Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-31 Khazar Citation War

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	ColumbanAgain
Parties involved	Jayjg Humus_Sapiens, Briangotts
Mediator(s)	TheronJ
Comment	Waiting for response from requestor

Mediation Case: 2006-10-31 Khazar Citation War

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

[2]

Request made by: ColumbanAgain 06:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

Jayjg Humus_Sapiens, Briangotts

Jayjg Humus_Sapiens, Briangotts

What's going on?

From the discussion --> "If you can cite an article in a reputable publication, that cites a genetic study that contradicts the one referenced, you are free to do so." - Briangotts 04:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazars#Dispute_.22Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim.22

... the original citation is not good science. If the details of ethnic group to ethnic group comparisons were published within the article then it would be useful, but the authors chose not to publish the details of the more specific comparisons for some reason. Here's the original citation.

I replaced the original citation with a better, more germain citation (PubMed 10/2003) and edited the first paragraph to reflect this. Of the European ethnic groups included in this study, Eastern Europeans, specifically Russian and Sorbian transcripts show good homology to the Ashkenaz NRYs in the study. Your complaint seems to be that the PubMed 10/2003 study only compares some Ashkenaz NRYs (Levites) to (some) European ethnic groups and indictes Eastern European origin. I submit that a study that compares some Ashkenaz NRYs to some other ethnic groups and shows good homology to some of these other ethnic groups is preferable to one that compares Ashkenaz NRY's to an abstraction that doesn't exist and is not likely to show good homolgy to anything else as the abstraction doesn't exist in nature... Here's the better PubMed 10/2003 citation An even better citation may turn up. For instance, a paper that compares Ashkenaz NRY transcripts to NRYs from tran-causcus, trans-volga populations.

Here's another way to look at it. The PubMed 10/2003 citation compares some apples to some apples. The older citation that you favor compares some apples to apple sauce.

I improved the article. I think you should leave it alone, find a better citation or explain why the previous citation is not useless in addressing the origin of Ashkenaz via genetic study. (Columban comment from Talk:Khazars#Dispute_"Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim")

Please review WP:NOR. You're drawing your own conclusions from studies, rather than letting the authors speak for themselves, and the study you refer to references a very small and specific subgroup of Jews. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please address the issue and not revert over and over again. For reasons painstakingly described above, the data in the original citation, that you Jayjg, Biet Or and Briangotts continue to revert does not support the study conclusion. If I am wrong about this, please explain why. (Columban comment from Talk:Khazars#Dispute_"Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim")

What would you like to change about that?

I would like Humus_Sapiens, et al to stop 'owning' the article ad engaging in bullying tactics, like sending threatening msgs alleging vandalism to any edits.

I would like Humus_Sapiens, et al to address the issue and not revert over and over again. For reasons painstakingly described in the discussion, the data in the original citation, that Jayjg, Biet Or and Briangotts continue to revert does not support the study conclusion. If I am wrong about this, please explain why. The counter argument seems to be that cited articles can not be read, evaluated and have conclusions drawn from said evaluation. Is this so?

I would like the WP article to recognize that very little genetic study of Ashkenaz origin has been published, but what has indicates homology to some Eastern European groups.

Regarding the argument based on homology to composite transcripts, which the original citation favored by Humus_sapiens et,al. depends on, this (I understand) highly regarded different study says none of the European ethnic groups studied had good homology to the composite. "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language", http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1287948

We have used 11 human Y-chromosomal biallelic polymorphisms, defining 10 haplogroups, to analyze a sample of 3,616 Y chromosomes belonging to 47 European and circum-European populations ... "No single population has a frequency distribution resembling that of the overall sample (fig. 2), emphasizing the strong geographic differentiation of Y-chromosomal variation in Europe." Original citation finds the same lack of homology to a composite and says it proves Askenaz are not of European orgin. By the same logic, Germans, Spanish, Greeks, Russians, etc. would not be European. So obviously, the conclusions in the original study based on lackof homology to the composite is invalid and the citation with supported text should be removed.

A lack of good homology to a composite is the expected result, but says little or nothing about components of composite to transcripts.

Ideally, "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language" would address Ashkenaz origins. Though it includes non_european samples from N. Africa for example, it (for some reason) does not address Ashkenaz.

Finally, should his article have admins who clearly have an NPOV perspectve on the subject?

Thanks

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...

Mediator response

• I will take this one. TheronJ 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ's summary of the dispute

• Roughly summarized, the Khazars were a Turkic people from Central Asia, many of whom converted to Judaism during the 8th, 9th, and 10th century, after which time they were conquered and largely faded from history.
• At various times, the Khazars have been hypothesized to have been the source for Ashkenazi Jewry, or the branch of the Jewish people who trace their ancestry through medieval Europe. This theory is discussed in Khazars#Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim.
• With the advent of historical genetic analysis, there is now some scholarship that is arguably relevant to the question of whether the Ashkenazi Jews were decended from the Khazars. This dispute centers around which articles are relevant to that dispute, and what the relevance of each article is.
• The October 22 version[1] of the Khazar article cited three scholarly sources regarding this issue. Two, (Hammer 2000) and (Behar 2006), were cited as casting doubt on the Khazar origin theory by identifying a significant fraction of Ashkenazi genes as being of Middle Eastern origin. One, (Nebel 2003), was cited as contradicting the theory that Ashkenazi Jews can be shown to have Middle Eastern genetic material and therefore at least casting doubt on the criticism of the Khazar origin theory raised by Hammer and Behar.
• Since October 22, there have been a series of edits and reversions regarding this issue.

1. Initially, User:ColumbanAgain edited the section to remove the discussion of Hammer or Behar.[2]. After his changes were reverted, Columban made a series of related changes, including: a deletion of the entire section[3]; the replacement of Hammer 2000 with (Hammer 2003)[4]; changes to the summary of Behar 2006[5]; the removal of Behar 2006[6]; the removal of Nebel 2003[7]; and the replacement of Hammer 2000, Behar 2006, and Nebel 2003 with Hammer 2003.[8]
2. Various other editors have made reversions supporting Columban's changes, including User:203.146.247.78[9],[10], and User:PalestineRemembered[11].
3. Most or all of Columban's changes have been reverted, including reversions by: User:Beit_Or,[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]; and User:Jayjg,[19], Humus sapiens[20][21], Briangotts[22], and Ghirlandajo[23]. A solid majority of editors involved to date appears to oppose inclusion of the ColumbanAgain edits discussed above.

All parties, please feel free to let me know if you think I have overlooked or misrepresented anything, and I will try to add it above. TheronJ 22:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've amended the summary to incorprate Beit Or's comments below. TheronJ 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to summary of the dispute

As an active editor of Khazars, who has reverted ColumbanAgain's edits many times, I'm adding myself to this mediation. It's unfair to say that only Jajjg and myself reverted ColumbanAgain, so did Humus sapiens[24][25], Briangotts[26], and Ghirlandajo[27]. Judging by the page history and the talk page, we may be safe to say that there is a consensus opposed to ColumbanAgain's edits. See also may responses below regarding the substance of the dispute, though I can hardly say anything that has not been said yet on the talk page. Beit Or 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments - I've worked your comments into the summary above. (In the interests of remaining neutral, I don't want to take sides on the existence of consensus, but there's certainly a solid majority of editors opposed to Columban's changes). TheronJ 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for ColumbanAgain

Columban, I have a few quick questions in order to try to work out this dispute. Please feel free to respond (briefly if possible) after each question.

1. The following paragraph contains citations to the three original sources that I have called (Hammer 2000), (Behar 2006), and (Nebel 2003),. For each citation, could you explain: (1) is the description of that article accurate and (2) would you oppose discussion of that article in Khazars#Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim and, if so why?

The theoretical Khazar contribution to the bloodline of modern Ashkenazi Jews proposed by some is not generally accepted by historians. Genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Y-Chromosome DNA seems to have originated in Middle Eastern populations,(Hammer 2000) as has the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population.(Behar 2006) However there are other scholars such as Mr. Almut Nebel who suggest that Ashkenazi Y and mt DNA clusters around that of Turks and Armenians (Eu9,Non Arab Middle East,non-geographical Middle East) and this field remains contentious at best ref: (Nebel 2003). Although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim.(Behar 2006)

— Khazars, 10-22-06

2. If the parties were able to compromise to also accept the article I've been referring to as (Hammer 2003), would you be willing to allow the other three articles to remain?

Thanks, TheronJ 22:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Responding Parties

These questions are intended for the parties who oppose ColumbanAgain's changes. Please feel free to put additional comments in the "Discussion" section, below.

1. Can you explain to me, briefly, what you believe the conclusion of the article I've been referring to as (Hammer 2003) is?

2. Do you feel that the Hammer 2003 article has any relevance to the discussion of the Khazar origin theory? If so, is there some way to incorporate the article in the existing discussion?

Thanks, TheronJ 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Behar (the first author of the paper) et al. have found that Ashkenazi Levites display a high frequency of haplogroup R1a1. The frequency of this haplogroup in Ashkenazi Levites is comparable to that of several Slavic peoples, especially Sorbians and Belarusians, and exceeds by a factor of ten the prevalence of this haplogroup among other Jewish groups. Thus, Ashkenazi Levites diverge from the rest of the Jewish population, and with this exception, this study has corroborated the results of the previous research by Hammer et al. and Nebel et al., which found shared Near Eastern ancestry for the Jews. The authors have put forward several explanations of this anomaly. First, it is possible that a certain event occurred within the Ashkenazi Jewish community that led to the emergence of a founder who, by chance, had haplogroup R1a1. Another possibility is that the hypothetical founder was a convert of European origin, who somehow managed to acquire a Levite status.
2. This paper may be relevant insofar as the article essentially refutes the Khazar origin theory. A small portion of the Jewish population - Ashkenazi Levites - as the authors suggest, may have a common European origin. It is important to stress the word "European" because the Khazars were, most likely, a Turkic people, while R1a1 is an Indo-European marker with the highest frequency among Slavs. For the rest of the Jewish population, this study has confirmed the common Near Eastern ancestry established in prior studies. However, the Khazar origin theory was refuted in previous works, so piling up ever more evidence against it is probably unnecesssary.

Beit Or 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the articles in question. In my opinion that Hammer article provides no support for the Khazar descent of Ashkenazi Jewry; as Beit Or points out, the opposite is true. R1a1 does not appear to have a Khazar origin; none of the relevant works make this connection. The fact that a small group within Ashkenazi Jewry share a genetic marker with various Central European community cannot be used as evidence of Khazar descent when, as pointed out, there is no apparent connection with Eurasian nomad populations. Any assertion that this supports Khazar descent is original research on the part of a small group of editors, some of whom at least appear to have political motivations behind their insistence to the contrary. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, those answers are very helpful, and I appreciate everyone's participation. Unless anyone has anything new to add in response to Columban's complaint, I propose that we wait for Columban's response. Given Columban's contribution history, I'm not sure that he/she is planning on returning to Wikipedia, but propose that we wait a week or so to see. Thanks again, TheronJ 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to what was previously written, Levites themselves comprise perhaps 5% of all Jews; in other words, a very small sub-group, so anything that applies to them should not be taken as indicative of Jews as a whole. Indeed, the study makes it clear that Levites are unique in this characteristic. ColumbanAgain is trying to indicate that this study says something concrete about all Jews, when in fact it says something fairly ambiguous about a very small minority of Jews, and essentially nothing at all about Khazars. The only reason for attempting to include this information appears to be to deny that Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, a political position unsupported by genetic research. This explains both the removal of studies indicating that Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, and the substitution of essentially irrelevant studies indicating a small sub-group may have some European origins. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Result

• Unless any of the active editors would find mediation helpful, I am closing this mediation. The requestor, ColumbanAgain, has not appeared on Wikipedia in the more than two weeks since he/she requested mediation. (See [[Special:Contributions/ColumbanAgain|contribution history). The parties Columban has complained about have explained their edits, and without Columban, there's nothing to mediate. TheronJ 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.