Talk:Eran Elhaik

POV check

While Elhaik is a professor, his research has been criticised by many scholars on multiple occassions. I've added a section addressing just a small amount of this, and provided references for all statements. However, the tone of the article often doesn't seem to be neutral and I notice that some of the main editors for this page seem have been banned from Wikipedia for antisemitic editing. The POV needs to be checked for this article and unsupported statements need to be removed. IcknieldRidgeway (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pseudo-science.

@Nishidani: Which of his population works are not pseudo-science? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 16:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The papers are all peer-reviewed in stringent technical journals. You and I can peer at them, but not as peers.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani: They might have been published in peer-reviewed papers, but many of his findings have been widely discredited and debunked in peer-reviewed publications."Pseudo-science" is not that far off the mark.

Jacob D (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

In science, one uses the word 'discredited' only with great care, i.e., when a consensus has emerged that a particular idea has been definitely shown to be flawed. This is not the case with Elhaik's work. The rampant use of newspaper reviews, mostly by people with no peer competence, but with a huge political interest in reading between the lines, may give that impression. Elhaik's work has been challenged by peers, who in turn have had their conclusions challenged: that is the way science works. If he was an exponent of pseudo-science, he wouldn't be extensively cited in academic papers, nor be invited so often to academic conferences, nor gain tenure. To use this page to assert such whispers is a BLP violation.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: With all due respect, this is simply not a credible statement. Please read the second paragraph of the "Recent Studies" section of the following article, as well as the section on "Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

The attempts by Elhaik and his co-authors to characterize the Ashkenazi Jewish male (Y-DNA) line as stemming from Slavo-Turko-Iranian or Khazar origins, as opposed to Levantine ones, and Yiddish as a Slavo-Turko-Iranian language first spoken in Anatolia (as opposed to a Germanic language in the Rhineland) have been thoroughly discredited and debunked by numerous researchers in a variety of fields (geneticists, linguists, historians, demographers, etc).

There is in fact a consensus on these matters: that Ashkenazi Jewish Y-DNA (male line) origins are predominantly Levantine/Middle Eastern, but that there is a considerable amount of European admixture from the female line (mt-DNA; researchers disagree as to the exact extent). Moreover, the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi origins has been rejected, and the consensus is that Yiddish is a Germanic language first spoken in the Rhineland, and brought East by Ashkenazi Jews during the Middle Ages. Jacob D (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly there is a very general consensus that his views about the origin of the Jews are not correct. The general positions he supports have always been minority positions, and are currently supported by only a small minority;. However, it is necessary to specify the situation accurately.

I have enough expertise to personally analyze only the genetics, not the linguistics. His studies on Jews are a very small part of his work--the article does not give a representative or proportional presentation as a NPOV encycopedia should, but focuses on one aspect. He has published many frequently cited general studies on various technical aspects of molecular genetics, has developed a particular method of population genetics analysis, and published many studies applying his methods to a wide range of populations. The references here are only to his work on Jews. (The reason they are particularly controversial is that they his conclusions can be used to deny the basis for claiming a special biological relationship of present-day Jews to the ancient populations in Palestine.) . I have examined in detail the references to his work in this area. Many other analysis of the genetics of Jewish populations using a range of methods prior to his work, and continuing since his work, have been published, and they all lead to very different conclusions than his. Most of his work in the are has been cited primarily by his own group, and there have been very few citations from outside. (This of course is typical with methods and areas that are generally rejected as dubious.) Those publications from others that do cite his work generally take the view that while his particular method of analysis can be validly used in some situation, it is inapplicable to studies involving this great a period of time.

There are clearer words than "discredited by numerous researchers". His particular genetic data has not been discussed in great detail: it is ignored, not discredited. Numerous researchers have reached very different conclusions from him, but it is not borne out by analysis of the literature that numerous scholars have discredited his work. , because numerous scholars have not studied his particular data. One could say, much more accurately, that his "hypotheses that have been are contrary to the conclusion of numerous studies, and do not form part of the present scientific consensus. . DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. That is a very lucid presentation. Elhaik has, as you note, produced numerous genetic articles that have a high citation index in the relevant literature. By contrast his 3/4 articles on Jews and genetics are rarely cited except in polemics. My problem over several articles was that the extensive polemical literature on his theories about Jewish origins was used selectively to suggest he was a nutter, which is not the case.

(b) The literature on Jews and genetics is extensive and the techniques now used go back two decades of intensive work: this literature, like all population genetics literature is in constant flux. Elhaik in his recent papers notes that Behar et al.'s conclusions are substantially in accord with his own most recent proposal (an Anatolian basis for specific markers of the AJ population of Europe. By contrast the polemical somewhat journalist literature makes out that the standard Behar et al model discontenances Elhaik's arguments.) I don't believe there is a scientific consensus non the origins of the Jews (and wouldn't expect one - the Jews being a far too complex ethno-historical group to allow for any kind of straightforward tenable generalization (this in my view is a positive of course: I regard the inability to 'pin Jews down' into any fixed formulation as an iron safeguard against the tendency of caricature that underlines non-Jewish attitudes). All ethnic groups have multiple origins (save for exceptional isolates like the Sentinelese), as the genetic evidence constantly underlines. Genetic ethnicity is simply a matter of determining from a minute patch of DNA a group of features that have a significant spread within an ethnic group, to the exclusion of the very large elements of commonality, and making that the defining basis of authenticity, and common kinship origin. In genetics however, all peoples have a common ancestor if you go back 2,600 years. It is a patriarchal 'narrative' choice that excludes other narratives that define Jewishness by maternal descent.

(c)There is not sufficient attention given to the changes over time from 2012 to 2019 of his approach to the problem. The northern hypothesis is constant, but has changed from Khazars to a northern Turkey-Iran nexus based on trade routes. To write that up however one would require fairly neutral secondary sources. I have little faith in any editor citing directly from these genetic papers - and so far I haven't read of good expert overviews that would supply a documentary basis to outline these complex developments. In lieu of adequate secondary and tertiary sources, one just has to bide one's time until reliable overview documentation is forthcoming. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The true problem is the attempt to draw political implications from genetic studies, or to regard the facts of ancient population movements as determining the conditions for stable peace in the world. Even that is an expression of my own views which strictly speaking, does not belong in a discussion of a WP article. And I therefore resist the temptation to further discuss here more specific matters about which you and I hold sometimes similar, sometimes different opinions. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Notability

I removed the phony "Notability" tag. VERY notable as a scientist who, as a serious, peer-recognised genetic researcher, studied the Ashkenazi genome and found data partially supporting the Khazar theory. Inconvenient for some, contested by some fellow researchers, but NOTABLE! Fact, not commentary. If he's right or wrong, future science will show, but 100% notable:

• Research at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
• Results published in 2012 as "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution, Oxford University Press.
• Peer reviewer on the article: more profound than all the previous studies on the ancestry of the Jewish people (as of 2012).
  

Quod erat demonstrandum. That's all that needs to be shown. The rest is POV and not allowed by Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, spot on. Unfortunately the Khazar paper generated most of the secondary commentary, very critical naturally, but he has a very high output of research papers, that gather the attention only of plant and biology geneticists - like most research, something too obscure to capture public attention. The other problem here is that (and this fits a scientific profile) his original model has undergone successive modulations that have essentially shifted the focus of his general argument. It is no longer the Koestler reworking of the old Khazar hypothesis that appears to orientate his interests in this area, but an Anatolian crossroads theory for the genesis of the Ashkenazi, taking in an Iranian transit along the old trade routes which picked up elements from residual Jewish (perhaps converted populations in northern Turkey, and perhaps some Khazar elements after the fall of that empire, which fed in, to what extent is unspecified, to the formation of European Jewish communities. Some would say this reflects his own partially Iranian Jewish background - backgrounds however are not in themselves ipso facto reasons to invalidate any theory. The essential thrust of these updatings is that the Levantine origins of the Ashkenazi component in Israel's present Jewish population remains under challenge. He's not on slippery ground there since much of the genetic work out of Haifa also has also shifted the focus northwards. What is annoying is that one can't find (I haven't at least) found overviews of these reformulations in criticism. He is branded as a Khazar theorist as if as a scientist he remains ideologically fixated, rather than a supple remodulator of theory according to the latest results of area-genetic studies in his field. These of course are only my impressions. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed a lot of tags. I just had a glance before ducking out to fix a dental appointment and this came up.

'In 2011 Eran Elhaik was hirerd to solve one of the biggest jigsaw puzzles in the history of the human race. ‘Following the failed Human Genome Diversity Project, National Geographic launched the Genographic Project in 2005 to develop a way of reading people’s Y chromosome and mt DNA (problems arose about people's private data, Nishidani). . In 2021 Genographic decided to include all the chromosomes and analyse autosomal DNA as well. Elhaik was asked to design a method that would extract the most information from a sample but at the same time extract only historical information and not anything to do with an individual’s health or features.' Christine Kenneally, The Invisible History of the Human Race: How DNA and History Shape Our Identities and Our Futures, Penguin Books, 2014 ISBN 978-0-698-17629-4

I'll add several other sources that evaluate his work, one by an outstanding Israeli geneticist, without hysterics, when time allows.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Re recent adition

@SteveBenassi: Hello. Regarding the source you added, there are some issues. I notice you have re-added it twice witout engaging with my explanations in the edit notes. It will try to explain here and hopefully we can discuss it. The source's inclusion here seems somewhat WP:UNDUE given that is proposes a hypothesis that is strongly at odds with mainstream consensus, which is that moat Jewish groups (e.g. the Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi) do share a significant Middle Eastern genetic origin/genetic component with a common origin, and also carry substantial differential admixtures in each from non-Jewish sources, whereas this source "proposes to invert" the traditional model and controversially states that Jewish groups do not have a common origin. In addition, as I mentioned in my edit summary, its proposals have not been engaged with by other notable specialists in the field, and it seems not to have not been cited, despite having been published in 2019. Aspects of WP:REDFLAG seem to apply, particularly the first and fourth. From "Redflag", which explains:

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"

And:

"Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people."

These seem to apply here. And there (and there are not "multiple high-quality sources" but rather one source of unclear/debateable/questionable quality)

The authors, of which there are only two, Yardumian and Shurr, seem not to be notable in the field of Jewish population genetics, and their hypothesis here has not been covered by mainstream sources and seems to have no citations despite having been published in 2019. See here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Yardumian+Jewish+ethnogenesis&btnG=

The source discusses multiple papers (by much more notable and cited researchers in the area) but interprets several of them in ways that depart significantly from the conclusions of the studies themselves (which are that the aforementioned Jewish groups do share a significant common origin, as well as varrying differential admixtures from non-Jewish host populations).

For these reasons, the addition seems to go against WP:WEIGHT and to give WP:UNDUE attention to a minority position advanced in one relatively new work that has not been engaged with by the mainstream of researchers in the field (and thus it is unclear whether it represents a ballanced review). It seems best to wait until there has been some mainstrem engagement with its proposals before adding it, let alone as one representing as an authority, and the most recent one, on the subject in Wikivoice. Skllagyook (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The source is impeccable, though the edit's content is flawed: we do not need a citation but a paraphrase of their views, appropriate here because they are critical of Elhaik, which is what that section deals with.

• The 'mainstream consensus' has been fraying for over a decade, with several studies by specialists recognizing the highly contentious nature of the theory of a unilinear expansion from Israelitic origins to modern times.
• For a paper dated as late as 2019, it is too early to expect critical responses. If we had to wait for that, large amounts of contemporary research would take several years to get a notice in our articles.
• Redflag should not be waved for reliably published scholarship whose purport is to survey and challenge a viewpoint which, although widely entertained, has in the field been fraying for some time.

The authors, of which there are only two, Yardumian and Shurr, seem not to be notable in the field of Jewish population genetics,

• That has never been a problem on this page: we have numerous citations by Jon Entine, Matthew Thomas, Jordan Kutzik and even the admirable Aptroot, who have zero competence in the field of Jewish population genetics.
• Secondly, you are wrong. It is not competence in 'Jewish' population genetics that is required, but 'population genetics'. Aram Yardumian is part of the team at the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at Upenn. Theodore G Schurr is Director of the North American Regional Center of the Genographic Project and had specialized in human evolutionary genetic for threee decades. They qualify eminently.
• So they differ from the conclusions of the papers they cite and therefore are suspect? That is what any academic research is supposed to do. Scholarship is not the continued affirmation of a putative consensus about what remains an 'hypothesis', but rather an institute testing of its assumptions and empirical viability. That is what these two scholars are doing, and it is absolutely standard procedure.
• Looking at those papers with an historian's eye, one can often note egregious flaws in the historical literature in the bibliography, outdated or doctrinal. There are heavy known 'ideological' investments at stake (the impact of Zionism on modern genetic research into Jews, see below) in asserting a uniform Middle Eastern origin, since it underwrites the theory of a 'return' to Israel of a population expelled. This aspect is recognized by several books that are overviews of the question, mostly recently Steven Weitzman's book (The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age, Princeton UP 2017). On reading that, one reviewer admitted:

Genetic inheritance is not the same thing as the cultural traditions that make a people. As of now, it appears that a slight majority of Jewish men have genetic roots in the ancient Middle East.

The formidable Shaye J. D. Cohen likewise writes (think of your assumption of a 'mainstream consensus'.)

He (Weitzman) 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.

and notes that Weitzman likewise shows the tenuousness of the genetic arguments

with the growing sophistication of genetic science and, not coincidentally, the growing impact of Zionism on Jewish thinking, geneticists have looked for—and found—genetic markers that set off Jewish populations from their gentile neighbors. ... Genetic science has not yet given us a firm basis on which to build our notions of Jewish origins.

I'll try to synthesize their argument as it bears on Elhaik, later.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It seems that Aptroot is mentioned in response to the linguistic and historical aspects of Elhaik's work (on which Aptroot is qualified), rather than the genetic (where they might not be). And Entine is not cited as an authority on genetics for his own opinions in the area, but rather in a journalistic source where he reportdms the findings of scholars and statements made by Elhaik. The sources my Mathew Thomas also appear to be reporting the opinions of experts (such as the geneticist Mark Thomas, in two of his cited refs) more than his own opinion on the genetics. (But I was not the user who recently added the "Criticism" section and am not necessarily averse to revising or reducing it.)

Regarding the opinions of Shaye J. D. Cohen and Steven Weitzman which you cited, neither seem to be geneticists, but rather professors of biblical and Hebrew literature, and thus their opinions on the genetic research would not seem to be so relevant to scholarly consensus on the issue (nor is it clear from the above excerpts that Cohen and Weitzman deny that a significant shared genetic ancestral component exists among Jewish groups and agree with the more strongly dissenting/radical proposals of Yardumian, but if they did it would not speak to the consensus in genetics). (Also, the evidence of partial common ancestry among Jewish groups is not, according to the research, based only on paternal lineages, but also on a component of autosomal ancestry - and possibly some maternal lineages, though that is less clear). The majority of research by population geneticists does seem to agree that the aforementioned Jewish groups share a substantial partial common origin which they identify as Levantine - with much also being shared with non-Jewish Levantines (this would be consistent with a majority of Jewish paternal lineages reflecting that origin). I would maintain that redflag, or aspects if it, and WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE does appear to apply here, since, its proposals regarding Jewish population genetic history are strongly at odds with the apparent consensus of geneticists on the topic, and there seems to have been no response (in the form of citations or otherwise) to its those from the population genetics community. It seems that some caution is warranted. Skllagyook (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid (I've never as yet seen an edit by you I haven't commended silently) these are not viable arguments. Indeed they are methodologically incoherent. You justify our using nondescript journos to interpret what scientists supposedly say, but challenge relying on accomplished academics who specialize in genetic anthropology, or ranking historians on Jewish identity, like Shaye J. D. Cohen or Steven Weitzman, to comment on the selfsame scientific work. Surely you don't need reminding that scholars of that class don't expatiate with opinions on issues they don't grasp. Secondly, only Wikipedia seems to harp on some presumed 'consensus' - all its articles on this topic are so heavily edited to disown dissonance in the field and confirm the specious 'consensus' that Wikipedia fails there. I had to give up editing them because every attempt to show the complexity of views on this topic was reverted. Wider reading will show that whatever consensus might have briefly held court for a decade or so, has collapsed; (b) that the position you claim is set in concrete has recognized ideological problems and (c) a consensus in a swiftly moving field is itself not stable over the long term. The key point is this:

How far back must we go to find the most recent shared ancestor for – say – all Welsh people or all Japanese? And how much further is it to the last person from whom everyone alive today- Welsh, Japanese, Nigerian, or Papuan-can trace descent. . . Speculative as they are, the results are a surprise. In a population of around a thousand people everyone is likely to share the same ancestor about ten generations. Some three hundred years- ago. The figure goes up at a regular rate for larger groups, which means that almost all native Britons can trace descent from a single anonymous individual on these islands who lived in about the thirteenth century. On the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C.Steve Jones, Serpent's Promise: The Bible Retold as Science, Hachette 2013 p.27.

The implications for the topic are obvious. We all, Jews and non-Jews, have a common ancestor traceable to a time close to 600 BC., around the time of the relocation by force of the Judean elite to Babylon,

I brought sources that challenge your assertion that there is a scientific consensus about the Levantine origins of the Jewish people. That statement itself contains presuppositions, easy prey to critical analysis because of the assumption there that a religious-cultural identity must here consist of a continuous line of unique ethnic descent from a Levantine population that emigrated outwards, and kept to itself. Historically, this is nonsense, and genetically it is highly questionable.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: My apologies for the length of my reply. I want to make sure I explain myself adequately.

You wrote:

"You justify our using nondescript journos to interpret what scientists supposedly say..."

The scientists are quoted by them in the articles. But my point was not that I necessarily consider it especially important to keep those sources by journalists. As mentioned, I was not the one who added them, and am not averse to re-evalluating some or all of the newly-added "Criticism section. It was not the main issue from my end, but my point,in response to your reply, was that they, and other non-geneticists like Aptroot, were not cited here for their opinions on matters of genetics.

You wrote:

"...ranking historians on Jewish identity, like Shaye J. D. Cohen or Steven Weitzman, to comment on the selfsame scientific work. Surely you don't need reminding that scholars of that class don't expatiate with opinions on issues they don't grasp."

Those sholars would not seem qualified to evaluate the state of the genetic evidence or make statements regarding the consensus in that field, since they are not geneticists (od even biologists). Whether or not they personally grasp the issues would not be for us to say (it is not unheard or impossible for researchers to make statements on issues they do not fully grasp, especially when those issues are outside of their fields of expertise). But their statements on genetics do not seem to be relevant nor WP:RS as relating to the shape of the consensus in that area, just as one would not cite comments by Aptroot or another non-geneticist on genetics.

You quoted:

"How far back must we go to find the most recent shared ancestor for – say – all Welsh people or all Japanese? And how much further is it to the last person from whom everyone alive today- Welsh, Japanese, Nigerian, or Papuan-can trace descent. . . Speculative as they are, the results are a surprise. In a population of around a thousand people everyone is likely to share the same ancestor about ten generations. Some three hundred years- ago. The figure goes up at a regular rate for larger groups, which means that almost all native Britons can trace descent from a single anonymous individual on these islands who lived in about the thirteenth century. On the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C. Steve Jones,

The above quote does not seem to contradict the idea that populations, like diasporic Jews, can share a significant partial ancestral ethnic/genetic component. It is of course true that all humans share a common ancestry (that goes back at least 100-50,000 or more to early modern humans). But it would not necessarily be true that all humans share an ancestor that lived around 600 BC (Jones does not seem to say that); some groups would share such recent ancestry substantial degree, while many poulations have been isolated for much longer, and in many cases, populations share some very small or negligible common ancestry from around that period or more recently (due to limited gene flow across great distances over time) but still derive most of their respective ancestry from groups without such a recent common ancestry, and everything in between. One possible example of the second case being that all or most people from certain otherwise distinct populations may commonly descend from Charlemagne (as do all Europeans and anyone with any amount of European ancestry from after a certain date), Ghengis Khan (or some other individual or group from around that time or other period) but share little genetically otherwise contemporary to their most recent comon ancestor (with most of their respective ancestries being much more divergent).

The difference here sems to be be that that the findings/conclusions of many researchers, are not merely that the groups in question (in this case many diasporic Jewish groups) share some amount of detectable ancestry from a certain time and place or individual from 600 BC (which may indeed be true of an enormous swath of the world's population), but that they, as groups, share a substantial autosomal, as well as patrilineal, component that appears to be of that origin and suggests a partial common ethno-grographical source (somawhat as with other variously mixed diasporic groups such as the Roma and Sinti peoples (who are sometimes called "Gypsies") or Parsis.

You wrote:

"I brought sources that challenge your assertion that there is a scientific consensus about the Levantine origins of the Jewish people. That statement itself contains presuppositions, easy prey to critical analysis because of the assumption there that a religious-cultural identity must here consist of a continuous line of unique ethnic descent from a Levantine population that emigrated outwards, and kept to itself. Historically, this is nonsense, and genetically it is highly questionable."

The sources you first quoted do not seem to have been from researchers the field in question, population genetics. Specialists in literature and biblical studies cannot be assumed to be qualified to evaluate genetic data, and their opinions, if I understand correctly, would not be WP:RS where genetics are touched upon. The prevailing opinion (the consensus) among geneticists seems to be that there was a migration from the Levant of the ancestors of many Jewish groups (which may have at times kept relatively to itself) but that they did not remain entirely isolated, either genetically or culturally, as most research also agrees that there was significant admixture and hybridization with host populations via conversion in intermarriage (with Jewish groups carrying significant components of both shared Middle Eastern ancestry, and non-shared admixture from various populations).

You wrote:

"Wider reading will show that whatever consensus might have briefly held court for a decade or so, has collapsed; (b) that the position you claim is set in concrete has recognized ideological problems and (c) a consensus in a swiftly moving field is itself not stable over the long term."

As far as I know, the position described previously is the majority opinion among population geneticists (as known from published research) - "the prevailing view in the relevant community", as WP:REDFLAG says) and has been for several years, and that consensus does not seem to gave collapsed in recent years. It is not only that Yardumian and Schurr's conclusion differs from those of the papers they cite, but also that the several of researchers whose conclusions they proport to overturn are significantly more notable in the area of population genetics (particularly of Jewish and Near Eastern population genetics) than they (and their characterizations of those papers seem at times at times different from what the papers themselves state). This is another reason I argue that its inclusion at this stage seems WP:UNDUE. It is true of course that consensus can shift and change, but it would require more than one recent paper contradicting the prevailing view to show that this has ocurred. Given that this is a pretty recent paper whose proposals overturn or invert that consensus at a stage when its proposals have not had engagement from the mainstream ("are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions - especially in science") , I feel that WP:RECENTISM may somewhat apply and that we should excercise some caution. Skllagyook (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Skilyagook. This should not become just another exemplar of those infinite forums, articles, books which discuss (I can only think of the parallel with Japanese identity, my area of expertise) Jewish origins and identity. People, scholars of all relevant disciplines included, cannot agree on the history, while all recognize the myth's force. It is not hard to summon up dozens of quotes, even recently, where it is admitted no consensus exists. But I'll say this. We do know that the concept of diaspora, exile and expulsion, leading to dispersion, emerged as mythohistory, underwritten by a religious teleology. Jews or their forebears had, spontaneously, spread throughout the oikoumene identically to the way Phoenicians (their cousins) and Greeks did, in search of economic opportunities, as far back as the 7th century BCE. The demographic carrying weight of the religious heartland could not sustain numbers beyond 1,000,000 at its most productive period, while service in foreign armies, those of the Achaemenids, Alexander and later of Rome, was a major conduit for consolidating communities all over the imperial areas. It is not by chance that Simon Schama, recognizing this, wrote his overture to his history of the Jews by starting with the 5th century BCE Elephantine community, which was notably in its cult out of whack with what became orthodox Judaism centuries later. Diversity, ethnic, regional and cultural, has been there, thank the tetragrammaton, from the outset, something doctrinally disliked by the founding figures of Ezra and Nehemiah, who won the definitional debate.

I used Weitzman and Cohen illustratively. And confuting their right to interpret science is neither here nor there for the page. What you haven't shown is why two mainstream scholars, with a curricular investment in demographics and genetics, who mention Elhaik (only to criticize him) fail the criteria we set for RS. They don't. This is about genetics and Elhaik, and both Yardumian and Schurr have excellent credentials for inclusion. Your argument only shows cogency in stating that a long quote may be WP:Undue. I accept that and stated that I will paraphrase what their position is (critical of the normative model, and of Elhaik's challenge). It will consist of two lines, which resolves the Due/Undue concern.

As any reader in this area knows, the numerous authorities cited all over our articles, Hammer, Atzmon, Behar etc., reach conclusions that contradict each other, while affirming the religious ethnogenetic story. This point is documented in the paper by Yardumian and Schurr. I never made this point on wiki pages for WP:OR reasons, but it stands out like dogs' balls. I can illustrate their contradictions, which we have papered over, if you like. But suffice it to read the two authors' documentation.

To repeat. A story that circulates, and a good number of science papers that over the decades seeks to vindicates it, does not mean that we must clamp down on dissenting voices within the ranks. The wiki pages on Jewish ethnogenesis have room to note that mainstream scientists disagree (Zoossmann-Diskin to name one), and this should be no exception. The issue is Ashkenazi origins, not Jewish origins, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the way forward is simply to take this to the RSN board? I'll do it later this afternoon unless you'd like to make a request for comment there beforehand. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

See now for the RSN issue here. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is Catherine D. DeAngelis being censored?

• Firstly, Catherine D. DeAngelis, isn't just any pediatrician, she was the editor of JAMA; ie very much a "heavy weigh" in this area of science.
• Secondly; her comment is quite to the point: 'allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is "peculiar"', and added "what he (Ostrer) does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?"
• Shrike censored it down to "which pediatrician Catherine DeAngelis called "peculiar"."
• Who the heck can trust a single thing that Ostrer publish after this? -knowing that all results that "defame Jews" (however that is to be understood??) has been censored. This isn't science, this is etho-religious gobbledygook. Reverting. Huldra (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

She isn't being censored, the quote was pared down by me because it was undue emphasis on one cherry picked quote from the article. I still see no reason to include the entire quote when (a) the quote is not about Elhaik, but rather about Ostrer, and this page is about Elhaik, and (b) it is, as stated before, very much cherry picked as it is one of the only quotes in the article that is (somewhat) favourable to Elhaik (although she does not actually say anything favourable about Elhaik, merely says that Ostrer's requirements are peculiar). Many more are critical of him, and are not quoted in full (or even in part in several cases), so it seems undue weight to grant the most text to the viewpoint which has the smallest presence in the cited source. Also nothing about this indicates that "all results that "defame Jews" (however that is to be understood??) has been censored.", especially because no one attempted to censor or prevent Elhaik, or anyone else, from publishing anything. Someone deciding not to share their own data is not the same thing as censoring someone. That is an incredibly hyperbolic assessment. I would suggest reading the actual article in question in full, as it gives quite a bit more context, as even Elhaik himself discusses how his research has attracted anti-Semitic white supremacists who would weaponize it (and who are incidentally the sorts of people Ostrer is trying to prevent from accessing his data).NonReproBlue (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, Ostrer said that "the data [used for the study] are not publicly available". In my eyes, that simply makes his study totally worthless. "the sorts of people Ostrer is trying to prevent from accessing his data" also includes Elhaik, is he an "anti-Semitic white supremacists"?

And why should we be afraid of what "anti-Semitic white supremacists" should find? It is precisely by hiding stuff that you give them an argument. (Talking about shooting oneself in the foot.)

Also, as the article says; "David Duke, for example, is disturbed by the assertion that Jews are not a race." Elhaik, (if he is correct), is a "threat" to anti-semite racists, while Ostrer, (if he is correct), would "strengthen" their beliefs. Huldra (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to feel however you want about it. Your feeling that it is worthless doesn't have any bearing on its actual reliability though, and the study and its findings have been widely cited in the relevant academic fields. Regarding ""the sorts of people Ostrer is trying to prevent from accessing his data" also includes Elhaik, is he an "anti-Semitic white supremacists"?" that cannot be assessed from the source. The source says that Ostrer said "It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,” he wrote. “Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people". It does not say whether or not Elhaik then submitted such a proposal, nor whether he received or was denied access to the data. It merely says that he felt that this response was indicative of bias on Ostrer's part. And none of this speaks as to why it is WP:DUE to include the entire quote by DeAngelis, as opposed to the briefer mention noting that she called it "peculiar", when many other quotes from the article which are much more directly critical of Elhaik than this one is of Ostrer (who again, is not the subject of this page) are omitted. Can you explain why the brief summation in my edit was not enough, and how including the entire quote comports with the policy on due weight? NonReproBlue (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And as to "Elhaik, (if he is correct), is a "threat" to anti-semite racists" I would note that I already added a mention of his having stated that his goal was "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe" to the article. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Elhaik is "a veteran of seven years in the Israeli army"; if he is an "anti-Semitic white supremacists"; lol, now that would be interesting, to say the least. And you wrote: "even Elhaik himself discusses how his research has attracted anti-Semitic white supremacists who would weaponize it"; for me, that sounded as if "anti-Semitic white supremacists" liked his work; while exactly the opposite is true. And I think this DeAngelis quote is interesting, as it illustrate the rubbish that Elhaik is up against. (And yes; publishing something, and then refusing the share the underlying data is rubbish. Ask any undergraduate,)

I have no idea as if Elhaik, or Ostrer, are more correct w.r.t ancestry, but Ostrer garbage argument does not leave me with much trust in him (he might still be right , of course!). Anyway; I have spend far too much time on this rubbish already, I suggest a RfC; Should the DeAngelis be A) cite in full; B) paraphrased (Nishidani?) C) just mention the minimum "peculiar" (= "Shrike"-version") Huldra (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why its WP:DUE to give more space to DeAngelis? --Shrike (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: ... See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms

"Ostrer received criticism from Johns Hopkins University post-doc Eran Elhaik, who challenged the validity of Ostrer's past work on the topic of the origin of European Jews.[4] Elhaik has criticized Ostrer's explanations for Jewish demographic history and Ostrer being unwilling to share his data with other researchers, "unless research includes novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people."

Pediatrician Catherine DeAngelis said that 'allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is "peculiar"', and added "what he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?"[5]"

Ostrer is a Zionist and biased in his research, Elhaik is a Zionist and is not biased in his research. Why is the quote OK on the Ostrer page but not on the Elhaik page? SteveBenassi (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't explained why she deserve more space --Shrike (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

She deserves the same space on the Elhaik page as the Ostrer page. This is a conflict between two people Elhaik and Ostrer, why tie the hand of one and not the other? SteveBenassi (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ostrer's withholding of data in a science like most others where open access is a basic principle, is extraordinary and certainly does merit the attention it gets in that source. The woman is eminently placed to comment. I think her remark should be paraphrased, since it is too colloquial. This page is notoriously subject to attacks, and consistent attempts to skew reportage against a person who is, as subject of a wikibio, entitled to comprehensively neutral coverage. It is an obligation.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that her remark is due to be mentioned, and I also agree that it should be paraphrased (both to avoid ending with a "?" and for due reasons as most of the other quotes are not included in their entirety) which I have attempted to do with my trimming of the quote. If you have a suggestion for a change to an alternative paraphrasing I would be open to modification. But SteveBenassi re-adding his preferred version after admitting he knows that it violates policy is WP:TENDENTIOUS and an ARBPIA violation. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the edit by SteveBenassi makes it seem as though the entire thing is a quote by DeAngelis; It is not. The part that is a direct quote from her is "Peculiar" and "what he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?". The phrasing "allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is" is prose from the article, and should not be included in the quote attributed to her, but paraphrased by our prose as I have done with my edit. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: I am not knowingly violating anything, so don't make accusations. I am new to Wikipedia, all I know is that three of you are bullying me. I also know that Israel has weaponized Wikipedia. What is really going on here? Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. So we have the Left vs the Right on Wikipedia. Sad. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked" Yes, you absolutely do know. Also your current line of discussion violates ARBPIA sanctions, which you have been notified about on your talk page, that prohibits editors with fewer than 500 edits from making any edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Your edit summaries, and statements like "Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA." are clear violations of this prohibition. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Requiring you to follow policy is not bullying, and "I'm new" (close to 4 years isn't that new, by the way) isn't an excuse for your continued ignorance after being warned repeatedly and blocked.NonReproBlue (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: You are a bully, I'm fighting back. I am not hiding anything. I have not made an edit on Wikipedia in years. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia like you. Sad. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks like that will only reinforce the idea that you have arrived here with a battleground mentality and are not here to build an encyclopedia. If editing on Wikipedia is important to you, I would implore you to spend some time reviewing its policies. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: Its you attacking me, not the other way around. Your a Bully and should be reported. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to feel that way, and if you would like to report me feel free. I am not attacking you, I am explaining to you how the rules work. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: Report yourself, I don't know how. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you review Wikipedia policies as I suggested, the information will be there. NonReproBlue (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

However, before you report me for bullying, I would strongly suggest that you read WP:CRYBULLYING.NonReproBlue (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: Your Bullying is real, like Crying is real. Report yourself.SteveBenassi (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: References 30 and 31 are duplicates.

Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234
Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234

SteveBenassi (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Either one of you, preferably both, should drop this. Benassi. Israel has a perfect right to exist, and to deny that is very close to sntisemitism. The right to existence as a state is established under international law. Discrediting international law is very much what Israel's behavior in its colonization of the territories is about, so you are mirroring what you criticize. Israel has denied the right to exist of the state of Palestine, of course. Please don't reply to this. It is off-topic but needed as a reminder that, in this area, one cannot pick and choose what suits one in international law. If you subscribe to its principles (and that is a precondition for grasping the shocking treatment of Palestinians) then, automatically, you must affirm Israel's right to exist. I will be restoring Yardumian and Schurr in due course in a slightly different formulation, since no rational policy based arguments has been raised, and their elision looks very much like an attempt to make Elhaik some solitary, freakish, contrafactual POV fiend. Other people share his skepticism of the so-called mainstream view, a view which is hilarious because several of its proponents actually, in their scientific work, explicitly state that their science corroborates the Bible. In any other discipline, such a curious marriage of science and fiction would arouse extreme caution.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Simplifying this page: it's about the individual not the debate on the Khazar hypothesis

This page needs to be simplified and kept on topic. The first half of it contains basic biography and some quick facts on the general research and scientific work of this individual. There is already a dedicated page to the debate regarding the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (that mentions Elhaik and all the other characters involved therein), making nearly a quarter or half of this page deal with that debate doesn't make sense. Also, sources should be limited to peer-reviewed articles as much as possible. Posting a series of commentary pieces from newspapers, with a specific editorial opinion possibly involved, doesn't make sense for a general article about a researcher.Horacebaldwin (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You're correct. It's grossly undue. Basically 2 papers from a scientist who appears to be highly productive in his research work, mostly dealing with one of them and the reactions to it, a decade ago, tell one that. The material should be shifted, unless it is reduplicated there, to the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. Aproot's paper for example challenges Wexler's component in the Khazar theory, not Elhaik's genetics. Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree the simplified version is cleaner than the present version. Elhaik and Ostrer are mentioned frequently on other pages, and there is no need to repeat that information here in a bio. A "See also" section could be added for quick reference. SteveBenassi (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Implemented simplification of article, as discussed.Horacebaldwin (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between simplifying and simply removing all cited criticism. The former may be appropriate, the latter certainly is not. The page reflects the balance of weight given to Elhaik in reliable sources. As his claims are WP:FRINGE, they cannot be presented without also directly presenting the mainstream consensus. If anyone feels his non-fringe work outside of the Khazar stuff should be covered more, then sources should be found that discuss it. However, outside of the controversy he has generated with his Khazar claims, I am not sure he has received much coverage in RS. NonReproBlue (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This page should again be focused on the basic biographical details and general research output of this specific scientist. Debates regarding the Khazars/arguments on various Khazar hypotheses, and wide ranging ideas on this, are already covered in numerous larger articles. Using space here to declare Elhaik's researching on the highly contested, multifaceted topic of "Jewish genetics" as 'fringe' is POV. Especially when the criticism is compromised mainly of clogging the page with news articles, from a few specific news sites, that bring in their own potential editorial positions to the debate and the individual in question. That is as opposed to purely using peer-reviewed source material in criticizing. Particularly when Elhaik's post-2012 papers have reached conclusions that expound ideas far beyond what Abraham Polak and the original historians who supported versions of an alleged Khazar hypothesis allegedly being focal for the genesis of Ashkenazis even proposed in their times. All of this again goes far beyond the scope of this general profile of a geneticist. As for the attention this researcher's body of work has generated in the mainstream, it has been fairly wide and diverse and beyond the Khazar themes that should not be dominating this article. [1][2][3][4][5]Horacebaldwin (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you feel anything needs to be added, feel free to add it with sources. However, it is important to note that most, perhaps all, of those articles include strong pushback from more mainstream scientists("The paper by Elhaik and colleagues … does not present a convincing argument against our paper and unfortunately at times appears to display a lack of technical understanding of the subject area.", "a prominent Dutch pediatrician dismissed his findings as 'nonsense.'", "For Marc Vander Linden, a professor of archaeology at University College London, using such small sample sizes to draw large conclusions is problematic." etc.), and that would have to be presented as well, with more weight given to the mainstream consensus as required by WP:FRINGE. Elhaik seems to have a habit of presenting new findings along with strong criticisms of those with whom he disagrees, but his claims in these areas do not seem to gain much mainstream acceptance, and we should not present them as though they have. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You're showing a POV hand when you refer to several scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of Elhaik's first paper as 'more mainstream'. Elhaik works at the cutting edge of his discipline, is regularly published in the major journals for research in his field, and by no means can it be asserted that he is not mainstream but fringe. Of dozens of peer-reviewed papers, two received some exasperated criticism mostly political and on just two points, methodological (the use of Wexler for linguistics matters and his choice of a proxy population, and his choice of proxy populations). There is no 'mainstream consensus ' re Elhaik. Elhaik seems to have a habit of presenting new findings along with strong criticisms of those with whom he disagrees.' Oh really? How many of his papers have you read? You are conflating his 'reactions' in interviews to hostile criticism in 2012 with the rest, so that now we have Elhaik's 'habit' identified, all of this without a trace of any evidence you know who he is, his idiosyncratic tics and kinks in his science? So this being a BLP article, lay off the personal antagonism for the subject.Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Before people edit here they should slowly parse and master the contents of Raphael Falk's 'Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent,' Frontiers in Genetics, 2014; 5: 462, online 21 January 2015, which shows that the whole discipline of so-called Jewish genetics Elhaik contributed in two papers to has serious long term historical flaws in assumptions and methods, and his particular treatment of Elhaik is on a par with that of others like Behar, i.e., there is no hysterical singling out of Elhaik as some anomaly in the field, as editors have tried to assert on this page by cherry picking newspaper reports.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing

Reads like it was written by the subject of the entry 210.246.6.115 (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

seconded 2603:7000:9300:77:B5C5:35DA:8ED0:DBF7 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I take that as a compliment. It means I can do a good imitation of the subject of this wikibio.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)