Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:01, 8 June 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic studies of Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology: Genetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Études génétiques sur les Juifs from fr.wikipedia.

Frontiers

Recently, there has been a lot of edit warring over an article published in Frontiers. While I have no opinion on the claims the article makes, that article shouldn't be used. Frontiers is not a reliable academic outlet, it's predatory publishing that authors pay to publish with minimal academic scrutiny. This is in sharp contrast to proper academic publishing, where manuscripts undergo proper peer review. If a proper academic article can be found to back up the same claims, that is not a problem. Users pushing the Frontiers article, even if initially in good faith, need to stop as it is becoming disruptive. WP:RS is a core policy of Misplaced Pages. Jeppiz (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

While I have seen those claims bandied about, I am yet to see any evidence for them. How do you know that there is no "proper peer review"? The matter about fees to authors is misleading. The main commercial academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc) these days offer authors two choices (1) free behind paywall, (2) open access for a fee. This journal offers only (2) and the amount they charge is about the same. That makes it unsuitable for authors who can't pay but the same for authors who can. It isn't proof of a predatory nature without further evidence. Zero 12:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In case you doubt this, here is a list of what Elsevier charges for open access. You can see that the fee averages about the same as what Frontiers charges. Zero 13:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz. You appear to have missed the relevant discussion at RSN. In any case a professor emeritus and leading expert in his field(s), having 60 years of peer-reviewing of his work, is not the sort of chap our policy's cautions are targeted at. Essentially, he just summarized there the content of his still untranslated work in Hebrew, which broke new ground, kicked off a lot of researchy and became the founbdational work on that topicNishidani (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, I had indeed missed that discussion and would not have started this one if I had seen it, thanks for directing me to it. Zero, thanks for the explanation. As Associate Editor of two good journals (one Elsevier and one Emerald), editorial board member of a dozen more, and ten years of regular publishing in a number of good journals (as per JCR) from Elsevier, Emerald, Springer, Sage, Taylor & Francis, I am aware :) But no, they are not similar to Frontiers. While you are right that we can pay for open access in most journals this day, this has no impact whatsoever on the review process, and neither reviewers nor AEs are even aware of it. It is a way to boost one's impact if the manuscript is accepted, sure, but it doesn't make it any easier to get accepted and the review process is thorough. Not so for Frontiers, when one can simply pay the fee, receive a few lines of reviews, quickly address them, and the paper is accepted. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I did ask on the noticeboard where this consensus against Frontiers is to be found but no-one answered. Can you point me to it? Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to improve the sourcing for the history is welcome, as Nishidani says, to refer directly to Falk's far more extensive Hebrew book on the subject, or this Springer one and cite directly from there. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

On-going edit warring over Frontiers

Would Triggerhippie4, Iskandar323 and Nishidani please stop this endless edit-warring over the Frontiers article? I must say I am surprised to see some good and established users edit war in this way. Particularly surprised both to see Triggerhippie4 return to this so soon after being blocked for the same edit warring and to see Nishidani remove tags about unreliable sources despite being perfectly aware there's an ongoing discussion about that exact matter. I recommend all users regardless of opinion to stop the edit warring, and recommend Nishidani to self-revert the removal of the tags. Jeppiz (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Don't just wade onto a page and start casting aspersions and accusations of edit warring, which is itself a behavioral issue. By all means chastise Triggerhippie4 for rebounding from an edit war block to not only revert AGAIN, but to erroneously restore a single-source tag to a multiple source section, but don't chew Nishidani out for calling that crap out. Totally out of order. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time in many years I doubt your judgment, also because it is offensive and nonchalantly careless in (not?)reading what has happened here over the last week.

No, the tags can be justified if there has, for each one, been a serious effort by a discontented editor to lay out reasons for them. Mass smear tagging often functions as a device to win an argument by someone who won't engage in discussion. That's my experience in the I/P field.

I'm perfectly aware that one serial reverter, who rarely appears to add anything to articles, as opposed to removing or restoring stuff he likes, does not engage in the 'ongoing discussion'.I have have reverted twice here on 6 February and today, 11 Feb when I saw Triggerhippie again removing eminently good text by a scholar who was an acknowledged authority in the field. All we know from his various edit sumnmaries as he persists in a serial revert war with several editors, is that Falk is ‘junk’,’crap’, ‘anti-Jewish’ and finally some nobody forced - thast is the innuendo- to pay a 'predatory' publisher to get notability after 5 decades on the forefront of his two disciplines. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Both Iskander and I engaged in extensive discussion, and were met by silence as the reverting persisted. When I saw this editwarrior’s final effort at blanketing text he dislikes – he didn’t even trouble to ‘waste his time’ at the RSN board- while it is under discussion, I (a) restored it and (b) then added several sources to show that what TH regards, from what privileged olympus of omniscience escapes me, as ‘crap’ /‘junk’ is a position eminent historians accept. I could add several more.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 and Nishidani, I hope you know I appreciate you both. Editing in a field that causes a lot of emotions, you both almost always keep a level head and do good work, and I am glad you are both around. As for the issue at the core of all of this, the question of whether all Jews are genetically related, I am on the same page as Falk (and presumably you both) in thinking it is nonsense. The North Sentinelese tribe is no doubt ethnically homogeneous but for any modern population, that is a nonsensical view. You have both made this argument well in the discussions and I agree with you. (Iskandar323, please don't assume discussions are not read just because not everyone comments immediately). My comment is exclusively directed at the use of a source that fails any academic scrutiny. I understand many users in the ARBPIA Field approach issues from the point of view of whether it says what they want (again, I usually find both of you much better than most users in this field). Personally, having no connection whatsoever to the region, not even emotionally, I try to look at the facts. In this one case, I fear you might let your judgement be clouded. Like you, I think Falk's conclusion is correct. I wish he had published in a reliable academic source. As an academic myself, with more than a decade of editorial as well as research experience, I know what crap (to be blunt both honest) Frontiers publishes. My issue here is with academic integrity, not with Jewish genetics one way or another. But the fact of the matter is that Frontiers is unreliable, and I do not know one academic in my field who would consider it reliable. Trying to pass it off as a suitable source is not serious. Last but not least, you will have noticed I mentioned all users, regardless of their opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz, while you may be 100% correct about Frontiers, you still haven't offered any actual evidence in support of your claims. Is there somewhere I can read such evidence? I'm also wondering why it is relevant in the case of Falk. Since he is a subject-area expert, WP:SPS says that his article would be citable even if it was only on his personal web page. Unless we think that Frontiers maliciously modifies the articles it publishes against the wishes of the authors, why does publication remove the reliability that existed before? Zero 23:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000: WP:SPS is mainly applied to BLPs and other non-technical subjects. It would be highly irregular to apply SPS to a bio-science topic like population genetics, much less a controversial one like Jewish genetics. SPS also says that if a viewpoint is truly notable there should be another, more reliable source that meets Misplaced Pages's standards. Frontiers clearly does not, as you can see at the RSN archives. In my opinion, the content in question should be removed. If one could find a page from his Springer book that contains similar statements I would have no problem with adding it, but as a matter of principle we should respect the consensus not to use Frontiers Media as a source for highly contentious and convoluted subjects like this one. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: You are entirely wrong about SPS and I suggest you read it more carefully. The last sentence there excludes it from BLPs. What it does say is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and there is no reason to not apply that to a genetics expert. Zero 04:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

As a review article summarizing pre-existing research, this is exactly the sort of input that we would want to see from a vastly experienced and knowledgeable subject-matter expert such as Falk. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This article would certainly benefit from a good review article or, better still, a meta-analysis. In most academic fields, the relevance of such research is obvious, which is why it is usually fairly easy to publish good reviews and meta-analysis in top journals. No expert who had done even a half-decent review would need to publish it in Frontiers. In all honesty, the hypocrisy at display on this talk page by "Team A" wanting to keep SurnameDNA and reject Frontiers and by "Team B" wanting to keep Frontiers and reject SurnameDNA is rather depressing. WP:CHERRYPICKING very much applies; an academic source isn't more reliable because it says what you want it to say ("you" here refers to us all on WP, not to any individual user). Both SurnameDNA and Frontiers should go from this, as they are not reliable academic sources. Jeppiz (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly some hypocrisy on sourcing, on that we can agree. If I am being counted in 'Team B' in this analysis then I would note that I have not actively removed any material from the page other than that cited to boingboing.net or worse. What I have done is drawn attention to is the sudden interest from some users in ripping down the freshly added material from a renowned Israeli geneticist (albeit published in Frontiers), yet set alongside an utter disinterested in the state of sourcing throughout the rest of the page. At best one could call this rather selectively focused. However, as it stands, Frontiers has not been firmly pronounced 'unreliable' at WP:RSN, regardless of apparent claims to the contrary, and neither has SurnameDNA, for that matter, and so it too remains, though perhaps it should also be taken to WP:RSN. Though from what I can tell here, none of the authors in the cited SurnameDNA paper have the distinction of having held tenured fellowships. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz and Zero0000: My apologies for misconstruing WP:SPS on BLPs entirely, that was a lapse of judgment (temporary, I hope). But to say that I am "entirely wrong" about SPS is stretching it. SPS also says exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources, which points to issues of WP:UNDUE, when no one is offering an alternative to Falk. Also, please see Aquillion's comment here. WP:SPS is one of the weaker ways to determine reliability. There is consensus that genetics research is held to a higher standard of reliability

Also, at WP:Verifiability, immediately above WP:SPS, is the following: Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process. Frontiers is an open access predatory source, which casts doubt on the validity of SPS here. And lastly, note G at WP:SPS says Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources. I believe that Falk's claim: there is no Jewish genotype to identify and genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent does constitute an extraordinary claim that isn't satisfied by an outmoded Frontiers source.

This is why @Iskandar323: is mistaken in promoting this source as an innocent review article. It is in fact pushing a extraordinary claim (that there's no way to getermine Jewish descent by genetic markers) that isn't found in the cited sources. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is all easy to source; people just aren't trying. See Falk's Springer-published book on the subject, page 15, for the same information. WP:ECREE it is not. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I do not see the same information you speak of. The link you gave me is a snippet view for page 1, but I was able to view page 15 by modifiying the URL, and saw nothing to substantiate your claim. The big bold claims from the Frontiers article aren't here. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do think both SurnameDNA and Frontiers should go, both are unreliable. I agree with Iskandar323 and will go a bit further still: in academic circles, Frontiers is frowned upon. I forbid my PhD students from submitting there, and from citing articles published in it. Virtually all colleagues (not just in my department but in my entire academic field) do the same. Having said that SurnameDNA is worse still, and I would object to even calling it in academic journal. While "journals" of this kind abound in every academic field, they are not even taken seriously. (If anyone really wants to defend SurnameDNA I can provide a lengthy debunking, though I'm optimistic enough that it's countless flaws should be evident). Jeppiz (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's odd to put SurnameDNA on a par with Falk. Hunan evidently hadn't read Falk's translated work on Biology and Zionism. The paper we are citing from summarizes that book. In that book this is the kind of self-reviewing scruple exercised as an historian and geneticist of the first water.

Experimental scientists pride themselves of being followers of Francis Bacon’s (1561–1626) inductive method of investigating nature, presumably without prejudice. But clearly, this is impossible; we view the world through a lens that is polarized by our dispositions, inclinations, and preconceived notions. As a student of the evolution of scientific concepts, I based much of my narration on secondary readings of the sources. I have been continually surprised to discover how difficult it is to admit the extent to which many of us – in the natural sciences and in the sciences of man – are influenced by our preconceived ideas. p.xiii

I do not intend to present in this book an historical view or a comprehensive picture of the biological literature of the origins of the Jews and the blood relations between them. As I have experienced in recent years, the subject is emotionally loaded. My perspective is that of a biologist who tries to examine Zionist history. Even though I tried to be objective, I am aware that my personal biases affected the writing. p.16

After noting pressures in Israel and among pro-Palestinian scientists to spin research, he states-

Concise histories of the people involved in the studies are necessary factors of many of the works discussed. They obviously present the authors’ perspective of history.However, such explicit “political writing” in a scientific paper resulted in pressure on the editor of the journal that published it. The paper was taken off the internet edition and regular readers were advised to extricate the pages of the paper from the printed edition. Twisted and convoluted as this incident may appear to readers of the professional literature, it exposed much of the biological essence of the Palestinian-Zionist conflict that many of the participants succeeded in veiling under the cover of the presumed image of scientific objectivity. Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Palestinian-American scientist, explicitly responded to this issue and the paper’s findings. The data provided by the paper is ironically consistent with data published in the same journal by Israeli scientists . Amar et al. showed that “Israeli Arabs” (Palestinians who are Israeli citizens) are closer to Sephardic Jews than either is to Ashkenazi Jews. Yet, Amar et al. incredibly concluded that “We have shown that Jews share common features, a fact that points to a common ancestry.” Many worked feverishly to establish links (however tenuous) between Ashkenazi Jews and the ancient Israelites . But Ashkenazim are also clearly closer to Turkic/Slavic than to either Sephardim or Arab populations. p.196

Falk's text brims with notes on how research in this area is deeply entangled in all sorts of pressures, ideological and political, and makes no distinction between the Zionist or the pro-Palestinian twist. And he states that he has had to constantly monitor his own assumptions. All of this suggests the detached wisdom of an empiricist embued with strong sensitivities to epistemological biases, his own and others.

That you advise binning his peer-reviewed paper because it was published in Frontiers in Genetics nis purely formalist. If Falk at 86 wished to be heard he should have ignored his anxiety to publish quickly and submitted his final paper to two or three mainstream journals, betting he would be still around by the time their particular systems of peer-review endorsed it for future publication at some time in a near future he, at that age, could not be so confident of seeing unlike the younger scholars seeking outlets for their work in those journals.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

A final point. I admire your stringency with students, and the insistence on the highest standards. But you must know, as I do, that publication venue is just one of numerous issues vexing scholarship. Careers are made or broken according to quantity of output, plagiarism is not rare (one critic of my work lifted one of its core ideas, built his book around it, and won a national best book of its genre award (in another language of course). We could undoubtedly entertain each other for hours recounting shenanigans of this type, political pressures to shut up (I was even offered lucrative bribes by a politician), lobbying pressures to boycott or make problems for people who don't toe a particular line. These things are also serious factors, and, in my view, I only look at the quality of the scholar's work, their reputation, and, in this case, I take into consideration the intrinsic difficulties that a position, authoritatively documented, might encounter when it does not sail to the winds of an ostensible orthodoxy. In that regard, Falk passes all tests, and the venue is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I note that you have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence that Frontiers is a predatory journal and you have failed to give us anything except your personal impressions. Yet you impune the motives of anyone who disagrees with you. Did I miss something? Mind you, I'm one of those who think that the source is Falk and not Frontiers and I have consistently supported an author-first approach to reliability questions over many examples. I have no reason to doubt the journal editor's word that Falk's article was reviewed by Veronika Lipphardt (specialist in the history of population genetics who wrote a book on Jewish genetics) and Yulia Egorova (specialist in Jewish anthropology). But even besides that, since you have at least one quarter the length of academic life that I've had, you know that the quality of the paper rests most heavily on the quality of the author. That's why I believe this article would be citable if it was written on the back of an envelope. Zero 15:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI: WP:Articles for deletion/Raphael Falk (academic). Zero 15:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Zero, you're pretty much spot on. Saying that Frontiers is predatory is, to me, WP:BLUE. It is common knowledge in my field, but I've chosen to be anonymous and you are absolutely right to point out that me saying something does not make it so. If you Google Frontiers and predatory you'll find plenty of gullible young researchers who submitted there, only to become sceptical when they discovered how superficial and easy the reviews were. For what it's worth, Frontiers has been pestering me many times to review or even sit on editorial boards - in areas I would have very little competence to review. It certainly appears Falk's reviews for his article were from relevant reviewers. I want to emphasize again that mine is a comment on Frontiers in general, not on Falk (a good and serious researcher for all I can tell). Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This long discussion is interesting. Zero 08:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, lots of interesting details. Some people reporting an often long and multi-round reviewing, noting the high quality of the reviewers and discussing how Frontiers does reject papers and sometimes waves costs. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Jeppiz, I linked this from NIH which does it's own third party peer-review vetting via three departments as part of a triple blind review process. The Office of Extramural Research, the Office of Management Assessment, and the Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy comprise the Center for Scientific Review. You can learn more about it here https://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-19-00160.asp - it is a solid source. Dr. Raphael Falk was the chair of the International Society of Genetic Genealogy at one point iirc and the head of Genetic studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His paper https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/genetic-analysis/A37A6BD3657B8AC2B6B1C12F33D8BC4C - continues in the original vein of the other but links the association of genetic markers to social demographics ie Jewish people, to the theories regarding the genetics of social demographics in Chapter 10 - From evolution to population genetics. He was a Holocaust Survivor and worked with Curt Stern who wrote The Race Question https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000128291 which was a 9 page document UNESCO put together to discredit Nazism, ie the ideology that there genetic markers which determine specific demographics such as African-Americans, Jews, Irish, etc.

I noticed that his Frontiers paper was cited to substantiate the claim that genetic markers can be used to determine the Jewishness of a genetic marker. "From the mid-1970s onwards, RNA and DNA sequencing enabled the comparison of genetic relationships, and during the 1980s, it also became possible to examine genetic polymorphism across multiple sites in DNA sequences.", open paragraph four of the History section of this article. The very next sentence in the citation is, "Once again the presumed relationships among Jewish communities, as well as their relation to non-Jewish communities were examined.", whereafter the paper goes on to discredit the arguments made by the rest of this paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article. "Both the early studies on blood markers and later studies of the monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes revealed evidence of both Middle Eastern and local origin, with indeterminate levels of local genetic admixture. The conclusions of the diverse studies conducted turned out to be "remarkably similar", providing both evidence of shared genetic ancestry among major diaspora groups and varied levels of local genetic admixture.", is addressed in the paper in the last paragraph of the section "Who is a Jew?" where he identified it as Nazism and cited it. He then explained the citation in Footnote 3 - "It is noteworthy that even the Nazis, after mobilizing the most advanced means and methods of science of their time for identifying Jews, reverted to using the yellow star patch attached to the garment as the identifying device.". The same thing happens in paragraph five "In the 1990s, this developed into attempts to identify markers in highly discrete population groups. The results were mixed. One study on the Cohanim hereditary priesthood found distinctive signs of genetic homogeneity within the group. At the same time, no unusual clustering of Y-haplotypes was found relative to non-Cohanim Jews." is quoted but the paper said the exact opposite of this. The very next sentence, "However, such studies did show that certain population groups could be identified. As David Goldstein noted: "Our studies of the Cohanim established that present day Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim are more genetically similar to one another than they are to either Israelites or non-Jews."" has the same issue. This citation does not say that anywhere in-fact it said the exact opposite of this.

It is really out of place to have this citation in the framing the article is using it in. At least in that location. I used the NIH re-publish because your right Frontiers is not the best but again NIH does triple-blind reviews before they reprint. It is also acceptable in the framing where it is used in paragraph two and three of the History section because in that location it is used to cite that this sort of genetic research is bogus.

I wanted to point out that in this same section the citation from H. Skorecki Ostrer is {{COI}} they attended Einstein University which claims to be a 'Jewish' medical college making their research inherently subjective and not objective. Medical studies must come from blind sources. Please see Misplaced Pages:No original research section Reliable Sources for what is required for a medical citation. Dr. Raphael Falk's paper received a triple blind review at the NIH while H. Skorecki Ostrer did not. Additionally, Einstein College of Medicine as well as H. Skorecki Ostrer were involved in the same COVID-19 scandal Nicholas Wade was in. I removed it from the section I added after someone told me about it, trying to put together a good article here. Anyway the source isn't valid and several others have the same issue.

I wanted to add a controversy section to this article and had over 50 sources from places like NIH, the Human Genome Project, The American Society of Human Genetics, The National Insitute of Health, etc which very recently targeted the theories about the genetics of the Jewish people this article contains as racist ideologies without scientific merit. For that reason as well as all of this content warring there should be a controversy section added to the article, but User:Skllagyook and I are having a content war as they have reverted my entire section more than three times without addressing it in the talk or providing any input on how we should arrange this section or anything else mentioned we should do in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. This article is highly toxic and highly triggering for many which is why I reported it for content warring. I am hoping we can get decent moderation on it who will verify the content as several times over I have been able to point out misrepresentation of citations and bias in research while others have been removing triple-blind citations from government and international agencies in charge of regulating the field.

Additionally, both Illumia and Thermo Fisher Scientific who are the two largest manufacturers of the equipment used in genetic testing and only manufacturers who have units in the labs from the citations in the article were required to distribute warnings related to the proper use of their equipment identifying the information in this article as eugenics after losing the lawsuit against the family of Henrietta Lacks. Just wanted to point that out. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Sorry to double reply. I wanted to add because of the dispute submission I am not making edits to the article. Just trying to work this out in the talk until that is done. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding eran elhaik 2016 study that challenges to academics and 23andMe to detect jewish type “jüdische Typus”

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2016.00141/full

Whenever i add this study or more precisely this challenge, the user Triggerhippie4 keep removing it by claiming that frontier is not a reliable source or that eran elhaik is not reliable enough to cite from a such study, i find both illegitimate since neither frontiers is unreliable as have been argued before in earlier discussions nor eran elhaik is not reliable enough to cite

So what is wrong with it ? Tezak habra 2 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Jeppiz (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Amr.elmowaled. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There are ongoing discussions at RSN re Frontiers/Falk and we will see what the outcome is. My impression at the moment is that there are no convincing arguments for excluding Falk with attribution. If Falk's findings are disputed by others, then the thing to do is produce suitable RS exhibiting that disagreement and we can include them. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Below is a public comment from a scientist who was part of the review team at Frontiers for an Eran Elhaik study. The comment can be found at Leonid Schneider's blog, dated 2017/09/18.

Hunan201p (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A commentary by an unlisted reviewer who speaks about "leftists". Cited to a blog. This is hardly persuasive. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A comment on a blog whose blogger has also been sued several times for their content. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I amended the discussion at RSN to reflect the fact that both Frontiers and Falk are being discussed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and at the author. In his own field (insects) the author appears to be a fairly good author who publishes in good journals about insects. This article in Frontiers is not within the author's core competence, and is (quite frankly) very poorly written, parts of it more similar in style to a blog post than to an academic article. It is a rather good example for why so many of us in academia are hesitant about Frontiers. I cannot imagine that any respectable journal would have published that article (keep in mind that this is not a comment on the findings but rather on the poor academic writing). And unlike Falk, who was an expert on the topic he wrote about in Frontiers, that does not apply to Elhaik. Jeppiz (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik has an article on WP so notable. That article describes him as "an Israeli-American geneticist and bioinformatician" and speaks about his work in this area and criticism of it. So again, it is not that obvious why the work should be excluded. That some criticize his work is not in and of itself a reason to exclude, we would need more than that, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally (not about Elhaik in particular), the fact that someone has a page on Misplaced Pages is of zero relevance unless the article is about the topic they speak about. For example, I remember a Professor of linguistics (with an article on WP) who wrote books about Jesus. Obviously neither his status as Professor nor his WP article made him an RS on Jesus (while he would have been RS in his own field). I also agree with Selfstudier and Iskandar323 that a blog post by an unidentified reviewer means nothing, and can be ignored. That said, the article itself remains a sorry mess that would never pass in a proper academic journal. Given that Elhaik is a researcher who regularly publishes in top journals (about insects), it seems safe to assume he would have published in a respected journal if the article had been good enough. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at how often this article has been cited, and it's downright laughable. Only two academics appear to cite it—and one of then is Elhaik himself. So despite being published seven years ago, other researchers shun it. That’s a much stronger indication that experts consider it garbage than that blog post. Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You use 'shun' as an inference from no wide citation, ignoring two things. Few want to touch that specific topic- it is a career risk and (b) numerous examples exist of seminal articles ignored for various reasons, for decades, from Mendel's onwards.Nishidani (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be engaging in caricature and personal research. The former shows in your characterization of Elhaik as someone who conducts basically research into insects, t5he latter in making a personal judgment about the poor quality of the paper. He has 65 peer-reviewed articles in major scientific journals from the Lancet onwards. in a decade and a half, on a very wide range of scientific topics regarding molecular biology, including theoretical issues,and of course paleogenetics. Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, your reply is guilty of the exact same things. You make a personal guess that the paper's risible citation count is because of the topic, but that's only your assumption (and an erroneous one; articles on the same topic area much more widely cited, so it's not due to others staying away from the topic). Second, you refer to his publications in good journals as if they mattered here. It's an impressive publication record and Elhaik obviously a good research in his field. That field is not the one this article deals with. And last (and very surprisingly for being you) you confuse anomalies and regularities. Yes, one can find the odd great article that is poorly cited—but it is an anomaly. And in all honesty, I would expect you to know that. Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't realized we (not me) have already been around the block regards this chap. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, although the paper discussed there was far more insightful. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Now now dear Jeepiz. (a) if you assert I make the same errors I impute to you, then, since you don't address the merit of my contentions, logically your reply boils down to:'Nishidani. Don't complain about me in this regard. You too fall into the same error, and your remarks are just a matter of the pot calling the kettle black'(and therefore smack of a 'holier than thou' hypocrisy) (b)I stated that you had made an 'inference' from the low citation index of Elhaik's paper, i.e. that this is evidence or proof that paper is 'shunned'. You reply, asserting I did the same thing by making a 'personal guess' as to why it is rarely cited. No. I didn't. I suggested that a low citation count can be accounted for, technically, in many ways. If you suggest it evidences poor quality and tacit censure, I reminded you that many other factors could be adduced to account for that neglect, which is not rare (providing a link to an article precisely on instances of neglect not translating into negligibility) So that is a caricature of what I wrote (and unusual for you, in my experience). Just as in writing

author. In his own field (insects) the author appears to be a fairly good author who publishes in good journals about insects

you distort grossly his publishing record. It's like questioning Stephen Jay Gould's papers on cognitive bias in science by sneering that he is out of his area of specialization, i.e.the land snail As you now allow, his record is 'umpressive'.

I don't think I confuse anomalies and regularities. It is true that I have always been sensitive to what I call scotoma in several fields of scholarship (stumbling for example on great scholars like Michael Astour (Hellenosemitica) and Cyrus Gordon as an impressionable undergraduate) (and its converse, lockstep lipservice to a new 'theory' with its own distinctive jargon, that generates a huge fad of (pseudo) academic acclaim (Heidegger, Derrida and deconstructionist postmodernism). That doesn't lead me to some social constructionist approach, but it does make me sensitive to cognitive bias in anything I study with any degree of intensity. In any topic, one must take on board signs of emerging evidence for tensions within the dominant paradigm(s). Climate science is an egregious exmple of interests throttling an emerging empiricism until reality kicked in.

Elhaik's paper has a few grammatical and stylistic errors. English is not his mother tongue, and I spot those everywhere in technical papers (I proofread occasionally philosophical papers where precise syntax is crucial, and overlooked by experts writing in English). Elhaik comes from a school where the cultural pressures in the regional history of their discipline constitutes an important part of one's technical formation, something that is not par for the course for the majority of molecular biologists working in their field, who don't need these historicing sensitivities to conduct research. So his paper offers some light on that field's specific paradogmatic premises and indeed does so by proposing an experimental model for claims widely made in a money-making scheme whose approaches smack of fraudulence. What's the problem in a scientist doing that?Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, as always, I appreciate your rhetoric flair and the long, nice examples (tangential though they may be). None of that can distract from the fact that this is an article that (a.) was published in journal of dubious quality and (b.) has only been cited by one other academic in the seven years since. Jeppiz (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of possible reasons for this, not least that the subject is fairly academically toxic. Even its title alone is probably enough to put off many academics from putting it anywhere near their reference section. Nevertheless, it has been referenced in a few papers jointly authored with Elhaik in addition to the citations by Kohler. Another possible reason for its relative paucity of through-citation is that it is a bit of an end-in-of-itself. Part review article, part challenge to the standing precepts of some other research, the lack of response to Elhaik's invitation for others to respond is part of the conclusion. No one wants to ask these questions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Rhetoric? That is used, ironically, in its clichéd rhetorical sense, as a euphemism for an argument of persuasion careless of the factual, i.e., essentially hot air. In technical terms, every kind of written or spoken discourse, outside of terse mathematical or strictly logic proofs, can be read as framed by rhetorical devices, for the simple reason that, as Brian Vickers once put it (1988), rhetoric is simply the systematization of natural eloquence. Unbeknown to ourselves (like Mr Jourdain’s surprise at hearing that he has been speaking ‘prose’ in Le Bourgeois gentilhomme - Par ma foi ! il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien) we all speak in terms that have classifications in rhetoric – you availing yourself of a contrast between regularity and anomaly (out of the blue) exemplifies comparatio, while the insect remark instances meiosis ( excuse the molecular pun, but I like to season exchanges with them to soften possible enmities with a touch of the light-hearted).

And no, not tangential. You spoke of your background, and that elicited anecdotes of my own experience. You are objecting on the grounds of venue, but also assert a personal view that Elhaik’sa paper is not up to scratch. You add that few respond to it. You don’t contest that Elhaik is a very productive writer of peer-reviewed articles in his field, articles that broach a wide variety of topics in molecular biology. In all of this you ignore the History of Science, the discipline that c0mes in after the historical dust has settled and then teases out all of the socio-historical, cultural, ideological, even theological, and economic pressures within which this or that idea or theory can be seen to be embedded. Unlike Steven Weinberg (Dreams of a Final Theory), E.T.Bell, Richard Lewontin, Joseph Needham who all wrote histories of, or meditated deeply on, the austere disciplines they worked creatively in, and the like, the overwhelming majority of physicists, mathematicians, molecular biologists and biochemists pursue careers that are singularly focused on the technical and analytic problems in their respective fields. You can know, effortlessly, absolutely nothing of history and work creatively on the cusp of these disciplines. The same is true of economics, which haplessly aspires to the status of science (All you need at Chicago is advanced mathematical abilities: in Italy it long required parallel coursework on political science and the sociohistorical constraints on theory).

How many molecular biologists know something , in a cross-disciplinary fashion of the crossweave between (a) the larger history of their topic’s theoretical developments (b) its development in Israel (c) the history of the Jewish people (d) the history of Zionism, (e) the theoretical adequacy of techniques of ethnogenealogical determinations and (f) the commercial use of such DNA analysis in the flourishing new industry that services people who desire to have a putative scientific identity miraculously revealed on payment? Such a combination is rare, interest in its ramifications likewise sparse, and one would imaginably not expect any significantly resonant feedback. In the end, it is not the venue, but the qualifications of the author that must count in assessing whether to include or exclude.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural comment OP has been blocked as a confirmed sock. That makes no difference for the discussion, it's certainly not Elhaik’s fault, nor the fault of any WP user in favour of including it, that the first comment came from a sock. The ensuing discussion is equally valid. Jeppiz (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Controversy

This article is a hot bed, added sources from national and international agencies which target the premise of this article and identify it as bigorty. The author is disseminate propaganda which was already discredited multiple times and identified as Nazism by an international agreement making the article by definition neo-nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:10BF:1859:43BD:585E (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Last pull made no edits to talk nor gave cause for removal of accredited sources. Readded the changes as well as improved the section a bit with a full scope of the history involved as well as various religious references that served as a basis for discrediting the content of the article as a whole. Going through what I could find in the removal notes not entered into the talk log.

Citing Ncholas Wade - A ton more was cited that just Nicholas Wade. You should have only removed that source but instead you intentionally removed everything and furthermore denied the Holocaust in this rant as a "conspiracy theory". It was mentioned in Wade's article which you claim was discredited but cite not sources at all opposite of my edits which have more than one source from places like the Human Genome Project and National Institute of Health and Science etc. So, ignoring all other sources and only considering this one from Wade I gotta now ask you, "What proof do you have that this is bogus?" issuing you the same challenge. The only difference is unlike me you didn't provide any proof instead you just vandalized an article because you personally believe the Nazis had it correct and not because you have any proof of that. If it is a bad source then alright educate me and I'll grab a different source, but pulling the entire thing because one source which isn't even a primary source unlike those discredited in the research you support isn't a solution. Better yet find me a blanket statement that discredited the edits I made across all sources like I did with the reset of the article by posting the related Human Genome Project article and the apology open from the American Society of Human Genetics.

On Verification Methodologies - Endogamy is detectible at the 6th generation. For the study cited to be considered scientific the verification methodology would need to establish that the test subjects were descended from 6 generations of practicing Jews on both sides. Without this included we are assuming that the genetic markers being associated came from within the Jewish community and not from an external source such as a family which was Catholic three generations ago and then converted to Judaism bringing the genetic markers being identified. We're talking science so this shouldn't be assumed but instead must be included in the studies. So, what I can and will assume about all your sources is that they were compiled from studies taken at a Mormon Summer Camp. Since the source of the test samples was never verified you will not be able to refute this claim because the study fundamentally lacked the standard documentation that any other scientific study must have to be considered factual. Opposite of your claims of Bokonos being Jews now because some scientist went around thinking Bokonoism was the same as Judaism are claims from higher authorities that the studies provided in the article are bias for the same reason I provided (lack of verification of Jewishness) as well as a lack of blindness in the studies coupled with the inherent racism of the authors. To further clarify for these studies to be blind they cannot have sought a Jewish gene they can only compile data and those administering the studies couldn't be linked to Judaism as then the researcher involved would present a bias and the study would be subjective. Kevin Alan Brook claims to be Jewish and a Chabadnik at that so all the citations related to him would present a clear subjective bias.

On How Far Back Must We Go - Far enough to prove it with science. This isn't a religious question although religion is involved. This is a scientific one and if this is science then I shouldn't have to ask the authors here several times over what the verification methodologies were or re-post the same condemnation from the Human Genome Project or the American Society of Human Genetics or any of the other citations you completely ignored in favor on a single one. Well I got a single one pointed out in the above section, by the same logic you should remove this entire article as you did my entire edit because you personally don't believe something and weren't able to cite any supporting documentation of your claims. Look it is simple if this is science and proven then quote me from any one of your sources the non-bias double-blind verification methodology employeed to establish that test samples came from Jewish people who inherited them from Jewish family members and not a family that converted several generations ago or from a source which was only ever assumed to be Jewish rather than proven.

Before making edits lets hash it out in the talk and discuss sources because this will be an edit war otherwise. I can already tell because it took a war for the Nazis to realize they were wrong about this too just like I assume it will be with the original author of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

- I wanted to add that in medicine we should seek to treat the patient as an individual instead of dehumanizing them into an impersonal category which could and has in practice led to misdiagnosis. Genetics is much more nuanced than the rhetoric present by the Misplaced Pages article's proponents. Additionally leaking patients demographic information by linking disorders to personal associations which some may want to keep private raises serious PHI concerns. Just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:ED1C:F660:AB2:47CE (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

- Added more sources especially to the section related to the religious dogma. My Torah portion at my Bar Mitzvah was Achrie Mot/Kedoshim which deals with all this specifically. I remembered reading about the Nephilim but had to discuss it with the Rabbi for a refresher before I felt comfortable adding it due to how harsh of a term it is. I added a source pointing to the Merneptah Stele as it supported a line in the Torah related to dissolution of any genetic component to Judaism. Finally a friend of mine in genetics published a discreditation of one of the studies previously mentioned in this article outside this section and so I added it to the sources in this section. I could continue to refute this on religious grounds because there is a lot more expanding, I can do especially on outside Torah stuff but that would be it's own article. Instead I have a backlog of studies that I need to get through and then I can add more published science to this section instead of just religious stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This article concerns the genetic histories of various Jewish populations. I don't see how that entire field can be discredited let alone on religious grounds. Religious dogma and doctrine is a separate subject. And calling the entire field bigotry, antisemitism, or Nazism is inflammatory and WP:FRINGE. The fact that ideas of "race", ancestry, and genetics (as understood at the time) were abused by the Nazis and other racists, eugenicists, and anti-semites (e.g. scientific racism) does not invalidate the very WP:MAINSTREAM field of population genetics. Skllagyook (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to each objection independently.

This article concerns the genetic histories of various Jewish populations.

Actually. This was the original objection and you have not amended that by providing it. Once again, I ask you to quote the section of any study done which included the methodology employed to determine the Jewishness of test subjects. This article is about what you assume Jewish genetics to be based on discredited pseudo-scientific studies and historical forms of antisemitism. This was cited in my section, if you would like to refute it in the section on controversy then you should but the fact is there were roughly 50 citations in the section and while I understand that you personally do not feel like the World Health Organization, Human Genome Project, and American Society on Human Genetics to be accredited organizations I assure you the scientific community does which is why there were roughly 50 citations.

Religious dogma and doctrine is a separate subject.

Normally I totally would agree and less than a 1/4th of the citations was religious dogma the majority the article comes from scientific authorities. The reason I went into the Apostasy of this type of experiment was because it furthered the point made by Dr. Falk, Dr. Berger, and Dr. Brandt-Rauf that any participant in these experiments would inherently not be Jewish due to their volunteering for the experiment. That means these experiments contain no information related to the Jewish people but instead a litany of historical antisemitism and assumptions. Essentially what those who performed these tests did is walk into a Catholic Church or some other non-Jewish religious place of worship and test them for these genetic disorders then called them Jews. That is why the religious dogma was brought up because it isn't part of Judaism and it was made clear that it was the direct opposite of Judaism ergo antisemitism.

The fact that ideas of "race", ancestry, and genetics (as understood at the time) were abused by the Nazis and other racists, eugenicists, and anti-semites (e.g. scientific racism) does not invalidate the very WP:MAINSTREAM field of population genetics.

Actually, I did not the Human Genome Project, American Society on Human Genetics, and World Health Organization did. Today's edit also included the paper from Dr. Israel Berger in Australia who set out to begin discrediting the sources in this very article (it is how I found his paper actually) and found it became a game of wack-a-mole because like all the sources in the article they are based on a previously discredited career of work. For example, James D. Watson was called out. Almost every article supporting these experiments either cited him or cited someone else's work which cited him as the primary source.

The fact that ideas of "race", ancestry, and genetics (as understood at the time) were abused by the Nazis and other racists, eugenicists, and anti-semites (e.g. scientific racism) does not invalidate the very WP:MAINSTREAM field of population genetics.

Except it does because eugenics is not genetics, and it was called out by the authorities who regulate this field as ignorant racism devoid of any factual basis and only ever used to progress hate crime activity. Look I understand that you personally believe the Nazis has a point, as you just admitted, but they were wrong. There was a trial and documentation of that was provided. I am sorry and I do understand how it can be hard to have all of a sudden realized that maybe you're a racist neo-nazi because you didn't bother with world history or whatever I don't know your situation but every source provided was more recent and from a higher authority. Your being intentionally ignorant and intentionally bigoted at this point.

Take up your argument in the controversy section as that is why it was written to discuss and display the heaps of controversy around this subject which was for a fact defined as Nazism. That trial transcript was included don't conflate your personal opinions as fact and cite the verification methodology from the antisemitic experiments you support if you really believe them to be accurate. I've literally put quotes from my citations into this article. Laziness is not an excuse if I can you can. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote:

"...it doesn't in no citation other than my own was the proof of the Jewishness of the subjects involved included within the experiment's methodology"

If you are claiming that the many studies in the article investigating the ancestral origins of Jewish populations (the Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi groups, Jews of India etc.) do not distinguish Jewish samples from non Jewish ones, that is an extraordinary claim and seems fairly implausible. I have seen no reliable source claiming that. The statement that studies such as those of Ostrer, Behar, Costa, Xue and Shai Carmi (and many others) are Nazism is also extraordinary. Your sources criticizing genetic studies seem mostly to concern studies of Jewsish medical genetics (i.e. diseases), which is a separate area of genetics that this article does not cover. That is why I added some of your material concerning that to the relevant article. Your hostile personal attacks in the form of the accausations that I am "a racist", "bigot", and "a neo-nazi" and believe that "the Nazis had a point" are not only false but egregiously inappropriate and offensive, as is the claim in your edit summary that I reverted you because I was upset and personally offended by being "proven wrong by experts". I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith such as you have made, in addition to being hurtful and an impediment to communication, are against Misplaced Pages policy. The accusatory inflammatory language you have used there and elsewhere is concerning. Skllagyook (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

To repeat my last edit summary , your additions seem like somewhat of a straw man and thus not really relevant here. The study of the genetic histories/compositions of various Jewish populations (several of which which many believe have an element of shared ancestry) is not the same as eugenics or the idea that Judaism has a genetic requirement (which are proscriptive/ideological attitudes) nor the same as ideas of racial inferiority/superiority. Nor is it the same as the idea that Jews are a unique and perfectly endogenous race that are necessarily distinct or unconnected from all others. The latter ideas are not being endorsed in this article. Your additions might perhaps be better suited to a new article covering Jewish attitudes to things such as eugenics and endogamy for example. Skllagyook (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added incorporated some of the material you added here that seemed into another page, Medical genetics of Jews, that seemed relevant there, under a new section, "Controversy and Criticism". Skllagyook (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Skllagyook that this manufactured controversy that was single-handedly added by the censorship-supporting anonymous editor 2603:7000:4600:358a:ed1c:f660:ab2:47ce doesn't belong in this entry and that the editor's revision comments are off base and inflammatory. The person who added the controversy section even lied about several people's ideological affinities, including by calling the page's creator Boutboul "a neo-nazi" who's supposedly "motivated by an effort to deny the scope of the Holocaust", and by calling Kevin Brook a member of Chabad-Lubavitch, neither of which is a true statement. Boutboul created this page on 8 February 2010 and it has never constituted "neo-nazi propaganda" or a "hate crime".172.56.217.228 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to both here.

To repeat my last edit summary , your additions seem like somewhat of a straw man and thus not really relevant here.

This is how I feel. I've asked in the talk several times for any verification in the studies to be provided and no one can provide that. This entire article is a strawman and should all together be removed instead of just having a controversy section with better sources than the original article could provide. The world and Jews said that there was not a genetic component to this, defined that ideology as Nazism, and then here you are attacking that by saying 'Oh we have the science now.', but then you are completely unable to back that up by quoting the verification methodology in the citations supporting your personal pseudo-scientific belief system. I mean if you want to shut me up and shut me down then just quote that and I am on my way. The fact is that you haven't, no one has, and you cannot, no one can. This is why generally the entire field was discredited as pseudo-scientific racism with several public releases from the genetic community about it and not some independent lab with some hack that lost their degree and Nobel prize a decade ago for being a racist. You claim that I have no ground for adding a controversy section to highlight the issues myself and others have brought up here. I mean this entire talk is people posting discreditations and being denied the ability to because so and so doesn't like it but cannot actually refute it. I mean I've asked several times, get me the verification methodology otherwise you're just being an ignorant racist.

The study of the genetic histories/compositions of various Jewish populations (several of which which many believe have an element of shared ancestry) is not the same as eugenics or the idea that Judaism has a genetic requirement (which are proscriptive/ideological attitudes) nor the same as ideas of racial inferiority/superiority.

Except it is and that was cited as well as quoted. I'll re-quote it to you, "The Nazis defined Jews by race, not religion. They claimed that Jews belonged to a separate race. They also claimed that Jews were inferior to all other races. The Nazi definition of Jews included people who did not practice Judaism." (...) "The Nazis tried to use science to prove their racial theories. They recruited doctors and other scientists to help them. These officials tried to categorize people into races. They measured and described people’s physical features, like noses, skulls, eyes, and hair.

These attempts at categorization failed to prove Nazi racial theories. In fact, their efforts revealed that human beings could not be scientifically categorized into races. Humankind is simply too naturally diverse. However, this reality did not stop the Nazis." - https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-racism

So are you both like denying the Holocaust happened or what? No offense but I am sort of confused as what this quote from the Holocaust Museum reads is that you're being neo-nazis and here I am (a Jew) posting the same discreditations that my grandparents did when the Nazis murdered off my ancestors thinking their "science" was also correct. I know it is a charged term and a hard one at that and so I am really not trying to call it out here, but there just isn't another word for it other than maybe Nephilim which is honestly worse and why I hesitated as well as spoke to a Rabbi before I went down that rabbit hole today.

Nor is it the same as the idea that Jews are a unique and perfectly endogenous race that are necessarily distinct or unconnected from all others.

Yet you claim you are able to track my family and I through our genetics like herd animals so well that you can identify someone who has 30% of my DNA on a machine which is only at best 70% accurate? Bogus! The point my section made is that we are not a race at all. We're a religious community and thus people convert to and away from this community bringing their genetics to the community and taking them out of the community just like every other religious community. Yet you're posting citations claiming that the Jewish people are homogenous enough to identify genetically. Flat out if that was the case you or someone else would have quoted that verification methodology to me a long time ago in this talk and shut me up. You all haven't because you're passing off neo-nazi propaganda as scientific fact and it isn't. The scientific community has already come out against this.

Your additions might perhaps be better suited to a new article covering Jewish attitudes to things such as eugenics and endogamy for example.

I did think about this and it is warranted but it would need to be linked and referenced in this article. There is most definitely enough content for it's own article and this article without the controversy has no actual sources since there were all based on self-verified data and bigoted opinions.

I have added incorporated some of the material you added here that seemed into another page, Medical genetics of Jews, that seemed relevant there, under a new section, "Controversy and Criticism".

That is good I was thinking of adding it there too but I didn't want to over do it. Look you're a better writer than I am when it comes to this all so I am not opposed to taking input on how to frame it so that it is clear the majority of the article is neo-nazi propaganda, because it is that is just a fact and one I sourced and cited. But this cancel culture on the topic is what the Nazis did under the Nuremberg Laws too so you're really coming off that way. Now I don't really feel like you are but I don't know you and you appear to be very supportive of that.

I agree with Skllagyook that this manufactured controversy that was single-handedly added by the censorship-supporting anonymous editor 2603:7000:4600:358a:ed1c:f660:ab2:47ce doesn't belong in this entry and that the editor's revision comments are off base and inflammatory.

A couple of things here. First I pulled sources from prior edits and talks to this page. Yeah I was making the edits but I am not the only one here. There is an entire talk worth of others who feel the same. As for being anonymous I chose to do it this way so Wiki would have my IP. I figured it was actually less anonymous and so moderation would have an easier time identifying me than if I made a junk email to make an edit. I mean I can see your information like you can mine and so I know you aren't just Skyllagyook but its the internet people spoof and I am trying to be legit here.

The person who added the controversy section even lied about several people's ideological affinities, including by calling the page's creator Boutboul "a neo-nazi" who's supposedly "motivated by an effort to deny the scope of the Holocaust", and by calling Kevin Brook a member of Chabad-Lubavitch, neither of which is a true statement. Boutboul created this page on 8 February 2010 and it has never constituted "neo-nazi propaganda" or a "hate crime".

Yeah, and the documentation of Chabad's apostasy goes back to the beginning and is cited by their own organization as was the involvement of some of their membership via the National Association of German Jews in that Misplaced Pages page. There are bad actors in every organization and understanding this is a Jewish concept - https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.19.16?lang=bi&aliyot=0 - There are parts of Chabad I like but there is a lot to unpack with them. I have a feeling though that you're into them? Its all good I went to one once and left when I saw the idols to the Rebbe and here in NYC they have all these posters up to their idol. The Jewish community went around and scratched them all up, but you know how Chabad is.

Tell you all what. Let's make this very simple and you can prove now you are not antisemites. Link in this talk the same sort of article related to a Protestant Christianity or Catholism or some other non-semitic religion. I said non-semitic so don't go linking your racist ideologies about Muslims. Misplaced Pages doesn't host those articles because you all only picked on the same people the Nazis did. I mean it is same with skintones too there is an article about how defective the genetics of black people is too but none on white people or if there is then it is about a very specific type of white person from a very specific region unlike Jews, Muslims, and Blacks who apparently get lumped into a giant category despite Ashkenazi Judaism spreading from France to Korea, Muslims from Morocco to Thailand, and Africa is the most diverse continent on the planet so how that all gets treated as one genome is beyond me. So go on prove you're not a bunch of racist neo-nazis and just post either that verification methodology or link an article that picks on the majority like it does the minorities. I seriously mean you all no offense and I would seriously love to work with you to make this a good article but it is very hard to avoid using the terms that are the ones uniquely defined by the ideologies you're advocating. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote:

"Except it is and that was cited as well as quoted. I'll re-quote it to you, "The Nazis defined Jews by race, not religion. They claimed that Jews belonged to a separate race. They also claimed that Jews were inferior to all other races. The Nazi definition of Jews included people who did not practice Judaism." (...) "The Nazis tried to use science to prove their racial theories. They recruited doctors and other scientists to help them. These officials tried to categorize people into races. They measured and described people’s physical features, like noses, skulls, eyes, and hair."

The idea that the groups that have historically been Jewish have their own histories and in many cases have a partial shared ancestry, that may come from the middle East, is not the same as the claim that Jews are a unique and homogeneous race. The various Jewish groups have functioned as cultural groupings, with periods of relative isolation as well as varying intermixture (both part of their histories). They have tended to be distinct from their host populations but also not entirely separate from them. And a certain degree of general endogamy often was maintained.

The Jewish identity has had both a religious basis and, historically, ethnic and cultural components. In the diaspora, Jewish culture and religion often spread by migration (along with varying degrees of intermarriage with non-Jewish groups) rather than mass conversion and conquest (with few exceptions. (There have been many ethnic groups, tribes, and cultures that have allowed for the adoption and assimilation of outsiders while at the same time, as a group, associating their identity with a particular place of origin and/or lineage or heritage. Prior to the rise of mass proselytizing religions, religion tended to be linked to national, tribal, and ethnic affiliation but sometimes could also allow adoption.)

Studying the genetic origins of Jewish groups, or people whose heritage traces to those groups, is no more strange or bigoted than studying the genetic origins of Zoroastrians (an ethno-religious group who survive in part of Iran and also have a small diaspora in India - the Parsi community), Egyptian Copts, Roma people (a group with an extensive diaspora and much diversity and differential admixture as well as some shared ancestry from India), Irish travelers, Overseas Chinese, or Greeks, to give a few examples.

Religions like Catholicism and Protestantism (or indeed Islam or Buddhism) have tended more to spread widely by mass conversion and and thus it might make less sense to cover the genetics of Catholics or Protestants as a whole. But when a Catholic or Protestant group exhibits some characteristics of an ethnic group the case becomes more comparable. And to study the genetic population histories of specific Catholics or Protestant groups might make sense. The Amish and Mennonites of the US for example (concentrated in Pennsylvania, Ohio and parts of New York and Canada), the Mormons of Utah and nearby areas, or even people of Quaker heritage in Pennsylvania, certainly do not primarily define themselves by genetics, but have, as a group, a unique population and migration history and often have significant amounts of shared ancestry from certain places (and substantially varying degrees of isolation from others). To give another example, Catholicism and Protestantism in Northern Ireland are religions, but have also been linked or correlated with ethnic and national identity. Many Protestants derived from the north English and Scottish settlers of the Ulster Plantation. But conversion of the Native Irish also occurred (along with intermarriage over time). To investigate how much people of Catholic and Protestant heritage there tend to descend respectively from those respective groups could be a historically informative pursuit. (The various sects of Eastern Orthodox Christianity tend to be ethnically and nationally associated - e.g Greek, Albanian, Russian etc.)

Studying the history and geographical origin (or origins) of a group (whether defined by culture, religion, nationality, lineage, some combination of these, or other things) is not inherently tantamount to nazism or bigotry. No sources here are claiming that Jews or any other group are inferior or superior. That belief is WP:FRINGE and rightly classed as pseudoscience. Your seeming insistance that genetic histories of populations (an interesting and important part of human history) should simply not be studied and that mainstream science should be treated like Nazism and removed and censured from Misplaced Pages is extreme to say the least. Skllagyook (talk)

- You're still unable to cite the verification methodology employed by the studies you're advocating on behalf of? It is a very simple ask and you're frankly unable to quote your own citations here opposite myself who can because I actually read it. Additionally, time and time again you've double down on your ignorance of Jewish history.

They have tended to be distinct from their host populations but also not entirely separate from them. And a certain degree of general endogamy often was maintained.

There were roughly what 17 sources from the Torah and Jewish scholars throughout history that disproved this. Look I know according to Christianity this is the case because the Catholic Church did have the Purity of Blood doctrine, also cited, but within Judaism that is just not the case and there was even an entire encyclopedia article linked. This statement you made his historical antisemitism as it was the premise for the Inquisition as well as the Holocaust. So no a certain degree of general endogamy was not maintained and both the scientific studied I liked from sourced like the Human Genome Project and the Torah proved otherwise. You're clearly making this up and you haven't even been able to quote from any source your defending the verification methodology employed to verify the authenticity. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research as your research is completely unverified and based on self-reported findings. Specifically, "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." which is something you have never been able to provide despite being asked several times to.

In the diaspora, Jewish culture and religion often spread by migration (along with varying degrees of intermarriage with non-Jewish groups) rather than mass conversion and conquest

Well as a Jew I'm not going to lie about the sins of the People as recorded by the Torah. 32,000 Midianites were forced to convert in the Diaspora and that was cited read Numbers. There are also the Edomites who were forced to convert and the Samaritans also. The Khazarians also converted but they weren't forced to. The prohibition against proselytizing comes from specifically these case instances which is why they are well documented within the Jewish religion. Once again you have issued a bogus statement made without any proof but based entirely on assumptions and opinions. The hard proof is in the archology for this there exists I mean Josephus documented it as did others.

Studying the genetic origins of Jewish groups, or people whose heritage traces to those groups, is no more strange or bigoted

Except it is when you target just us for these studies and dehumanize us into a completely fabricated demographic based on the genetic sequencing of someone else who probably isn't even Jewish. I mean it wasn't verified in the study and the practices which would create the genetic markers being identified as belonging to the Jewish people are completely forbidden by the Jewish people and there were roughly 17 citations supporting that. Moreover, it was identified as a bigoted by several organizations both nationally as well as internationally and also by the Holocaust Museum itself. I mean I just quoted it to you. You are making Jews out into some genetic race and that is why by definition you're being a neo-nazi. Sorry, I mean you as little offense as possible but word for word you are.

You make this silly claim that targeting just Jews for genetic studies in the same capacity that the Nazis, Spanish Inquisition, Assyrians, etc all did is not bigoted but again where is the article you took time to write on the genetics of Atheist? How about Buddhist who were cloistered in Tibet for so long? You got no posts on any of that but when it comes to picking on Jews and forcing them into some stereotype of a demographic, you'll unleash all your assumptions and opinions. Should someone come along and ask you to show the verification of your research you're unable to. Should someone come along with better and more recent sources you cannot. You're literally picking on just Jews here.

Religions like Catholicism certainly do not primarily define themselves by genetics

Literally had a purity of blood law and literally committed genocide against tons of converts known as Conversos during the Inquisition. That is just a historical fact. Yet you'll ignore the religious which actively forced people into incest to stereotype the Jewish community who wouldn't with this practice. It is completely antisemitic and bigoted. I mean I hate to point to another religion here but the fact is you don't pick on them like you do the Jewish people. Also, I cited the Book of Matthew in relation to the Christians identifying themselves by genetics. It is what that book is about recording the lineage of Jesus Christ to substantiate their claims based on their genetics due to the fact that Jesus Christ obviously did not practice Judaism, they abolished it hence the New Testament.

Native Irish also occurred

That is racist on another level. You do know that there is no 'Irish genetics' and that the country naturalized everyone like a decade ago no matter their genetics and that Article 2 doesn't recognized hereditary connections as substantiating someone as Irish. You have to actually be from Ireland or one of it's islands. So not only do you pick on Jews but I can see you have a hate for the Irish too. Like the Irish people are pretty darn cool and they passed that naturalization law because of ignorant people like yourself who go out on St. Patricks Day get drunk call themselves Irish but have absolutely no connection to Ireland outside being a drunk who cognates the Irish people with leud drunkeness. Its a country that people can migrate to and from and have been since before the Roman Empire.

No sources here are claiming that Jews or any other group are inferior or superior. That belief is WP:FRINGE

"The medical genetics of Jews are studied for population-specific diseases.", the first paragraph identifies Jews as a diseased population.

"In the 1960s, more success was made in tracking the distribution of genetic diseases in Jewish communities.", the sixth paragraph does and cites a paper which expresses the exact opposite as well as never says this anywhere. In-fact it literally identified it as antisemitism and asked the same question of you I am, "But how did they sample them? What were the criteria for Jewishness of the sampled individuals?". So basically, you pulled some random paper and made up a bunch of hate. This statement is literally what that paper targeted to discredit.

You know what we now need to remove that entire section now because the citation was about the exact opposite of what it was used to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

- Reported for content warring and Original Research as well as blatant misrepresentation of cited work and bigotry. Let's let the Wiki Admins handle it from here eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to slow down on the WP:TEXTWALL. Try to consider that we don't consider the Bible a reliable source here for factual information, just scientific papers, journal articles, news articles, books, etc. Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion is reliable and verifiable. Not truth. People who come here to right great wrongs are encouraged to stop or face editing restrictions. Andre🚐 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand your position and I am sorry for the wall of text but there is a lot to this article that should be covered and wasn't as well as several citations which were clearly never read. The entire History section for example is based on misquoting source 18 the Falk paper which discredited almost all the statements it is used to cite and article from an Einstein researcher who lost their accreditation in a scandal. Literally this article looks like low effort antisemitism rather than something researched, no offense intended.

There are a number things to consider which have not been at all considered and I will try to section it off and provide TL;DR for each point to make it easier. The Shabbat is tomorrow night to so I won't be making edits for the next couple of days too which should allow people to read. Again, sorry I am so verbose it truly is my flaw.

1: This is a religion, and the citations were from the Torah which is the record of practices and beliefs of that religion. A religion is by definition a "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion which is based upon a document known as the Torah, not the Bible which is a Christian (completely different religion) document arising from the Greek biblos. The distinction may seem trivial but since they represent two completely different religious communities and since this is an article which has assumed the position that there are genetic connections to that religion it is imperative that we are discussing the correct religion ie Judaism rather than Christianity. Which is why the Torah is relevant to this article because it is the document which defines the belief system of the Jewish people in much the same way as the Bible does Christians. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Judaism Furthermore in the USA, which this specific page addresses (this is why I didn't post Hebrew quotes but only chose sources already translated) there is a legal definition of what constitutes a member of the Jewish community just as there is for all other communities including Atheist. It is part of the Lemon Test.https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion For the Jewish community the definition was provided by the Jewish Federations of North America, at the time the United Jewish Appeal, for the purpose of accepting refugees fleeing the ideological rhetoric this article current affirms as well as for tax purposes, see the IRS documentation on 501C.https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Mumar or in Greek Apostasy ie non-Jewish practices which count as an act of conversion away from the religion are a part of the religion and defined within the Torah and conversion is recognized by law in the USA. If someone conducted a form of Mumar and did not atone or that act was permeant, then they are hence forth no longer considered Jews by the Jewish community as well as legally by the Courts and IRS but instead are Meshmuad or an Apostate. They cannot be buried with other Jews, they cannot receive funds from the credit unions that were formed for the Jewish community, they cannot have a recognized Jewish marriage, their children will not be recognized at birth as Jews, they cannot claim to be a community member for the purposes of taxation nor in court when providing testimony. Endogamy is an act of Apostacy within Judaism and that wall of Torah text and citations from extremely well recognized Torah scholars from history all illustrated that fact. Any family which had practiced endogamy would have become mumar in the act and so their children wouldn't be Jewish nor would their children's children etc unless they converted to Judaism through the same process any other non-Jew would. Those who committed the meshmuad wouldn't be accepted back in the case of this sin as under Jewish Law ie within the scope of the religion they murdered their children by knowingly and willfully endangering their lives by conducting coitus in a non-kosher way which would result in medical harm to the child. The cited Torah sections and discussions upon them indicated that even Abraham was aware that endogamy would result in unhealthy children.

TL;DR - Thus, the subsection on the non-Jewish nature was there to demonstrate that the content within the article was based on assuming someone who wasn't actually Jewish was Jewish in order to fabricate a prevalence of genetic disorders and markers which could be used to identify people as Jewish ie antisemitic rhetoric. This was the point the Human Genome Project, American Society on Human Genetics, and the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine all had when they discredited the entire body of research into this topic generally after realizing that targeting each individual claim wasn't working. Also the majority of citations in the section were from what Wiki considers verified sources for medical information unlike the majority of the sources in the article without the reverted section.

2: There were several more scientific citations than Torah citations. All of which from higher authorities and all of which I actually read. It is clear that the rest of the citations in the article were not and were low-effort additions. See source 18 - The paper was cited to substantiate the claim that genetic markers can be used to determine the Jewishness of a genetic marker. "From the mid-1970s onwards, RNA and DNA sequencing enabled the comparison of genetic relationships, and during the 1980s, it also became possible to examine genetic polymorphism across multiple sites in DNA sequences.", open paragraph four of the History section of this article. The very next sentence in the citation is, "Once again the presumed relationships among Jewish communities, as well as their relation to non-Jewish communities were examined.", whereafter the paper goes on to discredit the arguments made by the rest of this paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article. The person who made that commit completely made up what the Misplaced Pages article says to fabricate their point. Later in the same section, "Both the early studies on blood markers and later studies of the monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes revealed evidence of both Middle Eastern and local origin, with indeterminate levels of local genetic admixture. The conclusions of the diverse studies conducted turned out to be "remarkably similar", providing both evidence of shared genetic ancestry among major diaspora groups and varied levels of local genetic admixture.", is addressed in the paper in the last paragraph of the section "Who is a Jew?" where he identified it as Nazism and provided citation of it being legally considered Nazism. He then explained the citation in Footnote 3 - "It is noteworthy that even the Nazis, after mobilizing the most advanced means and methods of science of their time for identifying Jews, reverted to using the yellow star patch attached to the garment as the identifying device." and it was from this that I learned that Nazism was defined during the Potsdam Conference as what the content of this article is. The same thing happens in paragraph five "In the 1990s, this developed into attempts to identify markers in highly discrete population groups. The results were mixed. One study on the Cohanim hereditary priesthood found distinctive signs of genetic homogeneity within the group. At the same time, no unusual clustering of Y-haplotypes was found relative to non-Cohanim Jews." is quoted but the paper said the exact opposite of this. The very next sentence, "However, such studies did show that certain population groups could be identified. As David Goldstein noted: "Our studies of the Cohanim established that present day Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim are more genetically similar to one another than they are to either Israelites or non-Jews."" has the same issue. This citation does not say that anywhere in-fact it said the exact opposite of this.

Additionally this source from Falk did receive a triple-blind peer review by the NIH which does it's own three third party departments as part of a triple blind review process. The Office of Extramural Research, the Office of Management Assessment, and the Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy comprise the Center for Scientific Review. You can learn more about it here: https://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-19-00160.asp The citations which affirm the content of the article, not those that discredit the article, did not have this same rigorous review process. I made sure to pull my sources from actual medical databases which I have access to as a Department of Health employee.

TL;DR - Please see Misplaced Pages:No original research section Reliable Sources for what is required for a medical citation, the article as is does not satisfy the requirements for citation and many citations are blatantly misused and quoted out of context in order to create propaganda and it is propaganda because one of the quoted sections is literally the author of the paper (Dr. Raphael Falk) stating what the citation is being used to support is Nazism and what the Nazis did to him personally.

3: The idea that this is somehow mainstream and that is all well and good, but so was slavery before people abolished it and in fact Populism was part of Nazism and the content of this article currently has within it papers which established it as Nazism being used to support the very concepts those sources were published to discredit. Dr. Raphael Falk is not the only source who was abused here. There were other citations misused in this way not just that one paper. It is blatant and clear to anyone who takes even a few minutes reading each citation. See the revision made by @Skllagyook on 15:18, 7 June 2023‎ they claim the article said something it did not. The section related to Figure 5 of the source (and Fig. S4, Tables S4 and S5 of supplement) reads as follows "The results show that since the Bronze Age an additional East African-related component was added to the region (on average ~10.6%, excluding Ethiopian Jews that harbor ~80% East African component), as well as a European-related component (on average ~8.7%, excluding Ashkenazi Jews who harbor a ~41% European-related component).", and last I checked 80% is much higher than 41%. If it helps the figure shows it too in that nice bargraph. Granted this paper is bogus as it is missing any verification methodology proving the samples used to formulate the study came from members of the Jewish community instead the paper makes the assumption that their test subjects are members of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption whom they consider to be Jews despite the legal fact that members of that religion are not (its a 501C so it files as a non-Jewish religion). This paper was also recently reported as pseudo-scientific to ELSI for endorsing hate crime and neo-nazi propaganda.

TL;DR - Whom ever wrote the majority of this article clearly did not read their sources and have been reverting the article to remove sources which received triple blind peer-reviews and are both nationally as well as internationally recognized as the highest authorities in the medical field. They've been doing it intentionally in order to create a bias in the article and generate what even their own sources have claimed to be antisemitism if they took the time to actually read them.

4: I haven't really mentioned this yet but it is a last minute point I wanted to make. This entire article raises some serious PHI concerns as it is leaking patient demographic information. The content associated a patient demographic with several genetic disorders as well as other medical information and then released it publicly without abstracting that information. In the scant few sources where testing was identified as being done the physical address of the testing site was identifiable which means patients in that area who identify as Jewish now have their PHI spread all over the internet. Employment, Insurance etc all review prior addresses and while it is a HIPAA violation to discriminate based on the PHI leak it is also on those that distribute medical information to do it in a manner which complies with the law. See The Privacy Rule is located at 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164.https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html I don't think Wikicorp is a covered provider? Have those other than myself who are making publications to this article been HIPAA certified? Or is Wikicorp publishing medical data with associated demographic data without any coverage and certification?

TL;DR - There are PHI violations in the current article which need to be addressed immediately.

To conclude the article and the related ones should come down until it can be completely re-written from scratch using sources which meet the standards Misplaced Pages requires for medical sources. It should also actually be about Jews if it is concerning the genetics of Jews with proof of that within it's citation such as a clear statement about the verification methodology employed. It clearly is not. Instead, we have an article which is based on studies done in I guess at Mecca on members of the Islamic community who were assumed to be Jewish by the author of the study in order to generate the content they desired. It also contains a lot of neo-Nazism, I am sorry if it is offensive to call it that but the citations which were abused in the current publication call it Nazism (and that was quoted in this talk post so it cannot be denied) so it is even by it's own citations so far without my section. If the article is not removed then it should be reverted to include the section I was working on as all those sources had merit as well as explained the controversial nature of the article. Yes even the Torah citations as well as the several more scientific ones.

I'll probably be offline until Sunday, but I may not have time on Sunday to review this and might have to wait until I get back to work. I have a vested interest in correcting this article as a healthcare worker with a background in genetics. I have seen some really bad misdiagnoses occur because of the content in this article as well as known one person who was murdered in a Synagogue I went to a lecture at and a congregation I grew up with before they built their own Synagogue in the neighboring town attacked inside their Synagogue (thankfully they disarmed the gunman and ran) because of the content in this article. The content generated in the article has been proven to have this hate induced effect on society, we know it does for a fact that was proven at the end of the Holocaust and then again recently. 2603:7000:4600:358A:72EF:92A0:CA76:7CCB (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
• B-Class Genetics articles
• Mid-importance Genetics articles
• WikiProject Genetics articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Unknown-importance Judaism articles
• Pages translated from French Misplaced Pages