Talk:Genetic studies of Jews

POV tag

I have added a POV tag to this article, having reread it recently on the back of the recent discussions at Zionism, race and genetics. The lede here is heavily unbalanced towards the "modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites" theory and does not appropriately reflect the weight of sources in the article.

The article would also benefit from a health warning along the lines of the conclusion of Steven Weitzman in his work The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age:

What made the question of Jewish origin such an insistent one for many of the scholars we have looked at was its perceived implications for their own identities as Europeans, Christians, Jews, cosmopolitans, Israelis, or Palestinians. These scholars believed that their answers to the question of Jewish origin addressed pressing questions of their times: Is it best to try to integrate Jews into Europe or to exclude them? How to resolve competing claims of indigenousness among Israelis and Palestinians? Present-day research is no different in this regard. Always there seems to be something beyond historical curiosity that motivates the scholarship: insecurity about the ambiguities of one’s identity, the trauma of having been uprooted, a need to recover something that feels like it has been lost, a fear of being dislodged from one’s place by another people, or profound discontent with some other origin account and what it implies about the present. It is to these kinds of considerations—the psychological, sociological, and political motives for scholarship—that we must look if we are to understand what makes the lost origin of the Jews appear as a relevant absence to scholars, why they see a mystery worth solving… The inconvenient truth, however, is that there is no way for scholarship to close the gap. Scholarship has done a good job coming up with new evidence, and it is quite expert at debunking existing origin accounts for the Jews, but it has failed to generate an alternative narrative that can do the kind of work the Book of Genesis does in helping people to comprehend themselves and their places in the world. What we have seen suggests that leaning on scholarship to play the role of creation myth leads to claims that are tendentious at best, and sometimes quite destructive. This is the only honest way I can describe where the scholarly search for the origin of the Jews has led after so many centuries of effort, and yet I do not think it suffices to leave a hole at the beginning of Jewish history.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems it may be a bit undue to give the opinion of a non-geneticist that kind of weight in an article such as this (that focuses on genetic studies).Skllagyook (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, could you identify a few bits of content that would need to be added/changed/removed in order to comply with NPOV? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi FFF, the entirety of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lede have a very clear, and very unbalanced, POV:

Studies of autosomal DNA, which look at the entire DNA mixture, show that Jewish populations have tended to form relatively closely related groups in independent communities with most in a community sharing significant ancestry. For populations of the Jewish diaspora, the genetic composition of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jewish populations shows significant amounts of shared Middle Eastern ancestry. According to geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues (2010), this is "consistent with a historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World". Several Jewish groups also show genetic proximity to Lebanese, Palestinians, Bedouins, and Druze in addition to Southern European populations, including Cypriots and Italians.
Jews living in the North African, Italian, and Iberian regions show variable frequencies of admixture with the historical non-Jewish population along the maternal lines. In the case of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews (in particular Moroccan Jews), who are closely related, the source of non-Jewish admixture is mainly southern European. Behar and colleagues have remarked on an especially close relationship between Ashkenazi Jews and modern Italians. Some studies show that the Bene Israeland Cochin Jews of India, and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia, while very closely resembling the local populations of their native countries, may have some ancient Jewish descent.

It is written from the point of view of those scholars who have argued for global Jewish unity.

Weitzman's point in my post above above is widely echoed. See for example Robert Pollack:

From any one person to another unrelated person, about one letter in a thousand, more or less, will be different when their three billion-letter DNAs are compared. There is no biological data in support of the notion of being a Jew solely through the inheritance of a single specific DNA sequence, nor will there ever be such evidence. There is no chance of some human genomes being Jewish and others not; biology makes all people truly equal.

Onceinawhile (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The choice of quotes (the only two) in the lead is perhaps the strongest indication of the rather editorialized direction of travel that the summary currently takes. It also notably omits any controversies, including the ongoing academic "Khazar" furore - "Khazar" is mentioned 31 times on the page, but nowhere in the lead as a notable controversy, despite it being perhaps the single-most notable controversy in this subject area. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Onceinawhile The idea of many groups of Jews sharing a significant partial common ancestry tracing to a certain region of the Near East is not the same as the claim that there are genes that are uniquely/exclusively or diagnostically Jewish. The latter claim, as far as I can tell, is not made in the lede (or elsewhere). It is possible both for Jewish groups to share a significant amount of a certain type of ancestry (along with various non-shared components/mixtures) and for non-Jewish groups with origins in the same region (e.g. non-Jewish groups from the Middle East - the Levant, Mesopotamia, etc.) to possess that type of (and/or) ancestry as well - likely sometimes to a greater extent than many Jews. Nor does the text argue that one is a Jew solely through biology, but rather that there is evidence that many historically Jewish groups tend to have certain ancestral origins/makeup. Skllagyook (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is the type of summary that should be in the lede. Not just the one perspective dominating it at the moment. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing I said is contradicted by the lede. The lede also mentions non-Jewish groups that share affinities with many Jewish ones because of (partial) shared geographical origins - e.g. Lebanese, Palestinians, and Druze in the Near East - and European and other non-Near Eastern groups that may share some ancestry and/or affinities with various Jewish groups because of admixture. Skllagyook (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The lede is very clearly giving undue prominence to one theory. Literally two thirds of it are following the interpretation of Behar. Why should an article with 145 citations have a lede focused on just one? This topic is widely debated; we should explain all sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The real problem is that a large number of genetic papers are cited by summaries from the primary sources. There is now a significant body of secondary literature which cites these primary sources, and it is the secondary sources that should be prioritized, i.e. how they summarize and contextualize each paper. That is the real issue. Cherrypicking based on primary sources. A proper use of these secondary sources is not going to substantially change or overturn the general drift of the page for the Middle East connection. The overall conclusion of genetics affirms quite consistently that this is the case. The point is rather that we select from genetic papers designed to excavate the 'vertical' line, as opposed to the horizonal line, or to use an analogy, the modelling assumes tree-like descent as opposed to 'trellis' approaches, so that 'isolate' continuities are emphasized over admixture. Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the health warning, we need to address the point that the most presitigous scholars in the field state that it is not possible to prove via genetics either Jewish origins or that there is a “Jewish gene”. We also need to set out the explanation for the incorrect implication that an element of Middle Eastern genetics necessarily suggests Israelite origins. I propose language along the following lines (following the sources in this article and a number of others):

Whether such genetic connections support the claims of some Jews to be descended from ancient Israelites is unknowable, and thus widely debated. Jewish religious communities were known in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East for the last two millennia, and over the centuries these communities are known to have both mixed with the surrounding non-Jewish populations through conversion and intermarriage, and mixed with each of the other Jewish communities from other geographies. This mixing is what geneticists term “horizontal admixture”, and its being carried out amongst the global Jewish communities ensured that an element of Middle Eastern genetics are present in most Jewish communities worldwide. Descent from ancient peoples such as Israelites is what genetics term “vertical phylogenesis”; genetic science cannot today, and is thought unlikely to ever be able to, differentiate between horizontal admixture and vertical phylogenesis.

Onceinawhile (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The assertion that Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites is not "widely debated", at least not among mainstream scholars. The article's lede says that the genetic makeup of major Jewish groups shows significant amounts of shared Middle Eastern ancestry, which has been understood as *potentially* originating from the Israelites and other ancient Near Eastern populations. Simultaneously, the lede already emphasizes that Jews of various backgrounds show variable frequencies of admixture with the historical non-Jewish population. This presentation maintains a balanced approach in accordance with prevailing mainstream perspectives on Jewish genetics. What this article's lede could benefit from is a brief description of the present comprehension of Jewish Y-DNA genetics, distinct from the coverage of autosomal and maternal DNA which is already provided. I'm also open to including the aspect that genetics cannot definitively prove the existence of a singular "Jewish gene." Tombah (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, a direct assertion is not widely asserted, because a direct assertion is not made. The assertion mentioned by Once is the assertion that genetic evidence can support claims of Israelite descent, when descent is an unprovable unknown. The religious and cultural claims of descent, as well as the obvious scholarly consensus that Judaism is derived as a cultural body from Israelite religion, both need to be carefully distinguished from the findings of population genetics, the only scholarly consensus for which is that leaps of the imagination from it should not be made. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: This revert is not well thought out with respect to policy. Please explain your understanding of due here. This quote is sourced to the originating text, not secondary coverage of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the lead section should be quoting from one source. It should be paraphrasing what the broad consensus is rather than quoting. I think the consensus does support, as a summary, the description of genetic studies of the major Jewish groups as being consistent with the Jewish people descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant (as well as there being other admixture, as Tombah describes). Where I think the wording is problematic is in implying that the Jewish people are the only group descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant and sidelining the evidence around, say, the Palestinians and Druze. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only source stating these things in these terms is Doron Behar, who also has a business interest in personal DNA testing - a commercial edifice that has been erected upon the practice of making sweeping generalizations about populations based on a handful of markers. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I.e. "Competing Interests: Part of the lab work presented in this study was conducted in Gene by Gene (Family Tree DNA) in which Doron M. Behar, Elliott Greenspan and Concetta Bormans declare stock ownership and Luisa Fernanda Sanchez is an employee. The other authors claim no competing financial interests associated with this paper. (the requisite declaration in Nature) Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, when you say these things, which particular things? I'm lost where you are in the discussion. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the specifics that you suggest in the summary. In fact, not even Behar goes this far in the topline summary of the source that is quoted. The abstract states: "These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant." So the key terms in that statement are most, meaning not all and we really cannot generalize, and Levant region (which is a broad region, not a specific ancient population group). The lead should not go beyond what the most optimistic sources claim in their summaries. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis (from the Further reading)

"The idea that contemporary Jews descend from the Israelite tribes of antiquity who fled or were deported as slaves by the Romans from Judaea following the destruction of the Second Temple (70 ce), as well as by the Assyrian and Babylonian militaries in the eighth and sixth centuries bce, is a basic assumption built into nearly all published works on the subject".

"Yet, none of these studies have successfully offered a specific geographic locus for Jewish origins. A concerted review of the entire body of Jewish population genetics literature, in tandem with associable textual sources, reveals not a body of genetically related people with common primary ancestry in the Levant followed by European admixture but rather a mosaic of people of multiple and geographically diverse origins, such as can only be explained by significant conversion over time. We therefore

propose a process of Jewish ethnogenesis shaped by the social and socioeconomic currents of early and Medieval Eurasia and contributions from a mosaic of circumMediterranean and Black Sea communities, not one arising simply from an exiled Levantine population." Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That paper was discussed some time ago (I was involved and will try to find the discussion). In brief, my argument, and that often least one other user, was that it comes to conclusions that are strongly at odds with the conclusions of the majority of geneticists that have published on the topic (aspects of extraordinary claims seemed to apply), does not represent the consensus of specialists in the field and thus it's treatment as such would likely be WP:UNDUE. The majority of genetics studies have concluded that most Jewish groups (of the Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi) have a significant component of shared Middle Eastern ancestry likely derived from the Levant along with significant amounts of other admixtures. Nonetheless, one aspect that is not at odds with most research, is that Jewish populations have diverse admixtures and are not of solely a single origin (an aspect that is already included in the lede and elsewhere in the article).

I also don't oppose including, as mentioned, the aspect that genetics cannot definitively prove the existence of a singular "Jewish gene." I am also open to, as User:Bondegezou recommends, changing any problematic wording implying that the Jewish people are the only group descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant and sidelining the Palestinians, Druze Samaritans, etc. Whether the lede should attribute the statement to Behar that that evidence supports a derivation from the Hebrews and Israelites specifically (as opposed to Levantine populations in general) I am uncertain, and would depend, at least in part, on the content of the source and whether he comes to such a conclusion (I will try to find the full version). Skllagyook (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: thanks for this constructive comment. One point to be careful of is how we use the word admixtures. Since geneticists are unable to differentiate between vertical phylogenesis and horizontal admixture, we should not use language that implies that research has concluded which is which. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is one discussion in Archive 8 with editor Nishidani commenting "... is 'an extremely high quality secondary source'. Unless my ageing memory is a fault, its use on wikipedia was subject to persistent hostile dismissal by POV-pushing editors who disliked its conclusions, and tried to demonstrate that it failed our criteria for inclusion. As a result, through sheer weight of numbers, it was 'disappeared'." Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Editor Iskandar points to this discussion, perhaps that is the one to which you refer?Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is it. I'm afraid I don't think the characterization you quoted (of the objections) seems fair nor really acknowledges the issues raised. Many aspects of the source, as mentioned, are strongly at odds with what most genetic research concludes. It is not, as of now disappeared, and is currently included in further reading (which I do not object to). I think, at the very least, it is a minority opinion and should not be represented as consensus. Skllagyook (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Iskandar323, for that follow-up. I have no objections to those caveats. I agree we should move away from the Behar quotation and can move to more caveated language. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 and Bondegezou, having looked at the full version (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44657170_The_genome-wide_structure_of_the_Jewish_people), it does indeed mention ancestry from the Levant rather than from Israelites and Hebrews specifically. Thus I would support changing the opinion attributed to Behar in the lede to reflect that. Skllagyook (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Does Behar really belong in the lede at all? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that he does. He's one of the most prominent scholars in the field and is highly cited. Skllagyook (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide proof of this claim. Elhaik is widely cited too.

Note the Behar version of the lede was added without discussion here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Weitzman draws the same conclusion Drsmoo (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Where does Weitzman do what now? He finds all of the proposed theories wanting, either because of the insufficiency of data or, more commonly, because of methodological imprecision. Many of the proposed explanations tell us more about the beliefs and perspectives of the storytellers than about the alleged origins of the Jews... . Genetic science has not yet given us a firm basis on which to build our notions of Jewish origins. [1] Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

From the book being reviewed:

”That is what much of recent genetic research has been suggesting about the Jews: that there is a correspondence between what they believe about the origin of their ancestors and the genetic ancestry regis- tered in their DNA, that they have an ancestry distinct from that of the non-Jews among whom they live, and that some of those ances- tors came from the Near East.” Drsmoo (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The ancestors in the Near East point is misleading without this context (Falk):

As research progresses, it demonstrates that relationships between members of Jewish communities and their connections with the non-Jews among whom they lived were always a complex two-way (horizontal) exchange, rather than an ordered sequence of (vertically) splitting branches from a common root. It was rather the social and cultural relationships between Jewish communities and ethnic groups that shaped the gene pool(s) of the Jews of today. Since Jews were a separate socio-cultural entity, biological-genetic relationships were established between the isolates, irrespective of possible common biological roots.

In other words, Jewish religious communities were known in Europe, North Africa and the Near East for the last two millennia, and over the centuries these communities are known to have both mixed with the surrounding non-Jewish populations through conversion and intermarriage, and mixed with each of the other Jewish communities from other geographies. This mixing amongst the global Jewish communities ensured that an element of Near Eastern genetics is present in most Jewish communities worldwide, even if there was not one Ancient Israelite as part of the mix. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That source is from 2006. Predating much of the most significant research, which has been published well after that. Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it is from 2017, page 198 of Falk's Zionism and the Biology of Jews. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it’s from 2006. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-57345-8 “ This volume is a revised and edited English version of Tzionut Vehabiologia shel Hayehudim, published in 2006.” Drsmoo (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Revised means altered, corrected and in publishing terms, brought up to date. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Drsmoo, please could you confirm that you have read Falk's book? It is core to the conversation we have been having for many weeks now. On reading it you will see that it refers throughout to all the major research which took place between 2006-17. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, the book does seem to have been significantly updated. Drsmoo (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a situation being described. He is saying that the research suggests X; this is not the same as Weitzman agreeing with the suggestion, or implying that it is a correctly concluded one. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Weitzman book is usually careful not to "answer the questions" instead giving more of a critical overview of the position in different areas of enquiry. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Horizontal and Vertical models of Jewish Middle Eastern genetics

@Skllagyook: regarding the re-addition of Behar's quote to the lede, please see the diagram on the right, which is a visualization of what Falk explains in his book (see quote above). Falk is basically saying that Behar is only giving one side of the story, and modern genetics cannot tell with any certainty between the horizontal and vertical models. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I see your point. (It is somewhat less clear though why you also removed Ostrer Atzmon, and the others.) However, in both models (horizontal and vertical), the Jewish groups in question would descend (in significant part) from Levantine and Babylonian peoples (as well as from local host populations) and that is the part included from Behar. Perhaps, it would be better of Behar were not mentioned by name there if that seems undue (since several other researchers/studies have come to similar conclusions) and the opinion could be attributed instead to "many" of "several" "genetic researchers" or something similar (with Behar still cited, along with other relevant sources, e.g. Ostrer), and the descent posited from Levantine peoples described as partial (and/or existing along with other ancestry). It seems that this is compatible/consistent with both the vertical and horizontal models.

The general presence of ancestry from non-Jewish host populations (seemingly somewhat more emphasized in the horizontal model) is also now given more mention in the lede, which should somewhat address any imbalance in favor of the former model. It might also be an appropriate place to add a ref from Falk. Skllagyook (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

OK that makes sense to me. Most of these points are widely accepted and don’t need named attribution, and for those that are not widely accepted, rather than naming scholars in the lede we should just describe both sides. Readers can refer to the text in the article body to understand exactly which scholars say what.

And quickly on your comment However, in both models (horizontal and vertical), the Jewish groups in question would descend (in significant part)… I agree with you except for the words “in significant part”. It is that quantification which is the heart of the scholarly dispute – everyone agrees that the geographical Jewish isolates have some “local” genes and some “MidEast / Levantine” genes, but there are widely differing views among scholars on the significance of each. Frankly, the only difference between the horizontal and vertical models is the weight of gene flow from each pathway. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 We shouldn't be adding language that quantifies the unquantified. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Falk doesn't seem to argue that in the horizontal model the shared Middle Eastern ancestry is necessarily not significant. His argument seems to be that it is difficult to know the mode, timing, and pattern of its spread (implying perhaps the possibility of scenarios including, for instance, one in which the intermarriage over time between members of a Jewish group with initially - or at one time - little Middle Eastern ancestry and of one with more/a lot of it could lead to both groups significantly converging and eventually sharing a significant amount - or something similar - as opposed to a vertical model strictly of dispersal of unmixed people from a common source and subsequent admixture). He seems to argue that the genetic data (the same mixture/ancestral profiles) are consistent with both vertical and horizontal models (and elsewhere implies that elements of both models might have been at play to varying degrees). He says (in Falk 2014):

"With the advances in analyses of DNA sequences, allowing the identification of detailed specific sequences of individuals, indications lead to sequences of common progenitors of many Jewish communities and also to a considerable overlap with Mediterranean populations. If interpreted into vertical phylogenies these inevitably support the traditional Jewish historical lore of the contemporary Jews being the direct progeny of the historic residents of the Land of Israel. The same genetic relationships may, however, also indicate secondary horizontal associations, of intermarriages between communities of common culture, religion, or mere common domicile." The majority of genetic research though seems to favor a vertical model more so. Skllagyook (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There are opposing points of view (to Behar, Ostrer et al). Per Weitzman "...even geneticists tend to favor certain narratives over others for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. For example, geneticists are inclined to think arborescently, to interpret the evidence inscribed into the DNA of Jewish populations as a tree that branches off in different directions from a common Middle Eastern root; but Abu El-Haj counters that the data, if read from a more neutral perspective, might more plausibly be conceived of as a bush too entangled to support any coherent narrative of origin." Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly right. If we are to state that vertical interpretations are more common, it needs to be explained that (a) this specific judgement is nothing to do with genetic science, because as Falk says, genetic science is unable to differentiate between the two models, and (b) there are important sociological factors which impact such interpretations, such as those described at Zionism, race and genetics. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile

Glad someone else had the same idea I did. You all might want to look into Harry Ostrer's work and actually read it. In his book "Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People" the first chapter "Looking Jewish" does a deep dive into how to physically detect Judaism by the presence of genetic disorders. The entire book is also based on the bigotry of Maurice Fishberg who was a known eugenist, supported the 1924 Immigration Act which was replaced by the 1965 Immigration Act due to being grossly inhumane and completely racist, and he also supported closing the boarder to Jews fleeing the Holocaust. Fans Boas an actual anthropologist who is recognized as the Father of American Anthropology totally thrashed Maurice Fishberg and his xenophobic bigotry in publications from the period. Harry relies heavily on these racist theories which were already disproven and so I don't feel like they are a good source. Even more so since his career is overseeing a department for a school which was unaccredited during the time which he published through them only receiving it's accreditation in 2021 before losing it this year in 2023 and being put back on academic probation for the work that Harry as well as others published.

I am sure you're erase the entire talk again to hide this fact but at least @Onceinawhile will know. They seem to be legit. 2603:7000:4600:358A:2D49:618F:16D6:FE36 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Frans Boas* typo, sorry. He had a lot to say on this topic and how wrong most this research is. 2603:7000:4600:358A:2D49:618F:16D6:FE36 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion: (Onceinawhile—Skllagyook—Firefangledfeathers—Iskandar323—Nishidani). Is there still a neutrality dispute at this article? VR _talk 07:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This entirer discussion is poppycock. If you have relevant sources ther MAY be some merit for a "views" or "interpretations" section. This POV header is totallt irrelevant. Zarnivop (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just in case it’s of any use in evaluating the seriousness and/or extent of this alleged NPOV controversy:

My political sympathies lie very much on the anti-Zionist side, and I can’t see the alleged POV issue here.

Yes, there are a few prominent academics etc whose theories diverge from the mainstream view. But it’s not the job of Wikipedia to elevate fringe views in order to “teach the controversy” — let alone insert them into the lead paragraph. Foxmilder (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than adding the article-wide tag back, I have tagged a problematic sentence and copied it here for discussion:

Genetic analysis reveals a major genetic descent of Jewish groups from the [[Levant]] or [[Near East]], accompanied by [[Genetic admixture|admixture]] and [[introgression]] with non-Jewish host populations, varying among different Jewish communities.<ref name="Behar2010" /><ref name=Falk/>{{efn|This pattern is consistent with a major, but variable component of shared Near East ancestry, together with variable degrees of admixture and introgression from the corresponding host Diaspora populations.<ref name=pmid23052947/>}}

As discussed in the thread above, geneticists are clear that it is not possible to tell which is horizontal (admixture / introgression) and which is vertical (“descent”). The way this sentence is worded erases that nuance.

The wording “major genetic descent of Jewish groups… varying among different Jewish communities” is also very confusing. What are we trying to say here?

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to make it better? (This may also make your point more clear. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried a few different ways, but the best I can come up with for now is to remove it. The sources directly conflict with it - most notably the source labeled <ref name=Falk/> is entitled "Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent", which is precisely the opposite claim that the sentence is making.

My nagging concern is that it is likely that a meaningful number of readers come to this article trying to answer the question "Do genetic studies of Jews prove their descent from ancient Israel?". The removed sentence suggested an erroneous answer to that question; the actual answer to the question is much more involved (and much more interesting) and is currently much better covered in sections of the article Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Title change suggestion

Could the title of this page please be changed to “Genetic Studies Of Jews” instead of “on”? It may seem minor, but “of” does not provoke the thought of the heinous experimentations of Mengele and others. Tumbleweed42AC (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That does make sense to me. Let's see what other editors think. A title change is a very serious thing, so don't make such changes until a consensus has formed for the change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, the title should change. CGP05 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

seems ok to me Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very good. I'd often thought that this would be a better formulation.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased lede

Discussion compromised by block evading editor, WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biased lead/lede ... "Jewish migration" indicates genetic studies are about "Expulsions and exoduses of Jews" Change this... Genetic studies of Jews are part of the population genetics discipline and are used to analyze the chronology of Jewish migration To this... Genetic studies of Jews are part of the population genetics discipline and are used to analyze Jewish ethnogenesis. See examples... https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/702709 or search... The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis.pdf https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis#Jews ... this is also biased 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The paper you cite above represents a view that strongly differs from those of the majority of research in the field from some of the most prominent and cited researchers/reseach (which acknowledges both significant components of common ancestry as well as components if non-shared ancestry from host populations in most Jewish groups). To change the lede to reflect a minority view and ignore the rest of the sources would violate WP:NPOV and would be WP:UNDUE. Skllagyook (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The majority research you point to includes Harry Ostrer in many, if not most cases. He is clearly a Zionist and is biased. Eran Elhaik is also a Zionist but he is clearly not biased. Ostrer refuses to share his data with Elhaik, why? "unless research includes novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people." See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms Also see above ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_studies_of_Jews#The_Law_of_Return_and_the_Zionist_Campaign_to_Subvert_Science 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The IP is right that this article is over-reliant on Ostrer's nationalist POV. The article Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism covers this topic in a more balanced way. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC) To User:Onceinawhile and the IP: The research I am referring to is not only Ostrer (who is mainstream and widely cited) but several other researchers (including Xue and Shai Carmi, Behar et al., Hao, Atzmon, Hammer, Agranat-Tamir et al., the recent Ehrfurt study) who come to similar conclusions. Others, such as Falk have also acknowledged that the evidence supports the presence of a shared Middle Eastern component in major Jewish groups (along with substantial non-shared components) but is unsure by which processes by this occurred and to what extent (the horizontal vs. vertical models). I think the lede, for the most part reflects this understanding and is fairly neutral (though I would question the recent additions to it at the end, highlighting both Elhaik and Ostrer, as a lede should give an overview/summarize the research generally). Also, the idea that there is a single "Jewish gene/genes" or a uniquely Jewish genetic profile or "type" exclusive to Jews alone, does not seem to be endorsed or reflected in the article (nor should it be, since that is not what the majority of the sources support). To the IP: I do not think we have any basis to assume that Elhaik is not biased. His work and methodologies have been strongly criticized by other researchers. But it is not something we can know nor should assume (as Wikipedia editors) one way on the other. One thing that seems more important is how a researcher's work has been received by the community of experts in the field. Skllagyook (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Regarding your assertion ... "One thing that seems more important is how a researcher's work has been received by the community of experts in the field." Eran Elhiak's paper ... Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated ... is number 8 on the Nature Portfolio list out of 21,840 papers, indicating "how a researcher's work has been received by the community of experts in the field" https://www.nature.com/collections/jhjibhhicg See again ... "In terms of pure theory, Elhaik has published a critique of the methodology of PCA that undergirds the whole structure of population genetics. Re-analyzing 12 PCA applications he found that the method lends itself to generating desired outcomes, and is characterized by cherrypicking and circular reasoning. The design flexibility of PCA enables anyone to buttress preconceived claims about ethnogenesis. He illustrated the point by instancing the case of genetic studies of the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Of some 21,840 papers published by Nature Portfolio in 2022, this paper was ranked among the top 100 downloaded scientific papers for that year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eran_Elhaik#Research Also, "Middle Eastern component" is a wide net that includes countries in the region, like Turkey, and not specifically Palestine or the Levant which is argued by the "majority" as the source of all Jews in the world today. 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Again, a paper being frequently downloaded is not the same as it's arguments being widely accepted or favorably received by experts in the field (also, that paper is already cited in this article in a DUE manner in the "Hypotheses" section). The use of PCA is still widespread in population genetics. The claim that it is unreliable would be fairly radical. The Middle East can be a wide net yes. But the researchers I mentioned have concluded that that ancestral component is likely of Levantine origin (though a role for Mesopotamian ancestry has also been suggested by some). Skllagyook (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Jews may not have originated in Palestine, but rather in Anatolia and the Caucuses and on the Silk Road. See ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews#Ancient_Israelite_DNA Ancient Israelite DNA As of the current date, the sole study on ancient Israelite DNA pertains to genetic material recovered from the remains of ancient Israelites who lived during the First Temple period. These remains were excavated from the Kiryat Ye'arim site. Professor Israel Finkelstein spearheaded the research, during which two individuals - one male and one female - were examined. The study revealed that the male individual belonged to the J2 Y-DNA haplogroup, a set of closely-related DNA sequences thought to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, while the two different mitochondrial haplogroups identified were T1a and H87. The former haplogroup is very ancient, found in both Jordan and southern Europe, and later in Iran, the Baltic and Ural mountains areas, and among Canaanites. The latter has been detected in Basques, Tunisian Arabs and Iraqis, suggesting a Mediterranean or Near Eastern, perhaps Arabian origin. The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic, some of the likely Judaean progenitors, the ancient individuals clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews. Ashkenazic Jews clustered away from these ancient Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans. 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) It was explained to you why the study on Natufians does not belong in the Israelite DNA section. Natufians (and Neolithic Levantine) lived millennia before Israelites existed. They were not Israelites (and major admixtures occurred in the Levant after the Neolithic that made them different). There is a study on Canaanite DNA also, and Canaanites were the immediate ancestors of Israelites (much close to them than Natufians were). But we do not include it under "Israelite DNA". To include a study on Natufians there would be WP:OR. Also please see my reason for removing your last Talk page post. You do not seem to have reokied or engaged in any way (except to reinstate it) Skllagyook (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Do you know more than the author, Eran Elhaik? He says "The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis". So this text belongs in Ancient Israelite DNA. You seem to block everything that does not support the Zionist point of view. Why do you get to unilaterally make changes without consensus, and no one else? Your opinion of the research is not the final word. 2601:444:300:B070:E90B:1155:46C0:DBB0 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This is just one 8-year-old article in a field that is developing very quickly. It should not be given undue weight, especially if it's contradicted by more recent research. Alaexis¿question? 12:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) I have reverted a deletion of this thread because I do not see anything dramatic enough to justify that. Looking at the original which started it, things have gone towards an old circular discussion but I do wonder whether the IP was correct to suggest that our lead should not presuppose Jewish "expulsions and exoduses". I also don't like "ethnogenesis". Shouldn't it be something like "the ancestry of Jewish populations"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this article about "Expulsions and exoduses of Jews"

Is anyone else uncomfortable with this? I honestly don't care if the point was raised by an IP associated with trolling. Obviously there was some silliness involved but several of us seem to have seen an issue worth discussion there. I am also uncomfortable with the subsequent deletions on the article and talk page, and the threats subsequently posted on my talk page. (What is going on here?) Anyway, this is what I wrote before that happened: "I do wonder whether the IP was correct to suggest that our lead should not presuppose Jewish "expulsions and exoduses". I also don't like "ethnogenesis". Shouldn't it be something like "the ancestry of Jewish populations"?" Comments please. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)