Talk:Palestinians/Archive 9

message: Folks, there are two different documents being confused.  First there was one passed on 28 May 1964, usually called the Palestine National Covenant.  The text is here.  The relevant section is:
Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.
That document was amended 10-17 July 1968.  The amended version is usually called the Palestine National Charter.  The text is here.  The relevant section had now become:
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.
So there is no actual disagreement between the Palestinian UN mission and the Yale repository.  An account of the various meetings that led to these two versions is here. --Zerotalk 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I refer to as "Palestinian Double-Speak". Palestinian Authority will do and say whatever is necessary to gain land from Israel. Jtpaladin 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews in the Palestine National Covenant/Charter - explain the confusion 

message: In the language part of the template there are three languages:
Arabic: makes sense
Hebrew: makes sense
Aramaic? How many Palestinians still speak Aramaic? I'm not sure it should be included on the template. --Oneworld25 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be included - even if you count Neturei Karta - their spoken language is Yiddish not Aramaic. --Israelish 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many Palestinians Speak Aramaic?

message: Recent studies focusing on haplogroup types have found that the Semetic "deep Ancestry" male DNA signature known as Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) - identified as the deep ancestry of Semites, including Abraham or any other male Semite living at the time of Abraham 3500 years ago - is found most predominantly among Palestinians and Palestinian Bedouins of the Negev desert (60% and 80%)[34] , followed by the other Arabic countries. Conversely, Jews worldwide and Israeli Jews were found to have very low percentages of Haplogroup J1 (less than 10%) compared to other nations. For example, the prevalence of the J1 ancestry signature is higher among Britons than Jews.[35]
I have looked into the original ([35]) and have not found anything the info that the writer of this paragraph states (ex., no info about Britons in the article at all. And where do the 10% come from?!
Original says:
 What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997).  So nearly half of the Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in haplogroups other than J1.  Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004).  Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1. 
Additionally, many other haplogroups among the Ashkenazim, and among the Cohanim in particular, appear to be of Israelite/Middle Eastern origin.  According to Behar (2003), the Cohanim possess an unusually high frequency of haplogroup J in general, reported to comprise nearly 87% of the total Cohanim results.  Among the Sephardim, the frequency of 75% is also notably high (Behar 2003).  Both groups have dramatically lower percentages of other haplogroups, including haplogroup E.  Given the high frequency of haplogroup J among Ashkenazi Cohanim, it appears that J2 may be only slightly less common than J1, perhaps indicating multiple J lineages among the priestly Cohanim dating back to the ancient Israelite kingdom.
The "DNA Clues" part of the article doesn't agree with the sourse quoted or, at least, a very one-sided point of view. I would also check [34] to make sure percentages of Palestinians with J1 are correct.
Mashinist 02:39, 6 May 2007
:Exactly. An IP editor has been promoting his own bizarre "Deep ancestry" DNA theories on Wikipedia for months now; however, his claims aren't backed up by any sources, not even the sources he provides. For example, he inserted the following claim:
: 	According to the recent DNA studies (see DNA evidence below) The Palestinians have more Arabic descent than many other Arabic countries, with the Bedoin of the Negev being the most Arabian ancestrally, which makes the Palestinians the standard for any Arabic country have to compare itself to Palestinians of how much Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) " the Semetic" deep ancestry they have.
:Yet the claim he makes is entirely unsourced. In addition, he inserted this claim:
:As genetic techniques have advanced, it has become possible to look directly into the question of the ancestry of the Palestinians. Recent studies focusing on haplogroup types have found that the Semetic "deep Ancestry" male DNA signature known as Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) - identified as the deep ancestry of Semites, including Abraham or any other male Semite living at the time of Abraham 3500 years ago - is found most predominantly among Palestinians and Palestinian Bedouins of the Negev desert (60% and 80%)Semino et al. 2004  , followed by the other Arabic countries.
:The source provided was http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/ . On that basis User:Tiamut apparently reverted my removal of this nonsense. Yet if you actually read the source, you will note that it nowhere mentions "Deep ancestry", "Abraham", or Palestinians! Blind reverts of this nonsensical original research back into the article are most distressing. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are blind reverts that remove more than just the so-called original research, which as the other editor pointed out above, is not so much unsourced as it is overshooting a bit perhaps. In any case, I am going to revert your blind revert - again. Note that you will be violating 3RR if you insist on reverting again. The way to remedy this situation is sentence by sentence. The subject is complex and requires a patient going through. The old copy was in no way perfect either anyway. Tiamut 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I have gone through it carefully, read through the sources as mentioned above, as has the other editor, who made it clear he could find no match between the claims made and the alleged sources? Why are you blindly and knowingly reverting in false claims? Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Tiamut, Mashinist and Jay's argument is that the above anon has completely misread the articles, and that the support is tantamount to my bringing a paper on tachyons and using that to prove that Jews travel faster than light. The paper is true, it's the application that is original synthesis (not to mention wrong). In this case, the quotation brought by Jay implies no connection with any "True Semite" tag applied to Palestinians. Further, even if that was true, it has to be mentioned in a reliable source. Any deductive, inductive, or other form of reasoning is a violation of original synthesis, and not allowed in wikipedia, I'm afraid. In this case, it appears not only is it original research, it's also flatly wrong from the article. -- Avi 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the two references added by the IP editor ( and ). Perhaps I misunderstood these articles (which indeed appear very professional), and Genealogy is not my forte, but in my humble understanding these articles do not nearly support the claims made by the IP editor. Moreover, these articles do not even mention Palestinians (the second) or almost not al all (the first). I checked the other fixes since Apr 30 and they're all very minor so IMHO Jaijyg's mass revert was justified. altmany 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break 1

message: To begin, I want to add something along these lines: 
Levy-Coffman disputes the findings of Cohanim studies that concludes that all or most Jews are of Middle Eastern origin.  She submits that "... many of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results, often downplaying the significant contribution of European and Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture."  She notes that "J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider 'Semitic' in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations ... [and] the group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant."  She points to the conclusion of a study by Semino et al., that found that J1 constituted 14.6% of Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of Sephardic results.  
Levy-Coffman also claims that the H haplogroups frequently found among Ashkenazim are thought to be of European provenance. Of the H3 haplogroup prominent among western Ashkenazim, she bases this conclusion on the fact "that it[H3] occurs in none of the Middle Eastern groups, including Palestinians. In fact, Pereira (2005) deemed H3 'exclusively European.'" 
 
Thoughts feedback? Tiamut 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you and the anon are using is some new "online journal" called "jogg", which has had a total of 4 issues. Ellen Levy-Coffman, the person who wrote the article in question is, conveniently, also on the "editorial board", and is, in fact, a lawyer in family practice, not a geneticist. Other people on the "editorial board" include a Masters of Business Administration, another lawyer, someone with no degrees at all, and a medical doctor. The editor is a retired physicist. As far as I can tell not one person involved in jogg has any expertise in genetics. In other words, these are all amateurs who happen to have an interest in the topic. The site cannot be taken as a serious source of information, particularly when it seems to contradict what the actual researchers in the field say. Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg. jogg stands for the Journal of Genetic Geneaology and "Ellen Levy-Coffman is an attorney in private practice specializing in family law.  She received her J.D. degree from Stanford Law School in 1993.  Previously, she received her B.A., magna cum laude, in Archaeology from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.  She currently serves as coordinator on three surname DNA projects." Her paper gives an overview of and cites directly from DNA research studies, some of which are cited here already. How is this not an WP:RS? Is it that you cannot argue against the validity of the formulation above and now want to attack the source? What's your problem with making changes that add balance to this article? Tiamut 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it stands for "Journal of Genetic Geneaology", and, as I pointed out, not one of the editors or on the "editorial board" appears to have any expertise in genealogy. Anyone can set up a website and call it anything they want. Levy-Coffman is a family lawyer with a degree in archaeology. Please explain how that gives her expertise in this field, and please make sure that your response deals solely with the issue at hand, and avoids further ad hominem statements and leading questions. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her current work, besides sitting on the board of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, is working as a coordinator on three surname DNA projects. As I said, her paper sources all of the claims she makes to the originals. On the one hand, you accuse us of WP:OR when we synthesize material, on the other you disqualify perfectly reliable sources that do make those links on the basis of a lack of expertise. It's ridiculous Jayjg. A scientist isn't going to make all of the links between national identity and DNA analysis in an overt fashion in a scientific paper. Secondary sources work using those primary sources and according to WP:ATT, secondary sources are preferable. She seems to be qualified enough to discuss the issue based on those primary papers. So how is your objection in any way valid? Tiamut 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth is a "coordinator on three surname DNA projects"? Is it her hobby? A paid position? Something she's doing in her garage for a friend? In any event, she is a family lawyer, not a geneticist. Her original research is interesting and all, but hardly a reliable source. No-one on that website has anything close to having a degree in genetics. None of them work in the field. It's an absurd source. Please stop making the ridiculous claim that someone with a law degree and and archeology degree is a reliable source when it comes to discussing the complex matter of genetics. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree strongly. The fact that she sits on the Board of Directors of a Journal on Genetic Geneaology meets the requirements under WP:ATT in itself. I will be including the section in the days to come. Please make your comments on its content. If you delete it, I will open this up for a RfC. Tiamut 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threats are not a good way to get consensus. I doubt an RfC would go your way anyway -when discussing genetics, we should be quoting geneticists -not family lawyers. <<-armon->> 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, nonsense. As I have already explained, the "Journal of Genetic Genealogy" is an amateur website run by a bunch of people who have no degrees in genealogy, nor do they work in the field. They are MBAs, lawyers, physicists, people with no degrees. The website miserably fails WP:V, which clearly states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.  Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." The highlighting is in the original. Family law is not a relevant field to DNA analysis. Don't bother trying to put this ridiculous material into the article, as it will be immediately removed for the policy-violating silliness it is. Instead, use reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A freepages website? Anyway, we know the webpage was started in 2005, and that it has "published" 4 "issues". Also, Technion doesn't list it as "an academic resource journal", you invented that. It just lists it as an "E-Journal". We're still left with a lawyer who practices family law contradicting what genetic researchers say about their own findings. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes, a bunch of places have linked to it. Now, about that person with a degree in law contradicting a trained geneticist writing peer-reviewed papers on their own research... Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, well, people can use very good sources as the basis for their original research, but that still doesn't make it anything by original research from a non-expert. The point is, she's a lawyer, works in family law; if she writes an article about family law, I'll take her views more seriously. Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but you still haven't been able to explain what "DNA surname projects" are, and has been pointed out many times, the "Journal for Genetic Genealogy" is a website run by a bunch of non-experts; not one of the people mentioned on the site has a degree in genealogy, or related field, nor do any of them work professionally in the area. Your arguments at this point are entirely circular. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC
JOGG is the ONLY magazine on Geneology.
An editor does not have to have PhD in a field to write in that field, So why do you accept references from NY Times magazines???
Are those in NY times for example specialist in every thing they write.
To: Tiamut: You are mistaken that Coffman was DISPUTING, she has no authority of dispiting, she was summerizing all the studies about Ashkenazin to the time of the article.
She was not disputing as you said that Cohanim studies proved that ALL or Most jews are of Middle Eastern studies ( Cohanim studies proved that ONLY Cohanim are of J1 and found that most of the rest of the Jews were NOT of J1 and did not have the Cohanim Haplotype Modal)
Coffman summerized that Ashkenazim from the Father side are 15% from R1a1 ( of Russia and Ukraine) probably Khazars, 5% Q definitely Khazar ( mongoloid), J2 the largest 30%) of the Indo European, only 10 to 14% J1 thought to be the Semitic lineage, Also I of Spain, E of North Africa and East Africa, and so on , that is why she said (MOSAIC) Of course you know what Mosaic is. Abraham can only be of one Haplogroup, you choose. His sons, grandsons and grand grand sons all the way to Present can ONLY BE of the ONE and Only Haplogroup of Abraham, MoSAIC is enough to prove they are NOT descended from One person!!!!
Again the Magazine is the most reliabe ( much more reliable that NY Times if they wrote on Geneology!!!.
Because they are Specialist Magazine, She ( coffman ) is jewish who works for Family Tree DNA a Jewish company specializes in JEWS( go to their web site).
It is NOT TRUE that Coffman used the Palestinians as to contrast with Jewish DNA results! she never did that, she said J1 is the likely Semitic Marker NOT because of the palestinians, but because J1 presides in the Semitic Lands ( and In Ethiopia and Eriteria ( semitic lands ( partially even though Tigrinia is a semitic language ( the rulers of Ethiopia and Eriteria these days) Awl Man23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break 4

message: There is a dispute over whether a secondary source that relies on primary sources of DNA research studies must be an expert in genetics or DNA research in order to constitute a reliable source for interpreting or contradicting those studies. And there is a dispute over what constitutes expertise. Please review the "Arbitrary Break section 4" discussion above this request for comment for more information. Thank you. 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really simple to settle: See WP:REDFLAG. <<-armon->> 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that apply here exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When non-experts in a field make unusual claims, it's a red flag. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims are in no way unusual and cite the conclusions of peer-reviewed papers throughout. Just check the relevant DNA pages. She's not claiming that Jews are from the moon. Just that their genetic history is not as clear-cut as some early DNA studies have made them out to be. Tiamut 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So she's claiming that some of the early studies aren't quite correct? Red flag. By the way, just read what your the IP editor you were reverting to has written, here, and on several other articles and Talk pages. It's mostly incoherent; that should also be a Red flag. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Question 2: Is Levy-Coffman a reliable source? -- Avi 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the area of family law. Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Levy-Coffman has never published a peer-reviewed paper in a relevant field. I don't think there is any doubt that she is not a reliable source. --Ian Pitchford 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not judging whether she can conduct DNA research, but whether or not she can interpret existing peer-reviewed studies. As I mentioned above, WP:SYNTH prevents us from looking at peer-reviewed studies (the primary source) and drawing conclusions. Scientists tend not to make explicit links between modern national identities and DNA findings (though they do make implicit links). When objections were raised to outlining what is implied, the source from Levy-Coffman was offered up as one that does the synthesis itself. As someone working on genealogy projects and who sits on the board of the Journal of Genetics Genealogy, I do not understand how she is not a reliable source for the text presented above, at the top of Arbitrary break section 4. She doesn't need to be a scientist to interpret the peer-reviewed work of scientists and their application to genealogy. Tiamut 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep making circular or meaningless arguments. She claims she is "working on genealogy projects", but we have no idea what that means. She also sits on the board of the "Journal of Genetics Genealogy" which, as has been explained many times, is an amateur website whose board does not contain one single individual with relevant expertise in DNA research or genetics. Instead it has lawyers, MBAs, retired physicists, and people with no degrees whatsoever. She has degrees in archeology and law, and practices family law! She is not qualified to analyze DNA research, much less contradict it. It's ridiculous the lengths you've gone to to support this source. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you recall Jayjg, this discussion began when you rejected the additions made another user on the basis that they were original research. In an attempt to explore that assertion, I read the sources the user had provided, summarized the argument in way that respected the information in the sources and posted it here before proposing it for reinsertion. After you could not disallow the material on the basis of POV or original research, you attacked the source as unreliable. (Section 1 to 3 above record the discussion prior and section 4 records your objections to the source). This is not about the lengths I will go to to defend a source but rather, the lengths I am willing to traverse to include relevant information that provides balance to a section that misleads the reader into believing that the peer-reviewed studies cited are conclusive. It's called WP:NPOV. Tiamut 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research and material from unreliable sources is not allowed in articles, whether written by a family lawyer on her website, or by you, or by an incoherent IP editor. Please find reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Avi, the anon's used more than one source to make his argument. The Levy-Coffman source, being in more accessible language, was the one I adhered to help him out. After I showed above that what he was claiming was in fact in the sources, Jayjg challenged the legitimacy of the Levy-Coffman source. This is game playing in my opinion. Jayjg just doesn't want the article to reflect the newest findings on DNA. See the anon's latest comments below. He's provided a number of other sources to support his claims. Why are we spending our time trying to find reasons to disallow his contributions rather than work to find what is useful in them and include it? Notice he quotes a number of other studies:   . Now back to Levy-Coffman and the issue of her expertise: this is her original paper  and this is another source provided by the anon  where she refers to "fellow researchers" and is dispensing advice to Jews asking about their geneaological origins. How is she any less of an expert than the www.khazaria.com source that summarizes research (as does Levy-Coffman) and is cited in the article right now, with no objections raised by anyone? Tiamut 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon IP filled the page with badly written original research that didn't even reflect what its sources said, which I, and others, pointed out. You then focussed on the Levy-Coffman paper, which, as it turned out, was original research written by a family lawyer with no expertise in DNA research. I pointed that out as well, and then you engaged in hours of circular arguments about her and her website. The only game playing was the lengths you went to pretend that it was actually a reliable source. Now you're saying that because she refers to "fellow researchers" on a message board, she must be a reliable source! It beggars belief. Moreover, now you're saying "let's do our own original research based on some other papers". Instead of these desperate attempts to include original research, why not just follow policy? Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see the paper by Nebel at al (2005) cited by Levy-Coffman (the most recent in her bibliography) rather undermines the whole story of Khazar contributions to Ashkenazi ancestry: it argues that the current frequency of the R-M17 haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews can be attributed to a founder effect with the contribution being limited to "a single founder or a few closely related men". This is compatible with Ashkenazim being 100% Jewish in terms of conventional ancestry.  --Ian Pitchford 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Who is a reliable source for interpretations of DNA research?