Talk:Palestinians/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Jews in the Palestine National Covenant/Charter - explain the confusion

Folks, there are two different documents being confused. First there was one passed on 28 May 1964, usually called the Palestine National Covenant. The text is here. The relevant section is:

Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.

That document was amended 10-17 July 1968. The amended version is usually called the Palestine National Charter. The text is here. The relevant section had now become:

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.

So there is no actual disagreement between the Palestinian UN mission and the Yale repository. An account of the various meetings that led to these two versions is here. --Zero^talk 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I refer to as "Palestinian Double-Speak". Palestinian Authority will do and say whatever is necessary to gain land from Israel. Jtpaladin 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is stated in many places that the "Zionist invasion" of the 1968 text is regarded as starting in 1917. However, at the moment I do not have a very good source for that. The 1968 text itself seems to refer to the Balfour declaration as the starting point but it isn't at all specific. --Zero^talk 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How many Palestinians Speak Aramaic?

In the language part of the template there are three languages:

Arabic: makes sense Hebrew: makes sense Aramaic? How many Palestinians still speak Aramaic? I'm not sure it should be included on the template. --Oneworld25 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included - even if you count Neturei Karta - their spoken language is Yiddish not Aramaic. --Israelish 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

DNA Flag Capture?

Arbitrary section break 1

Recent studies focusing on haplogroup types have found that the Semetic "deep Ancestry" male DNA signature known as Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) - identified as the deep ancestry of Semites, including Abraham or any other male Semite living at the time of Abraham 3500 years ago - is found most predominantly among Palestinians and Palestinian Bedouins of the Negev desert (60% and 80%)[34] , followed by the other Arabic countries. Conversely, Jews worldwide and Israeli Jews were found to have very low percentages of Haplogroup J1 (less than 10%) compared to other nations. For example, the prevalence of the J1 ancestry signature is higher among Britons than Jews.[35]

I have looked into the original ([35]) and have not found anything the info that the writer of this paragraph states (ex., no info about Britons in the article at all. And where do the 10% come from?! Original says:

What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997). So nearly half of the Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in haplogroups other than J1. Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004). Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1.

Additionally, many other haplogroups among the Ashkenazim, and among the Cohanim in particular, appear to be of Israelite/Middle Eastern origin. According to Behar (2003), the Cohanim possess an unusually high frequency of haplogroup J in general, reported to comprise nearly 87% of the total Cohanim results. Among the Sephardim, the frequency of 75% is also notably high (Behar 2003). Both groups have dramatically lower percentages of other haplogroups, including haplogroup E. Given the high frequency of haplogroup J among Ashkenazi Cohanim, it appears that J2 may be only slightly less common than J1, perhaps indicating multiple J lineages among the priestly Cohanim dating back to the ancient Israelite kingdom.

The "DNA Clues" part of the article doesn't agree with the sourse quoted or, at least, a very one-sided point of view. I would also check [34] to make sure percentages of Palestinians with J1 are correct.

Mashinist 02:39, 6 May 2007

Exactly. An IP editor has been promoting his own bizarre "Deep ancestry" DNA theories on Wikipedia for months now; however, his claims aren't backed up by any sources, not even the sources he provides. For example, he inserted the following claim:

According to the recent DNA studies (see DNA evidence below) The Palestinians have more Arabic descent than many other Arabic countries, with the Bedoin of the Negev being the most Arabian ancestrally, which makes the Palestinians the standard for any Arabic country have to compare itself to Palestinians of how much Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) " the Semetic" deep ancestry they have.

Yet the claim he makes is entirely unsourced. In addition, he inserted this claim:

As genetic techniques have advanced, it has become possible to look directly into the question of the ancestry of the Palestinians. Recent studies focusing on haplogroup types have found that the Semetic "deep Ancestry" male DNA signature known as Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) - identified as the deep ancestry of Semites, including Abraham or any other male Semite living at the time of Abraham 3500 years ago - is found most predominantly among Palestinians and Palestinian Bedouins of the Negev desert (60% and 80%) , followed by the other Arabic countries.

The source provided was http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/ . On that basis User:Tiamut apparently reverted my removal of this nonsense. Yet if you actually read the source, you will note that it nowhere mentions "Deep ancestry", "Abraham", or Palestinians! Blind reverts of this nonsensical original research back into the article are most distressing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So are blind reverts that remove more than just the so-called original research, which as the other editor pointed out above, is not so much unsourced as it is overshooting a bit perhaps. In any case, I am going to revert your blind revert - again. Note that you will be violating 3RR if you insist on reverting again. The way to remedy this situation is sentence by sentence. The subject is complex and requires a patient going through. The old copy was in no way perfect either anyway. Tiamut 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I have gone through it carefully, read through the sources as mentioned above, as has the other editor, who made it clear he could find no match between the claims made and the alleged sources? Why are you blindly and knowingly reverting in false claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

to: Jaijyg: The Haplogroup as deep ancestry is mentioned in Wikipedia it self (articles ( Haplogroup and Haplotype) , Haplogroup j1 ( y-DNA) article also mentions that J1 IS the deep ancestry of the semites. If you check on j1 in Google you find all the talk about being the Semite haplogrop ( ie deep ancestry ) Haplotype is ( RECENT ) ( leass than two thousand s years in origin ( but mostly in the last 600 years).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.128.37 (talk • contribs) May 7, 2007

Tiamut, Mashinist and Jay's argument is that the above anon has completely misread the articles, and that the support is tantamount to my bringing a paper on tachyons and using that to prove that Jews travel faster than light. The paper is true, it's the application that is original synthesis (not to mention wrong). In this case, the quotation brought by Jay implies no connection with any "True Semite" tag applied to Palestinians. Further, even if that was true, it has to be mentioned in a reliable source. Any deductive, inductive, or other form of reasoning is a violation of original synthesis, and not allowed in wikipedia, I'm afraid. In this case, it appears not only is it original research, it's also flatly wrong from the article. -- Avi 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the two references added by the IP editor ([1] and [2]). Perhaps I misunderstood these articles (which indeed appear very professional), and Genealogy is not my forte, but in my humble understanding these articles do not nearly support the claims made by the IP editor. Moreover, these articles do not even mention Palestinians (the second) or almost not al all (the first). I checked the other fixes since Apr 30 and they're all very minor so IMHO Jaijyg's mass revert was justified. altmany 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon, firstly, wikipedia itself is never considered a reliable source. Secondly, you still have no source saying that various mitochondrial markers imply Palestinans are teh true Semites. You have a bunc of disassociated facts that you are interpreting one way. Well, many others can interpret it another way, and NONE of those ways are acceptable to wikipedia unless it is brought in a verifiable and reliable source. Please, read the policy of Wikipedia:No original research very carefully; you seem to have misunderstood or miscinstrued it, I fear. -- Avi 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out the beginning of this thread by a smart guy The Mashinist. He plays dumb by saying that my refernces were not related . However I am cutting from my refernces how he is playing it. My first reference was [Simono et al: 2004]

and here it is:( notice that J1 is same as J-M267 ( this is explained in Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) which I put as a reference too)

Semino et al:

"J-M267 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people".

"Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more-recent diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/ YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa." This is repeated by Coffman (quoting Simono)[3]as:

"There were two migrations of J1, the first occurring in the Neolithic period, spreading J1 to Ethiopia and Europe (Semino et al. 2004). A second wave of J1 occurred in the 7th century, spread by Arab expansion from the southern Levant into North Africa. This secondary migration is also distinguished by a mutational event at marker YCAII—YCAIIa=22 and YCAIIb=22 (Semino et al. 2004)."

as for Palestinian having more of J1 it is in Simono too, see for your self in the next table from [simono], Notice that last umber is the percentage of J1 in the sample of people of region, please notice how J1 is high in Arabic countries and low in Ashkenazim and Sephardi(11% and 14%):

Table 2 Population Frequencies of Hg J and Its Subclades POPULATION/REGIONaFREQUENCY OF J SUBHAPLOGROUPbHG J M172 M267c

Arab (Morocco)d (49) 20 20.4 10.2 10.2 10.2 Arab (Morocco)e (44) 7 15.9 2.3 13.6 Berber (Morocco)d (64) 4 6.3 6.3 Berber (Morocco)e (103) 11 10.7 2.9 7.8 Saharawish (North Africa)e (29) 5 17.2 17.2 Algerian (20) 7 35.0 35.0 Tunisian (73) 25 34.2 1.4 1.4 30.1 Ethiopian (Oromo) (78) 3 3.8 1.3 1.3 2.6 Iraqi (156) 79 50.6 10.2 2.6 2.6 4.5 1.3 1.3 22.4 28.2 Muslim Kurds (95) 38 40.0 28.4 11.6 Palestinian Arab (143) 79 55.2 16.8 38.4 Bedouing (32) 21 65.6 3.1 62.5 Ashkenazim Jewish (82) 31 37.8 12.2 1.2 4.9 4.9 23.2 14.6 Sephardim Jewish (42) 17 40.5 23.8 2.4 2.4 28.6 11.9 Turkish (Istanbul) (73) 18 24.7 11.0 2.7 4.1 17.8 5.5 1.4 Turkish (Konya) (129) 41 31.8 17.8 .8 .8 3.1 4.6 .8 27.9 3.1 .8 Georgian (45) 15 33.3 8.9 2.2 13.3 2.2 26.7 4.4 2.2 Balkarian (southern Caucasus) (16) 4 25.0 12.5 6.3 6.3 25.0 Northern Greek (Macedonia) (56) 8 14.3 3.6 5.4 3.6 12.5 1.8 Greek (92) 21 22.8 4.3 6.5 2.2 4.3 3.3

Awl Man...

Arbitrary section break 2

I tried to bring into the discussion from two wiki pages the first is (Haplotype) in which the paragraph under UNP ( markers of Haplogroups) say they are ancient ( ie deep ancestry) while the markers of haplotypes ( STR) are recent. The second paragraph from Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) where it clealy says that j1 is found exclusively in countries of Semitic speaking populations ( arabs and Kushites ( ethiopians)

J2 is not found in ethiopia and eriteria even though historically there were jewish kingdoms there and many jews settled there after the first and second temple destruction, So J2 is not the haplogroup of ancient jews ( the Israelites) but j1 is, there are no other haplogroups left that exist both in Arabic countries and Ethiopia other than (J1) and E ( but e is predominent among sub saharan Africans? not ethiopians otr arabs) so is E the marker of Abraham?

However another wiki page ( Cohan Modale Haplotype) states (that only CMH found in J1 not j2 is the ones from the line of Aaron) Now is Aaron the son of Abraham or not ? ther is no other way on that statement but to say that Aaron is not the son of Abraham and hence the marker of Abraham is not J1 but what is his marker ( haplogroup?, since many of his dexscendents moved to Ethiopia and Eriteria)? if it is E then how do you explain most E is in Africa ( subSaharan) . If it is J2 it is impossible because most of J2 is in Europe, some in Middle East, also j2 is not found entirely in Ethiopia and Eriteria ( it is the marker of Greeks Kurds jeorgians Italians ( 40% of Italians.

Many researcher ( semino ) and Nebet ( israeli ) and many others said that j1 is the ancestry of Arabs with out doubt and that Palestinians have the Highest J1 among Arab countries ( makes them the ORIGINAL ARBS) if one might say, so if there was different between them and other arabs, it is not because they are less arabic but because they are more Arabic than the rest of the Arabs! Semino et all referenced online clearly says that.

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. You have to quote what reliable sources say on this matter, you can't make up your own "research" and insert it into articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are showing wikipedia that you have absolutely no reliable sources, and are attempting to piece this together on your own. I am not even commenting on whether or not I thinkn your logic is sound or bunkum; it does not matter. Original research is absolutely forbidden on wikipedia, and that includes most everything you have posted here. -- Avi 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this piece in Elly Levi Coffman article referenced " Mosaic of People":

"kingdom. However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchersconsider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations, with a very low frequency in Italy and Greece as well (Semino et al. 2004). The group’s origins arethought to be in the southern Levant"

here we have a reference that J1 is semitic that is not a reference from the Wiki article " Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). from her artcle title "Mosaic of people " and if you read the article you see that jews are made of at least 10 different lineages of different nations ( from the father side ) and 2 female lineages not existant or very rare in both Europe and Middle Esat ( one is orginated in India South) and the other is majored in aboriginal Australia) ( at least the mothers of the Ashkenazim)

There is no original research it is all found in the article of Coffman referenced, and also in Wikipedia ( Haplogroup j, haplotype). In a not shell from these three articles with out any addition or quote original research:

1- Haplogroups are the ancient ( deep ancestries of humans. ( article Haplotype 2-Haplotypes and Modal Haplotypes are recent ( article Haplotype. 3-J1 is the semitic ancestry ( Haplogroup j in wikipedia referenced there. 4- J1 is found highest among Arabs and highest among Arabs in the Palestinians in found in wiki's haplogroup j and semino et al (TWO articles )referenced in this article and one in the discussion brought by some one.

5- J1 is the Marker of the Arabs (semino et al0 again plus tons of other articles.

semitic is known to be the ancestry of Abraham but this is universally known.

I'm not certan what you are failing to understand. You have no references for your theory; you are trying to put something together yourself. That is forbidden under wikipedia policy. Simple and concise. -- Avi 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All of your arguments above demonstrate the absolute clear facts of your original research. Please do not re-add the material without a suitable source, or measures will have to be taken to protect the project and this article, per our long-standing policies. Thank you. -- Avi 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just made an rv edit and found out that due to a problem with one of my browser plugins, some numbers were stripped away automatically. Until I fix my browser, I can't edit Wikipedia any more, so someone please rv my latest edit to the one just before me (Avraham's). Thanks & sorry. altmany 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi: I am afraid you need help quickly, you might have brain damage, or you are just right out malingering.

Where is the Original Research??

Palestinians have more j1 than the rest of the Arabs ( semino et al) the j1 is the marker of the Arabs ( semino et al ) again same article. J1 is the semitic deep ancestry ( Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA)) and Coffman article referenced.

Anyway here are more google hits about DEEP ANCESTRY they are dated few years in the past and made by respectable web sites who make DNA tests plus national Geographic website) Also please check google key"deep ancestry" it means Haplogroup period ( i did NOT invent that)

"The haplogroup (sometimes abbreviated, "Hg") is a measure of deep ancestry" founs at: http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA.shtml

website of difinitions:"Deep Ancestry: Ancestry in an anthropological time frame of over tens of thousands of years ago that predates recorded history and surnames for most people. The Y-DNA haplogroup tree traces SNP mutations to show deep ancestry." found at: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_Glossary.html

This is another website titled "HAPLOGROUPS or CLADES Ancient Ancestry - Deep Ancestry - Anthrogenealogy" Revised 13 March 2007 found at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gkbopp/DNA/Haplogroups.htm haplogroups link one to a common paternal ancestor far back in time - to one's "deep ancestry."

Avraham and the administrator Jyjg keep doing one thing: cutting my contribution which did not interfere or cut from any body, More over they are threatening of semi-protection to cut my contribution!!?? this is out rageous. Do you own Wiki . If wiki is private then it should be private not exposed to the public not even by subscription. Make up your mind.

You are gathering together all sorts of unrelated facts from different websites and constructing a novel synthesis of them. None of your sources talk about "Deep ancestry" in relation to Palestinians. Not one. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What?

I wanted to mention that Palestinian have the highest marker of the Arabs in the world. This is all in one reaearch ( semino et al 2004) however you want proof that Haplogroup j1 or any other haplogroup represent deep ancestry. Semino et al satisfy the issue , actually wiki's Haplogroup j (Y-DNA) mentions all that but you say you do not recognize wiki? More to the issue just print in the key word in Google.com ( haplogroup) or ( haplogroup deep ancestry) or J1 arabs) or (j1 ancestry) or what ever you like of these combinations you will find more than you can count ( just counting) of web pages that talk about the same thing.

You Jyjg vandalized my other contributions in other web pages today, you did one thing, reverted every thing to the date before my first contribution. What contribution of yours uis this?, you even cut other people contributions and returned back the grammer mistakes, and the dysfunctional web references links, so what ? why are you targeting me? do you have the hunche that the truth has to be any thing but my contributions.

I worked hard to assemble references. why don't you cut the article non sense about resemblance between the palestinians and jews ( using Haplotype tests) that was in use in 1997 to 2002 but Haplogroups were identified after that? I suggest you bring an expert in DNA to review this section. It is imperative to know if the palestinians are homogenous and ancient or they are Mosaic of People like that article of Coffman refers to the jews who can't be descendent by any imagination from one ancester even Gog. while palestinians are one block.

Arbitrary section break 3

Let's make this simple. Please point to an article that describes the Palestinians as having "deep ancestry". That should be easy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

you amaze me Jayjg: the word deep ancestry bothers you that much , you can take it out. However Semino et al study says that Haplogroup j1 is the marker of the arabs and the palestinians have more of it among the arabs" Is this acceptable for you. As Haplogroup ( any haplogroup) is a deep ancestry is nothing to argue about. Obviously you and your friends are anti palestinians openly. You should be writing who the palestinians page. Have some respect. we don't write the jews page.

This is outrageous. Your racism is obvious. You have no right to change the truth. you can not eclipse the truth in the 21st century.

I insist that an arbitration be done on the DNA clues section, because the remaining part of it is unrelevant and untrue that jews resemble palestinians. These studies were made between 1997 a nd 2002. in 1997 J1 and j2 were thought to be one haplogroup In that time they used to check for similarities in Haplotypes to predict ancestry. It turned out that Haplogroups contains thousand of haplotypes. If 5 were similar in two different ancestries ( haplogroups) that does not mean they are related. That methodolgy is gone. Yet it is still being used in this article extensively. This is a mockery of science and great shame on Wikipedia.

If you don't ask for arbitration I will and I will complain, and if it did not work, I will expose wiki in the media.

Hi friend. I think the way your edits are being treated is appalling. People unfortunately do not have the patience to build on other's edits (particularly if they hold strong POVs they are trying to defend in the article), preferring instead to mass revert material rather than using the tools we have like {{Fact}} tags, etc. I am very sorry. That said, I encourage you to sign up and establish an account, since this kind of behavior towards anonymous posters tends to be greater than that against established users and it is harder to make your case from that position. I will try to wade through the material myself, but admit that science makes my head ache :). Anyway, do not be discouraged and good luck with your future editing efforts. Tiamut 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, unfortunately it is simple. The anon has a theory which is not printed in ANY reliable source; heck it's not printed anywhere as it seems s/he is putting it together in wikipedia, which of course is absolutely forbidden due to WP:OR. S/he has been asked numerous times for a simple citation saying that "Palestinans are the true Semites" and s/he has been unable to deliver, and instead goes into treatises on why it should be true based on collecting disparate source and trying to warve something coherent out of them; original research. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. The papers have been reviewed by both Jay and Mashinist, and Altmany and they all concur that they in no way shape or form support this anon's contention. Let him/her publish it in a reliable peer-reviewed journal, and then it would be acceptable; but wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing original research. This anon has been warned in this and other (Essenes for example) articles NOT to violate our principles and continued violations will result in protective measures being taken. -- Avi 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, while I appreciate that some the edits this user has made are WP:OR, s/he has made attempts to address the objections raised and has modified the addition after being engaged in discussion, resinserted the new formulation, only to have it reverted again. As I said above, it would be nice if people could be a little more patient, particularly when dealing with new users who may not understand Wiki policies. Mass reversions of their additions may be allowed per policy, but they do nothing to help the user understand how to improve. Leaving the edits intact and working to improve them (rephrasing to be closer to the sources cited) could provide an example to the user of how they might include the material they are trying to add. Yes it takes longer, but it contributes to the building of a better encyclopedia with more and better editors. Peace. Tiamut 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I have tried, carefully and distinctly, to explain to this user what the issues are, only to be told that I may have "brain damage", others called rascist and having wiki threatened with some nebulous "exposure". Further, this was explained to this anon a number of times before, s/he was asked, quite clearly, to show the sources, and the responses have been incivil rants and continued OR. Assuming good faith is a mainstay policy, but as the policy itself states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

Tiamut, what would happen if i came to Wiki Project Palestinians, and for argument's sake, called you or Abu Ali "brain damaged"? Why is it any different here? We have the following:

• A user who repeatedly tries to enter original research of a strikingly POV nature (see WP:REDFLAG ) into this article.
• The user has been informed of WP:OR on numerous occasions.
• The user has been demonstratively incivil.
• The user does not respond to direct questions, but has tried to circumlocute his/her way around it for a significant amount of time.

This user is becoming a hinderance to the project, not a help. The encyclopedia is only better when we add to it in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Here, think of this. WHat would happen if someone tried to prove that Palestinians are actually displaced peoples from Sub-Saharan Africa, and are actually descendants of the early humans living in Ethiopia and Mauritania. Further, this person brings a patchwork colletion of sources, none of which mention Palestinians and Ethiopians in the same sentence, and tries to show, based on some peripatetic logic, that it is possible that this is the case, (if you ignore the fact that no reliable source ever mentioned anything remotely like it), and then started throwing around allegations of POV when you came and (correctly) reverted that from the article? It is the same thing, Tiamut. -- Avi 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi,

1. the "anon" was not engaged by Jayjg in discussion before his work was mass reverted. Jayjg reverted to an April 30th version of the article, deleting a number of other unrelated edits made by other editors. [4] and reverted again, before leaving a comment explaining his deletions above. [5]. Two minutes after leaving those comments, he reverted a third time. I'm sure this got the "anon"s back up, which doesn't excuse his comments to you, but it does provide some context.
2. The sources he gave do support some of what he wrote. Your claim that none of the sources he cited mention Palestinians and Ethiopians in the same sentence is false.

   Confirmation of the high frequency of Haplogroup R1a1 among Ashkenazim as compared to other Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations was found in a genetic study on Samaritan and Israeli groups (Shen et al. 2004). Although population samples were small, consisting of twenty participants from Ashkenazi Jewish groups, all were Eastern Ashkenazim of Polish ancestry. Ashkenazi results were compared to other Jewish groups from Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Ethiopia and Yemen, as well as to non-Jewish Samaritan, Druze and Palestinian populations. Shen found that haplogroup R was found in 10-30% of all the groups, with the exception of Palestinians and Ethiopian Jews, though the majority belonged to R1b and R*. In contrast, the Ashkenazim had the highest percentage of haplogroup R (30%), with two-thirds of those results found in haplogroup R1a (Shen et al. 2004). [6]

This only goes towards my suggestion that we be more patient and considerate when dealing with work that seems from our POV to be making outrageous claims, because we may in fact be wrong. Taking the time to read the sources cited helps and considering how complex the subject matter is, I don't think that can be accomplished in a few minutes. I am setting aside a few hours to go through the material cited and see if I can sort out what is what. I encourage the editor who made these edits to repost the material he would like to see included here and we can work together to include some of it, appropriately sourced, cited and represented, in the article. Tiamut 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I am afraid you completely misread my post. "palestinaians and ethiopians" was a fictional translation of what this anon is trying to do with "palestinians and semites". I would respectfully suggest that you read the entire discussion, and see what is being discussed. Please make note of Mashinist, Jay, and almy's statements that they read the ORIGINAL article and nothing of what this person is saying is listed there. It is a coincidence that I picked Ethipia for my example; pretend I picked Belize. My point was to demonstrate the problem with the anon's violations, not point out a specific issue. -- Avi 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Levy-Coffman submits that , "modern Jews exhibit a diversity of genetic profiles, some reflective of their Semitic/Mediterranean ancestry, but others suggesting an origin in European and Central Asian groups." [7]

She notes that "J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider 'Semitic' in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations, with a very low frequency in Italy and Greece as well (Semino et al. 2004). The group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant." She notes that the presence of the J1 haplogroup among contemporary Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations indicates the preservation of Israelite Semitic ancestry, despite their long settlement in Europe and North Africa.

Levy-Coffman however, criticizes the claims of earlier studies that conclude that most Ashkenazi are of Middle Eastern origin submitting that, "What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997). So nearly half of the Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in haplogroups other than J1. Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004). Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1."

On finding H1 haplogroups in a few Palestinians, Levy-Coffman notes that, "while it appears the H1 among Ashkenazim is of probable European origin, the possibility of a Middle Eastern origin based on the Palestinian findings remains unresolved. The finding of H3 haplogroups among Ashkenazim is thought to be of European provenance, "given that it occurs in none of the Middle Eastern groups, including Palestinians. In fact, Pereira (2005) deemed H3 'exclusively European.'"

The above summary of Levy-Coffman's work could be paraphrased better, (I purposely left much of text intact to let the text speak for itself) but the information is relevant and upholds much of what the "anon" user was trying to add. Indeed, because the article currently claims that Palestinian and Jewish DNA are nearly identical, this information is required per WP:NPOV to add balance and context. This source states that J1 is the only haplogroup thought to be of Semitic origin, and it implies that Palestinians have it in significant amounts. Indeed, Levy-Coffman puts Palestinians forward as the test group against which other groups, including Jews, are gauged against to determine if they are indeed Semites. (See the last two paragraphs in the blockquote above.) Tiamut 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I am commenting on content, but do you see the difference between what you said and what the anon said? You said that "Levy-Coffman believes there is a close connection between J1 haplogroup and Semetic origin, the presence of that group among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewery indicates presevation of Israelite ancesry, and that Palestinians also demonstrate significant Semitic origin."

The anon wishes to say that "Palestinians are the true Semites and Jews are not."

Do you see the difference? The first paragraph is a paraphrase of Levy-Coffman's statements. The second, the jump that Palestinians are the "true" Semites and Jews are not, while also actually seemingly contradicted by Levy-Coffman, is never said, and making any logical inference from Levy-Coffman is orignal research. -- Avi 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, Levy-Coffman uses the Palestinians as the test group against which the Middle Eastern origins of other groups is determined. That is quite clear in her comments above. She also says clearly that western Ashkenazi Jews have no J1 haplogroup markers: "Haplogroups that appear in eastern Ashkenazi, but are rare to absent in western Jewish groups, include HV*, HV1, pre-HV1, J1, J2, U1-6, W, V, and certain sub-clades of H (Behar et al; 2004a, Supplementary Material)." Combined with her statement that [8] "J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider 'Semitic' in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations ... [and] the group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant," it is clear that your statements jump to as many conclusions as the anons. Now given that she uses Palestinians as the marker against which Jewish findings are tested - indeed given that most of the studies cited do that - it is quite clear that Palestinians are considered the "true Semites", and that some Jews are as well. To what degree the different Jewish sub-groups are Semites is, however, a matter of dispute. And if Western Ashkenazim have no few or no J1 haplogroups, they most likely have a separate origin; i.e. they are not Semites. Note, that she continues to write: "But Jewish DNA presents a picture that is far more complex than just the Cohanim results. This picture is also far more diverse than what many genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews would suggest. Instead, many of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results, often downplaying the significant contribution of European and Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture." Right now, the article feeds this distorted picture, without giving space to newer and more nuanced points of view. Tiamut 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 4

To begin, I want to add something along these lines:

Levy-Coffman disputes the findings of Cohanim studies that concludes that all or most Jews are of Middle Eastern origin. She submits that "... many of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results, often downplaying the significant contribution of European and Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture." She notes that "J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider 'Semitic' in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations ... [and] the group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant." She points to the conclusion of a study by Semino et al., that found that J1 constituted 14.6% of Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of Sephardic results.

Levy-Coffman also claims that the H haplogroups frequently found among Ashkenazim are thought to be of European provenance. Of the H3 haplogroup prominent among western Ashkenazim, she bases this conclusion on the fact "that it[H3] occurs in none of the Middle Eastern groups, including Palestinians. In fact, Pereira (2005) deemed H3 'exclusively European.'" [9] Thoughts feedback? Tiamut 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The source you and the anon are using is some new "online journal" called "jogg", which has had a total of 4 issues. Ellen Levy-Coffman, the person who wrote the article in question is, conveniently, also on the "editorial board", and is, in fact, a lawyer in family practice, not a geneticist. Other people on the "editorial board" include a Masters of Business Administration, another lawyer, someone with no degrees at all, and a medical doctor. The editor is a retired physicist. As far as I can tell not one person involved in jogg has any expertise in genetics. In other words, these are all amateurs who happen to have an interest in the topic. The site cannot be taken as a serious source of information, particularly when it seems to contradict what the actual researchers in the field say. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg. jogg stands for the Journal of Genetic Geneaology and "Ellen Levy-Coffman is an attorney in private practice specializing in family law. She received her J.D. degree from Stanford Law School in 1993. Previously, she received her B.A., magna cum laude, in Archaeology from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. She currently serves as coordinator on three surname DNA projects." Her paper gives an overview of and cites directly from DNA research studies, some of which are cited here already. How is this not an WP:RS? Is it that you cannot argue against the validity of the formulation above and now want to attack the source? What's your problem with making changes that add balance to this article? Tiamut 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it stands for "Journal of Genetic Geneaology", and, as I pointed out, not one of the editors or on the "editorial board" appears to have any expertise in genealogy. Anyone can set up a website and call it anything they want. Levy-Coffman is a family lawyer with a degree in archaeology. Please explain how that gives her expertise in this field, and please make sure that your response deals solely with the issue at hand, and avoids further ad hominem statements and leading questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Her current work, besides sitting on the board of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, is working as a coordinator on three surname DNA projects. As I said, her paper sources all of the claims she makes to the originals. On the one hand, you accuse us of WP:OR when we synthesize material, on the other you disqualify perfectly reliable sources that do make those links on the basis of a lack of expertise. It's ridiculous Jayjg. A scientist isn't going to make all of the links between national identity and DNA analysis in an overt fashion in a scientific paper. Secondary sources work using those primary sources and according to WP:ATT, secondary sources are preferable. She seems to be qualified enough to discuss the issue based on those primary papers. So how is your objection in any way valid? Tiamut 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is a "coordinator on three surname DNA projects"? Is it her hobby? A paid position? Something she's doing in her garage for a friend? In any event, she is a family lawyer, not a geneticist. Her original research is interesting and all, but hardly a reliable source. No-one on that website has anything close to having a degree in genetics. None of them work in the field. It's an absurd source. Please stop making the ridiculous claim that someone with a law degree and and archeology degree is a reliable source when it comes to discussing the complex matter of genetics. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The fact that she sits on the Board of Directors of a Journal on Genetic Geneaology meets the requirements under WP:ATT in itself. I will be including the section in the days to come. Please make your comments on its content. If you delete it, I will open this up for a RfC. Tiamut 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats are not a good way to get consensus. I doubt an RfC would go your way anyway -when discussing genetics, we should be quoting geneticists -not family lawyers. <<-armon->> 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, nonsense. As I have already explained, the "Journal of Genetic Genealogy" is an amateur website run by a bunch of people who have no degrees in genealogy, nor do they work in the field. They are MBAs, lawyers, physicists, people with no degrees. The website miserably fails WP:V, which clearly states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." The highlighting is in the original. Family law is not a relevant field to DNA analysis. Don't bother trying to put this ridiculous material into the article, as it will be immediately removed for the policy-violating silliness it is. Instead, use reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Read about the Journal of Genetic Genealogy here: [10] It was launched in July 2005 as per the information here: [11]. It is listed as an academic resource journal at Israel's Technion University in Haifa here: [12]. Tiamut 02:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A freepages website? Anyway, we know the webpage was started in 2005, and that it has "published" 4 "issues". Also, Technion doesn't list it as "an academic resource journal", you invented that. It just lists it as an "E-Journal". We're still left with a lawyer who practices family law contradicting what genetic researchers say about their own findings. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also listed in this directory on open access journals here [13] and this online directory for Genetic Epidemiology Studies here [14]. Tiamut 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a bunch of places have linked to it. Now, about that person with a degree in law contradicting a trained geneticist writing peer-reviewed papers on their own research... Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

She is using data in the peer-reviewed studies as the basis for her critique, and is often reiterating the findings of newer studies that contradict some of the older ones. Here's the article [15] to refresh your memory. You might want to read it again. Tiamut 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, people can use very good sources as the basis for their original research, but that still doesn't make it anything by original research from a non-expert. The point is, she's a lawyer, works in family law; if she writes an article about family law, I'll take her views more seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

She works on DNA surname projects and sits on the Board of Directors of the Journal for Genetic Geneaology. That she is trained as a lawyer should not disqualify her from being able to analyze primary sources and understand and critique them. Tiamut 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you still haven't been able to explain what "DNA surname projects" are, and has been pointed out many times, the "Journal for Genetic Genealogy" is a website run by a bunch of non-experts; not one of the people mentioned on the site has a degree in genealogy, or related field, nor do any of them work professionally in the area. Your arguments at this point are entirely circular. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC

JOGG is the ONLY magazine on Geneology. An editor does not have to have PhD in a field to write in that field, So why do you accept references from NY Times magazines??? Are those in NY times for example specialist in every thing they write. To: Tiamut: You are mistaken that Coffman was DISPUTING, she has no authority of dispiting, she was summerizing all the studies about Ashkenazin to the time of the article. She was not disputing as you said that Cohanim studies proved that ALL or Most jews are of Middle Eastern studies ( Cohanim studies proved that ONLY Cohanim are of J1 and found that most of the rest of the Jews were NOT of J1 and did not have the Cohanim Haplotype Modal)

Coffman summerized that Ashkenazim from the Father side are 15% from R1a1 ( of Russia and Ukraine) probably Khazars, 5% Q definitely Khazar ( mongoloid), J2 the largest 30%) of the Indo European, only 10 to 14% J1 thought to be the Semitic lineage, Also I of Spain, E of North Africa and East Africa, and so on , that is why she said (MOSAIC) Of course you know what Mosaic is. Abraham can only be of one Haplogroup, you choose. His sons, grandsons and grand grand sons all the way to Present can ONLY BE of the ONE and Only Haplogroup of Abraham, MoSAIC is enough to prove they are NOT descended from One person!!!! Again the Magazine is the most reliabe ( much more reliable that NY Times if they wrote on Geneology!!!. Because they are Specialist Magazine, She ( coffman ) is jewish who works for Family Tree DNA a Jewish company specializes in JEWS( go to their web site). It is NOT TRUE that Coffman used the Palestinians as to contrast with Jewish DNA results! she never did that, she said J1 is the likely Semitic Marker NOT because of the palestinians, but because J1 presides in the Semitic Lands ( and In Ethiopia and Eriteria ( semitic lands ( partially even though Tigrinia is a semitic language ( the rulers of Ethiopia and Eriteria these days) Awl Man23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I NEVER said that Palestinians are the true semites ( I don't believe in Shem or Ham story (bible additions of the Gnostic rabbies) but simply said that Palestinians are mostly J1 just like the rest of Arabic countries, however I mentioned that J1 is believed by some as the Semite Marker ( what ever that means, it only means it is the marker of Arabic lands for me). However Jews ( usurpers of the Land in Palestine (Israel) are not J1 ( the semitic marker) and if htey are not then what claim do they have for the So Called ((RIght Of Return)) that went into law in Israel an in 1952 and every immigrant was required to show if he or she are born of a Jewish woman, cercumsized, etc). However, I said that Coffman even displays the RESULTS of Jewish women haplogroups ARE Also not Middle Eastern ( K and H), so what, you tell me, whose land is it The children of Abraham or the imposters who are IMPOSING are the children of Abraham, while they actually are not, Not only that But they are violating Their OWN religion which says that God promised this land to ABRAHAM's Children!!!

However since you ( You as multiple meaning the likes of Avi Avraham, adminsitrators etc, think that only jews ( especially haters of the Palestinians ) can or have priority to write about the Palestinians in Wiki ( because it is a Media Outlet), and that No Palestinians ( like myself) should write about theselves, because they should be kept smashed under foot. And that is why you gravely unrespectfully cut my contibution ( whole sale) because it is politically not correct ( meaning against your opinion that is in your minds) and so only what conform to what is in your mind shoulb be allowed to be wriiten. A Grim picture of the 21 century, however I am copying this Talk page ( in case you delete some) so I can expose you and for the future. In the Times of Abraham and later, all the residents of the Middle East ( Just Arabic countries) were of J1, even the Assyrians these days are proving they are J1 too.) Canaanites spoke very much the same semitic language of Israelites ( Egyptian language also is considered 100 % semitic), Nobody ther was not semitic ( J1 or spoke semitic language ), Persians were not but they never settled in Semitic lands ( current arabic countries borders ( no Iran no Turkey), so the argument of that the semites were of multiple haplogroups and living together is false and Bogus. Only in the times AFTER Abraham the immigration movements and interactions happened ( Persian Greek and Roman invasions), so if some jews claim that other haplogroups made it in their own children does not change Gd promise to Abraham that only his children ( j1) are given the land by God ( Bastards are not included) and does not satisfy Abraham. God does not not make Abraham happy bypromising him that his daughters will be raped or have children who are not from him> I personally won't be happy if he promsied such promise, I will tell him to I don't want such promise keep it.

Awl Man IP editor speaking:

I did not say Palestinians are the true semites. I said IN The Talk page making fun of the old article section " studies proven so and so that Palestinians were foiund to be less close to TRUE ARABS from ARABIA", now that is a bogus OR mentioned by earlier editors ( the like of Avi and Avraham and Shlomo) this was a lie never said by any research. Secondly, since the research said (Haplogroup J (Y-DNA)) If the palestinians are more Arabic that the other arabs, so who is the TRUE Arabs, you tell me please? Awl Man speaking:

I never said Palestinians have " a deep ancestry", any person in the world have a deep ancestry. However every deep ancestry has a home land and origin .

I said Palestinians were found to have high percentage of J1, and mentioned later that J1 is the deep ancestry of the Arabs ( as mentioned by Coffman and many many many many others: actually Put in Goole.com J1 only or J1 and arabs, or arabs and deep ancestry...etc) you will find tens ( if not hundreds ) of web sites claiming that J1 is the deep ancestry of the Arabs, since it is mentioned by many research ( semino et al) ( Nebet et al ( israeli) etc ). Obviously Avi is twisting the words or play that he did not understand even though he and Avraham and Jyg do understand and do know that there is no OR or POV, and they kept repeating POV and OR every time I explained to them that there there are no such POV or OR), playing they don't understand my explanations. This is a policy well known, used by professors in Universities cut short the arguments and ( used by other people too who know themselves)23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Awl Man: I just found out at the top of this Talk Page a comment by Mashinist claiming I provided unrelated references. Here is the truth, I am quoting the references themselves out the beginning of this thread by a smart guy The Mashinist. He plays dumb by saying that my refernces were not related . However I am cutting from my refernces how he is playing it. My first reference was [Simono et al: 2004]

and here it is:( notice that J1 is same as J-M267 ( this is explained in Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) which I put as a reference too)

Semino et al:

"J-M267 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people".

"Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more-recent diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/ YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa." This is repeated by Coffman[16] (quoting Simono)as:

"There were two migrations of J1, the first occurring in the Neolithic period, spreading J1 to Ethiopia and Europe (Semino et al. 2004). A second wave of J1 occurred in the 7th century, spread by Arab expansion from the southern Levant into North Africa. This secondary migration is also distinguished by a mutational event at marker YCAII—YCAIIa=22 and YCAIIb=22 (Semino et al. 2004)."

as for Palestinian having more of J1 it is in Simono too, see for your self in the next table from [simono], Notice that last umber is the percentage of J1 in the sample of people of region, please notice how J1 is high in Arabic countries and low in Ashkenazim and Sephardi(11% and 14%): you should see the % of J1 (J-M267) at the end of numbers):

Table 2 Population Frequencies of Hg J and Its Subclades POPULATION/REGIONaFREQUENCY OF J SUBHAPLOGROUPbHG J M172 M267c

Arab (Morocco)d (49) 20 20.4 10.2 10.2 10.2 Arab (Morocco)e (44) 7 15.9 2.3 13.6 Berber (Morocco)d (64) 4 6.3 6.3 Berber (Morocco)e (103) 11 10.7 2.9 7.8 Saharawish (North Africa)e (29) 5 17.2 17.2 Algerian (20) 7 35.0 35.0 Tunisian (73) 25 34.2 1.4 1.4 30.1 Ethiopian (Oromo) (78) 3 3.8 1.3 1.3 2.6 Iraqi (156) 79 50.6 10.2 2.6 2.6 4.5 1.3 1.3 22.4 28.2 Muslim Kurds (95) 38 40.0 28.4 11.6 Palestinian Arab (143) 79 55.2 16.8 38.4 Bedouins(Negev desert) (32) 21 65.6 3.1 62.5 Ashkenazim Jewish (82) 31 37.8 12.2 1.2 4.9 4.9 23.2 14.6 Sephardim Jewish (42) 17 40.5 23.8 2.4 2.4 28.6 11.9 Turkish (Istanbul) (73) 18 24.7 11.0 2.7 4.1 17.8 5.5 1.4 Turkish (Konya) (129) 41 31.8 17.8 .8 .8 3.1 4.6 .8 27.9 3.1 .8 Georgian (45) 15 33.3 8.9 2.2 13.3 2.2 26.7 4.4 2.2 Balkarian (southern Caucasus) (16) 4 25.0 12.5 6.3 6.3 25.0 Northern Greek (Macedonia) (56) 8 14.3 3.6 5.4 3.6 12.5 1.8 Greek (92) 21 22.8 4.3 6.5 2.2 4.3 3.3

See Palestinians ? 39%? see it?. Not that I believe that these numbers are the best ( I believe Palestinians are much than just 39%, but 90%, Let's not forget that these studies are made by and provided by Nebet et al and Behar et al} who are jews who are working in Haifa and Jerusalem University, however they could not mess with the sample when it came to the Bedoin, because it hard to find a bedoin with a blue eyes, if you get my drift!)

Awl Man...23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Who is a reliable source for interpretations of DNA research?

There is a dispute over whether a secondary source that relies on primary sources of DNA research studies must be an expert in genetics or DNA research in order to constitute a reliable source for interpreting or contradicting those studies. And there is a dispute over what constitutes expertise. Please review the "Arbitrary Break section 4" discussion above this request for comment for more information. Thank you. 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really simple to settle: See WP:REDFLAG. <<-armon->> 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that apply here exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

When non-experts in a field make unusual claims, it's a red flag. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The claims are in no way unusual and cite the conclusions of peer-reviewed papers throughout. Just check the relevant DNA pages. She's not claiming that Jews are from the moon. Just that their genetic history is not as clear-cut as some early DNA studies have made them out to be. Tiamut 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So she's claiming that some of the early studies aren't quite correct? Red flag. By the way, just read what your the IP editor you were reverting to has written, here, and on several other articles and Talk pages. It's mostly incoherent; that should also be a Red flag. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the IP editor and I am very much expert in the Geneology field, However the Info I provided does not expert to understand. They are provided on Wikiitself for Gd sake (Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA)), go rad it it says the J1 is the semitic deep ancestry of the Arabs and j1 goes down ubruply on crossing the borders between Arabic and non Arabic countries ( Tyrkey, Iran, Spain, Senegal, ) this is what Wiki says ( refernced) on that page. On the same page ( it is Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), just in case you lost me) it says that J1 is highest among PALESTINIANS FOR SHLOMO SKAE. Awl Man Please allow me to revert back my contribution, and Jayjg tell your helper Armon not to RV me at nigth ( since you rv me in the day) By the way, Wiki should that you got so much editing but they probably don't know that your editings are only semple cutting and RVs, Obviously You know it all so when you see something that does not fit what you know ( since you know every thing( a walking Encyclopedia that is ), so Wiki in safe hands and now Wiki can be proud that they are exact copy of encylopedia Britanica edition 1956. Awl Man.. Hey, who cut of this talk page where Jayjg et Al stupedized me? Bad for you because www.archive.org can still show the cut off thread!!!

Question 2: Is Levy-Coffman a reliable source? -- Avi 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the area of family law. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Levy-Coffman has never published a peer-reviewed paper in a relevant field. I don't think there is any doubt that she is not a reliable source. --Ian Pitchford 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not judging whether she can conduct DNA research, but whether or not she can interpret existing peer-reviewed studies. As I mentioned above, WP:SYNTH prevents us from looking at peer-reviewed studies (the primary source) and drawing conclusions. Scientists tend not to make explicit links between modern national identities and DNA findings (though they do make implicit links). When objections were raised to outlining what is implied, the source from Levy-Coffman was offered up as one that does the synthesis itself. As someone working on genealogy projects and who sits on the board of the Journal of Genetics Genealogy, I do not understand how she is not a reliable source for the text presented above, at the top of Arbitrary break section 4. She doesn't need to be a scientist to interpret the peer-reviewed work of scientists and their application to genealogy. Tiamut 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep making circular or meaningless arguments. She claims she is "working on genealogy projects", but we have no idea what that means. She also sits on the board of the "Journal of Genetics Genealogy" which, as has been explained many times, is an amateur website whose board does not contain one single individual with relevant expertise in DNA research or genetics. Instead it has lawyers, MBAs, retired physicists, and people with no degrees whatsoever. She has degrees in archeology and law, and practices family law! She is not qualified to analyze DNA research, much less contradict it. It's ridiculous the lengths you've gone to to support this source. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you recall Jayjg, this discussion began when you rejected the additions made another user on the basis that they were original research. In an attempt to explore that assertion, I read the sources the user had provided, summarized the argument in way that respected the information in the sources and posted it here before proposing it for reinsertion. After you could not disallow the material on the basis of POV or original research, you attacked the source as unreliable. (Section 1 to 3 above record the discussion prior and section 4 records your objections to the source). This is not about the lengths I will go to to defend a source but rather, the lengths I am willing to traverse to include relevant information that provides balance to a section that misleads the reader into believing that the peer-reviewed studies cited are conclusive. It's called WP:NPOV. Tiamut 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research and material from unreliable sources is not allowed in articles, whether written by a family lawyer on her website, or by you, or by an incoherent IP editor. Please find reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, no one is attacking you personally, nor should they; however, there are serious, serious doubts about the reliability of this source, and even worse violations when the IP editor uses this source to build some kind of theory. Again, imagine if the exact same source instead was trying to prove that the Palestinians are actually descendants of the Mongol hordes that intermarried with Alexander the Great's army, took sides with the Ptolmeics, and settled in the Arabian peninsula. -- Avi 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, the anon's used more than one source to make his argument. The Levy-Coffman source, being in more accessible language, was the one I adhered to help him out. After I showed above that what he was claiming was in fact in the sources, Jayjg challenged the legitimacy of the Levy-Coffman source. This is game playing in my opinion. Jayjg just doesn't want the article to reflect the newest findings on DNA. See the anon's latest comments below. He's provided a number of other sources to support his claims. Why are we spending our time trying to find reasons to disallow his contributions rather than work to find what is useful in them and include it? Notice he quotes a number of other studies: [17] [18] [19]. Now back to Levy-Coffman and the issue of her expertise: this is her original paper [20] and this is another source provided by the anon [21] where she refers to "fellow researchers" and is dispensing advice to Jews asking about their geneaological origins. How is she any less of an expert than the www.khazaria.com source that summarizes research (as does Levy-Coffman) and is cited in the article right now, with no objections raised by anyone? Tiamut 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The anon IP filled the page with badly written original research that didn't even reflect what its sources said, which I, and others, pointed out. You then focussed on the Levy-Coffman paper, which, as it turned out, was original research written by a family lawyer with no expertise in DNA research. I pointed that out as well, and then you engaged in hours of circular arguments about her and her website. The only game playing was the lengths you went to pretend that it was actually a reliable source. Now you're saying that because she refers to "fellow researchers" on a message board, she must be a reliable source! It beggars belief. Moreover, now you're saying "let's do our own original research based on some other papers". Instead of these desperate attempts to include original research, why not just follow policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see the paper by Nebel at al (2005) cited by Levy-Coffman (the most recent in her bibliography) rather undermines the whole story of Khazar contributions to Ashkenazi ancestry: it argues that the current frequency of the R-M17 haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews can be attributed to a founder effect with the contribution being limited to "a single founder or a few closely related men". This is compatible with Ashkenazim being 100% Jewish in terms of conventional ancestry. --Ian Pitchford 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coffman is a reliable source as a journalsit specialist in Geneological studies. end of the story. she summeries research not do them or discriminate against them!!!

You on the other hand can not discriminate on research, 2005 Nebet et al-- stand alone in his hypothesis that Khazar are single event. see many other research against that[22] New York Times reporting Goldstein et al, Behar et al and others!!. also Nebet himself in [23] befor his retraction. Also check this article by El Coffman herself in her Job where she says that she found most of DNA maternal DNA of jewish clients are mainly European ( K and H)[24] have fun. I will bring you more fun if you want. Coffman found that jews are MOSAIC and can not be 100% Israelite as you concluded for youself ( 5% Q, 10% I, 15 and increasing % R1a1, 30 % od J2 ( mainly European) just one subclade ( out of 22) of J2 come from Kurdistan ( middle eastern but not semitic). E of Black African descent( 90% of E in SubSaharn African), only 12% J1(not 100% as you said).63.226.128.37

Anon speaking: Awl Man: I just found out at the top of this Talk Page a comment by Mashinist claiming I provided unrelated references. Here is the truth, I am quoting the references themselves out the beginning of this thread by a smart guy The Mashinist. He plays dumb by saying that my refernces were not related . However I am cutting from my refernces how he is playing it. My first reference was [Simono et al: 2004]

and here it is:( notice that J1 is same as J-M267 ( this is explained in Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) which I put as a reference too)

Semino et al[25]:

"J-M267 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people".

"Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more-recent diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/ YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa." This is repeated by Coffman[26] (quoting Simono)as:

"There were two migrations of J1, the first occurring in the Neolithic period, spreading J1 to Ethiopia and Europe (Semino et al. 2004). A second wave of J1 occurred in the 7th century, spread by Arab expansion from the southern Levant into North Africa. This secondary migration is also distinguished by a mutational event at marker YCAII—YCAIIa=22 and YCAIIb=22 (Semino et al. 2004)[27]."

as for Palestinian having more of J1 it is in Simono too, see for your self in the next table from [simono], Notice that last umber is the percentage of J1 in the sample of people of region, please notice how J1 is high in Arabic countries and low in Ashkenazim and Sephardi(11% and 14%): you should see the % of J1 (J-M267) at the end of numbers)

Table 2 Population Frequencies of Hg J and Its Subclades POPULATION/REGIONaFREQUENCY OF J SUBHAPLOGROUPbHG J M172 M267c

Arab (Morocco)d (49) 20 20.4 10.2 10.2 10.2 Arab (Morocco)e (44) 7 15.9 2.3 13.6 Berber (Morocco)d (64) 4 6.3 6.3 Berber (Morocco)e (103) 11 10.7 2.9 7.8 Saharawish (North Africa)e (29) 5 17.2 17.2 Algerian (20) 7 35.0 35.0 Tunisian (73) 25 34.2 1.4 1.4 30.1 Ethiopian (Oromo) (78) 3 3.8 1.3 1.3 2.6 Iraqi (156) 79 50.6 10.2 2.6 2.6 4.5 1.3 1.3 22.4 28.2 Muslim Kurds (95) 38 40.0 28.4 11.6 Palestinian Arab (143) 79 55.2 16.8 38.4 Bedouins(Negev desert) (32) 21 65.6 3.1 62.5 Ashkenazim Jewish (82) 31 37.8 12.2 1.2 4.9 4.9 23.2 14.6 Sephardim Jewish (42) 17 40.5 23.8 2.4 2.4 28.6 11.9 Turkish (Istanbul) (73) 18 24.7 11.0 2.7 4.1 17.8 5.5 1.4 Turkish (Konya) (129) 41 31.8 17.8 .8 .8 3.1 4.6 .8 27.9 3.1 .8 Georgian (45) 15 33.3 8.9 2.2 13.3 2.2 26.7 4.4 2.2 Balkarian (southern Caucasus) (16) 4 25.0 12.5 6.3 6.3 25.0 Northern Greek (Macedonia) (56) 8 14.3 3.6 5.4 3.6 12.5 1.8 Greek (92) 21 22.8 4.3 6.5 2.2 4.3 3.3

See Palestinians ? 39%? see it?. Not that I believe that these numbers are the best ( I believe Palestinians are much than just 39%, but 90%, Let's not forget that these studies are made by and provided by Nebet et al and Behar et al} who are jews who are working in Haifa and Jerusalem University, however they could not mess with the sample when it came to the Bedoin, because it hard to find a bedoin with a blue eyes, if you get my drift!)

Awl Man...22:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC) In a nutshell, what Semino et al 2004] says is that the explanation for j1 in Europe is a two migration from the Middle Esar of j1 in two dates, one in the Neolothic period ( 1500 Bc--Phoenicians and Canaaniates) and the other more recent in 7 centry AD . Now can I ask you how can J1 immigrate from Middle East to somewhere else if J1 was not in Middle East in the first place! right? right, so Middle East is home to J1 since 5000 BC right? Palestinians and Arabs are J1!! so how long the palestinians been in Palestine? 70000 years at least!!! right? right, you go on from there.22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read my talk in the previous section break 4 about Coffman reliabiblity and JOGG, ANON the awl man23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)