Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Unreadable

This is an unwieldy article that seems like it is trying to be comprehensive and cover every genetic study that has any bearing on Judaic heritage. But as editors keep adding on more and more material, the article as a whole has suffered. I can't imagine many readers wading through the entire piece and most interested people will just skim through the headers rather than try to parse this dense presentation.

I realize that this topic is seen as controversial but there must be a way to make this more accessible for the average reader. I'm not inclined to hack away at the verbiage myself but I urge any editor who has a firm grasp on this subject to put aside the debates on Wikipedia about this and think of the position of a high school student approaching this article for information. I doubt they would get very far before abandoning the effort and deciding to write on a different subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's become pretty useful this way actually, as a sort of database. If you want to find something in particular, you can just use Ctrl + F :). --Yalens (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Liz, when I first created the article I wanted it to be accurate of course but also readable. At least we should try to make a summary in the header. Unfortunately my english is not good enough to compete with so many editors here. As it is now, it is impossible to have an overview on the current status on this field.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be a pity if your initial effort were to be endlessly derailed. Things have somewhat quietened down here, and there is enough goodwill around, by editors who have noted the problem, to ensure that any editor who is willing to take on the task of rewriting this and similar articles in a clear, concise and accurate manner, cutting away a huge amount of padding, POV pushing etc., will find support, and I hope, care to see that disruption does not take place. If you feel like rewriting it, notify this page.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Family Tree DNA director Bennett Greenspan claims by Zero000

Bennett Greenspan is the founder and president of Family Tree DNA. He is not geneticists, yet he is a public figure whose criticism of Sand book was reported by reliable secondary sources. I do not see why his criticism of Sand book has been removed, if reliable sources reported on this issue. Being a geneticist is not a requirement for being notable in issue.--Tritomex (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, restricting comment to this article, for starters, you did not actually give a reliable source for the material you added.     ←   ZScarpia   20:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong Tritomex, but repeatedly in the past I recall you challenging articles not written by geneticists. The objection stands: we have reliably published scientific sources for all this.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I have made one specific objections, when a microbiologists commented on one specific historic issue from population genetics perspective. Since than, many non genetic sources were added to articles related to Jewish genetics. Greenspan is a director of one of most important population genetic institutions in relation to this topic and he is a notable person. However, if there is agreement that those without formal education from population genetics shouldn't be included, to articles related to Jewish genetic origin, than make this rule universally applicable for all.Tritomex (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep going on about how Greenspan is a 'notable' person? Notability has absolutely nothing to do with reliability as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, not only is Greenspan unqualified, but he has an obvious vested interest. He is a businessman who had a clever and timely idea for making money. Good for him, but here we quote reliable sources. We don't add things that are basically just publicity for a company. Zero^talk 08:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not looked at this discussion in detail but I know Bennett Greenspan often has a published article in mind when he makes public statements. Where he does not, I would agree that he generally promotes things (as a businessman indeed) in "interesting ways" which are not necessarily encylopedic, even if not purely wrong as such. If he does not name a published source he may well respond to questions and give you one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a question what we think about Greenspan and this goes to WP:BLP, the assertion that Grenspan is an unqualified businessman who had a clever and timely idea for making money, which makes him saying such things needs at least some reference beside personal POV.--Tritomex (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A better source should be available.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Extremely bad name! Jews aren't lab rats!

Is it just me or does 'Genetic studies on Jews' sounds like a report delivered to Nazi HQ monthly? Any name would be better!

1. Genetic studies of Jewish origins.
2. Genetic studies of Jewish History.
3. Genetic theories about Jewish origins.

Ashtul (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point. I'd prefer either of your first two suggestions over the existing title. Zero^talk 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Genetic studies of Jewish origins' would be preferable - this is an article about science, rather than history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am a newbie and have no idea how this is done. Can someone please change the name? Ashtul (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'More' tab at the top of the article provides a 'move' option - since nobody else has commented, I'll move it to 'Genetic studies of Jewish origins'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for the correction of Hammer and al interpretation

Hammer states "This Jewish cluster was interspersed with the Palestinian and Syrian populations, whereas the other Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations (Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze) closely surrounded it. Of the Jewish populations in this cluster, the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations (specifically the Greeks) and also to the Turks." This can not be translated as " In addition, the non-Jewish components in Ashkenazim and Sephardim are generally South European, specifically Greek". The reasons why Jewish and Greek population were close were not interpreted as the sentence above does. So this is WP:OR:--Tritomex (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Time to move Autosomal studies before mtDNA and YDNA ?

Can I suggest that, with the publication of the latest study (Carmi et al, 2014), which ran full-genome sequences from 128 Jews of Ashkenazi origin, that the time has come to present the autosomal studies before YDNA and mtDNA ?

The new full-genome autosomal studies give a much more detailed and reliable picture of the broad trends of whole population development in the most recent 2000 years.

I think it makes sense to present that first, to give that broad (though shallower time-depth) picture, before the narrower, harder to interpret, but deeper time-depth picture that is to be gained from matriarchal and patriarchal lines. Jheald (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The autosomal studies are actually starting to mean something, whereas the old studies were the source of endless uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Reenem:, @Tritomex: for their thoughts?

I agree. Guy355 (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is Biblical Jewish tradition determines tribal identity strictly by Pater-Lineal descent.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm annoyed how many parts of this don't mention the actual Haplogroup.

Which I need to know for crossreferenceing this with my own studies. Like the statements about the mtDNA of the Tunsia and Mountain Jews, what are the Haplogorups of those women?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything on Romaniote Jews?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romaniote_Jews --JaredMithrandir (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues

Lead is too enormous. Also there should be mention of the controversies surrounding these studie. --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As we have discussed elsewhere, the lead currently only appears to mention studies supporting the Middle-Eastern-primary-origin thesis, whereas studies suggesting otherwise mentioned at Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Mt-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews and Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Autosomal_DNA are ignored. Also, the reasonably balanced Nadia Abu El Haj book linked at Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Further_reading is not referenced in the article at all. I will add a tag to attract others to join this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Lead do covers studies that have opposite conclusion (f.e Richards and all) and present them in right way in accordance with there significance vs the majority opinion. The lead also follows paterns used in articles about genetic origin of other people. Nadia Abu El Haj never did any genetic study on Jewish people and she never participated in any of such studies, She is not even population geneticists. Her views are WP:UNDUE on this subjectTritomex (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Falsified statements

Ostrer also claimed to have refuted any large-scale genetic contribution from the Turkic Khazars. is against WP:ORIGINAL and WP:VNT.
The source says: The author uses his observations to refute theories that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of converted Khazars, a semi-nomadic people living in medieval Eurasia who welcomed Jews to their midst.
The proposition: ..Ostrer refute any large-scale genetic contribution..
Conclusion: Ostrer doesn't talk about large-scale genetic contribution. The source just says that he refutes Khazar theory. There is a huge difference between the current statement in the article and the source's statement.

Also, Mr. Hammer[2] had already shown the strong correlation between the genetic heritage of Jews from North Africa with Kurdish Jews. is probably against WP:ORIGINAL. Sources don't say anything like that.

@Shawn in Montreal: Could you please explain why you reversed my changes? Ferakp (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Because to have 'claimed to have refuted' is a more neutral way of stating the case. You changed it in such a way as to accept this writer's statement as accepted fact. If you can come up with some other wording that remains neutral, fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Was this all about the "claim" part of the statement? I was talking about the main point of the statement: The source didn't say anything a about the large-scale contribution.. That's the point here.Ferakp (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: Is it good now?Ferakp (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so you insult me, then you want my opinion? You seem to be hung up on the difference rewording as "large-scale genetic contribution.." and "Khazar theory," some reason. And I have every reason to suspect it's part of some Kurdish nationalist POV thing. I don't care one way or another regarding the wording of that concept, I only objected to change from the more neutral "claim," which is used elsewhere in this contested article. Shawn in Montreal (talk)

Das et al. 2016 is a genetic study

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with it; Das et al. 2016[1] is a DNA study. The DNA analysis is mentioned throughout such as in the abstract when it reads; "An analysis of 393 Ashkenazic, Iranian, and mountain Jews and over 600 non-Jewish genomes demonstrated that Greeks, Romans, Iranians, and Turks exhibit the highest genetic similarity with AJs." The study specifically utilizes the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) tool published by Elhaik et al. in 2014[2] User 'Tritomex' tried to state that this study is supposedly 'not a genetic study' and rather 'a linguistic study'. The paper has a specific linguistic segment and component, which is where co-author linguist Paul Wexler is obviously utilized, but the other three co-authors are all genetic researchers and the paper's genetic data is clearly laid out for all to see. The paper was published by Oxford University Press journal Genome Biology and Evolution, so the claims of 'Tritomex' really hold no water. One is free to agree or disagree with the research results, but Das et al. 2016 is clearly a genetic study.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a genetic study, but a very poorly conducted one with a small sample size that has been widely contested. If you phrase it has "they found that jews came from turkey" it will be deleted.

In a 2016 study Wexler, Elhaik, et al. argued based on a genetic study of Yiddish speakers that the first Ashkenazi populations to speak the Yiddish language came from areas near four villages in Eastern Turkey along the Silk Road whose names derived from the word "Ashkenaz". Elhaik and Wexler proposed a variant to the canonical Khazarian hypothesis whereas Iranians, Greeks, Turkish, and Slavs converted to Judaism in Turkey prior to migrating to Khazaria where a small scale conversion took place. Elhaik and Wexler's 2016 study was generally dismissed. Sergio DellaPergola, the primary demographer of the Jewish people at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called it a "falsification", criticizing its methodology, using a small population size and selectively removing population groups that refuted the findings they wanted, namely other Jewish groups such as the Italkim and Sephardic Jews, to whom Ashkenazi Jews are closely related genetically. “Serious research would have factored in the glaring genetic similarity between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, which mean Polish Jews are more genetically similar to Iraqi Jews than to a non-Jewish Pole.”Elhaik replied that “studying the DNA of non-Ashkenazic Jews would not change the DNA of Ashkenazic Jews nor the predicted origin of their DNA.'

That's a very nuanced and accurately weighted summary of the study.

Neither DellaPergola or Stampfer have any background in genetic research. DellaPergola is a demographer and statistician, who most commonly comes up in articles discussing high Palestinian birth rates. Stampfer is a religious studies professor, who's work primarily focuses on issues such as Lithuanian Yeshivas, and other issues of European Jewish religious debate from roughly the 1700s to the modern era. In particular, as Elhaik notes, Stampfer is cited for his work on the debate around Shechita between Hasidim and Misnagdim. There's also this from him talking about bagels and other foods from not to long back Again, neither have any qualifications in genetic research whatsoever.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Wexler has no background in genetic research. And neither wexler nor elhaik are particularly respected in their fields. When geneticists contest previous studies they generally do so in future studies, and the work of elhaik has been dismissed in every study succeeding his except his own.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

If there were a study by someone who didn't have a known extreme pov, that would be different. Any of elhaik's attempts in the past and the future to prove the otherwise completely ignored khazar hypothesis will be received cautiously by everyone except the mass media.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Wexler is not being cited on genetics, he's being cited on linguistics. How is your empty assertion that Wexler and Elhaik are supposedly not "particularly respected in their fields" relevant? Care to provide a source other than your own claims? The only people you have to 'challenge' this newest 2016 study are both not geneticists. That is the demographer DellaPergola, and the Jewish religious studies scholar Stampfer. Neither possessing any qualifications to challenge a genetic study. You should at least wait for something new from the 'geneticists' who claim "demographic miracles", and refuse to share their 'data' with anyone until they feel comfortable that one has a "non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people"; whatever that is suppose to mean. I guess the fact that said individuals also come from religiously-oriented/devoted institutions is also of no interest to you.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Demographic miracles? I suppose you're making the ridiculous argument that because the ashkenazi jewish population increased a lot over a few centuries then khazars must be involved? When rhineland jews were decimated and germany/france/england's jews went to the polish-lithuanian commonwealth and russia in the middle ages they recovered rapidly. It was no miracle though but a result of their third-world conditions and religious beliefs. Shtetl Jews had way more children than their city-dwelling ancestors (as every rural population does vs urban ones), and it would only take each person to have three children for that "demographic miracle" to occur, which is the birthrate of Israeli Jews. The assertion isn't empty. Have you read the objections to elhaik's first study? His choice of proxies is completely inappropriate.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "demographic miracle" was the very wordage used by the individuals in question, because they admitted nothing could explain the impossible increase of the Ashkenazi Jewish population from 50,000 to 8 million between the 15th and 20th centuries. And astonishingly this increase would have to have been happening despite the fact European Jews had higher death rates than their non-Jewish European neighbors, due to all the killing and pogroms they endured. And those non-Jewish Europeans very noticeably were somehow untouched by this miraculous population increasing trend! "But there are serious problems with the Rhineland Hypothesis – so serious that some of its proponents actually posited a Divine miracle to account for them. For example, the population of Eastern European Jews surged from 50,000 in the 15th century CE to about 8 million by the start of the 20th century – a birthrate 10 times greater than the local non-Jewish population that surrounded them. That implausible population surge would have had to take place despite the economic hardship, wars and pogroms that ravaged those Jewish communities, and the plague that ravaged the entire region." Your little attempt at "each person to have only three children" didn't occur to Atzmon, Ostrer, and co. as they themselves said a "demographic miracle" was necessary, as no data could explain it.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Failed messiah is not RS.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Elhaik responded to the challenges that originated in the August 2012 blog posting of writer Razib Khan, that sought to challenge Elhaik's ArXiv preprint of his 2012 Khazarian hypothesis study. Obviously these challenges Khan initiated didn't hold up, and the Oxford University Press peer-review at GBE accepted Elhaik's 2012 study. As for his choice of populations he argued that all of the ones in question came from the same overall "genetic soup" that the Khazars themselves were included in. To quote Elhaik 2012; "Strong evidence for the Khazarian hypothesis is the clustering of European Jews with the populations that reside on opposite ends of ancient Khazaria: Armenians, Georgians, and Azerbaijani Jews (fig. 1)." The fact that Ashkenazis link to populations that surround ancient Khazaria is apparently only a 'coincidence'; if you believe in impossible population increases that even proponents of the opposing view themselves said were from a "demographic miracle", I guess that coincidence is not hard to believe either.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Avrahambeneliezer You are involved in edit war with tendentious and bias edits which do not match Wikipedia rules. You are only 2 weeks on Wikipedia and you should read guildliness regarding new editors in area of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. You can not use You Tube and personal blogs, even blogs of geneticists as sources. Its not upon editors to conclude how AJ rose demographically, nor to make "obvious conclusions" The study you refer is related to the origin of Yiddish language and not to the genetic origin of Jews, which it do tackle. For controversial issues like this one, you need first to gain concensus on talk page.Tritomex (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Requirement: "The blog is clearly identified on a credible site as belonging to that person(s)." Elhaik's scientific blog for his Khazar DNA Project clearly falls under this heading. It is clear that you are seeking to censor and keep Elhaik's response limited while giving a demographer copious sentences, nearly a paragraph, of quotations. The video is an official University of Sheffield academic work. And for you to again state that Das et al. 2016 is "Yiddish language and not to the genetic origin of Jews", seems to be implicating that you want to try to deny the very reality that the work contains genetic research, was conducted by three geneticists, and was published in Genome Biology and Evolution. Unless Oxford University Press published, peer-reviewed journal GBE is now allegedly a "linguistic journal" supposedly!Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Blogs, even from scientists are NOT sources for Wikipedia, especially not in controversial articles.You are angaged in disruptive editing, edit warring, across every article related to Genetic origin of Jews and All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You violate and broke all rules.--Tritomex (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We should report what is published in the literature. Some of the attempts to critique these papers above strike me as too WP:ORish. I would also suggest we focus on content and not make comments about other editors' behaviour where possible. Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are my problems with your additions: 1)Your additions of 55% European decent is not backed by the relaible source cited but probably by blog you removed. I am not sure on this, but I cant recall that I found this claim anywhere in the artickle. 2.This is not autosomal-transgenome DNA study, but a combined linguistic study probably involving genetics too. It came to opposite conclusion as the previous study of Elhaik. This study does not belong to this section, but even if it would be mentioned, the heavy criticism it received by other scientists and historians as noted by User:Monochrome Monitor have to be included per WP:NPOV too. Finally, I suggest to wait until the SPI I asked for Avrahambeneliezer is closed, before restoring his additions.Tritomex (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The professional blog of Elhaik, Khazar DNA Project, clearly falls under the requirements laid down for citing of credible sources: on a credible site and clearly belonging to the individual in question, with all the relevant citations documenting this ownership, etc. You stated regarding the Das et al. peer-reviewed study itself; "but even if it would be mentioned, the heavy criticism it received by other scientists and historians". Currently, there are only two individuals in a newspaper text that can be classified as "heavy criticism" from individuals in some form of academia. They are found in the Lipshiz 'Forward' article, and are the demographer/statistician DellaPergola and the Jewish religious studies oriented historian Stampfer. Neither being a geneticist, but both making their own criticisms of this GBE published study. All sides should certainly be noted in a coherent and succinct fashion.Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to include criticisms of a study from other scientific journal articles. If the criticisms are just in newspaper coverage of the article, I'm not immediately convinced we need to cover them under NPOV. The article covers a range of articles putting forth a range of conclusions: I think that broad coverage of different articles satisfies NPOV better.

Let's double check the article (rather than the blog) for the best form of words to summarise the results. That will then bypass the debate as to whether the blog is an appropriate source.

This study is of a more complicated nature than some: it still involves genetics, so I think it warrants coverage, but we should be careful to describe its method. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Elhaik, Das et al. paper is perfectly acceptable as a source. It was reliably published, and the authors are qualified specialists in the two fields, genetics and linguistics. Wild claims that Elhaik and Wexler not being 'widely respected' in their fields are just hot air. All one need worry about is WP:Due. No doubt criticism will be forthcoming from competent sources. One should avoid the cheap press blague quoting people who are not competent to judge the technicalities but just make a swipe.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The "demographic miracle" argument is nonsense. I'll teach you about a thing called compound interest. In 1900 the ashkenazi jewish population was 8 million. In 1800 it was 2 million. The average jew from 1400-1800 had kids at about 15, so compound 27 times. Lets say the average jew had 4 kids (a modest total considering the average russian peasant had 7-9 kids). That means by 1800 there would be 2,084,078.65 million eastern european jews. In 1700 2,000 dutch settlers settled in south africa. Today there are 3 million afrikaners. I suppose khazars were involved in the latter case? Anyway I gave my recommendation about how the description of the study should be phrased. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The genetics also show a dramatic population bottleneck, consistent with an original source population which declined and then rapidly expanded by a few source individuals. Ashkenazi Jews are very closely related, not a disparate collection of peoples as predicted by this new variant of the khazar hypothesis.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This ain't the first time you've tried to pull a con trick. Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson's 1976 book that mentions the demographic miracle is cited by Das, Elhaik et al, but not by them alone. It is referred to by Atzmon 2010; by van Straten, who argued against it the same year, while admitting it was an idea entertained by many prominent historians of the Jewish people; by Harry Ostrer 2 years alter 2012, still maintained it, as did Jeff Wheelwright, in noting that geneticists who study the group often comment on its steep growth curve—they use the term demographic miracle. So don't shoot your mouth off pretending that you have a personal knowledge trumping sources ('I'll teach you about a thing called compound interest'-how ridiculous. All you are doing is recycling an analogy made off-hand by Shaul Stampfer, while not acknowledging your source. He 'taught' you an appropriate meme to palm off whenever this is raised. Really, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of your interlocutors by pretending to be an expert on the math of demography is comically bathetic,-the hybris of overconfident youth - as well as ignorant. Stampfer's assertion was strongly challenged by Jits van Straten later on in the piece:'Khazars Shmazars,' The Jewish Review of Books Summer 2014:

The validity of the mass migrations and the low numbers is considered as Torah mi-Sinai, despite the fact that there is no evidence for the mass migrations. In an earlier publication Stampfer (2012, 134) mentions a Jewish growth rate of only (my italics) 1.7 percent between 1500 and 1700 also starting out from 50,000 Jews in 1500. In the current article, Stampfer explains this number by comparing the high Jewish growth rates with the ones of the French who migrated to Canada (or of the Dutch who migrated to South Africa). This explanation does not hold for two reasons.First, the author seems to be unaware of the fact that one cannot use the growth rate of population A in ecosystem X and assume that this same growth rate can also be applied to population B in ecosystem Y when the two ecosystems are completely different.Second, annual growth rates of 1 percent or more did not occur in Europe before 1800. Nevertheless, historians and geneticists who deal with the origin of East European Jewry accept the high growth rates, and now we are stuck with the problem of how to defend a demographically impossible growth rate.A number of arguments were proposed to explain these growth rates, such as low age at marriage, low infant mortality, higher rates of divorce, and better hygiene. However, no comparative research was ever carried out, because there are no (reliable) data in Eastern Europe during this period to carry out such research. Based on realistic growth rates, the number of Jews in Eastern Europe (say, the area of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) in 1500 must have been about half a million or more (van Straten 2007).

Anyone who makes out they can tutor should at least read up a little beforehand, otherwise they are liable to look like laughing stocks. We just don't know, and the experts are only a tad better placed than us. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Again you assume you know my sources. That's hubris. When I'm right, I'm parroting someone else. Actually I came up with the numbers myself. My source was this [3] and [4] and [5] and [6]. That's it. I haven't read oster etc. and I don't know or particularly care who used the phrase "demographic miracle" considering miracles don't exist.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to be an expert on demography to know how compound interest works. You just need to have taken pre-calculus. Experts on demography use logistic models for population growth, not exponential ones.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume. I spot the echo, and you don't know what hubris means. You'd get a failed grade in any class I taught because you presume way behind your abilities, and are not averse to fudging that your certainties are grounded in independent thinking when they turn out to be mindless meme reproduction with a garnish of vaunted 'science'. Disappointing.Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I won't quite give up. This is such a basic issue of failing to read I'll have to construe what your 'nonsense' post looks like to an outsider or interlocutor.

• (a) You flaunted a know-all conclusion when historical demographers disagree.
• (b) You appealed to your knowledge of rather elementary math as trumping those qualified experts who come to different conclusions than your own. You aren't qualified to judge, and Wikipedia doesn't allow editors that liberty.
• (c) You jeered a phrase 'demographic miracle' which is a standard part of the relevant literature. This means you were unfamiliar with that literature, and your jibe only signals your lack of reading in the subject matter.
• (d) You then adopted a mistressy schoolteacher approach to an audience you appear to imagine to be uninformed, though your audience turned out to know more of this topic than you.
• (e) Other than the simple math, which noted demographers like like Jits van Straten would laugh at, you adduced an historical analogy, the Dutch in S. Africa/the Ashkenazi in Europe.

'In 1700 2,000 dutch settlers settled in south africa. Today there are 3 million afrikaners.'

• That only reminded your interlocutor of a passage in Shaul Stampfer's challenge to Elhaik, 'Are We All Khazars Now?,' The Jewish Review of Books Spring 2014, where he writes:

Populations do not grow arithmetically, they grow—not unlike credit card debts—exponentially. The Afrikaners in South Africa started from a group of about 2,000 settlers who came in the late 17th century. Today, roughly 13 generations later, they number about three million.

• In replying, you now say you got this by googling the following obscure text, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Khazars, unlike Stampfer's text, and hence means you couldn't have come up with it while researching the Khazar issue (and it makes no analogy of the kind both Stampfer and you make):
• [‘The Afrikaner population is descended from about 2000 Dutch settlers who arrived in South Africa in the seventeenth and eighteen centuries and have expanded to their current size of about 3 million individuals’ Richard A. King, Jerome I. Rotter, Arno G. Motulsky,The Genetic Basis of Common Diseases, Oxford University Press, USA, 2002 p.114]
• Your text is virtually identical to Stampfer date-wise (1700=late 17th century vs. 17th and 18th centuries), and your 'new' source looks like post-facto rationalization after you were caught out. You took Stampfer at his word, 'nuff said, case closed.' I.e. you closed your mind, unaware that Jits van Straten, who is critical of Elhaik, also took exception to Stampfer's rubbery statistics here.
• When this was noted to you, you do not address the substance of Jits van Straten (demographer)'s critique of Stampfer (non demographer)'s analogy. You (i)simply express an attitude of resentment that I identified your source, and throw back the 'hubris' label. (ii) assert you are still right, and when right, accused of 'parroting' (When I'm right, I'm parroting someone else). (iii) made the obviously counterfactual claim you came up with the numbers yourself ('Actually I came up with the numbers myself.'why did that analogy strike you? why are your numbers identical to those in Stampfer?), (iv) asserted you don't care that experts in Jewish history, demographics and genetics have often referred to a "demographic miracle", meaning they all are brushed off as spouting "nonsense", an insight you are privileged to have arrived at off your own calculations.(v) and throw in the line:'Experts on demography use logistic models for population growth, not exponential ones,' which is neither here nor there, and a jejune caricature that happens to be untrue pp.15ff..
• The reactive points above all all steps a mind trained to read sources closely will systematically take routinely. That is, it is what any trained historian, scholar of literature, or scientist is required to master before entering an argument. You show no knowledge of these elementary prolegomena to comprehensive analysis, together with a naïvely combative psychology of antagonistic self-assertion paraded as scientific, when it simply looks like a cantankerous lack of self-discipline. I still take Simon's words of your promise on trust: but, in these contretemps, you show no sign of willingness to acquire what you so far lack, a desire to grasp the basic principles of precise construal. I don't care if you wish to persist in being silly, but if you want to be taken seriously, not on Wikipedia, but the real world, try at least to see what critics out there will say if you venture slapdash opinions thoughtlessly. They'll only laugh, unless you drop the air of having convinced yourself and, in doing so, thinking anyone who disagrees is just prey to "nonsense". Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @Nishidani: I have a lot of respect for your contributions, but the comment above (at 08:00) borders on breaching WP:CIVIL. For the peaceful wellbeing of everybody, please withdraw it and apologise; and in future please be more careful to focus on the substance of what people are saying, rather than working up personal invective comments about them.

Per User:Monochrome Monitor, it seems not an unreasonable reaction from anyone numerate, presented with a propulation growth from 50,000 to 8 million over five centuries, for their initial thought to be "Meh. Exponential growth."

As Monochrome Monitor noted, particular periods of high population growth have been asserted for many populations in human genetic history -- particularly in connection with population range expansions into new territory. As presented on the page for Galton–Watson process, rapid population growth hugely changes the odds that a new genetic change will survive: in a stable-sized population the great majority of genetic innovations die out and do not get passed down. In contrast, the odds of a genetic innovation surviving and becoming established are hugely transformed in a population undergoing rapid growth. This can be seen, eg, in papers written on human Y-DNA haplogroups, where it is common for researchers to link stages of expansion of haplogroup diversity with periods of population growth and range expansion -- and to present that many of these have occurred.

An increase from 50,000 to 8 million (a factor of 160) over (say) 25 generations requires a replacement rate of 1.22 (So for every four people in one generation there need to be just under five in the next). Now that's a high number, certainly. But it's not so different from what can be seen in some other populations at some other times in some other parts of the world.

The very tight clustering of genetic signatures found, eg, in Y-chromosome surname studies, does appear to match exactly what one would get from a population that had re-expanded very rapidly from a initial tight bottleneck in such a way.

But it's an interesting point that historically such examples of range expansions / population growth are usually associated with technological change brought by a new group, greatly increasing the carrying capacity of the land, and largely supplanting whatever groups were previously there. Jews colonising the area that later became the pale of settlement did not have such social dominance. So it's a reasonable question to ask, how could they apparently have achieved such a greater population growth rate than their neighbours. Surveying what has been written about this would certainly be interesting. But (a priori) it seems not unreasonable to think that different social customs could potentially account for a lot (including in the earliest period, with refugees re-establishing in a new safe environment after fleeing persecution). It also depends on what one considers the limiting factors were to population growth at the time. Small differences for example in infant mortality rates, or in social organisation in times of hardship and famine, might both also help one community to grow more than its neighbours. Jheald (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think like that. Wikipedia says one must read sources precisely, and add the material per WP:Due. If, as here, many sources express scholarly perplexity, MM has no right to make up her mind who is right, and cause endless useless wasting of time by editing her convictions in, while dismissing the actual material that disagrees with her as 'nonsense' or a symptom of being 'wayward Jews'. That last phrase is extremely offensive to several scholars, indeed to a tradition notable for its creative disagreements, and that is what justifies me rapping her prevarications and hybris over the knuckles. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Much of the above constitutes original research. If anyone has criticisms of the paper, they can go submit a commentary to the journal concerned. It is Wikipedia's job to report what reliable sources say. (If you get a commentary published, we can cite that!) Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've known what hubris means since I read the Odyssey in sixth grade. As for "rather elementary math", I've done multivariable vector calculus. I'm minoring in mathematics. I don't understand why you're making this about me, but it feels very vindictive. This discussion was about a user edit warring, and I'm one of several who reverted him. Lastly, I'm not twelve, I'm going to be nineteen. It would be nice if you treated me with a bit of respect instead of acting like it's your job to put me in my place ("rap me on the knuckles"). I would appreciate your council a lot more if I didn't feel it came from spite.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You're being a jerk. I'm familiar with the book because I've been researching a genetic defect I have a 50% chance of carrying and it was the first book a google search found me. Nuff said. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Accepting the political implications of this topic and working towards consensus rather than fighting

I don´t want to edit here at this moment but I have had a look at the article and talk page so I wanted to add my opinions as food for thought for other editors. Basically the elephant in the room.

Firstly, full transparency: I am Jewish and a "zionist" in the sense that I believe Jews have a historic right to a national homeland in what is now Israel. I have been involved in edit disputes and even blocked in my first days of editing wikipedia for getting involved in Israel-related discussions. I also know that the vast majority of Jews of North Africa, Europe and Western Asia are at least partly descended from the Jews of Judea. This is a fact beyond question. I don´t want to pretend I´m neutral on this topic. I think none of us should.

Secondly, the issue of Jewish ancestry has strong implications in terms of the Israel-Palestine debate. anti-semites and/or anti-zionists pushing the ludicrous view that Jews have no connection to ancient Israel, often pushing with zeal the Khazar hypothesis and Israelis and diaspora Jews tending to exaggerate the homogeneity of Jews as a near ethnically pure and homogenous levantine nation descending from ancient hebrews. The issue is the legitimacy of Israel. IMO considering the majority of Israelis are now at least partly descended from Mihrazi and Sephardic Jews, originating in the Middle East, this polemic should not be as strong as it used to be. The average Israeli is part Romanian - part Iraqi, Moroccan, half Serb half Yemeni etc... Israelis are a Middle Eastern people now, genetically, ethnically and (to a large degree) culturally. And they will remain so.

Finally, it does bother me to say that there is a slight bias towards the view that Jews are all ethnically homogenous Middle Easterners which is simply not supported by genetic studies. As with all transnational populations there is a significant genetic diversity. I think part of the reason is that many of the genetic studies have a politicized component in the discussion of the results. Some will deny modern Jews are real Jews, but the majority will tend to exaggerate the other way. This article does have some bias - mainly in the section of the paternal ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. For example, it mentions that Ashkenazi Jews have the same frequency of typically western European haplogroup R1b as the Middle Eastern populations". Well yes, but R1b is practically absent in all of Eastern Europe, where it is no more frequent than in the Middle East. Haplogroup R1a which is much more frequent and absent in Western Europe is mentioned as an afterthought to a totally irrelevant section on R1b (there is no reason for R1b to be present in Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews, why discuss it then except to faslely portray Ashkenazim as having barely any paternal European ancestry?). Finally, there is certainly a significant altaic-turkic-caucasus component in Ashkenazi paternal ancestry. Whether it supports the Khazar hypothesis or not is another issue, but it should be accepted as fact, without it creating the impression that ashkenazim are any less Jewish. Ashkenazim have similar levels of Middle Eastern Ancestry to Southern Europeans (significantly less than Albanians for example). The difference is that Levantine origin of Ashkenazim is JEWISH not Neolithic in origin. It came with the Jews who arrived to Germany, Poland etc... Similarly, Moroccan Jews have high frequencies of Berber ancestry and Mihrazi Jews are genetically similar to other Middle Eastern Semitic populations. Does that make them more Jewish? No. It makes them more Levantine perhaps, less European, but not more Jewish.

That´s the basic point I wanted to make: Work is needed on this article and I think depoliticizing it and looking at it neutrally is the best approach. I don´t want to read it and see it as a match between pro and anti Israelis. (Pro-Israelis have a natural advantage since Israel is a pioneer in population genetics due to high levels of endogamy). Its an interesting topic and there are a lot of new studies which are being disputed. My suggestion is to take "historical" conclusions from all studies with extreme caution (on both sides) and focus on the genetic findings. All sides should accept that all Jews have significant ancient hebrew ancestry and then look at the diversity among different sub-populations.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Klyosov is not reliable sourse

"About 4000 ± 520 years ago the establishing Jewish population carried this “modal haplotype” along with the future Arabs, who at that time had a common ancestor with the future Jews." — cannot be supported by Klyosov: 1) he (chemist) is known as pseudoscientist in genetics area, 2) his work on Jewish population was criticized: Quote from Response in Human Genetics

We thank Dr. Klyosov for his Comment. The speed of response is unusually impressive, and it covers a widescope. However, we are concerned that this haste may not be in the best interest of the sound scientific process, as evidenced by the heavy reliance on non-refereed publications, unpublished work and work not accessible to the scientific reading audience through usual scientific channels (categories that cover all five citations to Dr. Klyosov’s previous work). Reference to non-peer reviewed and poorly accessible data and formulations renders the constructive critique process problematic. Furthermore, the use of unconventional and ‘‘private’’ terms without definition or reference renders response problematic. This includes terms such as ‘‘…genealogic haplotype series’’. Moreover, a statement such as ‘‘Since the logarithmic and linear methods give the same datingthe common ancestor, it means that there was indeed just one common ancestor for the whole series of 98 of 22 marker haplotypes’’, lacks scientific rigor and robustness. Nevertheless, we wish to provide some responses to the best of our ability, given some of the limitations andconstraints noted above... Dr. Klyosov’s Comment makes the erroneous claim that the haplotypes found in a population (and representing a sample) form a genealogy, and that ‘‘familial’’ rates are therefore appropriate... Dr. Klyosov’s kinetics equation (Comment, p. 12) operates on infinite-size populations and does not take into account the effects of genetic drift, or any specific feature of microsatellite mutation. We were not further informed on the relevance of this approach when going through Dr. Klyosov’s self-cited previous work, so far as we could gain access to it. Finally, regarding the detailed ‘‘haplotype trees’’ offered by the Comment, these are indeed interesting and can be very instructive. However, it is critical to treat these trees with great caution. We only observe extant samples, and reconstruction is an algorithmic process subject to uncertainty. Without a careful consideration and quantification of this uncertainty, it is inappropriate to over-interpret such trees.

(Hammer et al Response to Klyosov's Comment in Human Genetics) --Q Valda (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Klyosov is not being used as a source in the article. You are editing a quotation from a paper. You can't do that without falsifying the quotation. If you object to Klyosov being quoted, think how to re-work the passage and how that quotation is being used. Bondegezou (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Klyosov IS used - Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration /Tofanelly et al (2014) - this work coauthored by him --Q Valda (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, then discuss revising or removing the whole paragraph. My concern earlier was with how you were editing inside a quotation.

There is a large paragraph based on Tofanelli et al., which seems longer than necessary. I'd happily see that paragraph summarised more. If you have a problem with that reference being used at all, you'll need to provide an argument why it is unreliable. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That does look to me as a questionable source - removed. Good catch. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you are talking about some researchs like this:

Highlight: Out of Khazaria—Evidence for “Jewish Genome” Lacking "...Eran Elhaik, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, thinks so. In a recently published study in Genome Biology Evolution (Elhaik 2012), he is calling for a rewrite of commonly held assumptions about Jewish ancestry. Instead of being primarily the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel, present-day Jewish populations are, finds Elhaik, primarily the children of a Turkish people who lived in what is now Russia, north of Georgia, east of Ukraine. This civilization, the Khazars, converted from tribal religions to Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries..."

Source: [7]

I think the better is to show all positions.--Elelch (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Tofanelli et al were not reliable together with Klyosov 2010. Quotes and sources were removed. --Q Valda (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Topic of this article; WP policy

I'd like to open a discussion on the topic of this article. (This has been discussed a bit once before, in 2013 at Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews/Archive_4#Criteria_for_inclusion.3F)

This article appears to me, to be mostly editor-generated summaries of primary sources (research papers where scientists actually took samples, did sequencing, analyzed the results, and drew conclusions). In addition to primary sources, there are some press releases (ack), popular media (NYT, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Reuters, BBC, New York Review of Books, Jewish Press), some tech media (Wired), some blogs (boing boing ?!). There is also some science journalism (Science news, Nature news) and a book, and a few reviews.

But for the most part, primary sources, with lots of commentary like the 13 notes, each of which is pure WP:OR/editorializing by editors.

This page belongs more in Wikiversity which I understand welcomes this sort of thing, than it does here.

Otherwise it should be reworked and become either

• A simple list of primary source citations (this is what the title implies)
• a Wikipedia article that summarizes secondary sources, called Genetics of Jews (I'll note that we have Medical genetics of Jews)

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetic studies on Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303234334/http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/1_Weiner.pdf to http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/1_Weiner.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)