→Arbitrary break: better link |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
:::::{{U|Jytdog}} Thank you for opening the sandbox, I hope it will help. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJoyceWood%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=759125853&oldid=759120847] for the content change and revision I proposed above.--[[User:JoyceWood|JoyceWood]] ([[User talk:JoyceWood|talk]]) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::::{{U|Jytdog}} Thank you for opening the sandbox, I hope it will help. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJoyceWood%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=759125853&oldid=759120847] for the content change and revision I proposed above.--[[User:JoyceWood|JoyceWood]] ([[User talk:JoyceWood|talk]]) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Better to avoid the wording "considered pseudoscience" and to prefer "is pseudoscience" instead, I think --[[User:Q Valda|Q Valda]] ([[User talk:Q Valda|talk]]) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::::: Better to avoid the wording "considered pseudoscience" and to prefer "is pseudoscience" instead, I think --[[User:Q Valda|Q Valda]] ([[User talk:Q Valda|talk]]) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::: is that it? That change and you are fine with everything else? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
::::::: is that it? That change and you are fine with everything else? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: Due to recent edits by Q Valda, mine revision would be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JoyceWood/sandbox&oldid=759156853 this]. I don't understand what you mean by "everything else", in this section we are discussing the formulation of the paragraph, and don't see what else should be changed. I would prefer "considered pseudoscience" because there is an exact group of 24 Russian scientists as well their opinion was published relatively recently in 2015. It gives neutrality to the paragraph, and not to mention the issue, which was several times mentioned, if his complete work in the field can be considered of pseudoscientifical value.--[[User:JoyceWood|JoyceWood]] ([[User talk:JoyceWood|talk]]) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Follow WP:BLP please== |
==Follow WP:BLP please== |
Revision as of 15:25, 9 January 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
|
Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy
[1] — reverted this. Klyosov claims that his ″DNA genealogy″ is not a part of genetics at all, but of chemical kinetics. And reliable sources say it is pseudoscience with strange and bizarre claims that cannot be supported by scientists. --Q Valda (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, glad you spotted.that. Doug Weller talk 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't agree with such approach. I read WP:NPOV and think we are breaking the principle. I tried to read the sources, with translation, and it is obvious that one group of scientists tried to discredit his work in genetic genealogy, whose conclusion we cannot accept as the majority and mainstream conclusion, without showing the answer by other scentists who support him or his own answer. As well, the title "Pseudoscientific publications" is implied that all his publications are pseudoscientific and wrong. Where is reference that each of those publications are of pseudoscientific value? Instead of using an imposed label by a group of scholars, like "pseudoscientific", to marginalize a notable scientist, it should be noted and explained to the public in which parts his work is erroneous. Also I would like you to cite me the exact sentence and reference in which is explained that he does not think DNA genealogy is not related to genetic genealogy, yet to chemical kinetics. If you read any his publication, and you are familiar with genetic genealogy, his work is not different anyhow. Chris Stringer in Why we are not all multiregionalists not (2014) cited and agreed with work, published by Advances in Anthropology, African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis? (2013) by Robert G. Bednarik who cited four references, notably used in his work, by Klyosov.
- Also, I cannot but ping My very best wishes to note him that user Q Valda continued to edit the section, although they had a substantial discussion at "WP:SYN and POV qualifiers", from revision of 13:17, 28 June 2016, when user JzG who did not participate in the discussion re-added the info as of 11:02, 31 August 2016.--JoyceWood (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you are not satisfied with this version, one possible solution would be to expand the section entitled "DNA genealogy". Here you should explain (based on independent publications in RS rather than in "predatory" journals) the following: (a) what exactly was so novel in the "DNA genealogy" by Klysov; (b) why exactly this theory has been described as pseudoscientific in a number of publications (those are Russian language sources and beyond my area of expertise). If there are any positive publications in 3rd party RS about this theory, (like here), they can be used per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- My issue is that I don't agree with the use of such a short sentence that his publications on genetic genealogy are simply pseudoscientific, thus not even in the category of controversial, but without any value of consideration, yet without explaining in which parts his scientifical approach, understanding, terminology, calculation is considered wrong by one group of Russian scientists. Also, like in mine edit on 30 December, it should be given context to his work in the specific field - what it caused (triggered a debate); when (2015); among whom (Russian scientists); who considered and labeled his work as erroneous as well pseudoscientific (a group of Russian scientists); what they considered erroneous or failed scientific standards and methods ([we need to read and cite it from the articles in the Russian language]) and so on. Current sentence "Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy" and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science"" for me it is badly formulated, against NPOV, WP:FRINGEBLP, even WP:FRINGE/PS, because what I read and understood, from my personal opinion, I find more than questionable the label of "pseudoscience" for his whole work rather than "alternative theoretical formulations" or "questionable science". We have, numerically, references 12, 13 and 14 related to the issue, and thus we should cite them properly to give to the public information for e.g. why and what caused such a reaction in a group of scientists. I would like first and foremost a discussion, if we agree with mine and yours proposition, an analysis of the sources, and only then to edit the article. --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- when (2015) — Earlier. In fact, in Russia Klyosov's "DNA-genealogy" became widely known in 2012-2013, when he participated in pseudohistoric film by M. Zadornov — "Rurik. Lost true story" (see ru:Рюрик. Потерянная быль) --Q Valda (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't understand - those remarks are about when the issue of debate and criticism about his work emerged among the Russian scientists.--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Russian scientists started their criticism right after the film, then debate was triggered by Klyosov's article "Our ancestors didn't came from Africa" published in 2013. --Q Valda (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You should have been more specific, you did not say that. Is there any reliable source about the 2013 debate?--JoyceWood (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I consider this article ("Militant dilettantism on a screen" in Troitsky Variant 2012-12-25) to be a start of debate. --Q Valda (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- In it, Klein roughly wrote "biochemist A. Klyosov, which, settling at Harvard, and considers himself an expert on DNA genealogy, but the international community of paleogenetics does not recognize his authority, his works are not referenced". Thus it could be cited, but there's no need as exist better RS which are already cited.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I consider this article ("Militant dilettantism on a screen" in Troitsky Variant 2012-12-25) to be a start of debate. --Q Valda (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- You should have been more specific, you did not say that. Is there any reliable source about the 2013 debate?--JoyceWood (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Russian scientists started their criticism right after the film, then debate was triggered by Klyosov's article "Our ancestors didn't came from Africa" published in 2013. --Q Valda (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't understand - those remarks are about when the issue of debate and criticism about his work emerged among the Russian scientists.--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- My issue is that I don't agree with the use of such a short sentence that his publications on genetic genealogy are simply pseudoscientific, thus not even in the category of controversial, but without any value of consideration, yet without explaining in which parts his scientifical approach, understanding, terminology, calculation is considered wrong by one group of Russian scientists. Also, like in mine edit on 30 December, it should be given context to his work in the specific field - what it caused (triggered a debate); when (2015); among whom (Russian scientists); who considered and labeled his work as erroneous as well pseudoscientific (a group of Russian scientists); what they considered erroneous or failed scientific standards and methods ([we need to read and cite it from the articles in the Russian language]) and so on. Current sentence "Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy" and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science"" for me it is badly formulated, against NPOV, WP:FRINGEBLP, even WP:FRINGE/PS, because what I read and understood, from my personal opinion, I find more than questionable the label of "pseudoscience" for his whole work rather than "alternative theoretical formulations" or "questionable science". We have, numerically, references 12, 13 and 14 related to the issue, and thus we should cite them properly to give to the public information for e.g. why and what caused such a reaction in a group of scientists. I would like first and foremost a discussion, if we agree with mine and yours proposition, an analysis of the sources, and only then to edit the article. --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you are not satisfied with this version, one possible solution would be to expand the section entitled "DNA genealogy". Here you should explain (based on independent publications in RS rather than in "predatory" journals) the following: (a) what exactly was so novel in the "DNA genealogy" by Klysov; (b) why exactly this theory has been described as pseudoscientific in a number of publications (those are Russian language sources and beyond my area of expertise). If there are any positive publications in 3rd party RS about this theory, (like here), they can be used per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- We say what reliable sources say. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. You also need to take a look at WP:FRINGE and understand that it is not against NPOV to call something what it is. And it is definitely not against NPOV to say what reliable sources say. --Majora (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I started the WP:BRD on edit by Q Valda. I opened this issue, I know what is the policy to edit Wikipedia, and while writing my reply you entered the discussion, and even reverted it saying "Status quo ante". How we know those publications are pseudoscientific? Where is the reference that each of those publications is pseudoscientific? Does such a title imply that all his articles, not only publications, are pseudoscientific? --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I quickly checked ru:Клёсов, Анатолий Алексеевич with some refs and "Web of Science" database. It appears that in addition to being an internationally recognized researcher in Enzymology and Biochemistry, Klysov also has cited publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal). Given that, I think describing him as an outright "pseudoscientist" in the area of human genetics would be incorrect and should be avoided, especially in light of WP:BLP. And I am a little suspicious about all involved strange accounts including JoyceWood and "Q Valda" ("sledgehammer" in Russian)... My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- please don't transliterate my name from latin to russian (and then again to latin), my infobox on ru.wiki asks the same ... thank you --Q Valda (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- what (exactly) was cited in his publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? by whom those citations? --Q Valda (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- 5 references by Klyosov cited in Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood (Human Genetics, 2009), 2 references cited in Afghanistan from a Y-chromosome perspective (EJHG, 2012), 1 reference in co-work The ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that isn’t: a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perry’s X-degenerate portion of the Y chromosome (EJHG, 2014), 1 reference in co-work Reply to Mendez et al: the ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that still isn’t (EJHG, 2015), 4 references in co-work Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration (Frontiers in Genetics, 2014).
- 3 references (the two article from 2012, and one from 2014 about "Out of Africa") as well chapter Clarifying the ‘African Eve’ concept are also included in the Archaic modernity vs the high priesthood: On the nature of unstable archaeological/palaeoanthropological orthodoxies (Rock Art Research, 2014).--JoyceWood (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't impose any censorship on the consideration by the group of Russian scientists, however, it should be mentioned in neutrally and well formed paragraph (see below), as you said, to not violate the WP:BLP. There exist sources by him, or others who used his sources as reference, in peer-reviwed publications, even Advances in Anthropology, and like mentioned below, which are seemingly alright, but also different from his controversial or pseudo-"DNA genealogy" publications. Like in the discussions e.g. "Not out of Africa", the next issue is to consider; a) are all sources by Klyosov, including those published in peer-reviewed publications, and Advances in Anthropology, unreliable due to label of pseudoscience b) are articles by Klyosov, reliable, but his publications unreliable c) are his articles published by Advances in Anthropology, which are again used as references in the listed sources, reliable d) are only his peer-reviewed articles, not including those in Advances in Anthropology, reliable?--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- articles in peer-reviewed journals are unreliable because of existing criticism (e.g. [2]), other publications on DNA-genealogy are unreliable for the same reason — not due to label but because of existing criticism --Q Valda (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- that is constructive criticism, every scientific study must have a critical review, and it does not include any conclusion that the articles by Klyosov should be considered completely unreliable (we don't even know if he used the same method in later articles), actually "Finally, regarding the detailed ‘‘haplotype trees’’ offered by the Comment, these are indeed interesting and can be very instructive". Such a simplified consideration is against that all sources before, or those after 2009, are completely unreliable if they are cited in reliable articles and peer-reviewed journals - by this criteria deduction we can consider that Chris Stringer's specific conclusion or source is unreliable when it agrees with conclusion and source by Robert G. Bednarik who cited several sources by Klyosov, source or conclusions by Jason Randall Thompson (latest listed above) is unreliable because it cited several sources and included a chapter by Klyosov. This kind of deduction is against RS policy.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- articles in peer-reviewed journals are unreliable because of existing criticism (e.g. [2]), other publications on DNA-genealogy are unreliable for the same reason — not due to label but because of existing criticism --Q Valda (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- what (exactly) was cited in his publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? by whom those citations? --Q Valda (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- please don't transliterate my name from latin to russian (and then again to latin), my infobox on ru.wiki asks the same ... thank you --Q Valda (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Analysis
As we can read at source "Problematical theories", his work is not labeled as pseudoscientific, rather "In January 2015, a group of leading Russian academics published a letter in the popular science magazine Troitskii Variant denouncing Anatole Klyosov’s “DNA demagoguery”". In the article signed by 24 scientists in Troitskii Variant [14], with bad translation, we read:
- "This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy"... Using ready-made database and pulling from an extensive toolkit of population geneticists Y-chromosome (occasionally mtDNA), it adds to one of the techniques of genetic dating of several formulas, usurps the term "DNA genealogy" and by exploiting all the growing interest in genetic reconstructions of the history of nations, announces all this "new science", and himself - the creator" - we see that the the term "DNA genealogy" is Genetic genealogy, not Chemical kinetics - but "Anatoly Klyosov, claiming that he created a new science that the formulas of chemical kinetics reconstructs the history of the peoples" - according to them he allegedly uses formulas of chemical kinetics in the study of genetic genealogy, even claims the credit for it, which logically other scientists find offensive, but I don't see where he uses those formulas, better to say, to me it seems like his or their spin due to his work and reputation in the biochemistry.
- "Eastern Slavs - the genus R1a1... Genetic the term "haplogroup" AA Klyosov replaces the social category of "race", putting in his biological sense... an attempt of biologization of social categories" - they criticize his rigid use of the linguistic and ethnological terms Slav, Aryans with the haplogrup R1a1 and vice versa.
- "These methods can refute anything, such as "out" man from Africa... In the writings of A. Klyosov the hypothesis that the Russian North - the ancestral home of Homo sapiens: "160 thousand years ago, people lived on the Russian plain, or in the north of the Russian Plain, and hence of his relatives had gone to the south, to Africa. Arriving there after a long migration of about 140-120 thousand years ago" - they criticize his opposition to the Recent African origin of modern humans theory, however his view on migration, dating and other things in the two or three sources mentioned at "Problematical theories" or African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis? (2013) are different from the web article they cited this quote, so this is questionable.
- "The creator of the "new science" demonstrates not only the pressure of an aggressive, but also an excellent ability to mimic academic standards, which sometimes leads to confusion not only viewers, but also scientists. For example, in an article for a scientific audience names geneticists M. Hammer, T. Karafet, L. Zhivotovsky listed among the forerunners of his "new science"... Mimicking in response to criticism... A skilful populist AA Klyosov produces the expected results for public consumption" - they criticize his linkage of geneticists with his "new science", and like stated above, to sometime contradicting and populistic conclusions or results.
- ""New Science", designed to "re-format representation of the past," not only denies the results of genetics and anthropology, and linguistics, and archeology... Language is imposed hard biological context: if two people have the same haplogroup, their languages are required to consist of kinship... According to the "new science", each ethnic group is associated with "their" main haplogroup... Harvard... priorities of DNA genealogy" - they again criticize his rigid, simplified, uncritical use and connections of the haplogroups with languages or ethnic groups, but which is nothing controversial per se, see Father Tongue hypothesis or Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA, Eupedia. They question his position at Harvard and other which hardly understand.
- "To sum up: the "new science" AA Klyosov de facto is not a scientific concept and can not therefore be the subject of scientific debate. This parascientific concept, unfortunately, is not harmless. Signs of language and culture is not transmitted as haplogroup or color, these are two different mechanisms. Phantoms AA Klyosov in which biological mixed with social - populist dangerous tool of management and hidden forces. Its packaging in fashionable pseudo-scientific layman shape flatters their accessibility and attract readers, the national political ambitions which does not satisfy the scientific world" - the 24 scientists are uniformic in considering his concept pseudoscientific, however, their statement that there's no connection between language and culture with haplogroups i.e. denying the biological (genetical) differences between human populations is stunning because it's the very opposite, implying that they resent his simplified populistic "packaging" and sometime erroneous understanding and conclusions.
In the Gene pool of Europe (2015):
- ""Pseudoscience" - a strong word, but DNA genealogy in the version promoted by AA Klesova deserves it fully... The discussion of pseudoscience would be probably no place in the scientific monograph, if AA Klesov not spread DNA genealogy as widely and aggressively in the Russian-speaking Internet, that many scientists who are not professional geneticists, necessarily acquainted with it... beyond simplification AA Klesova genetic data, methods and results... (1) faith in the infallibility of the "genealogical" mutation rate, and (2) in the infallibility of the age of the method of calculation of the share of the original haplotype (developed jointly with genetic genealogy Dmitry Adamov). During the years of independent activity, he (3) declared a "genealogical" speed of their personal invention, (4) was the age of the calculation of the instructions and look-up table (5) introduced an amendment to reverse mutations (6) called it the only true way of dating, and more that (7) of the new science, which has no relation to population genetics." - in short, they criticize his approach to the understanding of the facts about the genetic genealogy, and like above, its use as a doubtless method in the explaining and dating of migrations or specific events (in simplified, populistic, or very recent events, like Slavic migration). From these quotes, as could not translate very good the source by Klein [15], should be made a short and neutral (not implying no use of the label pseudoscientific in the paragraph) summary about his work related to genetic genealogy which sparked a debate and harsh criticism, for example a summary without much detail:
- "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology. His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience."--JoyceWood (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy"... — RS gave exactly this characterization. 1) Publishers are not scientific and "controversial" at least. 2) Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" is not the same as genetic genealogy. Some of his methods are not good and Klyosov incorrectly uses them in the fields of anthropology, history, lingvistics etc. /with bizarre results/ --Q Valda (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Read again - it is more than clear that the DNA genealogy is the same as genetic genealogy (This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy").--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course genetic genealogy is not pseudoscience, but Klyosov's "version" (or "new science') — is (as RS say) --Q Valda (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No one said that genetic genealogy is pseudoscience. A group of 24 scientists considered that Klyosov's approach/method showed in some of his publications make "DNA genealogy" (term they deliberately use to make it seem like his work is different from genetic genealogy, yet it is not) pseudoscience.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Klyosov himself often claims that his DNA genealogy is "new science" and not part of genetics (in fact, he holds antiscientist, particularly antigenetics position). Group of scientisits considered his whole concept (with claims in the fields of genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history and lingvistics) to be pseudoscientific. --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is part of genetics, what is considered by "DNA genealogy" is both genetic genealogy and "new science" i.e. multidisciplinary approach to population migrations. Sometime he is populistic in approach, but we cannot twist and oversimplify the facts. The case is complex, and your approach is not neutral at all. --JoyceWood (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- My approach? I just show some RS.
"It is part of genetics" — cite your sources, please --Q Valda (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)- Sincerely, I am starting to doubt your WP:GOODFAITH. You did not "just show some RS", you're trying to discuss by imposing a very narrow and specific POV and consideration about his complete work and the use of related sources on Wikipedia. There have been listed several sources in the discussion here, above and below, which showed more than enough that his work is part of genetics and about genetics, however the weight of each individual or group of sources is specific and thus cannot be put in the same basket.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that talk pages are for working on subject, not for speculations about editor's viewpoint or behavior. So I would like to repeat my asking — please cite RS that consider Klyosov's concept to be "part of genetics". --Q Valda (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I already did, do you understand or is your question just an act?--JoyceWood (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry, but I cannot find this quote. Help me please. --Q Valda (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- "This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy"", a simple read of any of his publications, and especially articles in journals. You dare to say that his articles published in European Journal of Human Genetics, Human Genetics (journal), Frontiers in Genetics, Rock Art Research are not about genetics i.e. genetic genealogy?--JoyceWood (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- [3] — Using existing databases and pulling Y-chromosome from an extensive toolbox of population genetics (sometimes mtDNA), he adds several formulas to one of the methods of genetic dating, usurps the term "DNA genealogy" and, exploiting the ever-increasing interest in genetic reconstructions of the history of peoples, he declares all this as a "new science" and himself as its creator --Q Valda (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- "This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy"", a simple read of any of his publications, and especially articles in journals. You dare to say that his articles published in European Journal of Human Genetics, Human Genetics (journal), Frontiers in Genetics, Rock Art Research are not about genetics i.e. genetic genealogy?--JoyceWood (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry, but I cannot find this quote. Help me please. --Q Valda (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I already did, do you understand or is your question just an act?--JoyceWood (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that talk pages are for working on subject, not for speculations about editor's viewpoint or behavior. So I would like to repeat my asking — please cite RS that consider Klyosov's concept to be "part of genetics". --Q Valda (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sincerely, I am starting to doubt your WP:GOODFAITH. You did not "just show some RS", you're trying to discuss by imposing a very narrow and specific POV and consideration about his complete work and the use of related sources on Wikipedia. There have been listed several sources in the discussion here, above and below, which showed more than enough that his work is part of genetics and about genetics, however the weight of each individual or group of sources is specific and thus cannot be put in the same basket.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- My approach? I just show some RS.
- It is part of genetics, what is considered by "DNA genealogy" is both genetic genealogy and "new science" i.e. multidisciplinary approach to population migrations. Sometime he is populistic in approach, but we cannot twist and oversimplify the facts. The case is complex, and your approach is not neutral at all. --JoyceWood (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Klyosov himself often claims that his DNA genealogy is "new science" and not part of genetics (in fact, he holds antiscientist, particularly antigenetics position). Group of scientisits considered his whole concept (with claims in the fields of genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history and lingvistics) to be pseudoscientific. --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No one said that genetic genealogy is pseudoscience. A group of 24 scientists considered that Klyosov's approach/method showed in some of his publications make "DNA genealogy" (term they deliberately use to make it seem like his work is different from genetic genealogy, yet it is not) pseudoscience.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course genetic genealogy is not pseudoscience, but Klyosov's "version" (or "new science') — is (as RS say) --Q Valda (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Read again - it is more than clear that the DNA genealogy is the same as genetic genealogy (This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy").--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, My very best wishes, firstly and finally we need to resolve this issue. If you're not familiar with the situation, the three discussions started with the discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" above by Q Valda after his revert of mine edit, because Q Valda does not consider Klyosov's work in genetic genealogy (or "DNA genealogy") to be genetic genealogy, despite the undisputable facts. Which summary without many details (later it can be disccused whether or not to include them) is better:
1) "Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy" and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science"."
2) "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology. His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience."
3) "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science". His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience." --JoyceWood (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry, but reliable sources do not allow to equal Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" and genetic genealogy.
1) First of all, author himself in his primary article about his concept (translated to English) published in scientific journal Biokhimiya/Biochemistry (2011) :
2) Leo Klejn (2013) Haplogroup R1a1 Was Aryan and Slavic? (in Russian)This paper describes a new scientific discipline that is progressively accumulating new experimental material... The name of this science is “DNA genealogy”.
3) Open letter of 24 russian scientistsKlyosov's "DNA genealogy" (as he prefers to call his science to distinguish it from the rest of population genetics) is really different from all the rest of science
4) Balanovsky's book Gene pool of Europe (2015)To sum up: the Klyosov's "new science" de facto is not a scientific concept and can not therefore be the subject of scientific debate
etc --Q Valda (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)"Pseudoscience" - a strong word, but DNA genealogy in the version promoted by A. A. Klyosov deserves it fully...
- Please stop ignoring the reality and facts - 1) "new scientific discipline" - "This paper presents the basis of DNA genealogy, a new field of science, which is currently emerging as an unusual blend of biochemistry, history, linguistics, and chemical kinetics... The goal of the analysis is to translate DNA mutation patterns into time spans to the most recent common ancestors of a given population or tribe and to the dating of ancient migration routes... Its experimental data are essentially patterns of mutations in the nonrecombinant part of the male Y chromosome and female mitochondrial DNA... In conclusion, the author wants to emphasize that he does not ascribe to himself a role of the pioneer in this new field of science... It should be noted in all fairness that DNA genealogy has descended from molecular biology, genetics, and population genetics, which was and is being developing by many specialists in the area", a simple look, not even a read, of the article is more than enough to conclude that it is nothing else but genetic genealogy. 2-3) there contradicting quotes about his work, so do you dare to consider [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] as not related to genetic genealogy, yet related to the "DNA genealogy"? 4) cherry-picking WP:SYNTH quote that is not about if "DNA genealogy" is genetic genealogy.
- Even if we make a conclusion that "DNA genealogy" is not genetic genealogy, yet a "multidisciplinary new science", it is partly and mostly related to genetic genealogy and thus it must be properly explained and linked to the specific article. The current statement is not neutral and well explained. We cannot leave the term "DNA genealogy" to open public (mis)understanding.--JoyceWood (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let we decipher this puzzle. According to RSs — 1) DNA genealogy and genetic genealogy both have equal meaning. 2) Klyosov's concept has the same name — "DNA genealogy", but is totally different. 3) In the words of geneticist Balanovsky [10] and of 24 scientists [11] term "DNA genealogy" is usurped by Klyosov and proclaimed a new science. 4) Despite of declared "new science" (author considers it is not part of genetics), many Klyosov's claims must be examined exactly in the field of genetics/genetic genealogy (some claims already were examined and found to be incorrect) 5) DNA genealogy (i.e. genetic genealogy) is not pseudoscience, but Klyosov's concept (with the same name) is pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
As according to recent edits, Q Valda, Jytdog, My very best wishes, the formulation of the "DNA genealogy" paragraph should be discussed here. I recently made an edit, which again was reverted, this time by Jytdog. The paragraph must be neutral and chronological to the context, and thus it cannot start with "books" (because they are not his only publications), "2010 and 2016" (because his complete work was not between these years), include quote "the idea that the human species originated in the Russian North and that the view that humans derived from Africa is an expression of Western political correctness" (because for its first, and most important part, does not correspond to his considerations in [12], [13], [14] which were cited in RS [15], and [16] which was cited in [17]). The terms "outlandish claims" and "erroneous methods" (mine edit) should be enough about the issues of his work in genetic genealogy, which are primarily explained in the RS by Balanovskaya and Balanovsky, and thus, for now, it should only have references to specific RS (in which the public can read about the issues), otherwise it is given too much notability if every issue is mentioned and explained, or if not every, then they are cherry-picked (or worse, even wrong) which makes the paragraph less neutral and credible. If the issues need to be mentioned, which would explain the act of Russian scientists and label of pseudoscience, it must be discussed which one. For now, I don't thik there's any need to expand the summary of paragraph due to reasons explained above.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- We follow reliable secondary sources. The foreign affairs article discusses books published between 2010 and the date of the article in 2016. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is an obvious implementation of WP:OWN and WP:BIAS for this article and talk, in which is not allowed and intentionally ignored neutrality and guideline to formulate a paragraph. In your revert and reply above did not provide a credible substantiation for such an action, because I did follow reliable secondary sources. As well, the foreign affairs (both in Russian and English), including uncited (2009), do not discuss only his book publications.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just following reliable secondary sources. If you have independent, reliable secondary sources that says he started publishing about DNA geneaology (not genetics generally) earlier than 2010, please cite them. Thanks. Also per WP:ELNEVER please stop posting links to copyright violations on this Talk page. I have redacted the one above and will remove the rest in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You totally ignored the main point of my comments. I cited you a secondary RS which shows that at least he worked on genetic geneaology earlier than 2010. Also according your most recent edit, you ignored the quote "his application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy" in the cited [18], by which is again ignored the issue of proper explaining of "DNA genealogy" and Klyosov's work. Why this intention to not mention genetic genealogy in the article? --JoyceWood (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be raising several issues at once. The dating and something about what "DNA genealogy" is or is not. Dealing with the second, if you actually read the genetic genealogy article you will see that this field is mostly about applying genetics to genealogy (people tracing their family trees and paternity and the like) - our article has a link to Population genetics - and that is the field, along with human evolutionary genetics, in which "DNA genealogy" makes pseudoscientific claims (per the reliable sources cited in the article); hence the links to those fields. Thanks for citing this source which discusses both of those. That ref doesn't seem to have any discussion about when K began publishing on "DNA genealogy". Do you see it there? Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You again diverge from the main points of my comment (formulation of the paragraph) as in my article edit I never raised an issue when Klyosov started to publish on "DNA genealogy". The matter of when (if we search on his website it seems to be around 2006) is not an issue because it is not even mentioned in the article. We cannot start and focus the paragraph with only his book publications on "DNA genealogy". The genetic genealogy goes beyond individual and family tree, it is concerned about phylogenetic analysis, and thus articles like [19] (2012) and [20] (2014), actually [21] (2009) and [22] (2009) which were published in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, which along [23] (2009) and uncited (2009), also factually show that he worked on genetic genealogy / "DNA genealogy" before 2010.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I now have no idea what you are after. You say it is not about when and then your whole post is about when. This isn't productive. If you want to propose an actual change, please do it here on the Talk page in a new section, and please cite reliable secondary sources when you do. I'll respond again only when you bring a concrete proposal to change content. Thanks. (if you haven't noticed, I am ignoring your citing of non-independent, primary sources, as this article needs to be driven by independent secondary sources. - please base content proposals on such sources, not on non-independent, primary sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The first comment in this sub-section is more than clear about what change of content I propose and thus I won't repeat myself and open another section. It is not my problem when another editor repeatedly does not listen and read what I write about. My whole post was not about when, the comments which followed were answer to an issue you started to discuss. We cannot ignore facts, as well [24] (2009) is not non-independent, primary source.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I now have no idea what you are after. You say it is not about when and then your whole post is about when. This isn't productive. If you want to propose an actual change, please do it here on the Talk page in a new section, and please cite reliable secondary sources when you do. I'll respond again only when you bring a concrete proposal to change content. Thanks. (if you haven't noticed, I am ignoring your citing of non-independent, primary sources, as this article needs to be driven by independent secondary sources. - please base content proposals on such sources, not on non-independent, primary sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You again diverge from the main points of my comment (formulation of the paragraph) as in my article edit I never raised an issue when Klyosov started to publish on "DNA genealogy". The matter of when (if we search on his website it seems to be around 2006) is not an issue because it is not even mentioned in the article. We cannot start and focus the paragraph with only his book publications on "DNA genealogy". The genetic genealogy goes beyond individual and family tree, it is concerned about phylogenetic analysis, and thus articles like [19] (2012) and [20] (2014), actually [21] (2009) and [22] (2009) which were published in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, which along [23] (2009) and uncited (2009), also factually show that he worked on genetic genealogy / "DNA genealogy" before 2010.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be raising several issues at once. The dating and something about what "DNA genealogy" is or is not. Dealing with the second, if you actually read the genetic genealogy article you will see that this field is mostly about applying genetics to genealogy (people tracing their family trees and paternity and the like) - our article has a link to Population genetics - and that is the field, along with human evolutionary genetics, in which "DNA genealogy" makes pseudoscientific claims (per the reliable sources cited in the article); hence the links to those fields. Thanks for citing this source which discusses both of those. That ref doesn't seem to have any discussion about when K began publishing on "DNA genealogy". Do you see it there? Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You totally ignored the main point of my comments. I cited you a secondary RS which shows that at least he worked on genetic geneaology earlier than 2010. Also according your most recent edit, you ignored the quote "his application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy" in the cited [18], by which is again ignored the issue of proper explaining of "DNA genealogy" and Klyosov's work. Why this intention to not mention genetic genealogy in the article? --JoyceWood (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just following reliable secondary sources. If you have independent, reliable secondary sources that says he started publishing about DNA geneaology (not genetics generally) earlier than 2010, please cite them. Thanks. Also per WP:ELNEVER please stop posting links to copyright violations on this Talk page. I have redacted the one above and will remove the rest in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is an obvious implementation of WP:OWN and WP:BIAS for this article and talk, in which is not allowed and intentionally ignored neutrality and guideline to formulate a paragraph. In your revert and reply above did not provide a credible substantiation for such an action, because I did follow reliable secondary sources. As well, the foreign affairs (both in Russian and English), including uncited (2009), do not discuss only his book publications.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok so this dif. The problem with that is you removed well-sourced content from a reliable, independent, secondary source. Your edit note wasn't accurate - you removed an actual quote so you cannot say it is not supported, and the source is very reliable. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I did not question the reliability of the source nor there is any need to mention it. As I already stated several times, especially in "Analysis", we cannot cherry-pick claims i.e. quotes with no reference in which publication he considered that claim (as well, is Maria Antonova a scientist we can rely upon the quote?), which very the same claim cited in the RS doesn't link to any of his books yet [25], more specifically not claims like this one which are contradicting to what he considered in other publications (which are cited in RS; listed above). The another problem with the claim is that it wrongly replaced previous sentence "In some of his writings on DNA genealogy Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory" supported by ref. It is enough to mention "outlandish claims" with related references, also, "erroneous methods" which are not mentioned in the current revision, but imporant as are the reason why some Russian genetics were against his "DNA genealogy", which again we don't need to cite any or each of them, because we give too much detail, weight and notability instead of chronologically and neutrally mentioning his activity. I propose to revert to my paragraph revision, replace population genetics with genetic genealogy, add the link to Human evolutionary genetics, and re-add the removed sentence about Out-Into Africa with its reference. Otherwise the paragraph has several issues already mentioned above.--JoyceWood (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing you wrote has relevance in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, then we are going to WP:DISPUTE i.e. WP:DRN. Before that, I will wait for other editors opinion. We can ask for WP:DRR/3.--JoyceWood (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have read your comments several times, and I honestly cannot follow them. I think there is perhaps a language issue? In addition they are not based on WP's policies and guidelines nor on reliable secondary sources. Finally, it seems that there are many issues you are raising, beyond the one change in your diff and the additional changes you just mentioned, and it is unclear to me (and likely will be to anyone trying to understand you) exactly how this article should look, in your view. Would you please take some time and provide a version of this article that you would find acceptable? I copied the whole article into a sandbox in your userspace, User:JoyceWood/sandbox. Please work that over so that you are happy with it, and let me know when it is done. Again, please make sure content you add is sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources for the key issues. How about that? If you don't want to do that, let me know and I will have that sandbox deleted. Jytdog (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog Thank you for opening the sandbox, I hope it will help. See [26] for the content change and revision I proposed above.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Better to avoid the wording "considered pseudoscience" and to prefer "is pseudoscience" instead, I think --Q Valda (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- is that it? That change and you are fine with everything else? Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Due to recent edits by Q Valda, mine revision would be this. I don't understand what you mean by "everything else", in this section we are discussing the formulation of the paragraph, and don't see what else should be changed. I would prefer "considered pseudoscience" because there is an exact group of 24 Russian scientists as well their opinion was published relatively recently in 2015. It gives neutrality to the paragraph, and not to mention the issue, which was several times mentioned, if his complete work in the field can be considered of pseudoscientifical value.--JoyceWood (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- is that it? That change and you are fine with everything else? Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Better to avoid the wording "considered pseudoscience" and to prefer "is pseudoscience" instead, I think --Q Valda (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog Thank you for opening the sandbox, I hope it will help. See [26] for the content change and revision I proposed above.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have read your comments several times, and I honestly cannot follow them. I think there is perhaps a language issue? In addition they are not based on WP's policies and guidelines nor on reliable secondary sources. Finally, it seems that there are many issues you are raising, beyond the one change in your diff and the additional changes you just mentioned, and it is unclear to me (and likely will be to anyone trying to understand you) exactly how this article should look, in your view. Would you please take some time and provide a version of this article that you would find acceptable? I copied the whole article into a sandbox in your userspace, User:JoyceWood/sandbox. Please work that over so that you are happy with it, and let me know when it is done. Again, please make sure content you add is sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources for the key issues. How about that? If you don't want to do that, let me know and I will have that sandbox deleted. Jytdog (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, then we are going to WP:DISPUTE i.e. WP:DRN. Before that, I will wait for other editors opinion. We can ask for WP:DRR/3.--JoyceWood (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing you wrote has relevance in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Follow WP:BLP please
I quickly looked at some publications and think that
- Dr. Klysov is a well known mainstream scientist. 95% of his publications were in the areas in Enzymology and Biochemistry and highly cited.
- Dr. Klysov did not make significant scientific contributions in the area of human genetics. The lack of notability in this area is indicated by the relatively low level of citation of his works in this area' in English language sources. That does not make him a pseudocientist. To the contrary, he made publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal), that are main stream peer-reviewed publications, not a "predatory publishing".
- Dr. Klysov apparently support certain controversial (possibly fringe) ideas on the origin of Slavs, which led to significant controversy in Russian language sources and trading mutual accusations. As an example of a similar controversy, one might consider Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry that received a lot more coverage. Should people who support that theory be described as "pseudoscientists"? I doubt because very same people had many publications in mainstream journals, just like Klysov. It seems that the entire subject area about origin of ethnic groups based on their genetics is controversial, but this is not pseudoscience.
Hence, I do not think that word "pseudoscience" should appear anywhere on this page. It seems that user "Sledgehammer" (Q Valda) is a little too biased. If no one but "Sledgehammer" objects, I can quickly fix the potential BLP problem here.My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to ask again not to transliterate my name, please --Q Valda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think "pseudoscience" is my problem here, or it is something specifically russian — just not many scientists in the whole world can support "Into Africa" theory or "protoslavs" as ancestors of all modern humans or many other Klyosov's bizarre claims ... so please don't try to counterpose your opinion to those of russian scientists, all we need is another RS which examines Klyosov's theory and says it is scientific --Q Valda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a few RS by scientists in English that explicitly tell "work by Klysov in such and such areas was a pseudoscience"? I can not assess reliability of Russian language sources you are talking about, such as [27], [28], but the titles of these sources sound like attack pages ("Dangerous demagogy of ..."). This whole subject area is full of political bullshit, as exemplified by the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. Did anyone of these people published anything criticizing Klysov in journals like European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? And if they did not published anything criticizing Klysov in such journals, maybe that's because their criticism was bullshit? Being non-expert, I can not (and not suppose to) independently assess it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do not understand how much I have to emphasize that we cannot simplify and label all his articles and publications with the same criticism, or even pseudoscience. For example the sources [29] and [30] (2012), and [31] (2014) used in reliable sources listed above (see discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy") do not provide any "Into Africa" theory like Q Valda or [32] claim, have different consideration from the third note at "Analysis" which criticized those 24 scientists, as they re-consider and re-examin the current claims of the "Out of Africa" theory, there is nothing bizzare. If they are bizzare are also the reliable sources and considerations in which are used bizzare and unreliable - no they are not. Klyosov stated some controversial claims, but not in articles like these or those published in other peer-reviewed journals. If we are going judge and dismiss the complete work by some scientist because of some bizzare claims, even political correctness, it is foolish.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- We allow foreign language sources. The other issue that I don't think we can ignore is his self-publishing. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, we allow foreign language sources. Yes, let's ignore everything self-published, published in "predatory journals" and other questionable sources, exactly as WP:BLP requires. However, these particular Russian language sources (those criticizing Klysov and currently used on the page) look to me exactly as poor quality and possibly self-published sources that should not be used on BLP pages. Perhaps
SledgehammerQ Valda should post them on RSNB, but I am not sure that too many people can assess their reliability. At the very least, those are "advocacy sources" that should best be avoided.My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, we allow foreign language sources. Yes, let's ignore everything self-published, published in "predatory journals" and other questionable sources, exactly as WP:BLP requires. However, these particular Russian language sources (those criticizing Klysov and currently used on the page) look to me exactly as poor quality and possibly self-published sources that should not be used on BLP pages. Perhaps
- We allow foreign language sources. The other issue that I don't think we can ignore is his self-publishing. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Haven't you read this talk page? I don't think we should ignore the fact that his "organisations" etc are self-published. In other words, he can't get the material published via lulu.com in academic journals, even though he can get other material published respectably. We can probably find a way to assess Russian language sources. Please strike through your use of a nickname you created for an editor after you were asked not to do it. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure how organizations can be "self-published", but I simply think we should not use self-published or other non-reliable sources in BLP pages, exactly as the policy requires. I would like to emphasize that Klysov has a number of his own publications in mainstream scientific journals (this is not self-published), even on human genetics, however, what we need here are high quality 3rd party sources about the person, and I do not think that these particular advocacy/attack publications in Russian qualify as such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- For example, this source criticizes genetic research by Klysov. Is it an RS? I am not so sure because it can be easily dismissed as an "opinion piece" or polemics. But OK, let's consider it RS. However, it does not call Klysov "pseudoscientist" anywhere. There is a significant bar for calling someone a "pseudoscientist" in Western culture (and English WP). No so in Russian culture. Just another important reason to request English language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Calling him a pseudoscientist and saying that others have called specific work of his pseudoscientific are not quite the same thing. The article mentions his self-published organisations, " Between 2007 and 2010 it was the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy and in 2010 it identified itself as international and was renamed as the Academy of DNA Genealogy (Boston, Moscow, Tsukuba). Klyosov self-publishes its proceedings through Lulu.com" Doug Weller talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- That source does not call his work "pseudo-scientific". Person X self-published something. Is it bad? No, this can be anything. Should this be noted on BLP page? Yes, if this is something significant as reflected in multiple publications in secondary RS about this author. My impression is that he simply did not do anything significant in human genetics based on low quotation of his articles in this subject area in scientific international citation databases (Russian language sources by his critics do not count because they are NOT included in the scientific databases - yet another reason not count them as RS). My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Calling him a pseudoscientist and saying that others have called specific work of his pseudoscientific are not quite the same thing. The article mentions his self-published organisations, " Between 2007 and 2010 it was the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy and in 2010 it identified itself as international and was renamed as the Academy of DNA Genealogy (Boston, Moscow, Tsukuba). Klyosov self-publishes its proceedings through Lulu.com" Doug Weller talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Haven't you read this talk page? I don't think we should ignore the fact that his "organisations" etc are self-published. In other words, he can't get the material published via lulu.com in academic journals, even though he can get other material published respectably. We can probably find a way to assess Russian language sources. Please strike through your use of a nickname you created for an editor after you were asked not to do it. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a few RS by scientists in English that explicitly tell "work by Klysov in such and such areas was a pseudoscience"? — unfortunately I don't know English language sources that examine Klyosov's concept in depth. --Q Valda (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC) And, of course, scientists not often work in area of Science studies (where study of scientific status of theories belong). Moreover, something about pseudoscience rarely published in scientific sources at all — not many people want to deal with bizarre claims like with valid scientific concepts. --Q Valda (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can not assess reliability of Russian language sources you are talking about —
1) [33] contains fragments from Balanovsky's scientific book Gene pool of Europe (2015) (published by KMK Scientific Press)
2) [34] from the bulletin "In defense of science" (ru:В защиту науки) published by the Commission on pseudoscience within Presidium of Russian Academy of Science (ru:Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований).--Q Valda (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think #1 (the book by Balanovsky in Russian) does qualify as RS, and it calls his work "pseudoscientific"; #2 - I am not sure, reads like propaganda. Is that enough to label whole his work in this area as "pseudoscience" rather than a controversial or disputed research? I do not understand why it would be so important to label his work in this area as pseudoscience on this page. But whatever. This is just my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- #2 — RAS commission's bulletin "In defense of science" is aimed to convey scientific views (on some pseudoscientific concepts) to general public. --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Doug Weller said that you are also active on ruwiki, so I checked. It appears that Balanovsky does not have very clear definition of "pseudoscience", even according to you [35]. In addition, there is a discussion about this on Fringe theories Noticeboard, and according to one of participants, you are actually affiliated with this organization, "In defense of science" [36]. Is that true? My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- "In defence of science" is not an organization, it is the bulletin published by commision of RAS Presidium. I'm not affiliated with it, but consider it as a good skeptical source with many top class scientists participating. --Q Valda (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Doug Weller said that you are also active on ruwiki, so I checked. It appears that Balanovsky does not have very clear definition of "pseudoscience", even according to you [35]. In addition, there is a discussion about this on Fringe theories Noticeboard, and according to one of participants, you are actually affiliated with this organization, "In defense of science" [36]. Is that true? My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- #2 — RAS commission's bulletin "In defense of science" is aimed to convey scientific views (on some pseudoscientific concepts) to general public. --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think #1 (the book by Balanovsky in Russian) does qualify as RS, and it calls his work "pseudoscientific"; #2 - I am not sure, reads like propaganda. Is that enough to label whole his work in this area as "pseudoscience" rather than a controversial or disputed research? I do not understand why it would be so important to label his work in this area as pseudoscience on this page. But whatever. This is just my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- As already stated, there is no issue with the reliability of the sources, the main issue of the description of his work in genetic genealogy is the cherry picking - if we are going to take such an uneutral and oversimplified POV to label all his work as pseudoscientific and unreliable.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- JoyceWood I am going to ask you to stop using this page to make assertions. We determine WEIGHT - including what is FRINGE - by looking at independent, secondary or tertiary reliable sources. Please cite three such sources that discuss Klysov's "proto-slav" or "into africa" hypotheses at all. I have looked at the recent literature (PMID 27127403, PMID 26267436, PMID 25168683, PMID 24492235, and PMID 21850041) and he and his views are not mentioned in any of them. That makes his views on human population genetics a) not mainstream; b) not a minority opinion, but rather c) simply FRINGE pseudoscience. Again, future postings by you that do not cite the kind of sources mentioned above, will be removed per WP:SOAPBOX. Please also see your talk page with regard to discretionary sanctions. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog are you aware that you made a personal attack on me with accusation that I did not cite sources, for a POV I did not make, and only showed that you actually did not bother to even read what I posted in discussions above. I know more then well how Wikipedia is edited, and I am not here to make unsubstantiated assertions. I did not write a thing about Klysov's "proto-slav" or "into Africa" hypotheses (see "Analysis") which are more than populistic considerations in his publications, but different from the considerations in the articles which are cited in several reliable recent sources by reliable scholars (see discussions above). Next time before you make a reply and accuse someone for something please read the discussions.--JoyceWood (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course he is not mentioned in these reviews as someone not notable in the field. In fact, he published very few papers in the area on human genetics. But it does not make his publications in mainstream journals (see above) pseudoscience, unless there are multiple secondary RS telling that his work in this area was indeed "pseudoscience". My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can see he has not published his views in mainstream journals. Predatory publishers are not mainstream. Please do read the WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI portions of NPOV - his views on this topic are far, far outside the mainstream. They are not even minority opinions. Again if you can cite me any review published in an actual mainstream journal that is independent of him and cites him you will have a leg to stand on. (btw Linus Pauling won 2 nobel prizes but went completely FRINGE about vitamin C megadoses; doing world-beating science in one area is no guarantee that someone is not a loon in others) About sourcing the "pseudoscience" designation, do see WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog They are already cited in the "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" discussion above.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytog. His work was cited in this paper in Nature Genetics, for example, according to citation index database. See also my comments above. Do you think that European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal) are "predatory"? No, they are not. His refs? This is easy: The 'extremely ancient' chromosome that isn't: a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perry's X-degenerate portion of the Y chromosome By:Elhaik, E (Elhaik, Eran)[ 1,2 ] ; Tatarinova, TV (Tatarinova, Tatiana V.)[ 3,4 ] ; Klyosov, AA (Klyosov, Anatole A.)[ 5 ] ; Graur, D (Graur, Dan)[ 6 ] EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS Volume: 22 Issue: 9 Pages: 1111-1116 - cited 9 times including two papers in Nature; or Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood By:Klyosov, AA (Klyosov, Anatole Alex) HUMAN GENETICS Volume: 126 Issue: 5 Pages: 719-724 - cited 3 times including paper in Genome Biology and Evolution. That does not make him notable in this field of course. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. Just noticed this source. OK. Whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The paper citied in Nature Genetics is the the one you note above about "investigation" - it is PMID 24448544. Here is what the Nature Genetics paper says that cites it: "One important application of the MSY mutation rate is for estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA). Recent studies have provided conflicting estimates of the mutation rate (11-13) and the TMRCA for all Y chromosomes in humans (17-19)." PMID 24448544 in reference 18. PMID 24448544 (per its title) is a whole paper (!) that remarably, argues with the TMRCA for the Y chromosome used in reference 19. He is fourth author on that paper. whoopee. The other "paper" is also just a comment on another paper that has actual work in it, and this time was appropriately classified that way - see PMID 19813025. When we talk about "his work" we are not talking about his comments on other people's work. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- In addition, I just noticed that the first author in this publication, Elhaik, is actually the one who promotes the questionable Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry mentioned by me above. Surprise! My very best wishes (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- It should be noted that he is doing genetic research and those sources are reliable, only that his conclusions did receive not much different criticism. @My very best wishes, [37] the use of the word "pseudoscience" was needless to discuss, we should concentrate on the formulation of the article's sentence (see bottom of "Analysis"), and later the issue on "reliable" sources (articles, not publications) and their review. @Jytdog, can you read the cited sources in the discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" above (to not copy-paste them again) and give your opinion?--JoyceWood (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- We now have three secondary sources in this thread that describe at least some part of his work in this area as pseudoscience. His other work in this area apparently was not pseudoscience because he has several publications in good peer-reviewed journals and they were quoted in other good journals, including "Nature". However, the overall level citation is low, so he is not notable in this field. As non-expert, this is all I can tell. I would therefore suggest to reduce the weight of "DNA genealogy" section and soften the language (telling "fringe" would be OK to me). Based on the scientific literature, there is no such thing as "DNA genealogy by Klysov" in science. At the very least, this is something hardly notable. But it still must be mentioned on the page because there are secondary sources about it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- It should be noted that he is doing genetic research and those sources are reliable, only that his conclusions did receive not much different criticism. @My very best wishes, [37] the use of the word "pseudoscience" was needless to discuss, we should concentrate on the formulation of the article's sentence (see bottom of "Analysis"), and later the issue on "reliable" sources (articles, not publications) and their review. @Jytdog, can you read the cited sources in the discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" above (to not copy-paste them again) and give your opinion?--JoyceWood (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- In addition, I just noticed that the first author in this publication, Elhaik, is actually the one who promotes the questionable Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry mentioned by me above. Surprise! My very best wishes (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The paper citied in Nature Genetics is the the one you note above about "investigation" - it is PMID 24448544. Here is what the Nature Genetics paper says that cites it: "One important application of the MSY mutation rate is for estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA). Recent studies have provided conflicting estimates of the mutation rate (11-13) and the TMRCA for all Y chromosomes in humans (17-19)." PMID 24448544 in reference 18. PMID 24448544 (per its title) is a whole paper (!) that remarably, argues with the TMRCA for the Y chromosome used in reference 19. He is fourth author on that paper. whoopee. The other "paper" is also just a comment on another paper that has actual work in it, and this time was appropriately classified that way - see PMID 19813025. When we talk about "his work" we are not talking about his comments on other people's work. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can see he has not published his views in mainstream journals. Predatory publishers are not mainstream. Please do read the WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI portions of NPOV - his views on this topic are far, far outside the mainstream. They are not even minority opinions. Again if you can cite me any review published in an actual mainstream journal that is independent of him and cites him you will have a leg to stand on. (btw Linus Pauling won 2 nobel prizes but went completely FRINGE about vitamin C megadoses; doing world-beating science in one area is no guarantee that someone is not a loon in others) About sourcing the "pseudoscience" designation, do see WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course he is not mentioned in these reviews as someone not notable in the field. In fact, he published very few papers in the area on human genetics. But it does not make his publications in mainstream journals (see above) pseudoscience, unless there are multiple secondary RS telling that his work in this area was indeed "pseudoscience". My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog are you aware that you made a personal attack on me with accusation that I did not cite sources, for a POV I did not make, and only showed that you actually did not bother to even read what I posted in discussions above. I know more then well how Wikipedia is edited, and I am not here to make unsubstantiated assertions. I did not write a thing about Klysov's "proto-slav" or "into Africa" hypotheses (see "Analysis") which are more than populistic considerations in his publications, but different from the considerations in the articles which are cited in several reliable recent sources by reliable scholars (see discussions above). Next time before you make a reply and accuse someone for something please read the discussions.--JoyceWood (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- JoyceWood I am going to ask you to stop using this page to make assertions. We determine WEIGHT - including what is FRINGE - by looking at independent, secondary or tertiary reliable sources. Please cite three such sources that discuss Klysov's "proto-slav" or "into africa" hypotheses at all. I have looked at the recent literature (PMID 27127403, PMID 26267436, PMID 25168683, PMID 24492235, and PMID 21850041) and he and his views are not mentioned in any of them. That makes his views on human population genetics a) not mainstream; b) not a minority opinion, but rather c) simply FRINGE pseudoscience. Again, future postings by you that do not cite the kind of sources mentioned above, will be removed per WP:SOAPBOX. Please also see your talk page with regard to discretionary sanctions. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Mass resignation — 2
Info about mass resignation from AA journal was here since 2014 — [38]. Seems like for a long time this was the consensus version. Even after repetitive removing in 2016 by My very best wishes [39] [40] [41], and after our early discussion here on talk page, this notable thing was returned by another editor [42]. So I would like to ask My very best wishes not to remove this again without clear permission from other editors. --Q Valda (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest a very simple solution: let's remove all contentious content from this page that was sourced to primary and unreliable sources, including self-publications on Lulu and personal claims published in predatory journals, such as "Advances in anthropology", etc. That is what WP:BLP explicitly requires. How about that? My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just did it. Keep in mind that lab website was also an unreliable source. Do not restore poorly sourced contentious materials on a BLP page. If you have any good secondary sources to support these claims, please post them here, just like you did in section above. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- UCL, Molecular and Cultural Evolution Lab — why this website is unreliable? --Q Valda (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- what do you think about scholarlyoa.com? --Q Valda (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, UCL is just a laboratory web site, without any editorial control. This is not an RS for contentious BLP claims. http://scholarlyoa.net is an openly advocacy organization and therefore not a good source. I think something like WorldNetDaily is actually a lot more notable and reliable than scholarlyoa.net, except that it has a different "target" of advocacy. It is also important that relevance of the resignation on this page and repeating qualifiers for Scientific Research Publishing on this page clearly shows your POV. Now, speaking about sources discussed in previous thread, they can also be challenged (an opinion piece by a journalist about science, misleading terminology by Balanovsky: "antiscience", "parascience", "pseudoscience", etc.). However, if Jytog and others agree with your edits and believe there is no COI problem despite of this, I could not care less. I said my opinion. This is now your and their responsibility. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- But OK, you can keep these questionable sources if you wish. Perhaps it is enough to rephrase it [43]. We tell everything you want here, "pseudoscience", his version of "out of Africa", and self-publishing on Lulu. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- what do you think about scholarlyoa.com? --Q Valda (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- UCL, Molecular and Cultural Evolution Lab — why this website is unreliable? --Q Valda (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- For example, that edit by Jytog was just fine. This is well sourced - no objections. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just did it. Keep in mind that lab website was also an unreliable source. Do not restore poorly sourced contentious materials on a BLP page. If you have any good secondary sources to support these claims, please post them here, just like you did in section above. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- been trying to make sense out of his story. i think the current version gets us there. He seemed to be a pretty innovative/ambitious guy (most immigrants are) and he did good science and participated in the biotech revolution..... up until 2010 when he got into this nationalistic (i mean that in the bad sense) DNA geneaology thing. the next year his company started easing him out of a management role. weird that they still keep him on their SAB. i wonder what in the world made him go south. sad. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have three problems with this version:
- Including POV qualifiers for Lulu and Scientific Research Publishing on this page ("a vanity press" and "a predatory open access publisher, after a mass resignation of editors from the journal"). This is generally not recommended because we already have pages about these publishing organizations where reader can find all info in more detail. For example, naming someone as Stalinist Yuri Zhukov instead of simply Yuri Zhukov is a variety of POV-pushing common on political pages (yes, Zhukov was indeed described as a Stalinist in many sources, but that can be bound on his page). In addition, these qualifiers simplify the situation and therefore are disputable. For example, self-published materials are not necessarily bad or a "vanity press". Yes, they are not RS for WP.
- The expression "patriotic science". Did it come from the opinion piece about science by a journalist no one knows about? So, unless this Maria Antonova is an expert in science or at least a highly notable journalist, I think that giving such significant weight to her opinion was undue.
- I think that some info included by Q Valda (according to Klyosov, his new discipline was aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics into genetics) was actually good, correctly reflects claims by Klyosov, and should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Klyosov invented term "scientific patriotism" in 2015 [44] during discussion after publication of 24 scientists in Troitskiy Variant. Initially it was just the opposition to the "Norman theory" (before this he wrote book "The Origin of Slavs. DNA Genealogy Against the 'Norman Theory'" in 2013, and participated in "antinormanist" film by M. Zadornov in 2012). Then some of critics equated his "DNA genealogy" and "scientific patriotism", e.g. geneticist E.Balanovskaya [45] [46], historians Klejn and Gubarev [47].--Q Valda (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- point 1: we differ - i think those are reasonable descriptions. we can source them if you like. point 2: the "patriotic science" thing is a quote from Klyosov so it is unclear why the journalist matters. point 3: our practice is not to source descriptions of FRINGE stuff from primary sources from the FRINGE people.Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- point 1 - I think this is wrong, but I am leaving this to you; point 2 - the "patriotic science" is nonsense, there is no such thing, but OK; point 3 - no, that was in secondary sources about Klyosov if I understand correctly, was not it, Q Valda? My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- point 3 — My very best wishes is right, it is from secondary sources independent of Klyosov. --Q Valda (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- point 1 - I think this is wrong, but I am leaving this to you; point 2 - the "patriotic science" is nonsense, there is no such thing, but OK; point 3 - no, that was in secondary sources about Klyosov if I understand correctly, was not it, Q Valda? My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- point 1: we differ - i think those are reasonable descriptions. we can source them if you like. point 2: the "patriotic science" thing is a quote from Klyosov so it is unclear why the journalist matters. point 3: our practice is not to source descriptions of FRINGE stuff from primary sources from the FRINGE people.Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok i took out the characterizations of Lulu and the journal. i agree btw that "patriotic science" is kooky but he said it, which just goes to show how off the rails he has gone with this DNA geneaology stuff. you were correct, the characterization of DNA geneaology was from an independent source and I have restored it. are we good enough now? Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jytdog, for improving this page! My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a yes! Thanks for the vigorous but always civil dialogue. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I included date of birth and the fact that he worked most of his life in the field of enzymology (actually, I studied it by his book, although it was mostly written by another author, Berezin). Welcome to fix though. I am tired and will rather do something else. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a yes! Thanks for the vigorous but always civil dialogue. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jytdog, for improving this page! My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok i took out the characterizations of Lulu and the journal. i agree btw that "patriotic science" is kooky but he said it, which just goes to show how off the rails he has gone with this DNA geneaology stuff. you were correct, the characterization of DNA geneaology was from an independent source and I have restored it. are we good enough now? Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Pseudoscientific publications
I would like to note that cannot agree with removing [48] such section. At least few notable pseudoscientific publications may be retained, e.g. book "Origin of Man". In current version — section Books in Russian contain scientific books like "Enzyme Catalysis", and publicism with pseudoscientific ideas "Who is Against DNA Genealogy?" --Q Valda (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest we do it like this. The distinction is clear, and most rigorously we would need a source calling each of those books pseudoscience to use that header. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. 1) Origin of men (Klyosov & Tyuniayev) was defined as pseudoscientific e.g. in article of historian A. Chubur [49] — Stone Age of Eastern Europe in the Distorting Mirror of Russian Pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Undefined Klyosov's 10 books were mentioned [50] as "link between nationalism and pseudoscience" in Russia, author was named among other pseudoscientists. --Q Valda (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- 2) In open letter of 24 scientists [51] following books defined as pseudoscience: Origin of men (Klyosov & Tyuniayev, 2010), Origin of Slavs. DNA Genealogy Against the "Norman Theory" (Klyosov, 2013), The Aryan Peoples in the Vastness of Eurasia (Klyosov & Penzev, 2015) --Q Valda (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
publications are "pseudoscience with respect to population genetics"
These books and related journal publications are pseudoscience with respect to population genetics — not only to population genetics, and not only these books and journal publications. They are pseudoscience also in relation to anthropology, archaelogy, history and linguistics, 24 russian scientists [52] are from those areas. Klyosov is also very active in Russian Internet, his pseudoscientific column — http://pereformat.ru/klyosov/ --Q Valda (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think this should be described by telling: (a) that according to Klyosov, his new discipline was aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics into genetics, and (b) that all of that (his "DNA genealogy") was criticized as pseudoscience, i.e. as it was in my version. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- b) it IS pseudoscience, criticized by specialists in genetics, anthropology, archaelogy, history and linguistics --Q Valda (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I do not think that everything he published in the area of human genetics was pseudoscience simply because some of this work was published in good peer reviewed (non-predatory) journals and later cited in Nature Genetics and other good journals (see above). This is one of problems in the version your made: it creates impression that everything he did in this area was in fact pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- b) it IS pseudoscience, criticized by specialists in genetics, anthropology, archaelogy, history and linguistics --Q Valda (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
biographical detail in lead
I removed that stuff in bits in this diff and this diff and revised the remainder in this diff, summarizing the sourced content in the body of the article. We have no sources for his citizenship, where he was born, his birthdate, or the exact year he immigrated. The content I wrote about when he immigrated is vague on purpose (sometime after Gorbachev came to power .... late 80s or 1990 apparently). Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)