Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Genetic studies on Jews

There are many published studies that attempt to use genetic markers to investigate past interrelationships of population groups. This blog gives a quick sample. In particular, the ancestry of modern Jews has been the subject of such studies and that is the topic of the article Genetic studies on Jews. The majority of studies, but not all, emphasize a Middle-Eastern genetic heritage of Jews, while differing in many details. Recently a geneticist Eran Elhaik at Johns Hopkins University published a study "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" in the peer-reviewed journal Genome Biology and Evolution published by Oxford University Press. The paper can be read for free here. The paper is notable in that it concludes that a large part of the genetic heritage of East European Jews is from the Caucasus. This matches a well-known but hotly-contested historical theory but is at variance with most previous genetic studies. It should not need to be said that this topic matters very much to people involved in certain political/ideological debates which, however, don't belong on this noticeboard. The paper was published only a few weeks ago and has received some press attention but it is too early to expect any considered academic response.

A few editors, one in particular, are invoking the Fringe theories guideline and WP:UNDUE to completely exclude Elhaik's article from Genetic studies on Jews and other articles. The argument can be mostly found at Talk:Genetic studies on Jews.

My case is thus:
 * 1) A peer-reviewed paper by a well-cited specialist in the field, appearing in a first-class academic journal, cannot be excluded as "fringe" except in the most extreme circumstances.
 * 2) The minimum (and still possibly insufficient) requirement for excluding such a source would be that the paper is uniformly dismissed as fringe by the relevant academic community. That has not happened here. Though we can expect a debate over it in the future, so far the only comment which has been brought from another  expert is that of an anonymous referee of the journal who said "he has been more thorough than most (if not all) previous studies on the issue of Jewish ancestry".
 * 3) In particular, the mere fact that a peer-reviewed scientific paper disagrees with previous papers is never grounds for excluding it.
 * 4) While there is no requirement for every source to be mentioned in an article, the fact that a highly reliable source disagrees with the others increases the case for mentioning it, in accordance with WP:NPOV.
 * 5) It should be emphasized that the argument is over whether this paper should be mentioned at all.  All that is sought is a brief mention of the paper and its conclusions in a few sentences without commentary.

Zerotalk 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A few responses to comments:
 * 1) Mathsci: "Editors of wikipedia are not in a position to evaluate it themselves." — Agree entirely, per WP:NOR.  This means we report it in a neutral fashion without judgement.  Same as the many other genetic studies in the article.
 * 2) It is a primary source for sure, but so are most of the sources in the article. It shouldn't be treated differently on that account.  Actually a lot of articles on current science are largely based on primary sources and I believe that works pretty well in subjects that don't have ideological or emotional baggage.
 * 3) Shrike's comments: Between you and me, I predict the choice of Khazar-surrogates will be the weak point that critics of Elhaik attack.  But WP:NOR prohibits us from employing our own analyses like that so it isn't a case for excluding the article. Regarding WP:MEDRS, it is designed for a special reason that doesn't apply here, namely to avoid killing people by giving bad medical information. However, some of it is good advice for all scientific articles. Zerotalk 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Tritomex doesn't understand WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; my original point #3 is valid and covers it.  Besides that, in his/her attempt to show uniformity of the conclusions of previous genetic studies, he/she is simply wrong. Consider for example Zoossmann-Diskin: "the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and [East European Jews] are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations", which is of course entirely different from most other studies (almost as much as Elhaik's is different). Those guys do not agree with each other; the article must reflect that. Zerotalk 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * At face value, it doesn't appear to be self-evidently 'fringe' - but both WP:PRIMARY and WP:WEIGHT issues might perhaps be of concern. Having said that, the entire article looks of concern to me, as based almost entirely on summaries of primary research, and excluding one because it reaches controversial conclusions might seem questionable. The subject is clearly controversial, and probably needs more input from uninvolved editors with the necessary understanding of the subject. You might de better to raise this elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't found anything new really the connection between Jews genome and Armenian genome was already known. "This could mean that Jews, Kurds, Armenians and Anatolian Turks all carry the genetic markers of ancient indigenous populations of the Fertile Crescent, while Palestinian Arabs and Beduin may largely descend from the Arab conquerors, with their distinctive genetic signifiers."
 * Its his claim that Khazars and Armenians is the same people and that Palestinian Arabs and ancient Israelis are the same are problematic and as geneticst I am not sure that he can make such comparison.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Controversial, maybe, but it is ludicrous to suggest that a study by a geneticist at one world-renowned university published in a peer-reviewed journal of another world-renowned university is "fringe".
 * The content should be addressed by experts in the field referring to other sources on the basis of its merits. It should not be discounted on the basis of being "fringe".--Ubikwit (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This source may be a minority academic position. If it is then it ought to be mentioned in an article entitled Genetic studies on Jews. The article does not seem to be about studies at all, though Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a primary source. Although published in a peer-review journal, there has not been enough time since its publication in December 2012 for it to be evaluated within the academic world. Editors of wikipedia are not in a position to evaluate it themselves. Mathsci (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to think that for genetics claims we should use similar standards to WP:MEDRS.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How is it a primary source? "Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian Hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland Hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry."
 * It is a study that analyzes primary source genetics data with respect to two theories in order to evaluate the theories.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Two issues here.
 * (a) The paper fits all criteria for high-quality sourcing, and objections to it as 'fringe' are pretextual, based only on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. Those who call it 'fringe' are confusing Elhaik's genetic theory, with the historical hypothesis it is connected to, namely the Khazar hypothesis or the Khazar origin of the Ashkenazi. Fringe theories are judged so when, over time, the evidence against them is such that mainstream theories exclude them, and this criteria cannot apply to new or recent peer-reviewed scholarship. The theory however has been clawing its way back from its fringe status in historical studies, as we see from recent arguments by the historian Shlomo Sand, by the eminent linguist Paul Wexler, and now by Eran Elhaik in genetics. This, Shrike, aside from the issue of science, also very much a TAU secular scholarly challenge to the reigning ideology of Zionism. I don't think we should believe either (both seem to me skewed), but the debate's complexities should be covered, rather than packaged to give just one side.
 * (b)It is, as Andy Grump notes, a primary source. That guideline cannot be automatically applied to exclude the use of Elhaik's paper at Genetic studies on Jews, for the simple reason that the editors there who oppose its inclusion on other grounds, have found no objection to the many pages on similar topics which use primary sources. See, for example, these relevant sections in wikipedia's sister pages Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Ethiopian Jews,Lemba People, Medical genetics of Jews, Jews with Haplogroup G (Y-DNA), Y-chromosomal Aaron,etc.
 * Editorial objections to the inclusion of a new paper like Elhaik's might be taken more seriously if the editors opposing it showed consistency in excluding all primary sources from these sister pages and all others on population genetics. If you wish to remove Elhaik as a primary source, then automatically, all primary sources used in compiling the above articles should immediately be chucked out, which, of course will not happen. Therefore, to use the primary source argument uniquely to exclude Elhaik would appear, prima facie, to be a case of policy manipulation to erase scholarly evidence one dislikes. Given the circs, thus, should be accepted because not to do so would amount to the suppression of one primary source that challenges the conclusions of others purely on grounds of militant distaste for its content.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, the genetics data is just raw data, and this is a primary level analysis of that data.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I will take a little more space but as I am pediatrician with genetic specialization and as I participated in the dialogue I think I have to present my views. Contrary to Elhaik paper which is a genetic analysis using samples from Behar and al genetic study, there are 20+ genetic studies carried out on thousands of participants from each Jewish groups. All of this studies with one exception have concluded that all major Jewish groups have common Middle Eastern origin (as presented bellow) Our article Genetic studies on Jews presented only classical genetic studies Here we have one article (or analysis) which uses samples from one huge genetic study (Behar and all 2010) coming out with diametrically opposite results. Elhaik paper refer to Shlomo Sand book "The invention of the Jewish people" which is also considered marginal by many historians and the only scholar which responded as per proposed reference from  Haaretz article was again Shlomo Sand. Haaretz states "The only scholar who agreed to give his opinion (and did so with great enthusiasm ) was Tel Aviv University professor of history Shlomo Sand", while Sand is not even a geneticist. According to Elhaik he used "innovative techniques" My problem with this is WP:UNDUE. I do not believe that this article can present this paper as a classical genetic study, and as its results are opposite from all results of classical genetic studies, I believe that here we have a WP:UNDUE question "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well" More so, there are numerous other articles all in line with classical genetic studies, so to pick up only one article whose results are against all classical genetic study, to promote it to the rank of classical genetic (as currently only this genetic studies, related to Y, X, and Autosomes are presented) study and to present it in a way which would imply as there is a dispute between geneticists about the origin of Jewish people would be in my view WP:UNDUE violation.. Also,Elhaik paper was not published "just few weeks ago" it exists on web from at least summer 2012 as online document, and in numerous conspiarationist site as "evidence of Khazar origin of the Jews" however only few weeks ago it was published in specialized journal.

Results of classical genetic studies:

 flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.
 * Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene
 * 


 * 

"It is believed that the majority of contemporary Jews descended from the ancient Israelites that had lived in the historic land of Israel until ∼2000 years ago. Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture.In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews.. " 
 * Nebla and all

"Here we show that within Americans of European ancestry there is a perfect genetic corollary of Jewish ancestry which, in principle, would permit near perfect genetic inference of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. In fact, even subjects with a single Jewish grandparent can be statistically distinguished from those without Jewish ancestry. We also found that subjects with Jewish ancestry were slightly more heterozygous than the subjects with no Jewish ancestry, suggesting that the genetic distinction between Jews and non-Jews may be more attributable to a Near-Eastern origin for Jewish populations than to population bottlenecks."
 * Anna C Need and al

"A 2004 study by Shen et al. compared the Y-DNA and DNA-mt Samaritans of 12 men with those of 158 men who were not Samaritans, divided between 6 Jewish populations (Ashkenazi origin, Moroccan, Libyan, Ethiopian, Iraqi and Yemeni) and 2 non-Jewish populations from Israel (Druze and Arab). The study concludes that significant similarities exist between paternal lines of Jews and Samaritans, but the maternal lines differ between the two populations. The pair-wise genetic distances (Fst) between 11 populations from AMOVA applied to the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial data. For the Y-chromosome, all Jewish groups, except for the Ethiopians, are closely related to each other. They do not differ significantly from Samaritans (0.041) and Druze (0.033), but are different from Palestinians (0.163), Africans (0.219), and Europeans (0.111). Nevertheless, the data in this study indicated that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their geographical neighbors, the Palestinians."
 * Shen and al

"We perform a genome-wide population-genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry...Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, the most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population".
 * Naama M. Kopelman and all

"Ashkenazi Jews represent the largest Jewish community and traditionally trace their origin to the ancient Hebrews who lived in the Holy Land over 3000 years ago. Ashkenazi Jews are among the groups most intensively studied by population geneticists. Here, main genetic findings and their implications to the history of Ashkenazim are presented reflecting in a way major developments in population genetics as a discipline. Altogether, Ashkenazi Jews appear as a relatively homogenous population which has retained its identity despite nearly 2000 years of isolation and is closely related to other Jewish communities tracing their common origin to the Middle East."
 * Faerman

In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage. By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations we are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Our 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"
 * Hammer and all 2009

Lucotte G, David F, Berriche S. Source
 * Haplotype VIII of the Y chromosome is the ancestral haplotype in Jews.

International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. Abstract

DNA samples from Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews were studied with the Y-chromosome-specific DNA probes p49f and p49a to screen for restriction fragment length polymorphisms and haplotypes. Two haplotypes (VII and VIII) are the most widespread, representing about 50% of the total number of haplotypes in Jews. The major haplotype in Oriental Jews is haplotype VIII (85.1%); haplotype VIII is also the major haplotype in the Djerban Jews (77.5%) (Djerban Jews represent probably one of the oldest Jewish communities). Together these results confirm that haplotype VIII is the ancestral haplotype in Jews."

"Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry"
 * Behar and al 2006

"...The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Iraqi) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. Interestingly, the distance to the closest Southern European population follows the order from proximal to distal: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian, which reflects historical admixture with local communities. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry"
 * L Hao and all

The study examines genetic markers spread across the entire genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for making a human — and shows that the Jewish groups share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships. Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East. From there, groups of Jews moved to other parts of the world in migrations collectively known as the Diaspora.
 * 

The study compared these Jewish groups with 1043 unrelated individuals from 52 world-wide populations. To further examine the relationship between Jewish communities and European populations 2407 European subjects were assigned and divided into 10 groups based on geographic region of their origin. This study confirmed previous findings of shared Middle Eastern origin of major Jewish groups and found that "the genetic connections between the Jewish populations became evident from the frequent IBD across these Jewish groups (63% of all shared segments). Jewish populations shared more and longer segments with one another than with non-Jewish populations, highlighting the commonality of Jewish origin. Among pairs of populations ordered by total sharing, 12 out of the top 20 were pairs of Jewish populations, and none of the top 30 paired a Jewish population with a non-Jewish one" "Each Jewish group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and variable admixture from host population, while the split between Middle Eastern and European/Syrian Jews, calculated by simulation and comparison of length distributions of IBD segments, occurred 100–150 generations ago, as "compatible with a historical divide that is reported to have occurred more than 2500 years ago" as the Jewish community in Iraq and Iran were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires during and after Babylonian exile. The main difference between Iraqi, Iranian and Ashkenazi Jews was the absence of south European component in this Middle Eastern Jewish groups. This study found that genetic dates "are incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs" Citing Behar, Atzmon states that "Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in all Jewish populations based on non overlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years"
 * Atzmon and all.

"The results shows that most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster with common genetic origin, that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations..."The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant." In conclusion the authors are stating that the genetic results are concordant "with the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World"
 * Behar and all 2010

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15], [38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39], [40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC
 * Priya Moorjani and al 2011

"North African Jews are more closely related to Jews from other parts of the world than they are to most of their non-Jewish neighbors in North Africa, a study has found. North African Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to Each Other and to European and Middle Eastern Jewish Groups. SNP data were generated for 509 unrelated individuals (60.5% female) from the 15 Jewish populations (Table 1). These SNP data were merged with selected datasets from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) to examine the genetic structure of Jewish populations in both global and regional contexts (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). The first two principal components of worldwide populations showed that the North African Jewish populations clustered with the European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups and European non-Jewish groups, but not with the North African non-Jewish groups, suggesting origins distinctive from the latter... The relationships of the Jewish communities were outlined further by the IBD sharing across populations [Fig. 3B and SI Appendix, Tables S1 (lower triangle) and S4], because the Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations."
 * Cambell and all 2012

Beside this the current page do not have section for the "innovative techniques"  as it presents only classical genetic studies which explore X, Y chromosomes and autosomal chromosomes. So my issue with this paper is WP:UNDUE. Excuse me for the huge space I took.Tritomex (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * None of this, which you repeatedly post on various talk pages, to explain your attempts to control article content on genetic articles dealing with Jewish populations, responds to the points raised.
 * 'classical genetic study' is a meaningless term in this context.
 * You cite the usual papers, in order to make a WP:OR construction that there is "consensus". Those papers frequently differ in their findings. This is a relatively new science. There is no "consensus" against which to measure Elhaik's paper's finding and declare them (see WP:NOR) "fringe".
 * What is WP:FRINGE is determined by the scholarship, not by editors.
 * Your use of WP:Undue shows you do not understand it, since WP:NPOV says all relevant points of view, of which Elhaik's is one, must be covered. The section you cite from the former doesn't apply, since Elhaik's peer-reviewed work, published in a highly respectable scientific journal, is not a "minority view" as much as a "new review" of the literature you cite, which points out numerous problems. Until geneticists come out and review it, we have to mention it neutrally, without regard to the issue of its as yet undetermined status within the field.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to echo Andy's sentiments. I believe it should remain in the article under the section "autosomal DNA", but definitely not in the intro. It should also be directly followed by links to critiques of his work by Razib Khan and others.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the lead, which says 'Studies of autosomal DNA, which look at the entire DNA mixture, have become increasingly important as the technology develops', and therefore citing by name some examples of that approach is perfectly normal. WP:lede reads:'summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.' This is a prominent controversy since Zoossmann-Diskin, Jits van Straten and Eran Elhaik are all geneticists/microbiologists, and come to decidedly different conclusions from the unique ME-origin model, they and others constitute a distinct minority view which, since it should form part of a section, deserves summary mention in the lead. The lead in any case is vitiated by selectively highlighting without comprehensive and strong secondary source support, theories as established conclusions. Razib Khan's remarks refer to an earlier version of Elhaik's paper to which Elhaik replied.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Jits van Straten has no credentials from population genetics, nor even from genetics and he is not  historian as well. Considering Zoossmann-Diskin in this question, he is fully in line with the rest of genetic scientists as all genetic studies including his do not support the so called "Khazar Theory". It is very important to point out  that all genetic studies  (and I listed them above) have same or similar conclusions in this question.--Tritomex (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also important to show that academic books from population genetics are also in line with all genetic studies like Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA - Page 383(refuting so called Khazar Theory) So there are no "two competing theory in population genetics" but an artificial attempt to create them. Regarding Genetic origin of the Jews, there is only  one theory which is supported by 20+ genetic studies,(see the list above) and the Khazar theory which is not supported by any genetic study nor it is validated at any academic book from population genetics and as Bernard Lewis states in his book  "Semites and Anti-Semites" P:49,  "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics"--Tritomex (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In population genetics it has not a single genetic study to back it, although over 20 genetic studies have been carried out on Jewish populations.--Tritomex (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that there are only two useful conclusions to be drawn from this discussion: (a) the disputed paper isn't 'fringe', by the definition that Wikipedia uses, and (b) the Wikipedia article in question is synthesis, and should be deleted as such - it isn't an article about the subject, it is a collection of summaries of primary sources gathered together to support a particular premiss - that Jews share a common genetic heritage (which is self-evidently true, since everyone does) and that this genetic heritage separates them in an unique manner from other populations (which is self-evidently false, according to the genetic evidence, according to history, and according to good old-fashioned common sense). The article doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia - though I'm sure that any attempt to rectify this will be met by the usual waffle about 'censorship', 'bias' and worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The majority of genetic studies in the article support a Levantine origin for the Jewish ethnic divisions, compounded with varying degrees of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry. To my knowledge, only Elhaik's study supports the Khazar thesis, and even he agrees that Jews have a considerable amount of Semitic ancestry. Therefore, the lead should stay the way it is.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article itself is a kind of coatrack article which compiles studies to make or prove a point, and synthesizing content to support a position. It should be trimmed radically or deleted. The article is more of a research paper rather than an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles don't try to prove something. They summarize what has already been proven.(olive (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC))
 * That the reason that I proposed to use similar standart to WP:MEDRS btw such articles exist. for example so I think valid article could be written on this issue.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the problem with this article is that its encyclopaedic reason for existing is misplaced. It has in fact been turned into some sort of attempt to prove or disprove that modern Jewish populations are related to the ancient populations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Consider however that there are only three other ethnicities that have similar articles (Tamils/Sinhalese, and Serbs), but neither takes this approach. Moreover, the Article on Jews seeks to not only to self-define itself, but redefine the discipline within which it is ostensibly located. Consider the following:
 * Genetic studies on Jews intro - "This discipline is used to better understand the chronology of migration and thus complements the results provided by history, archeology, language or paleontology. The interest of these studies is to investigate the origins of various Jewish populations today . In particular, they investigate whether there is a common genetic heritage among various Jewish populations."
 * vs.


 * Population genetics - "Population genetics is the study of allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. It also takes into account the factors of recombination, population subdivision and population structure. It attempts to explain such phenomena as adaptation and speciation."

Identifying that gene flow among the Jews exists is a bit of a no-brainer given the Jewish diaspora article.

No mention is made that Jews themselves are not united by 'blood', but by religious practice, which forms the basis of a converts' inclusion in the Ethnoreligious group. What is then the significance of these studies, and why are they encyclopaedic other than for the purpose of attempting to 'prove' that modern Jews are not 'pure' genetically, something they freely admit, and which is codified in the Torah! It sounds like an article seeking to define who is a Jew. Crock81 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the point I'm making. Your linking to a 'paper' not to Wikipedia and an encyclopedia. An encyclopedic article is very different from a paper which is usually created by suggesting a position, and then providing proof or support for that position. We cannot synthesize content, or provide support for a position. We are simply assembling information from sources that have been published. Tightening up the use of sources probably doesn't change the way this article is actually written.(olive (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC))


 * A single study that flies in the face of the consensus of previous studies has to be treated as a fringe primary source unless and until the consensus changes to include it, or until it is generally acknowledged as a significant and respectable minority viewpoint. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Human population genetics have 4 fields with major  interest regarding  "genetic evolution" and migration is one of most important . Migration into or out of a population can change allele frequencies, as well as introducing genetic variation into a population. To quote  Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University paper explaining the role of population genetics "Migration into or out of a population is the fourth and final factor that can affect its genetic composition. Obviously, if immigrants are genetically different from the population they are entering, this will cause the population's genetic composition to be altered. The evolutionary importance of migration stems from the fact that many species are composed of a number of distinct subpopulations, largely isolated from each other but connected by occasional migration. (For an extreme example of population subdivision, think of ant colonies.) Migration between subpopulations gives rise to gene flow, which acts as a sort of ‘glue’, limiting the extent to which subpopulations can diverge from each other genetically."  Migration, or Gene flow as it is synonymously  refereed in human population genetics, together with natural selection, genetic drift,  is the main mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time. Gene flow is one of the main fields of interest in Human population genetics.Migration into or out of a population may be responsible for a marked change in allele frequencies (the proportion of members carrying a particular variant of a gene). "Immigration may also result in the addition of new genetic variants to the established gene pool of a particular species or population." As in the case of all ethnic groups, Wikipedia population genetic articles exists in "Jews" in the same way as it exists in Turks  Croats  Kazakhs, Kurd, Syrians, Serbs, Italians  or almost every single ethnic group without many exceptions. Concerning "Jews as not being united by blood" the article never states such thing, the common and shared Middle Eastern genetic origin with the rest of people from Middle East does not exclude but include Jews, and as it is obvious from genetic studies this article covers both migrations, gene flow and admixture which exists among Jews as among any ethnic group. It is a fact that due to geographic distribution of the Jewish population, and shared historical origin their genetic origin was the main focus of this scientific genetic studies, yet this not unique, as this question is always present in HPG studies.

Although my primary concern was WP:UNDUE I fully agree with Mangoe as there is no genetic study or scientific academic book from Human population genetics which supports Khazar Theory ( and which was described by historian Bernard Lewis as "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever.." ) Elhaik paper  has to be treated as a fringe primary source.--Tritomex (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with AndyTheGrump, Nishidani and olive.
 * If the article synthesizes speculative analysis with the aim of proving a hypothesis it would seem not to belong in an encyclopedia.
 * Since the technology is evolving and there is more raw data than clear results gleaned from analyzing the data, why not just create a list page for people trying to keep abreast on what is going on in the field. --Ubikwit (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am deeply concerned about all our articles that use genetic studies to show relationships between various groups. Almost everyone I've come across has had editors misusing genetic studies to prove some point (and that doesn't include the editors who merrily change cited material ignoring the fact that their change isn't even cherry-picked from the site). I'd support any efforts to deal with this. In the particular case of this article, it's been hawked around from article to article as the latest thing that proves X - see for instance Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People and Talk:Khazars. and his socks have continually tried to include it in articles. Remember that just because something is a reliable source for one article (and I'm not suggesting this is a reliable source) that doesn't mean it's a reliable source for all articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug. The particular prominence given this article by POV-pushers, for or agin it, should not blind us to the larger question, which I think others have noted. Elhaik's article is, as a source, of the same quality, and RS value, of every other genetics article. It was singled out (as was Zoossmann-Diskin's) as 'problematical' only because it gave a different result from the standard template 'theory' which many other genetic articles could be cited as supporting. I certainly would back any effort to review what is going on, if it dealt broadly with the overall issue both Andy the Grump and olive raised. For the moment, however, we have a concrete problem: are we to withhold, exceptionally, Elhaik's article from a (dubious WP:SYNTH page), while leaving the rest of the article intact, though the other genetics papers there, as sources, remain unchallenged for what they are being used to "prove". Personally, I'm pretty wary of Elhaik's paper, as I am of Wexler's - these are very complex and fluid areas of rsearch - but I support the use of Elhaik's paper because I have yet to see why any argument against its use does not apply, mutatis mutandis to all the other genetic papers used in these articles. People opposing its use appear, equally, to have an ideological investment in a different theory, and a dislike of anything, however well sourced in terms of RS parity, which would contradict that theory.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Excluding a scientific study solely on the basis that the results don't meet with 'consensus' is perhaps questionable (if that is what is going on) - but excluding it because the results would be politically embarrassing is another matter entirely. Perhaps this is a matter for the fringe theories noticeboard after all - is our article actually a pseudoscientific synthesis itself? Reaching the conclusions and then looking for the evidence to back it up doesn't look like science to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Elhaik paper should be discussed in the article body and mentioned in the lead section. Other text in the article should be recast to allow its conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that also represent a type of unwarranted WP:SYNTH? Each new publication would modifify the kaleidoscopic (pseudoscience) article if you simply recast to accommodate each new hypothesis. There must be a better way to simply present the existence of research related to the topic in a manner that doesn't imply any conclusions.
 * Doug seems to have raised a more difficult point regarding the use of this source on different articles. One article he mentions appears to discusses the DNA analysis in conjunction with an analysis of related historiography. If the source is used simply to illustrate a historiographical point (as a minority academic POV), that would seem to be a different use than its citation in an article to support claim(s) related solely to genetics. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not synthesis to adjust other wording to accommodate a new thought, especially one that is contradictory. The article cannot present to the reader a conclusive thesis if there is a high quality contradictory study, which there is. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, generically speaking, yes, it can. There are studies that are published in high-quality journals by expert authors that turn out to be ridiculously wrong and serve no part of the scholarly consensus on the subject.  Publication is not the be-all and end-all of establishing what represents a noteworthy counter-opinion. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that the article should be deleted is ridiculous, as is the notion that the entire reason it exists is to "prove a point". The problem here is that it's a hot button issue. What I would recommend instead is raising the protection level of the article, and perhaps revising it so as to more accurately reflect a NPOV.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that brings the discussion full circle back to the point raised by ATG and olive that none of the published works (if I've understood them correctly) listed in the article in question represents a definitive scientific statement--all are hypothetical, primary level interpretations of raw data--and therefore the attempt to support any theoretical position on the basis of those sources would represent a WP:SYNTH statement.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Came to this late, but I have been involved in talk page discussions about this subject on the article talkpage, and also some similar arguments over the years when genetics articles have touched upon sensitive points. Some quick notes:
 * I agree with the basic conclusion most relevant to this noticeboard that this is no straightforward fringe case.
 * I did originally express agreement with the idea of being hesitant to use this article when it was still a working paper on ArXiv, and obviously a bit surprising in its conclusions at that time. See WP:REDFLAG, which is distinct from WP:FRINGE. But now it is published in a more final form. While it is possible to criticize this article, the same can be said of all or most others which have covered the same topic. But these are articles by the recognized experts.
 * Some of the points raised above are very valid general points about the problems genetics articles give because of their dependence upon primary articles. But this is really a big subject that has been brought up many times. Simply: I do not think anyone is ever going to get consensus for a ban on genetics articles so we just have to try to be careful about POV pushing.
 * In this light, I generally argue in such cases for short neutral summaries of all relevant articles (which is often only a small number). I do not think that this can be called WP:SYNTH, as long as we keep strict about not letting people remove reference to inconvenient articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A listing of all relevant papers with neutral summaries sounds like a reasonable organizing principle for the article.
 * What you have at present is several editors trying to defend the current form of the article against papers that would undermine the basic premise it presents by contradicting core assumptions.
 * Only one of the geneticist cited by Nishidani is discussed in the article, Tritomex appears to be arguing that the most recent relevant paper should be dismissed as being fringe so as to exclude it from the article.
 * --Ubikwit (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we really talking about several sources? I think this thread is about the new Elhaik publication? For example Zoossman-Diskin is discussed in the Wikipedia article unless it has been removed. To me this whole discussion should just be one about how to get the right balance (the short neutral summaries), and is being made unnecessarily difficult by parties trying to ignore each other's valid concerns completely, using wikilawyering in order to try to find a rule that will give them total "victory". If that stops, the main problems will stop.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it seems to me that the choice is between an inclusive or exclusive approach. Either apply MEDRS as Shrike suggested earlier, which would probably cut out a lot of sources currently in the article. Or include all the relevant papers. I still also see a problem with the scope of the whole article. Is it actually about  studies on Jews, i.e about the scientific process, methodology etc? Or is it about  genetics of Jews, ie the findings of the research? This needs to be resolved before we can see whether to adopt an inclusive or exclusive approach to sourcing. Is even the preposition right:  on Jews, which sounds awkward and even insulting. The Nazis carried out research  on Jews. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Judith has raised yet further concerns.
 * To recap, the discussion regarding the Elhaik publication (agreed to be not "fringe") led to a consideration of the article with respect to which its status was being questioned.
 * ATG and olive pointed out that the article was more like a research paper insofar as it put forth a conclusion and attempted to prove it using the papers cited, leading ATG to suggest that the article was a fringe piece of pseudoscience. So I suggested something more along the lines of a "list" format article.
 * Nishidani also cited a Jits van Straten publication in relation to that discussion. Why that is not included in the article at present is beyond my scope of understanding about the article, but it was presented in conjunction with the Elhaik publication.
 * Doug pointed to the question of the context in which the paper is cited with respect to its status as a RS.
 * I didn't mean to ignore anyone's valid concerns, and I'm not really sure what the wikilawyering and "total victory" references were about. I support your statement about "short neutral summaries of all relevant articles", but in this case, perhaps it should be pointed out there are quite a few publications already cited and the list is growing.
 * Judith's concerns address the scope of the article in more specific terms.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the name and scope of the article can be improved, and I think editors of the article probably would not disagree. The article was I think originally a translation from a French Wikipedia article and the title has always been a bit awkward. But shouldn't this be discussed on the article talkpage? It has been raised before, but I think that one practical problem has been that editors of this article have not gotten around to this question, just as they have not been good at getting to discussing many concrete editing proposals at all. Maybe if they would just start spending more time on making concrete editing proposals which are not rushed and knee jerk, things would go much better. By the way, community members interested in this type of problem might also want to look at Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jits van Straten has nothing to do with Elhaik paper and he is not WP:RS for population genetics as he is not geneticist and he is not historian too. There are at least two different yet combined problems. In population genetics as in most sciences there is no equality between classical (standard) genetic study on different population groups, using standard methods and procedures from sampling to to loci determination related to X, Y and autosomes and an "innovative techniques" as Elhaik described his article- genetic analysis of Behar and all 2010 samples. If there would be equality between this two approach, there would be no need for costly trials involving thousands of participants and months of hard work. As the current page covers only classical genetic studies, to promote Elhaik paper, (which is the only genetic paper supportive od so called Khazar theory )  to the rank of standard  genetic studies (which are all telling the opposite  from Elhaik paper)(see above) would be in my view WP:UNDUE violation. Elhaik on his website, goes further  with innovations in population genetics as he promises anyone to revile if they are Khazars or not in return for money.    "Can you tell me if I am a Khazar descended? Certainly, if you have your DNA sampled genotyped for autosomal chromosomes (not Y or mtDNA). All donors who contribute over $50 to the project can also submit their DNA sample and learn about their Khazarian ancestry"  So what we have here is a fringe primary source, telling opposite from all classical genetic studies using standard procedures, which was covered only by one secondary source  namely Haaretz stating that all genetic scientists interviewed refused even to give their opinion on this subject.

The second problem is the Khazarian Theory which is itself a fringe theory. As this theory is attractive in Anti-Semitic circles although considered mythological by historians like D.M. Dunlop and Bernard Lewis, this genetic paper was presented in numerous antisemitic sites like Stormfront and similar. Also this paper was available on line for at least many months. Third as blogs like those of Rhazib Khan spotted, there are numerous factual errors in the article like for example the description of Hungarians as "Slavic people" To summarize, We have here a genetic analysis using non standard procedure which is concluding the opposite from all genetic studies and academic books from population genetics which uses standard procedures, in support for a  fringe history theory.--Tritomex (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a much more concise and intelligible statement of your concerns regarding the "fringe" aspect. Thank you.
 * I'm not involved in editing that page and am not going to get involved, but it seems that there's work to be done. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Slightly off focus, but since extraneous points, which however do bear on the general issue, have been raised here, I'll conclude with a general note.
 * "Jits van Straten has nothing to do with Elhaik paper and he is not WP:RS for population genetics as he is not geneticist and he is not historian too."
 * Tritomex. Jits van Straten has a Minnesota Phd in microbiology, worked in that field for two decades, is an amateur historian who did an invaluable archival study of the Jewish population in Amsterdam, from registries and cemetaries, and wrote a survey (secondary source) of the various theories, genetics, history and linguistics, regarding one, the demographically major, branch of the Jews. The work was published by a highly regarded academic publisher, Walter de Gruyter. He therefor qualifies for the article on Genetic studies on Jews, in the relevant section. That he has nothing to do with Elhaik does not mean (a) if Elhaik is included in Genetic studies on Jews, then Jits van Straten cannot be because he doesn't comment on Elhaik. Of course not. He comments on geneticists like Zoossmann-Diskin etc., who discuss Ashkenazi genetics and origins.
 * Your point about non-standard procedure represents your personal judgement, and is irrelevant.
 * Your attempt to link the Khazaria theorizing to anti-semitism is laughable. The Khazar theory has had a long career in Jewish and Israeli historiography, where no one, from Abraham Firkovich, Heinrich Graetz, Salo Wittmayer Baron, [Abraham Poliak] or modern scholars like Paul Wexler and Eran Elhaik can be tainted with that brush. The Khazaria theory died on its feet almost immediately after the establishment of Israel,(Sand p.237) as a taboo area, and your editing treats it still as a taboo, though it is simply one of several theories in a zone of great uncertainty.
 * Bernard Lewis's comments here are outdated, predating the modern genetic arguments, and the revived historical interest in this hypothesis. It was published just as Khazaria studies enjoyed an academic boom, which he failed to notice and indeed, just after Golb and Pritsak's groundbreaking work on the Khazarian Hebrew documents (which identified the Khazarian kohanim as converted Khazar shamans), and in the same year as Peter Golden's article on Jewish proselytising among the Khazars. By 1999 Golden, a doyen in the field, accepted that the dominant strata of the Khazar were Judaic, conversion had occurred, with the people adhering to rabbinical Judaism, and their contribution to Ashkenazi formation an open issue, though controversial, and inviting further investigation (Peter Golden, Khazar Studies: Achievements and Perspectives (1999) pp.7-58). The whole troubled ideological issue here is that of a clash between proponents on endogamous descent lines (genetics), and large historical evidence for conversion and proselytising of non-Jewish populations from high antiquity onwards (the admixture side, which implies ME and non-ME descent as equally relevant for genetically determined 'identity'). The former is linked to Israel's constructed image as a nation based on a "return" of a dispossessed people to its native land: the latter is linked to critics of Zionism, but the technical vissues have a validity that should override the respective political investments in "results" that confirm ideological partis pris.
 * It is true that Elhaik makes historical mistakes. So do most of the other geneticists, and Jits van Straten. That's the whole problem.
 * Take this sensible review of the massive study by Atzmon et al:-
 * "In a sense, geneticists always seem to find support for what they set out to prove in the first place. It is small wonder that “Abraham’s Fathers” comes at the end of and completes a decades-long push by Big Science to legitimize Jewish claims to Middle Eastern roots. It is a splendid survey, the last in a long series, but it is not the final word on the subject. There are flaws both in the sampling and historical thinking."
 * That goes for every article, pro or contra. There is a glaring aporia between the cutting edges of genetic research on origins, and the most up-to-date historical scholarship on the various origins of this congeries of Jewish groups. The whole Ashkenazi/ME theory has to accept that there was a 'demographic miracle' unattested in human history, that took place between 1500-1900 in Europe. Elhaik, and Yits van Straten don't believe in miracles as acceptable elements of scientific or historical analysis. We are in an area of pure speculation, the research agenda are contaminated by sociological, political and ideological pressures (Sand details how a key genetic paper showing identity between Palestinians and Jews in 2000 was reformulated, soon after, when the Al Aqsa Intifada broke out, to repackage diametrically opposed conclusions, emphasizing their genetic difference (Sand p.276) etc, and the both methodologies and their results are too conflictual, from paper to paper in crucial details, for anyone to assume we are dealing with hypotheses that have been repeatedly verified, and have acquired both scientific and historical consensus. The very word 'Middle East' is used of an area as extensive as Palestine, Turkey, Iraq and Iran (Wexler and others see a Middle East origin fingering Iran; your own papers often finger Babylonia (exilic period) as the decisive point where Ashkenazi split off from other Jewish groups, and there perhaps we are dealing in good part with proselyte populations. So please desist from making personal judgements on who to include and who to exclude and respect the diversity of opinions in a fluid, inchoate area of research. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the 'sensible review', if sensible, would necessitate removal of all of the genetic data. (The claim that geneticists "always seem to find proof of what they set out to prove" is an indictment of the entire field.)  However, an unsigned review on a web site with COA issues, and that in another post is promoting that the DNA of Bigfoot has been discovered, is not exactly where one should be looking for an indication of the quality of a scholarly field that publishes thousands of papers a year. There is a strong consensus in the scholarly community regarding this issue, repeated in numerous papers.  The only question here is what level of coverage a single paper showing a counter conclusion merits. Agricolae (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe including it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE, but leaving it under the autosomal DNA section is fine so long as it conforms to WP:NPOV. As it stands, his conclusions still constitute a minority viewpoint in light of nearly every other study that disagrees. Another point of skepticism, as Tritomex mentioned earlier, is the popularity of this theory in white supremacist circles and websites like Stormfront, so giving it undue attention would come off as "HA! SEE?! YOU WERE WRONG! JEWS ARE KHAZARS!!!" In fact, over the past year or so I've seen many random editors come onto the article and attempt to re-frame it so as to give extra emphasis to the conclusions of Zoossmann-Diskin's study, for similar reasons no doubt. We have to be very careful.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure I'm fronting for the Nazis. Yawn.
 * Agricolae-There is no scholarly consensus, or at least Tritomex for several weeks has been asked to provide good sources that document this, and has failed to supply them (just as he and others edit-warred to remove my requests that this egregiously false statement:'Although the historical record is limited, there is a genetic, cultural, linguistic, and scholarly consensus that places Ashkenazi Jewish origins in the Middle East' at Ashkenazi Jews). All we have so far is Tritomex saying that in the field of genetics there is a scholarly consensus in a relatively new field, whereas several notable scholars have obtained results that clash with this meme. Sand is not reliable on genetics: he is reliable on the ideological pressures in the field, which produce startling reversals of the results according to changing geopolitical events. There will be a scholarly consensus when archaeogenetics, examining a large sample of the DNA of skeletal remains in the Levant/Palestine/The Land of Israel in the first millenium BCE, manages to make a specific distinct correlation with modern Jewish populations. Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were. Could you please address my actual points instead of knocking down strawmen? By the way, Sand's area of expertise is French cinema, not Jewish history. Moreover, he was rather candid in admitting that he wrote the book for political reasons. In fact, so did Arthur Koestler, the man who founded the Khazar theory, although I'm not sure how establishing a connection to a Central Asian tribe of Turks would "end antisemitism". Either way, the Khazar theory is fringe and does not belong in the lead.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nishadani As you are using this noticeboard for personal grievances related to my editions, I reserve my right to reply. I asked you to provide an academic book from population genetics, or any genetic study which supports the Khazar theory. Considering the fact that 23 genetic studies have been carried out on Jewish population groups, respected academic books from population genetics like Molecular Photofitting:Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA  (page 383) or Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People by Harry Ostrer or  Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Mark Avrum Ehrlich p 275 or secondary sources related to genetic studies  or Anne Hart book "How To Interpret Family History And Ancestry Dna Test Results"  or all genetic studies in question see above and in line with  numerous other secondary sources, the genetic origin of Jewish population is scientifically established. Therefore you cant create artificial dispute and promote something that does not exist in genetic science, to the level of existence. You are naming historians without any reference to your claim that "Khazar theory has had a long career in Jewish and Israeli historiography," implying that they support "Khazar theory, which is not the case,  while you failed to produce any genetic source regarding our subject namely Elhaik papaer. Jits van Straten  has nothing to do with population genetics, he is amateur historian and microbiologist and while microbiology and population genetics have nothing in common Jits van Straten do not even mention Elhaik claim nor he is in any rational way related to this subject. Than you use a blog to denounce population genetics presenting it as "decades-long push by Big Science to legitimize Jewish claims to Middle Eastern roots." in the same way as you described geneticists involved in genetic studies on Jews as "geneticists, who ignore that their results, based on a quasi-racial stereotyping of the  Jew are not compatible with halakhic law  which defines 'Jews' by different descent criteria. further claiming that you are indifferent to population genetics "That is why I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians"  Finally, again without any source  you are concluding that the genetic origin of Jewish populations is not established, regardless of all genetic studies and academic books showing the opposite,and you have determined, (without any source) that this "scholarly consensus (will come) when archaeogenetics, examining a large sample of the DNA of skeletal remains in the Levant/Palestine (would determine it.)

The genetic origin of Jewish population, X, Y, autosomes have been examined and population genetic has its clues based on standard genetic studies and their results. You failed to provide any source that Khazar theory exist in population genetics, as I provided numerous academic sources stating the opposite.--Tritomex (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What grievances? It's a matter of adhering stringently to wiki procedures, once, which you haven't done, one has read and understood them. That you haven't understood how this place operates is shown by your request.
 * "I asked you to provide an academic book from population genetics, or any genetic study which supports the Khazar theory."
 * This section deals with the status as RS for population genetics of Elhaik's paper. That he supports the Khazar hypothesis is immaterial to that primary issue. That historians take the Khazar hypothesis seriously, or as thoroughly worthy of further investigation, is shown by the survey in Golden's paper. You got that wrong, and apparently didn't read it. The rest of your note just repeats your personal conclusions, which are based on the premise a neophyte discipline, population genetics, with all of its contradictory evaluations, methodological differences from paper to paper, and conclusions is the only "objective" source for historical conclusions, which is, well, ..:) The B'nei Moshe, the Beta Israel, Black Israelites, the Jews of San Nicandro, the Turkish Khazars, the Bnei Menashe, to name but a few, not to speak of the large number of Jews who converted to Christianity, or Islam, or the large numbers of mediterranean peoples who adopted forms of Judaism historically, are or were fully fledged Jews, who however did not come necessarily from the ME. Historians know that, many geneticists do not, apparently. When geneticists write "Jews" and assert their ME origins, do they mean all Jews, such as these?  Obviously not. This is a field of science with a lot of ideological pressure and spin on it. Your opposition to Elhaik's inclusion is based on a dislike of his conclusions. You are judging the content, disagreeing with it, and thus arguing against it as a source, which violates our requirements that editors be neutral, and merely stick to adjudicating the formal status of sources as reliable or not. Here Elhaik is as reliable as the rest as a source. Whether he or the others are right or wrong in their various theories is something which lies beyond the sphere of our competence as wikipedians.Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . You can not deligitimize population genetics based on your personal feelings that "This is a field of science with a lot of ideological pressure and spin on it" This kind of personal attitudes toward a well established medical science is unacceptable and unscientific, lacking any reliable source to back it, although it is  evidently influencing your intention to edit in this field. Your task is to prove your words and to show academic book from this scientific field backing your claims ( namely Khazar theory) which you repeatedly failed to produce. The reason for this comes from the fact that no academic book from population genetics and no genetic study using standard medical procedures backs the so called khazar thoery. Different religious groups  established  recently as Black Israelites do not consider themselves Jews, nor are they considered Jewish by Jews, nor they have anything to do with Jewish population genetics. I also do not understand  what you want with B'nei Moshe a group of few hundred persons, or with  Beta Israel which were by the way examined in numerous genetic studies and covered in population genetic scholarly works. It is interesting that while you call yourself "indifferent" to population genetics  when serious genetic scientists and academic books clearly states that Jews do share common Middle Eastern origin, while you are not indifferent when one single primary source, contrary to all genetic studies and academic books from population genetics, using "innovative techniques" not applied anywhere or anytime before concludes something partially opposite. Excuse  me now on my small digression to your previous comment about demographic miracle of Ashkenazi Jews (from 1500-)( this probably should point to expansion of Ashkenazi Jewish population  from 50 000-100 000 in 1500 to some 7,5-8 million today). So called demographic miracles are not restricted only to AJ population, they were observed among many European, even non European populations which lived under much harsher conditions. For example the genetic cousin's of Jews, the Palestinian people  rose from population of less than 180 000  in 1800 to more than 11 million today. Jews are not a race, and as it is obvious from population genetic studies, they underwent admixture during Roman empire with South European population. No one deny this. However, all this is unrelated to the current subject and simple fact that as per academic books from population genetics the Khazar theory do not have validation (existence) in this precise medical science.--Tritomex (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "your personal feelings that 'This is a field of science with a lot of ideological pressure and spin on it'"
 * Consult Sociology of knowledge, the Sociology of scientific knowledge, and Paradigm shift, if you are unfamiliar with the classic tradition from Karl Mannheim, through Thomas Kuhn down to Paul Feyerabend. It's not a personal feeling. Sand, among others, has documented it with concrete examples. Please do not repeat that I have some 'claim' about the Khazar theory. You have no evidence that I espouse any such theory, for the simple reason that I don't think we have anything more than hypotheses for issues like this. The Khazar theory is not incompatible with population genetics, nor with a ME theory.  If you have ever read them, you've forgotten what David B. Goldstein and Hillel Halkin have written on this.  Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Tritomex still arguing against the Elhaik paper? This makes the problem look like a behavioral one rather than a content dispute. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please if someone don't agree with you POV it doesn't mean there are "behavioral" problem by accusing others you may have such problem yourself.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing POVs, but interpretation of policy, despite several attempts by Tritomex to say those who challenge his edits or positions do so for personal reasons, or grievances. What seems to be clear is that Tritomex rarely uses policy base arguments. He uses his own convictions to push in edits, or try to keep out edits whose content he dislikes, and, since he does this in ignorance of wiki policy, it looks like (becoming) a behavioural problem. He has the truth, others don't.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * e.g.
 * (A) However, all this is unrelated to the current subject and simple fact that as per academic books from population genetics the Khazar theory do not have validation (existence) in this precise medical science. Tritomex


 * (B) David B. Goldstein the Ashkenazic Y chromosome may be testimony to the entry of some of the Khazar population into Ashkenazic Jewry. Genetics will never be able to solve these mysteries by itself. But along with shards of pottery, passages from the Bible and other clues, genetic research can help us put together the pieces of the intricate puzzle that is the history of the Jewish people.' 'In Jewish Genetic History, the Known Unknowns,' in Forward, August 28, 2009


 * David B. Goldstein is Director of the Center for Human Genome Variation at Duke Center for Human Genome Variation. Tritomex is a pediatrician who edits on wikipedia. The former is RS, the latter is not. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nishadani what you provided as source claiming this the Ashkenazic Y chromosome may be testimony to the entry of some of the Khazar population into Ashkenazic Jewry  states in fact this the overall genetic makeup of Ashkenazic Jews provides little support for Koestler’s theory (Khazar theory), the Ashkenazic Y chromosome may be testimony to the entry of some of the Khazar population into Ashkenazic Jewry. Could it be that members of the Khazar elite, after converting to Judaism, assumed the identity of Levites?" The Khazar theory is a theory that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars and your own source, which you presented here shows that there is no evidence in population genetics for such claim. Btw the Levite studies  refer to Behar and al 2004  who speculated that if Ashkenazi Jews would have any Khazar admixture it could not exceed at most 12% ( it does not states that 12% of AJ are Khazars but that this would be the hypothetical maximum) . This comes from same authors who after examining autosomal, X  and Y chromosomes and autosomes (while previous study was done only on Y chromosomes) concluded in 2010 that the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi  Jews is Middle Eastern "with the most parsimonious explanation for this genetic Middle Eastern ancestry is that it is consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from the ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant and the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World" http://bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Behar2010.pdf So what you proved is that in genetic science Khazar theory is fringe theory,  without evidences. The question here is Khazarian theory (that Ashkenazi jews are descendants of Khazars), for what per your source  "the overall genetic makeup of Ashkenazic Jews provides little support"'''  --Tritomex (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

************************************** Could further comments please ignore all temptations to indulge in peripheral divagations and theories and whatever, and simply address the original request made bby Zero on the status of Elhaik's paper. Does it qualify as WP:Fringe? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does qualify as fringe, because it is a theory with very limited support.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Elhaik's paper was published a month ago. There is no RS verdict on it as having 'very limited support'. Focus, please.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the Khazar theory overall, which Elhaik's paper supports. As of right now, the Khazar theory still has very marginal support compared to the narrative that Jews are a Middle Eastern population with mixed ancestry from Southern Europeans.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Evildoer, but minority and fringe are not the same thing. Nobody questions that it is a minority view.  We are required by the rules to include minority views that are reliably published. Zerotalk 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone actually come up with a rule-based argument for excluding a peer-reviewed scientific article in a prestigious academic journal? Come on, folks, this is pretty elementary wikicraft. Zerotalk 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, they cannot. the Elhaik paper should be included in both the lead and article body. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia:


 * From WP:FRINGE, the categorisation that Arbcom laid down.
 * 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality.
 * That is exactly what this paper is. There is a controversy between scholars. It's not our controversy; all we have to do is describe it so that readers can make up their own minds. We have to ensure that each side of the controversy is described accurately and in enough detail. We should give more space to the prevailing view than to the heterodox view. I don't think this board can advise on whether this particular paper should be mentioned in the lead. I hope that editors will keep a close eye on how the debate progresses, as this research will either be supported or disproved in future. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, after having read this page I just wanted to point out one quick thing some people here have mentioned that is simply not correct. If one goes over to a place like say "Stormfront" (I will not provide any links from there here for obvious reasons) one will see that a large bulk of the "Stormfront" users are not promoters of the Khazar hypothesis and actually cluster closer to certain ideologues on the Zionist side who appear to promote the idea of a separate "Jewish race" (of course "Stormfront" people and this other group, Zionists, clearly do so for their own separate reasons). For example Shlomo Sand has stated (as he comes up in these topics and Elhaik openly cites Sand's work); "'Their search for the origin of a common gene in order to characterize a people or a nation is very dangerous,' says Sand. With several reservations, he cites the example of the Germans, 'who also searched for a common component of blood ties.' The historical irony, he emphasizes, is expressed in the fact that 'whereas, in the past, anyone who defined the Jews as a race was vilified as an anti-Semite, today anyone who is unprepared to define them as a race is labeled an anti-Semite.'" So again certain users here who have said that Elhaik's study should be used "carefully" and that the Khazar hypothesis is allegedly used primarily by white supremacists are in my opinion not being completely factual (as of course a long list of scholars support the Khazar hypothesis, up to individuals like Eran Elhaik and Shlomo Sand today) and maybe even more crucially again one can see a large bulk of the white supremacists claiming Jews are their own separate "race" (something that Sand links to Zionist ideology itself). I end with a quote from academic Noel Ignatiev "The 'Jewish' population of Israel includes people from fifty countries, of different physical types, speaking different languages and practicing different religions (or no religion at all), defined as a single people based on the fiction that they, and only they, are descended from the Biblical Abraham. It is so patently false that only Zionists and Nazis even pretend to take it seriously."Freudk (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)  sock edits
 * Sand p.272 mentioned Alain F. Corcos The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View, Lehigh University Press, 2005. It is thoroughly neglected but outlines with hard science why so many are worried by this drift to identity as those factors that constitute community, as opposed to the many that suggest heterogeneity, in genetic arguments when defining both Judaism and Jewishness.Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)