Talk:Javan

message: The reasons for the addition of "off topic" and "synth" tags to Hkavniel's latest addition, should be obvious; the sources cited do not make any mention whatsoever of the article topic, i.e. the Biblical figure Javan son of Japheth, and instead, the entire subject of Illyrian genetics belongs on another article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2008 

message: Maybe I just haven't explained it simply enough; so let me try to rephrase what our policy says one more time.  Has anyone, anywhere, at any time, ever once, made any kind of attempt to tie these Illyrian genetics studies in with the Biblical name "Javan"?  If so, and if it is in any way meaningful, I would support its inclusion, and would even fight for its inclusion, because any sources about Javan should be mentioned here.  But, if no one has ever done this before (which so far appears to be the case), then Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first one in the world to ever publish such a connection. We can only use connections that have already been made in print. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok...this is definitely a miscommunication. The article is NOT about Illyrian genetics. I inserted that since there is a link to this interesting Iron Age people group/kingdom known as the Illyrians and it is relevant to figure out who where the ancient Greeks. The article IS about ancient Greece or biblical Javan. They were trying to figure out who were the ancient Greeks and found them in haplogroup J2. This is like an article about the ancient Cohenim of Israel saying we checked and modern Cohenim are in J1 (and a bunch of other haplogroups as well). make sense? Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a quote from the article that includes the word "Javan".  If it doesn't, then it looks like nobody before us has ever thought of relating any of this to the Biblical Javan, and this is a novel argument in the field of Javan studies.  However, if the point has been made before, and someone will have written about it, that is the kind of source we can use.  The little message on the synthesis tag says it all: Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Javan". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say it again...this is directly analogous to an article on Aaron which discusses his DNA, the Cohen Modal Type (Y chromosomal Aaron) but never actually refers to Aaron. I can give you a list of articles that talk about the Cohen Modal Haplotype that make no direct reference to Aaron of Moses or Levi or Abraham. Aaron does include genetic data. Why is this an issue? Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is an article about Y chromosomal Aaron, then I would assume that some published reference has mentioned "Aaron" in connection with genetic studies.  In this case, we are still wanting a published author who has mentioned "Javan" in connection with genetic studies.  But if you find one, let's add it and keep it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Or, since you say you have credentials, maybe you could write an journal article or book called "Y chromosomal Javan", and get it published and peer reviewed in the appropriate venue -- then I would even add it in for you (so that you wouldn't get accused of WP:COI!) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've finally understood the point you were trying to imply that actually connects this with the topic, so I have given it some context and removed the tags. It's still a little tenuous as the sources really are not about Javan per se, but I will agree to this compromise if it means ending this dispute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Hkp-avniel 

message: While I can't, personally, evaluate genetic findings or even if they are used properly here (ie not violating synthesis etc; a second opinion of someone with knowledge of the field would be nice), -why- do genetics belong to an article about a Biblical ancestor and not to the article discussing Greek genetics, which is even linked in that section (Greeks#Genetic_origins)? The whole section should be moved to the Greeks article. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it either. Parts of it should be merged into Greeks which allready has a pretty extensive genetics section anyway. In any event it doesn't say anything new. ALL humans have a single ancestor, probably going back to a single amoeba at that. The only reason I am not deleting out of hand is that someone has gone into alot of trouble to source extensively and I don't want to be a spoilsport. But could they please consider condensing it to a small para and moving to Greeks? I will try to read through it and condense it myself. Then it should be deleted.Xenovatis (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnogenetic studies once again