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.28.106 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:VANDALISM may help to understand the difference between editing and vandalism, — Paleo Neonate  – 01:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)