User:Andrew Lancaster/JOGG RSN summary

This is a record of a complicated RSN case by Andrew Lancaster, intended as a summary. It has been made because it has become clear that people claim to remember things differently, and more discussion in future seems likely to be needed.

If you see things that should be changed please contact Andrew Lancaster on his talk page.

The main case is archived at [1].

• Amongst various other places it was discussed the most important was my attempt to discuss it afterwards on the talkpage of User:Jayjg: [2]
• Of particular importance to this attempt at a summary are the posts where he summarized what he thought happened in the main case, which I will show below to be strikingly distorted:

  [JOGG] does not qualify as an WP:RS, as noted by the uninvolved editors at the WP:RS/N board, including me, User:Abecedare, User:MarmadukePercy, User:Dougweller, User:Crum375 and User:Hans Adler, despite your incredibly lengthy, WP:ICANTHEARYOU defense of the site at WP:RS/N.

(It was incredibly lengthy, partly because Jayjg demanded I "re-factor" my position several times without mentioning any other editors! Note to self: beware of ever accepting demands like that again.)

The consensus reached

The consensus wording, it seems absolutely clear to me, was the one finally proposed by me, and adapted by DGG, and accepted by MarmadukePercy and (presumably grudgingly) by Abecedare. It was also clearly consistent with DinDraithou and User:Jmh649. The wording was:-

The JOGG is not recognized as a leading academic journal in human population genetics. Despite that, some areas of discussion where its research articles might be considered reasonable sources are...

• Some might be considered primary material, and as the JOGG is not perhaps recognized as a top journal for all types of primary genetics research this needs to be handled carefully. No one claims otherwise.
• Particular areas of primary discussion where it might occasionally claim some specialization would of course be in areas like surname studies, and other basic summaries of volunteer project (where meeting any notability or significance requirements of course). Perhaps these are arguably "genetic genealogy" anyway.
• It also contains secondary material: review articles and articles which give multi-disciplinary perspectives. These are helpful in a small number of cases around Wikipedia.
• It also contains some of the best articles anywhere about genetic genealogy, which is the concern of User:DinDraithou who has an interest in Irish dynasties and history, which is a field currently very much affected by genetic genealogy. That R1a is a topic involving genetic genealogy is I think already conceded by everyone.

Concerning the question of whether the above is the recognized consensus, it is notable that the strongest opponent of citing JOGG for any purpose expressed his unhappiness at the above having become the consensus both on the RS/N page itself and his own talk page.

So only User:Jayjg is on record as saying the above is not the consensus.

Summary of the RSN case in terms of participants

3 editors clearly taking strong position against JOGG (that it is bad for basically any content)

It is IMHO opinion very notable that the two strongest positions in this category are apparently authors who feel they are in a "bigger fight" to defend WP from editors with distasteful ethnic biases. Genetics, they have both argued, gets abused by such people. I do have some sympathy for such good intentions of course. See my notes on this subject.[3]

• User:Rudrasharman initiated the thread.

Position in the thread: that JOGG is not RS for "genetics" and "This goes beyond cases of WP:REDFLAG to apparently "reasonable" ideas which may not have been covered yet in the regular outlets, i.e. are in the nature of WP:OR with respect to the established literature."

Historical connection to the subject: INVOLVED

• Rudra's editing is dominated by India related articles.
• He came to R1a after it was mentioned in debates on articles such as Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. What he was primarily trying to get removed from that article was any up-to-date information at all about the theory that R1a came from India.[4] He described the fact that this was an "obsession" of non-scientists, but during late 2009 and early 2010 he did not realize that the scientists had come to agree with this. In the end he had to accept that this is now the real scientific standard theory but he demanded that any lesser sources for it be removed from WP.
• During discussion involving both of us on the talk page of User:Dbachmann, dab sympathetically explained to me that Rudra's actions could be understood by keeping in mind his interest in trying to rid WP of ""Aryan" racialist crackpots" who embrace genetics sources, included peer reviewed sources.[5] Presumably he is referring to discussions he was involved in with rudra such as [6]
• His own explanations make it clear that he was attempting to remove not only JOGG sourced material but also peer reviewed materials, because of a bigger concern with WP even trying to cover genetics. He said to dab for example that "I still think allowing genetic studies is a bad move." [7]
• His own posts during the RSN case itself show he felt his behavior and actions were justified by an "open secret" which he eventually explained to be the existence of a Yahoo discussion group known as Indo-Eurasian research [8].

Left open: how far does "genetics" go? Does it mean anything concerned with genetics or about genetics? What about genetic genealogy?

• User:Jayjg

Position in the thread:

• Agrees with Rudrasharma in taking a strong position against the JOGG as a source.
• quote "actually, you don't need to read any articles on the site, in order to ensure they are "contradicting" something. It is a hobby website produced by non-geneticists. Therefore we cannot "generally trust their results" regarding genetics; not their samples, results, conclusions, or anything else found on their website" (This in answer to User:DinDraithou. Did not respond to reply by me to this.)
• Apparently grants exemption for some cases: "one could treat articles on it as self-published sources; that is to say, if a real geneticist published an article there, one could treat it as if he or she had published it on his or her blog"

Historical connection to the subject: INVOLVED, BUT NEVER ADMITTED IT

• Jayjg's editing is dominated by Jewish and Israel related articles.
• Despite taking a strong position during discussion about not counting the votes of editors with an involvement, it turns out Jayjg had been deleting JOGG references for a long time on the Khazars article, and his behavior there was a controversial subject which was discussed negatively in many WP space forums.
• The citation in question on Khazars was from a JOGG review article that was reviewing better sources, and so the better sources eventually came to be used instead (in striking parallel with what happened in Rudrasharman's case). However Jayjg's edits show his opposition was to any source which claimed there was genetic evidence of Eastern European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi Jews.
• Study of controversies arising on Khazars seem to indicate that his hard line on this matter originally stems from a concern that proposals of Ashkenazi Jews having local Eastern European ancestry has sometimes been used in anti-semitic pseudo theories.

Left open: how far does "genetics" go? Does it mean anything concerned with genetics or about genetics? What about genetic genealogy?

• User:Crum375

Position in the thread: "In a scientific context, a reliable source would have to show its contributors are established experts in that area, with appropriate academic publications and credentials, and/or citations by other scientific publications. They could also be journalists reviewing published scientific work. But in general, a source which consists of amateurs could not be used to present scientific information."

Historical connection to the subject:UN-INVOLVED

Left open: how far does "science" go? Does it mean anything concerned with genetics or about genetics? What about genetic genealogy?

Context note: This user made only one comment, made in quite general terms, and it was as a reply to User:DinDraithou arguing controversially that he trusts JOGG more than he trusts some Oxford geneticists who are the "real problem" in genetics articles. This was in turn a reply to Dougweller, and it should be noted that Dindraithou had a history of a specific debate about a particular Oxford source with both User:Dougweller and User:Hans Adler. So it is not clear what this user would say if more engaged in the question.

2 editors who may have changed position

User:MarmadukePercy

Initial position: He initially said that JOGG should be considered as a self published source, but he apparently disagrees with implied remarks of Rudrasharma and Jayjg that the source pretends to be something it is not, and also seems to have never wanted to suggest that the source can never be used.[9] I mentioned at the time that it was not clear to me if MP was ever using the term "self published source" in the sense understood by others of being an unverifiable personal website. He probably does not see himself as having changed position at all.

Final position: (after I was allowed to present proper information) was the wording proposed by me as adjusted by User:DGG

Historical connection to the subject: INVOLVED

• MarmadukePercy is an editor of R1a which was the article being cited in initial discussion. He has explained several times on that article talk page that he likes my work, thinks Rudrasharman was unfair and unconstructive in his behavior towards me, BUT that he wishes the article would not cite articles by Anatole Klyosov, including one from JOGG, because he disagrees with them, and is also concerned that he has seen nationalists on the internet cite him (which is of course again a parallel to the cases of Rudrasharman and Jayjg, who all apparently see their opposition to JOGG as connected to the fight against distasteful internet uses of genetic science).

Note: Jayjg inexplicably counts MP as being on his own "consensus" side, and also an uninvolved editor - even after the case was closed.

User:Abecedare

Initial position: "JOGG clearly fails our RS requirements and should be essentially treated as a self-published source. Further, the fact that it publishes papers not "appropriate for other established genetics journals" and in unexplored areas, raises WP:DUE concerns (if the relevant academic community hasn't made note of the research why should wikipedia give them any weight ?), and is another reason not to use it as a source. The only scenario in which I can imagine citing JOGG articles is if other reliable have cited them positively; in such a case the JOGG paper can be cited simply for convenience of the reader, in addition to the reliable source."

Final position: "I'd recommend getting the input of User:DGG, who has real world expertise in judging such sources, and then following what he says. Note that, simply disregarding independent input is not really an option, and editors who do are liable to be blocked for WP:TE" (!!) So see the notes for DGG.

Historical connection to the subject: INVOLVED.

• Abecedare is a frequent collaborator with Rudrasharman and like him works on India related matters very often. Their talk pages show discussions about how to get previously accepted reliable sources discredited where they are considered problematic by them (as mentioned above Rudrasharman believes WP covers too much) and during the period of this RS/N case it shows that they were in discussion also about this case.

Note: Jayjg inexplicably counts MP as being on his own "consensus" side, and also an uninvolved editor - even after the case was closed.

4 editors consistently taking a position that JOGG citations can be acceptable sometimes

• User:DinDraithou

Position in the thread: "depends on the JOGG article. Some are really quite poor, while a few have been noted by geneticists." Note that this "depends on the article" approach apparently disturbed Dougweller.

Historical connection to the subject:

• Occasional edits on R1a but more importantly had been involved in disputes concerning Genetic history of the British Isles. The main provocation in those disputes was not so much his occasional mention of JOGG as a source, which he was (like everyone) not very vigorous about, but his insistence that Stephen Oppenheimer is not a good enough source to be relied upon as it was at the time. (That was true but his statements were hyperbolic.) I was called in at different times to discuss this and I have since then re-built the article completely, apparently to the satisfaction of most people?
• DinDraithou's frequent mention of JOGG instead of stronger journals when he was arguing against Stephen Oppenheimer as a strong source led to unfortunate misunderstandings IMHO.

INVOLVED

NOTE: DD had a history of arguments with Hans Adler and Dougweller. He was provoked and also provoked others during this RSN discussion, which led to a great deal of confusion.

• User:Andrew Lancaster

Position in the thread: That the JOGG can be used for some types of information, but (with some notable exceptions) is not normally a good source for technical genetics matters. Strong disagreement with accusations that it is a self-published source given both the fact that it has a fact checking process, is not someone's personal website, and is cited positively in peer reviewed sources.

Note: I was able to show that JOGG articles are frequently cited in mainstream peer reviewed genetics journals, and that it had even been given a positive review as a "resource" in one.

Historical connection to the subject:

• I am frequent editor on R1a, the article of main discussion, who at the time had just spent several months getting a years old edit war under control. The version now is much more stable. People who took time to complement me on the work there included Dougweller, Dbachmann and MarmadukePercy.
• I also edit on numerous other Y haplogroup articles, especially ones which have been prone to edit wars. I do very much sympathize with concerns about Y haplogroup articles such as those raised by Rudrasharman to Dbachmann, but frankly I believe have done more than anyone to reduce such problems.
• I had at the time been called upon in recent months by both Hans Adler and Dougweller to help in discussions with DinDraithou. If I understand correctly both of them felt annoyed that I had found something to agree with about some of DinDraithou's concerns about the heavy use of Stephen Oppenheimer on Genetic history of the British Isles. I think they somehow connect this to the JOGG, although I never saw criticizing Stephen Oppenheimer as connected to the strength of the JOGG in any way and I don't think DinDraithou meant to either. Oppenheimer's books are simply out of date.

INVOLVED, and has also had one review article published in JOGG, as well as one peer reviewed "Letter" published in the European Journal of Human Genetics. (NOTE: Jayjg says letters to the editor don't count as peer reviewed, although this is obviously not true. He has also announced that my review article is a COI which makes me look bad.)

• User:Jmh649

Position in the thread: "Whether or not JOGG is a reliable source depends on what point / wording you are trying to use it to support. It is not a black and white issue. If its conclusions are contradicted by more reliable sources than of course the more reliable sources are preferred."

Historical connection to the subject: none known

UN-INVOLVED

Note: Inexplicably, Jayjg insists, even after the closure of the case, on counting this user as neither an un-involved editor, nor an editor who posted against his own preferred position. He does not mention him at all in his recitation of what happened.

• User:DGG

Position in the thread: "The material from this journal can be used, but used carefully. Looking now at the comments above, I think DinDraithou said this back at the beginning of the argument."

Historical connection to the subject: none known

UN-INVOLVED. Was asked to comment by Abecedare.

Note: Inexplicably, Jayjg insists, even after the closure of the case, on counting this user as neither an un-involved editor, nor an editor who posted against his own preferred position. He does not mention him at all in his recitation of what happened.

2 editors who did not state a clear position

• User:Dougweller

• Doug mentioned concerns about genetics articles having "uninformed conclusions" put in them from sources including peer reviewed sources, but not making it clear whether he thought JOGG was a real problem. He did not answer questions asking about whether he had any JOGG examples in mind.

Historical connection to the subject: INVOLVED.

• He was in previous arguments about specific cases with User:DinDraithou.

NOTE: Inexplicably, Jayjg counts Dougweller as both un-involved, and as having agreed with him.

• User:Hans Adler

• Clearly entered the discussion because he of some of the comments of DinDraithou, which he interpreted as quite aggressive.

Historical connection to the subject: INVOLVED.

• He was in previous arguments about specific cases with User:DinDraithou. Main discussion was about the weight which should be given to Stephen Oppenheimer as a source, nothing to do with JOGG.
• Made a statement about how things look: "Andrew, your behaviour w.r.t. sourcing has previously raised some red flags for me, but I could not make up my mind and simply assumed good faith and adequate competence since I had no incentive to check the details of your highly technical articles. Then DinDraithou came along and raised lots of red flags when he argued very forcefully for treating Stephen Oppenheimer as fringe based on unpublished research. And here he defends JOGG as a reliable source, although not as forcefully. Can you see how the situation is not looking good at all? How plausible is it that there is a scientific field in which all the real researchers, those with results that can be taken seriously, publish not at all or only in JOGG, while the ignoramuses publish widely discussed books and journal articles and get positions at Oxford and elsewhere? Can you see how this looks as if you and DinDraithou aren't completely neutral? One of the most important abilities of a researcher is judging which sources are reliable, which are useless, and which are useful speculations. History of science is full of examples of what happens if a large number of researchers don't have this ability and run off in one direction based only on a vision and speculations. It appears to me that you and DinDraithou may be part of a community that may have precisely this problem."
• I find the posting personally disturbing because it shows the level of confusion and artificial conflict being created at that point. HA did not respond to attempts to talk about his statement, but it reflects a misunderstanding of the position I was stating. Anyway his main concern was the way in which Stephen Oppenheimer had been criticized, and not JOGG sourcing.

NOTE: Inexplicably, Jayjg counts Hans Adler as both un-involved, and as having agreed with him.