Talk:Genetic studies of Jews

Questionable sourcing?

Someone verify these many informations?: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_of_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=1256248852, as these persons were reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Beta_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1258257377 and fake article they made was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judeo-Ge%27ez, but still on French Wiki: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Ge%27ez 41.222.180.254 (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but it is difficult to understand what you are requesting exactly Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Full paragraph to be removed

There is a mistake regarding this paragraph, it should be removed because it concerns Autosomal not Y-DNA. Actually the same paragraph already exist in the Autosomal section.

The largest study to date on Jews who lived in North Africa was conducted in 2012 and was led by Prof. Harry Ostrer of the departments of pathology, genetics and pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at New York's Yeshiva University, and was published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, in it the scholars had found that the Jews who lived in Morocco and Algeria had more European admixture in their gene pools than the Jews who lived in Tunisia and Libya, probably as a result of a larger expelled Sephardi Jewish population settling in those two first mentioned lands post 1492 and 1497. All communities of North African Jews exhibited a high degree of endogamy.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Restructure the Article

When I created this page in 2010, autosomal studies did not exist. Now, they are the most relevant studies. I think we should restructure the article by starting with autosomal studies, followed by Y-DNA and then mtDNA. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, but it could become a big job. It is worth thinking ahead about the different phases of work. I think many such articles have grown in such a way that they are now in a sense giving a chronological history of the field, also within the different sections. The result is that the latest results, which should normally be at the top in a scientific article, are way down below. I think that in the longer run most old Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA studies will eventually need to be deleted, and not just moved downwards. Perhaps a possible approach in the meantime is to first divide such articles into two parts, the first containing ONLY material which defines the current state of the art, and the second containing a history of the field section which can still be chronological. My reason for suggesting this is partly practical. (The second section would require less reworking.) These remarks are meant only to be general remarks about this type of article. I have not looked in detail before writing this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster, I agree on your diagnostic, however the first part would be very similar to the lead. Don't you think so? Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No, because more detailed. I guess I'm thinking that as a first step the Autosomal section would first be moved up before the history section, and within that autosomal section the chronology would perhaps be reversed. Is that similar to your thinking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not a specialist in Wikipedia articles, and I am not sure where the History section should be placed. I would have left it at the beginning, but I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. Upon reflection, we could add the summary you mentioned at the beginning of the section on autosomal DNA (and similarly to the Y-DNA and mtDNA sections). However, I am not in favor of removing the sections on mtDNA and Y-DNA, as they provide information that is not covered in the autosomal section. Finally, as @Alaexis and you suggested, reversing the chronology seems like a good idea. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also when describing autosomal studies, we should start with the newest ones rather than the first ones. Alaexis_¿question? 13:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)