>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.
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. At that, the
values given in the following pages differ: 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.)
>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.
>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.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups
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: 354365
>>participations of
>>certain groupings characterized inter alia by belonging to the
>>religion of Moshe and Akharon, namely of worshippers of "barukh
>>adonai" according to certain rites (since Christians and Muslims
>>worship the same deity, but they aren't stricto sensu Jews).
>
>Erh, what?
Living in a Christian country, I'm sure you have the adequate
Allgemeinbildung to get what the meaning of the above lines. :)
>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.)
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.)
George