No edit summary |
|||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
I personally find ZD's article a bit extreme in his conclusions, but also I find that he makes some criticisms of the mainstream which are valid and worth mentioning. (Which is what I tried to do when his article first came up for debate.) Population genetics is a small field and so a majority opinion might mean just a few scholars. So we should be careful about labeling any dissenters as whacky fringe authors. Anyway, the main point is that you all need to listen to each other's real concerns and try to find a way to cover the concerns of others.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
I personally find ZD's article a bit extreme in his conclusions, but also I find that he makes some criticisms of the mainstream which are valid and worth mentioning. (Which is what I tried to do when his article first came up for debate.) Population genetics is a small field and so a majority opinion might mean just a few scholars. So we should be careful about labeling any dissenters as whacky fringe authors. Anyway, the main point is that you all need to listen to each other's real concerns and try to find a way to cover the concerns of others.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: I agree with Andrew, he is one of the main contributor to this article. Although we had occasionally some disputes we managed to overcome them quickly. The only thing I would like to add, is that we are having now 20+ (X, Y, Autosomes) genetic studies related to this question, which is not small number and it makes Jews the most genetically studied population.--[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
:: I agree with Andrew, he is one of the main contributor to this article. Although we had occasionally some disputes we managed to overcome them quickly. The only thing I would like to add, is that we are having now 20+ (X, Y, Autosomes) genetic studies related to this question, which is not small number and it makes Jews the most genetically studied population.--[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
Zoosmann-Diskin is in no way "extreme in his conclusions", he only disagrees with someone like Ostrer on whether the different Jewish populations (putting aside Ethiopian and Indian Jews, which everyone agrees are closer to the other non-Jewish native populations of [[Ethiopia]] and [[India]] respectively) originally came from the Near East or not. Even someone like Ostrer himself notes the obvious admixture and clear contribution of, at the very minimum, southern European (Greco-Roman) converts to Judaism (which also gels on that point with what Elhaik, Zoossmann-Diskin, Shlomo Sand as a historian, and pretty much everyone else agrees to some extent on); Ostrer stated (which I added to this article to make it more balanced) "'''Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair'''"). Zoossmann-Diskin's conclusion is just that in regards to the Eastern European Jews/Ashkenazis that they are not just admixed but descend primarily from proselytes in Italy/Rome [http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/57] "'''All these Jews are likely the descendents of proselytes. Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society [10-13].'''" And as for Zoossmann-Diskin in relation to other researchers like say Atzmon and Behar, they clearly have disagreements (as anyone who looks at Zossmann-Diskin's "Comments on Previous Studies" section can quickly note) articles should simply include both sides conclusions and leave it at that. Someone like "Tritomex" trying to bring up strange "23 vs. 1" assertions are quite meaningless especially in view of Zoossmann-Diskin (and '''Zoossmann-Diskin et al.''') noting, in published studies, what he and his team say are the flaws of these past studies. That is the whole core premise of Zossmann-Diskin et al.'s study published here again [http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03014460110058971]. |
|||
As for the study of Dr. Elhaik, it is the '''newest study''' on the topic of the Khazar hypothesis and needs to be included in anything that mentions the Khazar hypothesis and statements '''for''' [http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/12/14/gbe.evs119.full.pdf][http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/11/more-on-jews-and-khazars.html][http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2003-10/1065051661] and against it (or how large of an imprint the Khazars made on modern Jews, which Elhaik argues is larger then previously admitted). In fact Elhaik notes in response to reviewer's at his academic site [http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/] in regards to the Rhineland versus the Khazarian hypotheses: "'''The two hypotheses tested here were selected because they are the two most dominant hypotheses both from historical and genetic perspective. As indicated in our manuscript, the biggest challenge of any hypothesis is to explain the population expansion of Eastern European Jews.'''" It is previously this point that Elhaik: |
|||
"A major difficulty with the Rhineland Hypothesis, in addition to the lack of historical and anthropological evidence to the multi-migration waves from Palestine to Europe (Straten 2003; Sand 2009), is to explain the vast population expansion of Eastern European Jews from 50 thousand (15th century) to 8 million (20th century). The annual growth rate that accounts for this population expansion was estimated at 1.7-2%, one order of magnitude larger than that of Eastern European non-Jews in the 15th-17th centuries, prior to the industrial revolution (Straten 2007). '''This growth could not possibly be the product of natural population expansion, particularly one subjected to severe economic restrictions, slavery, assimilation, the Black Death and other plagues, forced and voluntary conversions, persecutions, kidnappings, rapes, exiles, wars, massacres, and pogroms (Koestler 1976; Straten 2003; Sand 2009).''' Because such an unnatural growth rate, over half a millennia and affecting only Jews residing in Eastern Europe, is implausible - it is explained by a '''miracle''' (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012). Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem - '''it is not science'''. The question how the Rhineland Hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernatural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars (e.g., Sand 2009). '''The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo-Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus'''." |
|||
The opinions of people here who don't like Elhaik's conclusions are meaningless and these individuals are now resorting to either claiming Elhaik's research paper supposedly "isn't a 'study'" (Zero0000 already dealt with this strange assertion) or that it is supposedly "fringe" which certainly is not the case when Genome Biology and Evolution have now accepted and published Elhaik's study. As I've said before the history of Elhaik's paper on wikipedia shows the ONLY legitimate reason, and the only reason people were citing when they removed it earlier, was that at that time Elhaik's study was again only a preprint on [[arXiv]] and thus not in a peer-reviewed journal: it obviously now IS in a peer-reviewed journal! Because of this those who trying to claim it shouldn't be included are in essence arguing against the journal '''Genome Biology and Evolution'''[http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/] itself![[User:Youngdro2|Youngdro2]] ([[User talk:Youngdro2|talk]]) 12:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:27, 18 December 2012
Occasional (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Judaism B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Kopelman on relative similarity
Concerning the Kopelman article I want to note the following series of edits, just to make sure my understanding is clear. I notice that without I think any clear intentions to do so, Tritomex and me are reverting each other, and I am actually trying to get back to what Tritomex's original edit said, which directly quoted the source. I think Tritomex may misunderstand my point.
Source | Version 1 (Tritomex) | Version 2 (Andrew Lancaster) | Version 3 (Tritomex) | Version 4 (Andrew Lancaster) |
---|---|---|---|---|
the Druze, Bedouins and Palestinians are each largely distinct in cluster membership coefficients; the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity to these three Middle Eastern groups than do the European populations other than the Adygei, but they also have greater similarity to the European populations than do the Middle Eastern groups. | Considering the exact place of Jewish population groups (Ashkenazi, Moroccan Tunisian and Turkish Jews) in relation with European population and three Middle Eastern ethnic group (Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins) the authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity to these three Middle Eastern groups than do the European populations" | The authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than the European populations do, and that the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population". | The authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, and that the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population". | The authors found that "the Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than the European populations do, and that the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population". |
Does this make sense, or am I missing something? If it is confusing, the whole paragraph probably needs a bit more work. (I think it was more confusing!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my new edit (not mentioned above) I have removed this complicated sentence and just stuck to saying the same thing in a simpler way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think your recent edit is fine I will support your version 4.--Tritomex (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
16:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Occasional (talk)
Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews
In the former version of this section it was said “Another study done in 2007 by J. Feder et al. … confirms the hypothesis of the founding of non-local origin”. But the study by Behar on which “the hypothesis” is based says that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Middle East. That leaves the other 60%, at least some of whom may be descended from local women. According to Atzmon et al. “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool, [citing Behar] whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin.” My revision takes this into account, quoting the sentence from Atzmon, and altering the reference to Feder accordingly. Occasional (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Occasional (talk) I am afraid I cannot understand your reason for removing my version. According to Behar about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool". That does leave 60%, though of course not necessarily not descended from women of Levantine origin, but I did not say that. I said “at least some of whom might be descended from local women.” I cited Atzmon to the effect that “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool (citing Behar), whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin.” Accordingly I altered the statement that the study by Feder confirms the hypothesis of the “founding of non-local origin” to read, “founding of substantial non-local origin.” And as regards the reference to “little or no gene flow from the local non-Jewish communities in Poland and Russia to the Jewish communities in these countries” I added “This does not exclude gene flow in the earlier history of the Ashkenazi people, in southern and western Europe.” You say with your edit (but not on the talk page) “Findings of Behar concludes that the rest of A. Jews may have originated from 150 woman of Levantine origin.” I have not found that in the Behar article. Is it in another article of his?
Tritomex, As you have not responded to my comment, I have restored my original edit.Occasional (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- User:Occasional, I have red your comment and indeed the findings of Behar and all were modified in 2010. As you will see if you try to find it out,there are numerous article citing 150 woman issue. I will have to look further what exactly happened with the original quote.
However, your current edit is still unacceptable "That leaves the other 60%, at least some of whom might be descended from local women." This can not stand as it represent original reaserch as it is not mentioned anywhere in Behar findings. Considering Atzmon and all “Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool (citing Behar above), whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin.” This is acceptable as it is direct quote, yet it goes hand to hand with another sentence "Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in other Jewish populations based on nonoverlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years." However, I still failed to understand why you removed the material which was already in the article with your edit. All the material which is sourced should be restored and merged with your edits, without WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Tritomex: Which material do you claim that I removed from the article with my edit? I am not aware of having done so. Given that the section is on Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews, I do not see the relevance of your quotation from Atzmon, “Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in other Jewish populations based on nonoverlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years." Do you not think that this should be removed from the aticle?Occasional (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am not really sure weather any secondary quotes from Behar should be used via Atzmon, but if we already did so, I do not see any reason why the mtDNA relationship between Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups should be avoided. Nonoverlapping mitochondrial haplotypes are explaining the mtDNA split between Ashkenazi, Sepharadic and Mizrahi Jews. Therefore their existence among Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews is of primary importance in understanding mt DNA of Ashkenazi Jews.--Tritomex (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Concern about interpretation of articles
I share some editors' concern with use of the studies. I'm going back to read the original sources, whose conclusions in the abstracts are more nuanced than the summaries that have appeared in the article. In addition, I've found some other sources: Ostrer and Falk, which appear useful to the discussion. I've made some changes to the Lead to more closely reflect the abstracts, which offer the conclusions of the studies, and am going through the article to try to reflect this as well. There seems to be too much effort to say the studies show mostly Jewish/Levantine origin of maternal populations, which is not the conclusions I read. In addition, Ostrer's book is a summary of 20 years' worth of studies, and has been reviewed in the NY Review of Books, already cited in the article. Richard Lewontin, in "Is There a Jewish Gene?", notes the greater variation in MtDNA than in Y-DNA, and says,
"This is understood by Falk and Ostrer to mean that when the Jews fled ancient Palestine to found the Diaspora, it was not whole families that fled but largely the men, who then found new local mates in the places to which they migrated. Thus, most of the mothers of these founding communities were not themselves Jews but were sources of new genetic variation, and the present genetic variation among Jews is consequently much greater than it was in Palestine three millenia ago."
Parkwells (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is definitely good to have someone going back to the original articles to re-check things in this article. It is the type of article where it needs to be done frequently. Concerning Ostrer and Falk I have a feeling they were discussed here before so you might want to check the talk page archives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggest move/renaming
The title would be better as "Genetic studies of Jews", not "on Jews".Parkwells (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds correct to me. Would be good to confirm from more editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Zoossmann-Diskin study
This page should not include a sentence, that apparently is trying to challenge the work of Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. (especially without citing a source for this challenge) [1] And if it must be included, it must include Zoossmann-Diskin's response to this critique (also why aren't similar critiques of Behar included? Such as Behar being critiqued for using small sample sizes). Zoossmann-Diskin himself responses to this issue in the last paragraph of his 2010 research paper's "Comments on Previous Studies"; he writes:
"The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7. Despite the small number of markers the current matrix has the highest correlation with geography. Moreover it has a higher correlation with each of the two other matrices than the two of them have with each other. The high correlations between the current matrix and the other two attest for the robustness of the autosomal genetic distances in this study. The lower correlation between the two matrices, which are based on more than 150,000 SNPs, is surprising and even more so, if we remember that the four non-Jewish populations are represented by exactly the same individuals taken from the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP). It is likely then that sampling more individuals, which represent more of the variation of the investigated populations, is far more important than typing many markers. It is also possible that the typing error rates of genome-wide microarray studies are much higher, as demonstrated by the genotyping errors that were discovered in 7 out of 29 (24%) reexamined SNPs [55]. It seems therefore, that good characterization of the genetic relationships between populations can be achieved by a small number of good unique-event-polymorphisms."
So it is far more complex then simply saying he uses "comparatively less data" or such sentences that some want included in this page. And also a relevant further quote from Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. in his third "Author's Response"; that:
"I am not sure what Dr Ayub means by 'assumed', but I suspect that he means something like the relationships between phenotype and genotype in certain blood groups, in which one (or more) allele is dominant over the other and the gene frequencies of the alleles have to be inferred from the phenotypes assuming Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. In such cases there may indeed be errors in the gene frequencies. Protein electrophoretic markers are completely different. Nothing is inferred! As mentioned in Methods all the protein electrophoretic markers in this study represent a SNP at the DNA level. This SNP causes an amino acid change that can be detected at the protein level. Both alleles are directly viewed on the gel in the same way as both alleles of an RFLP are directly viewed on the gel. Gene frequencies are determined in both cases by simple gene counting and the error rate in protein electrophoresis is no greater than in DNA studies. There is no need to type the same samples for all the polymorphisms, because the unit of study is the population, not the individual. One can use polymorphisms typed by different researchers using different samples and combine them to create a genetic profile of each population. Typing all the polymorphisms on the same sample does not add more credibility to the study. Indeed the renowned works that employed classical autosomal markers to portray the genetic affinities of human populations were based on many different samples typed by many different researchers [56,57]."
So if a critique of Zoossmann is going to be placed in this paper, it should both give Zoossmann's response and these critiques should also be allowed against other studies (such as Behar and small sample size challenges to that individual's work).Youngdro2 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- What is the source for "limited number of samples?
-
- To everyone please avoid criticism of any study study, and ask for consensus prior of editing such details
Best regards --Tritomex (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Zoossmann-Diskin himself writes [2]; "The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7."Youngdro2 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Zoossmann-Diskin goes in-depth on this issue (and if this page is going to include some critiques of him randomly, to be fair it must also then include his response and analysis back!). Again Zoossmann-Diskin states:
"It is likely then that sampling more individuals, which represent more of the variation of the investigated populations, is far more important than typing many markers. It is also possible that the typing error rates of genome-wide microarray studies are much higher, as demonstrated by the genotyping errors that were discovered in 7 out of 29 (24%) reexamined SNPs [55]. It seems therefore, that good characterization of the genetic relationships between populations can be achieved by a small number of good unique-event-polymorphisms."
There was nothing in this paper noting what Zoossmann-Diskin was saying about the value of "good unique-event-polymorphisms" (even if they were a smaller overall number); and again no mention of Zoossmann-Diskin's small sample size critique of Behar and Atzmon's works (who are also cited on this page).
And Dr. Zoossmann-Diskin's third "Author's Response" replying to a certain Dr. Ayub, also debates the topic at hand. [3]
It appears Zoossmann-Diskin's article is being singled out by people who want to try to weaken his conclusions (because they don't agree with them personally or just don't like them for some reason), if some sort of critique is going to be included specifically for this study it both opens the door up to critiques of other work that should be included and also for the fairness the page must then logically include Zoossmann-Diskin's response or it is biased!Youngdro2 (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor "evildoer" keeps wanting to put his small unsourced sentence on the article (saying "well there is no reason it shouldn't be included") and then he will turn around and delete Zoossmann-Diskin's response that I include! If he wants his sentence, he must thus give space for Zoossmann-Diskin to explain himself further from the source in question [4] "Comments of Previous Studies" and "Author's response" number 3 in particular! It appears likely that this editor "evildoer" is targeting Zoossmann-Diskin's section in particular (and wanting to remove any response from Zoossmann-Diskin's article itself explaining the point in detail about "a smaller number of good unique-event-polymorphisms" being better and Zoossmann using a larger sample size then Atzmon and Behar in particular who Zoossmann states on their works "the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7.") because he (editor "evildoer") appears to want to present Zoossmann's study as allegedly "weak" likely because Zoossmann's research says different Jewish groups are not of the same genetic origin.Youngdro2 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Estimated sizes of the "priestly castes" should be noted in this article
This article has long contained the point that, in regards to haplogroup R1a1a (R-M17), that Ashkenazi Levites are thought to make up maybe 4% of the overall Ashkenazi Jewish population. A similar figure should be noted in regards to the Cohanim, as it is noted that [5]
"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million."
"Today, it is estimated that approximately five percent or 350,000 men of the seven million male Jews around the world are kohanim."Youngdro2 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Khazaria com is self published and not a reliable source therefore can not be used for editing this article which, we who were involved in the creating of this huge scholarly work based exclusively on academic papers, kept protected from different low quality materials for years.--Tritomex (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The link I provided, http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html, is simply a page that has simply collected a bunch of sources and pasted quotes/excerpts from these various sources on their own page (so khazaria.com itself is not making these claims, they are simply citing other sources and again giving excerpts from those original sources).
"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million" an excerpt from: Michael F. Hammer, Karl L. Skorecki, Sara Selig, Shraga Blazer, Bruce Rappaport, Robert Bradman, Neil Bradman, P. J. Warburton, Monica Ismajlowicz. "Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests." Nature 385(6611) (January 2, 1997): 32-33.
Again someone should include something about what the estimates are for the amount of Jewish males with the last name Cohen (modern "Cohanim", even though this doesn't play any active role in the modern religion of Judaism today) especially as the section on the Levites again notes that the Ashkenazi Levites are thought to be make up about 4% of the overall Ashkenazi population.Youngdro2 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views" Zoosman Disskin is already mentioned bellow, and as we have 23:1 status regarding the Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups, as per Wikipedia rules this single genetic study can not go in the lead WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well".
Considering analysis of Erhak, it was already discussed on this talk page. As this analysis goes with huge criticism and evident mistakes (see the archives) they were removed by other editors.--Tritomex (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The only "legitimate" reason people gave for not wanting Elhaik's article (that supports the Khazar hypothesis included) was because it was previously only in arXiv and thus only a "preprint" and thus it had not been published by any professional journal, it is now published in a journal and should be included. Again since it is in Genome Biology and Evolution, there is no reason it should not be included (include the critiques of it if you want).
And as for your other claim, it is completely based on Ostrer's claims in a jpost newspaper article (a newspaper with a political axe to grind), and Zoossmann-Diskin's research is a thorough critique of the likes of Ostrer, Hammer, Behar, and Atzmon and Zoossmann-Diskin is in a long running debate especially with the last two (Behar and Atzmon) whom he accuses of having errors from using small sample sizes in particular.[6]Youngdro2 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Zoossmann-Diskin findings can not get equal place as 23 opposite findings.WP:UNDUE -rule. ZD is already mentioned and the fact that his minority are not in line with overwhelming majority view per Wikipedia rule means that he can not be repeated in the same way as those 23 genetic studies summerised in the book of Ostrer. The reference is not Jpost, but the book of Dr. Ostrer Btw ZD wievs are not supported by Atzmon, Nebla, Shen, Semino, Moorijani, Campbel, Ferer, Molutsky, Behar and many others: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."--Tritomex (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Elhaik read the criticism in archives. It is not a genetic study and Elhaik was never involved in any genetic study of Jewish people. In his artickle he described Hungarians as Slavic people and Georgians and Armenians as Proto-Khzars while those two people are non Turkic people. The criticism and factual errors pointed out by other geneticists and non geneticists are also in the archives --Tritomex (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Include critiques of his paper, it was published meaning the journal approved of it and thus it can be cited here. Unless your claiming you can overrule the professional journal Genome Biology and Evolution?Youngdro2 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The only reason why the book "A Genetic History of the Jewish People" was used in this article is because it gives summary of all genetic studies carried out so far, and all genetic studies denied the so called Khazarian Theory, there is a consensus on this issue. Elhaik did not carry out any genetic studies, and there 100s of articles regarding this issue from geneticists in different scientific journals, which are not included in this article. This article is named "Genetic studies on Jews" and Elhaik never participated in any study, he used datas from other geneticists who came to absolutely differnt conclusions with their studies, and he came to conclusion which is not backed up by single genetic study including ZD. Again this is clear example of WP:UNDUE and simply his taught do not equal genetic studies--Tritomex (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You have given no reason for Elhaik's study not to be included, the ONLY reason people wanted it removed in the past was "it is only a preprint on arXiv"[7] it is now published by a professional journal and can be included. Simply cite the critiques of it with its' mention, that is the fair way to present it. As for what you mention from Ostrer again you want something from a journal removed [8], but then a link from jpost newspaper, discussing a book and not including any new research, included even when Ostrer & co.'s conclusions are clearly challenged by Zoossmann-Diskin's research and conclusions! Zoossmann-Diskin critiques the studies that Ostrer and you are mentioning [9]; "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]." [10] "In contrast to the conclusions of several previous studies, there was no evidence for close genetic affinities among the Jewish populations or for a Middle Eastern origin for most of them. Since the study is the first to use only the more reliable protein electrophoretic markers, and an appropriately comprehensive panel of non-Jewish populations, the results are regarded as the most reliable available to date." Include both Zoossmann-Diskin and Ostrer's quotes and let the reader decide.Youngdro2 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't even looked at the text of this article and don't plan to. I only want to say that the paper of Elhaik is now published by a prestigious scientific journal and it is completely impossible to rule out its inclusion by wikipedia rules. It is obviously admissible, and it is obviously a "genetic study on Jews". Your remaining task is to decide how to include it, that's all. Zerotalk 00:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am personally geneticist and Elhaik did not carry out any genetic study, so his article and analysis has no place in the section regarding actual genetic studies, because it is against all genetic studies (and all genetic studies refuted the Khazarian hypothesis which is considered both by historians and geneticists as falls. Basic WP:UNDUE rule. Considering Zoossmann-Diskin as a legitimate study it is mentioned, yet as his conclusions are backed by ratio 1:23 he does not go in repetition, lead or background again- Basic WP:UNDUE rule
- In very shorth term Genetic study means selecting samples, taking their DNA, analyzing them and than giving the results. Elhaik used Behar samples, without any study came to opposite conclusions than he published it. This can not be taken by any rule as same as genetic studies carried out on living persons, and presented in this article. What Elhaik did is an analysis. I can add 101 additional published analysis of different geneticists who used studies and samples of other geneticists. However this is not a place for such things. Also, to repeat Zeero words, "you need consensus to add material to artickle", I hope Zeero it does not imply only in certain issues We had already discussed RS implications. " --Tritomex (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is absurd, "Tritomex" you are now saying you are a "geneticist" and you can supposedly "remove" things as you wish!! As editor "Zero0000" stated "I only want to say that the paper of Elhaik is now published by a prestigious scientific journal and it is completely impossible to rule out its inclusion by wikipedia rules". Again, echoing "Zero0000", the ONLY legitimate reason that was ever being given to not allow Elhaik's study to be included in the past was that it was previously only a preprint in arXiv [11] it is AGAIN now published in as "Zero0000" noted "a prestigious scientific journal" it therefore can be included in this article. It should be quoted and then reviewer's challenging Elhaik should be quoted right after it. As for the other link you defend it is again a NEWSPAPER article from the right wing JPost; again it is shocking you want this included as a supposed "source" on the topic but Elhaik's study in Genome Biology and Evolution [12] supposedly doesn't make the cut for you! And again even what you cited from the newspaper JPost was simply Ostrer speaking on past works (nothing new), what Ostrer was speaking of clearly falls under what Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin was critiquing when Zoossmann-Diskin again wrote "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]." with the [1] standing for this earlier study of Zoossmann-Diskin et al. [13] "Protein electrophoretic markers in Israel: compilation of data and genetic affinities"
And you giving supposed numerical "23 vs. 1" statements, is you just trying to obscure the issue as it relates to Zoossmann-Diskin; and that in no way touches the new research of Eran Elhaik published just this month in what "Zero0000" again calls correctly a prestigious scientific journal.Youngdro2 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The reason why on this talk page was decided not to include Elhaik (see the archives of this talk page) was that
1. He did mot carry out genetic study, nor he participated in any, but used samples from Behar study with opposite conclusions than Behar
2. This article deals only with ACTUAL GENETIC STUDIES NOT ARTICLES
2.he made mistakes which were obvious for non geneticists in his analysis by referring to Hungarians as Slavic people, and Armenians and Georgians as Turkic people. This was criticized by another geneticists Dr Rhazib Khan.
3. We avoided any criticism of actual genetic studies on this page,Zoossmann-Diskin study is presented here and he can not be put due to WP:UNDUE above or equal with 23 respected genetic studies which came to opposite conclusion than his study. Because his findings, although legitimate and mentioned in this page represent small minority (to be precise single minority) view on this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Eran Elhaik's study is again now published in a prestigious journal, it is not just a preprint at arXiv anymore, and as editor "Zero0000" there is thus no legitimate reason for it not to be included in this article; again you should simply put Mr. Khan's and others response to Mr. Elhaik's work after the quotes from Elhaik's study. Zoossmann-Diskin's critiques are again from real studies and papers of his, what you've presented from Ostrer is only being sourced from a political newspaper and provides no new research merely Ostrer commenting on past works that Zoossmann-Diskin heavily critiques as again incorrect [14][15][16]. So you numbering the old studies is really meaningless and doesn't touch the point of Zoossmann-Diskin et al.'s numerous papers critiquing everything that you are mentioning, again with you using JPost newspaper as the "source" while again not wanting something from a scientific journal included in this article [17].Youngdro2 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Currently I removed Dr. Ostrer book, until all who participated in the debate on this issue will be notified. Although Dr Ostrer is a participant in many genetic studies while Elhaik did not carry out any. This article is about Genetic studies on Jews and not about Genetic articles on Jews especially not such articles whose findings are against all known genetic studies, giving to it by you same weight (or more) than actual genetic studies.Tritomex (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW "numbering the old studies" This is meaningless everyone familiar with population genetics know that all Y and X DNA studies from 2000 are done by same advanced techniques while autosomal studies from 2005 are done by same technique. This studies can differ only on number of locus analyzed beyond this, although this is irrelevant, as all previous 21 studies are correct, at least 2 studies (Campbel and Moorijani) all supporting common Middle Eastern origin of JP, are done after ZD studies. " Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)" Beyond this, this article only presents genetic studies!!
Your attempts to prevent Dr. Eran Elhaik's genetic study from being included in this article shows your activist editing (i.e. not wanting something supporting the Khazarian hypothesis included even though it is published in a prestigious scientific journal now!), you have resorted to claiming your supposedly a "geneticist" yourself and using newspapers while wanting to forbid Elhaik's study from being mentioned even though it is now published in the prestigious journal "Genome Biology and Evolution" [18] as editor "Zero0000" has also noted (showing you have no case to keep it out as it is no longer just a preprint at arXiv again) so your attempts to knock Dr. Elhaik's study see you going against a professional journal that accepted his research paper (but I guess its not a newspaper so I understand!). And your attempts to claim the Khazar hypothesis is supposedly similar to advocates of a "flat earth", just shows how biased you truly are (putting aside the debate around the possible Khazar nature of haplogroups R1a1a/R-M17, Q1b[19], and G2c[20]. And again you have not touched on how the newspaper article you use mentioning Ostrer's book (while showing he has no new research to offer) is in conflict with Zoossmann-Diskin's research which says these studies Ostrer cites are wrong and he (Zoossmann-Diskin) is right [21] "Comments on previous studies" section of this Zoossmann-Diskin article from October 2010; "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]." leading to this next link again from Zoossmann-Diskin et al. [22] and [23]
The simple solution is to just put both the quote you want from Ostrer (even in a newspaper) and then put the conclusions of Zoossmann-Diskin and Zoossmann-Diskin et al. that challenge these past studies (that even you state are what Ostrer is discussing in his book that you link to a newspaper article again for) as well so readers can see the debate between them.Youngdro2 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Beyond dr Ostrer and Zoosman Disskin there are 21 another genetic studies which do not support Zoosman Disskin WP:UNDUE Therefore and because of WP:UNDUE rule, Zoosman Disskin can not go in lead. Also you posted self published blogs as references for Khazarian hypothesis. Khazarian hypothesis is considered scientifically falls, pseudoscientific among other things by all genetic studies carried out so far, without a single exception.Protein electrophoretic markers, blood groups distribution ABO, Rh factor distribution are outdated and unreliable methods and are not part of this article regarding concrete genetic studies (X;Y;Autosomes) --Tritomex (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The claim that Elhaik didn't publish a genetic study is one of the most weird and bizarre claims I have seen. Lots and lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else. It's like saying that an atmospheric chemist can't publish a study on the ozone layer unless she personally built the satellites that collected the data. Zerotalk 08:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- He did not published a GENETIC STUDY. All the authors in this article are without exception authors of genetic studies which they carried out in different Jewish population groups. No one beside them are here, there are no genetic analysis in this article . No one without this requirement is in this article. As I am a geneticist, I can also publish my analysis of certain genetic issues in scientific magazines. This does not equal a genetic study. To claim that "lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else" in genetics is true only for law quality analyses- Nowhere in genetic science there is equality between a genetic analyses and a genetic study. There are thousands of other genetic analysis and certainly hundreds of articles on this subject. To pick up up one article and the only one which tells the opposite from all REGULAR GENETIC STUDIES and to include it in article with same weight as regular genetic studies( and in this article there are only regular genetic studies) would be a serious violation of WP:UNDUE All huge genetic studies involving tens of thousands of participants have identical conclusion and they can not be made equal with this article claiming the opposite. If this two would be equal why would anyone waste millions of dollars for regular genetic study if equal "scientific study" can be done at home on PC with sensationalistic outcome contrary to all known facts from genetic science. To analyze one medicine impact, and to present your findings after serious clinical trials is not the same as to discuss and study its ingredients without any clinical trial and to present your own view about this medicine. --Tritomex (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, this argument is empty of content. I am not a geneticist, but I am a scientist and I know how science is done. Data collection and data analysis are the two parts of an experiment and there is no reason whatever they have to be done by the same person. Very VERY frequently, they are not. Zerotalk 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can any drug be introduced without clinical trials based on samples used in clinical studies which came to the conclusion that the drug is toxic, after further in vitro analysis by third person?
- He did not published a GENETIC STUDY. All the authors in this article are without exception authors of genetic studies which they carried out in different Jewish population groups. No one beside them are here, there are no genetic analysis in this article . No one without this requirement is in this article. As I am a geneticist, I can also publish my analysis of certain genetic issues in scientific magazines. This does not equal a genetic study. To claim that "lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else" in genetics is true only for law quality analyses- Nowhere in genetic science there is equality between a genetic analyses and a genetic study. There are thousands of other genetic analysis and certainly hundreds of articles on this subject. To pick up up one article and the only one which tells the opposite from all REGULAR GENETIC STUDIES and to include it in article with same weight as regular genetic studies( and in this article there are only regular genetic studies) would be a serious violation of WP:UNDUE All huge genetic studies involving tens of thousands of participants have identical conclusion and they can not be made equal with this article claiming the opposite. If this two would be equal why would anyone waste millions of dollars for regular genetic study if equal "scientific study" can be done at home on PC with sensationalistic outcome contrary to all known facts from genetic science. To analyze one medicine impact, and to present your findings after serious clinical trials is not the same as to discuss and study its ingredients without any clinical trial and to present your own view about this medicine. --Tritomex (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This article covers only authors and their genetic studies and all of this genetic studies came to opposite conclusion than Elhaik genetic analysis. There are hundreds of articles and analysis in numerous genetic journals, widely cited genetic books like for example The Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA By Tony Nick Frudakis (see page 383) which are all exuded from this article based on the fact that they are not genetic studies. It would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE to select the single article whose conclusions are in collisions with all genetic studies, (even in collision with the results of study whose samples Elhaik used-Behar used 100K loci in oreder to avoid selective interpretations,) without a single exception and while presenting at as equal to other regular genetic studies involving thousands of people and enormous work, exuding all other genetic analysis which clearly have consensual and widely supported results in all genetic studies carried out.--Tritomex (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, still no content. Do you have an actual argument for excluding this reliable source? Where is it? Zerotalk 08:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Again along with you claiming to be a "geneticist" yourself, you seem to be implying "we should just quote Behar" even though there is a clear challenge to the claims you are presenting. [24] "The studies of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] are based on 164,894 and 226,839 SNPs respectively. While this impressive number reduces the errors of the distances that stem from the number of markers, the errors that stem from sampling only a small number of individuals are much larger in these studies, where sample sizes can be as small as 2-4 individuals. The effect of these errors can be seen in table 7." and regarding the "past studies" you speak hyperbolically about so much again [25] "The discriminant analysis resulted in only two Jewish populations, from Iraq and Yemen, being classified within the Middle Eastern group. According to their genetic distances, no particular genetic similarity was observed between the various Jewish study populations. Conclusions : In contrast to the conclusions of several previous studies, there was no evidence for close genetic affinities among the Jewish populations or for a Middle Eastern origin for most of them. Since the study is the first to use only the more reliable protein electrophoretic markers, and an appropriately comprehensive panel of non-Jewish populations, the results are regarded as the most reliable available to date."
Present quotes of people challenging Zoossmann-Diskin's or Elhaik's work after they are quoted, just like critiques of Behar and company have to be included as well. Your claims about "undue" are really just a smokescreen trying to prevent studies you don't want mentioned from being mentioned!Youngdro2 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
And "The claim that Elhaik didn't publish a genetic study is one of the most weird and bizarre claims I have seen. Lots and lots of scientific studies use raw data collected by someone else. It's like saying that an atmospheric chemist can't publish a study on the ozone layer unless she personally built the satellites that collected the data." Zero0000 you are completely correct, in the past the charge against Elhaik's research was again "well it can't be included because it is only a preprint on arXiv" [26] and certain people even conceded "it can be used if it is accepted by a journal" which it was again this month (December 2012) by prestigious Genome Biology and Evolution [27]. And now editor "Tritomex" is saying even though it is in a prestigious journal (when he was in the past wanting to use newspaper links as a source) "it is not a 'study' thus it cannot be included!" this is really very odd and fallacious on his part as you, Zero0000, have noted. Also now "Tritomex" is basically trying to cite HIMSELF as a "source" and saying that supposedly "Protein electrophoretic markers, blood groups distribution ABO, Rh factor distribution are outdated and unreliable methods" we have to go with what journals and scientists have said [28] not what this individual editor is claiming!Youngdro2 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not an article for genetic analysis and articles regarding Jewish people. There is no even a section where such analysis can be included, to present it as autosomal genetic study is WP:OR beyond WP:UNDUE.Protein electrophoretic markers, blood group distribution, Rh factor measurement is not part of this article. Wikipedia can not be used as mirror source for Wikipedia articles. Anthropological blogs too, beyond this anthropology has nothing to with this subject. All the rest of facts I already stated above --Tritomex (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
User Youngdro2 is engaing in WP:VAN (vandalism) of this article. When I introduced an WP:RS to the article regarding Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, you removed it Zeero, claiming that there is need for consensus to be included. In this case, at least consensus is needed to include articles and analysis beyond genetic studies. There is no such thing here, and to pick up one among hundreds which tells the opposite from all regular genetic studies, to declare it equal with genetic studies is violation of WP:UNDUE --Tritomex
There are a lot of misconceptions making sensible discussion difficult in the above thread. Both sides of the discussion are wikilawyering, trying to veto all consideration of the concerns of the other side, rather than trying to find a practical compromise. I shall list a few:
- There is nothing at all in WP policy which says we should only mention sources which are primary sources for raw findings, in fact where possible we should prefer the opposite. But in genetics this is not really practical.
- There is no rule which says we need to use any particular source just because it is reliable.
- There is nothing stopping us from including mention of minority opinions, and in fact we should do so in many cases.
I personally find ZD's article a bit extreme in his conclusions, but also I find that he makes some criticisms of the mainstream which are valid and worth mentioning. (Which is what I tried to do when his article first came up for debate.) Population genetics is a small field and so a majority opinion might mean just a few scholars. So we should be careful about labeling any dissenters as whacky fringe authors. Anyway, the main point is that you all need to listen to each other's real concerns and try to find a way to cover the concerns of others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrew, he is one of the main contributor to this article. Although we had occasionally some disputes we managed to overcome them quickly. The only thing I would like to add, is that we are having now 20+ (X, Y, Autosomes) genetic studies related to this question, which is not small number and it makes Jews the most genetically studied population.--Tritomex (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Zoosmann-Diskin is in no way "extreme in his conclusions", he only disagrees with someone like Ostrer on whether the different Jewish populations (putting aside Ethiopian and Indian Jews, which everyone agrees are closer to the other non-Jewish native populations of Ethiopia and India respectively) originally came from the Near East or not. Even someone like Ostrer himself notes the obvious admixture and clear contribution of, at the very minimum, southern European (Greco-Roman) converts to Judaism (which also gels on that point with what Elhaik, Zoossmann-Diskin, Shlomo Sand as a historian, and pretty much everyone else agrees to some extent on); Ostrer stated (which I added to this article to make it more balanced) "Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair"). Zoossmann-Diskin's conclusion is just that in regards to the Eastern European Jews/Ashkenazis that they are not just admixed but descend primarily from proselytes in Italy/Rome [29] "All these Jews are likely the descendents of proselytes. Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society [10-13]." And as for Zoossmann-Diskin in relation to other researchers like say Atzmon and Behar, they clearly have disagreements (as anyone who looks at Zossmann-Diskin's "Comments on Previous Studies" section can quickly note) articles should simply include both sides conclusions and leave it at that. Someone like "Tritomex" trying to bring up strange "23 vs. 1" assertions are quite meaningless especially in view of Zoossmann-Diskin (and Zoossmann-Diskin et al.) noting, in published studies, what he and his team say are the flaws of these past studies. That is the whole core premise of Zossmann-Diskin et al.'s study published here again [30].
As for the study of Dr. Elhaik, it is the newest study on the topic of the Khazar hypothesis and needs to be included in anything that mentions the Khazar hypothesis and statements for [31][32][33] and against it (or how large of an imprint the Khazars made on modern Jews, which Elhaik argues is larger then previously admitted). In fact Elhaik notes in response to reviewer's at his academic site [34] in regards to the Rhineland versus the Khazarian hypotheses: "The two hypotheses tested here were selected because they are the two most dominant hypotheses both from historical and genetic perspective. As indicated in our manuscript, the biggest challenge of any hypothesis is to explain the population expansion of Eastern European Jews." It is previously this point that Elhaik:
"A major difficulty with the Rhineland Hypothesis, in addition to the lack of historical and anthropological evidence to the multi-migration waves from Palestine to Europe (Straten 2003; Sand 2009), is to explain the vast population expansion of Eastern European Jews from 50 thousand (15th century) to 8 million (20th century). The annual growth rate that accounts for this population expansion was estimated at 1.7-2%, one order of magnitude larger than that of Eastern European non-Jews in the 15th-17th centuries, prior to the industrial revolution (Straten 2007). This growth could not possibly be the product of natural population expansion, particularly one subjected to severe economic restrictions, slavery, assimilation, the Black Death and other plagues, forced and voluntary conversions, persecutions, kidnappings, rapes, exiles, wars, massacres, and pogroms (Koestler 1976; Straten 2003; Sand 2009). Because such an unnatural growth rate, over half a millennia and affecting only Jews residing in Eastern Europe, is implausible - it is explained by a miracle (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012). Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem - it is not science. The question how the Rhineland Hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernatural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars (e.g., Sand 2009). The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo-Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus."
The opinions of people here who don't like Elhaik's conclusions are meaningless and these individuals are now resorting to either claiming Elhaik's research paper supposedly "isn't a 'study'" (Zero0000 already dealt with this strange assertion) or that it is supposedly "fringe" which certainly is not the case when Genome Biology and Evolution have now accepted and published Elhaik's study. As I've said before the history of Elhaik's paper on wikipedia shows the ONLY legitimate reason, and the only reason people were citing when they removed it earlier, was that at that time Elhaik's study was again only a preprint on arXiv and thus not in a peer-reviewed journal: it obviously now IS in a peer-reviewed journal! Because of this those who trying to claim it shouldn't be included are in essence arguing against the journal Genome Biology and Evolution[35] itself!Youngdro2 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)