Talk:Genetic studies of Jews/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Recent edits by Skllagyook

Okay your last edits have some serious problems. First of all the study says that they they cluster on PCA “midway between europeans and middle easterners”, while you wrote this ambiguous “Mediterranean people”

second of all there are PCA results where AJ cluster much closer europeans like italians than ME as in lazaridis 2014, so the conclusion of goldestien study is not to be be generalized.

third of all, the Fst results is not “according to some studies”, it’s how it is in general, you won’t find any study showing a different result. ashkenazi jews are genetically closer italians and greeks than middle easterners, if you went to exploreyourdna.com and compared any ashkenazi jew sample from g25 to other samples, they always show much closer genetic distance with italians than middle easterners. I am okay with adding “according to some studies”, but only if you were somehow you were able to bring any single study that has ashkenazi jews having lower autosomal Fst value with levantines or middle easterners than italians Chafique (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think those are fair points, and accurate, as far as I know. My issues with your edits were other than that (see my topic above). But I don't think we disagree. And I think I can edit my additions to fix the problems you pointed out. Skllagyook (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reverted back the Criticism section. This section is sourced and quoted from articles. Stop interjecting you personal opinion here. Also citations in this section come from the parent article you're going to have to re-write the entire History section if you honestly believe this section is based on opinion because a source from that section is quoted in this section. Look, I understand that you personally have this believe and you have that right, but this should be based on scholarly sources not what you believe personally and that is what this section contains and quotes. I severely suggest you take a moment to remove yourself from the personal connection to this and then come back. You've engaged in edit warring and there is now a talk section on it as well a covering the injection of your personal opinions through misrepresentation of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illyduss (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Firstly, you appear to be the same user as one who was recently blocked. Also, there is already a discussion on the kind of statements you want to add (above). And there was never a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of them. Your recent edits consist in large part combing various sources to support your own condemnatory opinion/conclusions regarding the study of Jewish genetics when said conclusions are not stated explicitly in the sources, i.e. WP:SYN. Skllagyook (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

The lead contains the following line:

Behar and colleagues have remarked on an especially close relationship between Ashkenazi Jews and modern Italians.

But source 8 (Science) shows that it was a separate later study led by Martin Richards that concluded there was such a deep connection, and that Behar was actually less convinced by it. So it seems odd to attribute it to "Behar and colleagues". Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hypotheses" section

Is this whole section just a refutation of the Khazar hypotheses based on genetics? And if so, does it need to be labelled as such? Or is it even needed here? Genetics and the Khazar theory is its own section on the Khazar hypothesis page. If this is just pure duplication on two separate pages, one of the versions (probably here, if this section is as specific to that page and its subject as it seems) should simply summarize the material and link to the main page on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You're reshuffling of this alerted me to this query again, so fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be right. It feels like it's spun off from somewhere. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Are Levites a "priestly class"?

Should "priestly class" be changed to "a class which claims to have been predominately helpers of priests, but includes also priests"? AltheaCase (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I would go with the description from our article Levites: "Jewish males who claim patrilineal descent from the Tribe of Levi". The fact that it's a claim and that the claim is a genetic one are more important than the historical roles held by the Tribe of Levi. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Priestly class" is perfectly proper wording. We can get a clue from our well-sourced article about the Tribe of Levi:

"According to the Bible, the Tribe of Levi is one of the tribes of Israel, traditionally descended from Levi, son of Jacob. The descendants of Aaron, who was the first kohen gadol (high priest) of Israel, were designated as the priestly class, the Kohanim."

We can also get more clues from our article about Aaron#High Priest:

"The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants."

That's pretty clear. Only the descendants of Aaron, thus including Levites, can be priests. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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)