Re: Schoeffe I

From: Torsten
Message: 67441
Date: 2011-05-01

--- In, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
> >Are you saying some people are editing Wikipedia to show that these
> >people are of Eastern Mediterranean descent to support the claim of
> >someone to some entity in the Eastern Mediterranean? That's
> >preposterous.
> I'm not saying that: I've been myself a Wp editor for several
> years now, and I know what you can do as an editor and what you
> can't do. Editors cannot do "original research," but they can
> choose adequate sources in order to sustain one trend or another.

I know the rules, I edit Wikipedia myself.

> To certain extents, similar tendencies can occur in research
> (the primary sources). I for one would ask how rigorously are
> genuine Ashkenasic people separated from those with (quite
> recent: 1-2-3 centuries old) Sephardic heritage.

I assume it's done rigorously, I have no particular reason to suspect otherwise.

> At that, the
> values given in the following pages differ:

There are no 'following pages' in Wikipedia articles. I suspect you mean this link
but since I can't know that I won't comment on the below.

> in one table, J values
> are higher in several east-Anatolian populations and around
> the Caucasian mountains, whereas in the big table the Ashkenasic
> group has even higher values than Sephardic Jews and than some
> of the Arab groups. OTOH, look at the smaller diagram: how high
> are the R1a+b values in Ashkenases, though (the larger diagram
> doesn't take these haplos into account).

> I suppose, the results depend on how people to take part in
> such studies are chosen - esp. from which regions, e.g. whether
> from big urban centers or rather from marginal regions with
> rare or no immigrants from other areas of Europe & Middle East
> for many centuries. (I have acquaintances whose 2nd name is
> the ethnonym, Ashkenasy, but who say and can show documents
> attesting that most of their recent ancestors were Sephardic
> ones.)

If you have any concrete reason for casting doubt on the results, by all means do.

> >It's like saying that if someone realizes that said entity
> >isn't tenable due to certain economic, military and
> >demographic trends they will edit it to show instead that
> >they are of non Eastern Mediterranean descent.
> In a Wp article you, as an editor, can't put *your own* theses
> or conclusions, unless these have been published by specialized
> researchers/scholars in peer-viewed papers/books that have been
> taken seriously by the scientific community (or at least by
> a part of it). Otherwise, such a contribution containing
> one own's inferences/theories/interpretations will be deleted
> quickly (esp. at the en.wp). For instance, you'd have virtually
> no chance to put there, in an article or paragraph, your theory
> proposal referring to the assumption that Bastarnians were the
> forefathers of the "Hochdeutsch"-Germans; or only if your theory
> already has been published, and then you'd quote from that
> published study. But if a certain thesis/theory & conclusion is
> sustained by several specialists in various published studies,
> even if other experts doubt or contest the finds, it will be
> posted at Wp nonetheless - even if it were erroneous. Editors
> can edit the article in such a way that all theories/theses are
> presented ("According to A, it is so, according to B, it is not
> so, and according to C, both A & B are wrong - or are right.").
> It is this how it works. On top of that, esp. what's doubtful
> or disputed always has to be based on citations from expert/scholar
> works, otherwise the sentence or paragraph gets the tag "it needs
> citation". And the reader will find in the "References" list
> the most important/significant parts of the bibliography relevant
> for the items presented in the Wp. article. So, in fact, the
> presentations made by Wp. editors and which may be now and then
> flawed or unbalanced are of secondary importance: more important
> is the fact that the reader is offered a quite uptodate introduction
> into the adequate sci. literature.

I know.

> > > >they must have traveled to eastern Europe from the eastern
> > > >Mediterranean
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that all humanity traveled from the eastern
> > > Mediterranean: even Australian aborigines, the Inuits and
> > > Chuktchen and the Indians in Tierra de Fuego (according to
> > > the same genetic science).

> >You are insulting my intelligence.
> In any case, you see that by and large almost all of the probes
> into this show Ashkenasis having less J2 heritage than Sephards
> and than Arabs, and that various other nations esp. in Eastern
> Anatolia and around the Caucasus mountains also have high per-
> centages of this haplogroup. The other one, J1 is older so that
> no wonder its spreading in the world looks a bit different.
> Doron M. Behar, Daniel Garrigan, Matthew E. Kaplan et al.,
> "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi
> Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations," Human
> Genetics (2004) 114: 354�365

It would also match a descendance of Ashkenazi Jews from the ten lost tribes, since they traditionally 'disappeared' in this area.

> >80-90% of Eastern Mediterranean descent.
> R1a 10 and R1b 9 vs. J 19 means to you 80%-90%? At that G 9.5
> (Caucasian & Graeco-Anatolian). (What's important in this discussion:
> J2, which is linked with the Semitic populations. The rest of
> Mediterranean haplos are of lesser importance. But remember that
> the Biblic tribes moved to Canaan from Sumer/Irak, and their
> ancestors came from northern areas, in Eastern Anatolia, and
> were known at least partially under the ethnonym "Habiru". So,
> the Jewish researchers are of course interested to see the
> frequency of esp. J2 in the east-European Jewish populations.)

'All relevant Y DNA studies have concluded that the majority of the paternal genetic heritage among Ashkenazim and other Jewish communities is similar to those found dominating Middle Eastern populations, and probably originated there. A smaller but still significant part of the Ashkenazi male line population is more likely to have originated from central and eastern European populations.'

No, it's you who tries to 'Jewishness' as exclusively haplotype J2 and then of course you reach another result than 'all relevant Y DNA studies'.

> But the whole haplo-stuff is off-topic, since adopting of one
> "losh'n" or another doesn't depend on chromozomes and haplotypes.
> (Philistines weren't Semites but in time they were assimilated
> into the Semitic populations in Canaan - linguistically as well.
> In the 2nd millennium CE numerous populations in Anatolia got
> Turkicized by adopting the language of the Turks. Etc.)

I'm trying to show that there was a migration from the old homeland of the Bastarnae to Przeworsk to Germania. We know nothing of the genetic makeup of the Bastarnae (except that it perhaps had a large share of
note that subclade 253, concentrated in Scandinavia, and subclade 423, concentrated in Croatia, are both represented in Moldavia, the old home of the Bastarnae), but a Black Sea coast origin for Ashkenazi Jews would support my scenario, so of course their genetics is important in this discussion.