Talk:Genetic studies of Jews

"French" Rhine valley

The French gained access to the Rhine only under Louis XIV, in the 17th century. Before that date and the annexations it involved, in particular during the period where Jews lived in large numbers in the Rhine valley, the valley was German, from one end to the other. Noula69 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are right but here we are talking about the current situation otherwise we could not talk about Italy or Romania, ...--88.174.111.106 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of the Rhineland community is largely the history of ShUM cities leage (known from their Takkanot Shum) and ethnicity questions relating to that area have nothing to do with talk about Italy or Romania (in the sense of discussing the ethnic input to Jewry in the Romance-speaking areas of Italy and France). Noula69 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On this particular point, we are not talking about ethnicity but about geographic area. In addition, papers are talking about "French Rhin Valley" so please respect the source. It is said that samples has been taken from French jewish people living in the "French Rhin Valley", that's all.--Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Since 1945, a short span of the left bank of the Rhine is now definitely under French political control, but the Jewish communities we're talking about were established to the North of that, mostly between Mayence (Mainz) and Cologne (Köln), which were German territories at that time and still are so today. In this context, it does NOT make sense to talk about a "French" Rhine in connection to the origin of the Jews from there that settled in the East, carrying with them a dialect of German (that became Yiddish), not a dialect of French. Anyway, the reference to a "French" Rhine valley is NOT sourced in any way and therefore, cannot be maintained. I'm a native Rhine valley Jew, and if there was ou had been something like "French Rhine valley Jews", I think I would know about it. Best, Noula69 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Boutboul. Arguing about the whether this area is properly French or German at different times is pointless. The aim is to make it clear to a modern reader which geographical area is intended. From memory the sources also use such terms. I am sure everyone is open to compromises, but on the basis of making the terms clear, not on the basis of being political correct for medieval readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that there are no sources that indicate that Jews from a region that could be called the "French Rhine valley" ever migrated to Eastern Europe. What can be effectively shown is that the Rhine Jews came from areas that were German at the time of migration and are German today. It would not make sense to associate Jews from the ShUM cities or from any where between Mainz and Cologne (who made up the vast majority of the Jews who could be labeled Rhine valley Jews in the history of the Ostsiedlung and where more numerous than Jews from anywhere else in Germany) with the concept of a "French Rhine valley" origin that has no historical or geographical basis. Noula69 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I sourced my position with Weinreich 1973 (based on research going back to earlier work in 1923) whose views are generally accepted by those scolars who do not subscribe to the Khazar hypothesis. Best, Noula69 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Noula69 with all due respect you have clearly not read the sources being cited, so you should not be so confident that they do not mention the part of the Rhine Valley which is today in France. Read the Behar article. The term is sourced and relates to the real genetics studies this article is about. Your insertion of comments from a source which has no connection to genetics studies seems irrelevant to me, and bordering on WP:SYNTH?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Genetic distinction at an individual level

User:Utopial has been inserting the following into the article:

However, on a purely technical level, there is no genetic screen that can sort Jews from non-Jews.[1]

There are a number of issues with the insertion.

1. It's argumentative: why has he even brought this up? No-one made any claim to the contrary in this article.
2. The sources aren't geneticists. In this case, the authors of the Jerusalem Post article are Diana Muir Appelbaum, a historian of New England, and Paul S. Appelbaum, a doctor who "writes about the ethics of genetic testing and research". This claim does not come from the authors of any of the studies on Jewish genetics, and neither author of the Jerusalem Post article is an expert on the topic.
3. It's factually incorrect. See, for example, this 2009 study.

Utopial, please get consensus on this material before trying to re-insert it. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I would add that well sourced remarks about how to interpret genetic evidence might very well be welcome. There certainly are misunderstandings around. Problems though:-

• I know from experience however that it is hard to find sources which are not going to be questioned by someone unfortunately and this does lead to controversies with all such articles every now and then.
• Another problem with what I am saying is that newer autosomal studies really are getting more accurate now, and so our target is moving. This makes it even harder to find good uncontroversial sources.
• But this raises one last question, which is especially difficult here, and that is how we should present the connection between genetic background (one's "blood") and something like the concept of being Jewish, which is not purely racial or genetic. A similar problem exists for all such articles, because whenever geneticists write about people of ethnicity "x" they are (whether they mention the assumption or not) clearly writing about people who are both of that ethnicity and also of ancestry of that ethnicity. This third question can probably normally be handled with careful wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Below are my comments from the other article. It's easier if we all talk about it here.

It's a direct quote from an article. Debating the reliable source findings is original research. I brought it up because firstly it was noteworthy enough to be brought up in the article's conclusion itself, and secondly because it is a misconclusion that people are likely to make unless informed otherwise (in fact it was a misconclusion that i was making until I opened the source and read the article, hence the reason for me including it). I don't understand why it is so controversial to include it. That study you referred to only compares to European Americans, not to the rest of the world's population, e.g. arabs. It's like saying u can genetically distinguish asians who like carrot cake from africans, therefore asians who like carrot cake are distinct genetically at an individual level. i regret that u called me argumentative. id prefer to be referred to as free thinking. if u can find a better source that shows that at an individual level jews can be genetically distinguished from other humans, id naturally consider the above insertion trumped Utopial (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Utopial, you haven't responded to any of the points raised. Sources have varying levels of reliability, depending on context, and a local historian and an ethicist aren't nearly reliable enough to be making these kinds of sweeping claims about genetics - they have no "findings", they have merely voiced their opinions. Again, the author of that quote is not the author of the genetic studies. In addition, there was no "misconclusion" - rather, as pointed out, you seem to be arguing against a point our article doesn't even make. Third, I have actually provided a reliable source that "shows that at an individual level jews can be genetically distinguished from other humans". Please try again, this time actually responding to the points I have made. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As Andrew says, it is important to guide people in interpreting genetic evidence. Making this statement guides peoples understanding that there are genetic factors common among Jews, but these cant be used to distinguish jews from non jews. a lot of people dont understand that, so why not help them understand? wikipedia is meant to be informative, not misleading by leaving out information that could lead to misunderstanding. and no, as i said, that study does not provide that jews are distinct at an individual level from humans. just from european americans. not all humans, such as arabs.Utopial (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"it is important to guide people in interpreting genetic evidence" - This sounds like an agenda, which is not Wikipeda's purpose. The study in question compared Jews with various other groups, including Arab groups, not just "European Americans" - please make more accurate Talk: page statements. You still haven't responded to the points raised. Please do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article already covers my point so there is no need to make it again. It's pretty much general knowledge anyway, so it really makes me wonder what was behind Jayjg's attempt to hide the truth:

"With one exception,[5] these studies do not attempt to determine any Jewish gene. During a scientific conference in 2003 in the United States, the Jewish American biologist Robert Pollack, Columbia University and several scientists have clearly rejected the fact that we can determine the biologically "Jewishness" of an individual because there is simply no DNA sequence that is present among Jews and absent among non-Jews.[6]"

Adeus irmãosUtopial (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed addition was problematic for the reasons listed above. That statement in this article misrepresented its sourced and has been fixed. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

close proximity with Tuscans and Italians generally

"Close proximity with Tuscans and Italians generally" is clearly indicated in the following articles:

• Kopelman 2009

"The European populations that cluster closest to the pooled Jewish populations are the Tuscan, Italian, Sardinian, and Adygei populations"

• Atzmon 2010

"Of the European populations, the Northern Italians showed the greatest proximity to the Jews, followed by Sardinians and French"

• Bray 2010

"there is a closer relationship between the Ashkenazim and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the Ashkenazim and Middle Eastern populations"

• Tian 2009

"Ashkenazi Jewish participants showed smaller paired Fst values with southern European populations (for example, Ashkenazi/Italian, Fst = 0.004) than with northern populations (for example, Ashkenazi/Swedish, Fst = 0.0120). "

Please do not remove the sentence.Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Close" is a relative thing - of all European population, the closest to Jews are Tuscans. How close is that, though? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I Am not more expert than experts. When they write "common middle-eastern ancestry" then I write "common middle-eastern ancestry". If they say "close to Italian" I write "close to Italian". It is not a POV. I wrote this sentence more than 6 month ago and nobody changed it up to recently, why should it be a problem now? Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As close as a published expert would call close? I would agree however that the wording could be made less "black and white" as if population geneticists were specifically pointing to Tuscans only. I think Tuscans just happened to have had a study done and the bigger picture here by my understanding is that there is a Mediterranean genetic component shared by many southern European populations and Middle Eastern ones. I might try tweaking the text to see if that is more widely acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Have made a proposal. Just some advice for things to seek that might make this more balanced in the future, but I am guessing one concern of Jayjg might be the fact that there are less comparisons available for other Jewish and Levantine populations to Europeans. There is a focus upon Ashkenazi in published literature which maybe gives a distorted impression. I know from blogs and other sources we can not use that Middle Eastern populations show signs of about 3 apparent ancestral populations which appear to be Arabian, Mesopotamian/Caucasian and Mediterranean/Southern European. Places like Sardinia are good examples of populations with a high % of the third in their ancestry. There may well be handy articles around which can help paint a broader picture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any big concern about the new wording from Andrew Lancaster.Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wording Andrew Lancaster is proposing. Anyway, I've removed it from the lede for now, for several reasons:

1. It's unclear what exactly "close" means.

If "close" is not clear enough let's fine an other wording. The one proposed by Andrew Lancaster was clear enough according to me.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. It's unclear why some studies indicate "closeness" to Tuscan populations, while others say "Italian" or "Italian and French", "Northern Italians, then Sardinians and French", etc. It appears the closest relationship is to Tuscans, though.

All those populations (Tuscan, Sarde, Italian, French) belong to the same geographic area. So, I don't understand why you feel that it is unclear.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. In any event, none of this belongs in the lede. The lede is for discussing genetics studies on Jews in general; we don't discuss the genetic relationships of various other Jewish populations to, for example, Libyans or Iraqis or Ethiopians or any other non-Jewish group.

In this case the sentence "In particular, these studies indicate that Ashkenazi Jews share more common paternal lineages with other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than with non-Jewish populations in areas where Jews lived in Eastern Europe, Germany and the French Rhine Valley." shall also be removed from the lede. Ashkenazim represent more than 70% of the total Jewish population. It is not suprising to talk about them in the lede. In addition, Kopelman and Atzmon talk about jews in general so we can remove Ashkenazim if you want.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The addition is too much detail for the lede; we're trying to hit the main points. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your bold insertion, but please review WP:BRD. We're now at the Discuss phase, so let's discuss here the proper wording and sourcing for the insertion, and where exactly we'll put it in the section on Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the lede, the rest of the article is detailed enough.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please clarify. I have maybe wrongly now reverted Jayjg's deletion of the sentence, as adapted. If you two agree to just leave the sentence out though, I have no big problem. I think we are probably all aiming at the same type of thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, please review WP:UNDUE; the insertion gives way too much prominence to this fact. The main point found in all the studies is that all Jewish populations are related to each other (except Ethiopians), and they all have Middle Eastern origin. The other details belong in the body. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, all the studies don't contain this so-called main point, though you and some others have seemingly been desperately trying to suppress mention of this recent one by Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin in wikipedia. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently one WP:REDFLAG study came to a conclusion that contradicts all other studies of which I am aware. As for the rest, assume good faith and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the southern European component is of a similar order of magnitude of importance? (That "southern European" component, a component of ancestry shared with southern European in order words, may well have Levantine origins and be common amongst most Middle Easterners living near the coast.) I have no really enormous problem with removing mention of it in the lead, but the logic for doing this is a little problematic. I fear it looks like you want to emphasize one fact over another fact which is equally notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, the single largest (and therefore most notable) genetic component of Ashkenazi Jews is the Middle Eastern component. In addition, most of the studies have basically been attempts to find out whether Ashkenazi Jews are related to other Jewish groups, and whether their primary ancestry is Middle Eastern, or (as is often claimed) Eastern European or even Khazar. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on Michael's remarks on my talk page I think I can say both of us feel a bit uncomfortable removing any mention of this major and significant component of Jewish ancestry which is also frequently described as significant in the literature. It is true that some published researchers, especially some of them a few years ago, and also some Wikipedians, are mainly interested in the Middle Eastern question (which one could almost perhaps call genetic arguments for and against Zionism?). But we have to report on the broad conclusions of a whole field, and I think that the field's publications and conclusions cover more than this. So can we try to find a compromise sentence which avoids your main concerns? Let me start slowly with a discussion point, not a proposal: it has become more clear these days that European genetic diversity, perhaps excluding the extreme NE to some extent, is like a branch of the Middle Eastern bush, and so the idea of treating Middle Eastern and Southern European as two distinct types of ancestry is a bit wrong. The Middle Eastern populations are all made of several bundles of correlated genes, each representing a presumed ancestral population. The southern European or Mediterranean one is one of these, and may have a Middle Eastern origin itself. Let's read around and discuss, but I do think we should aim to have something about major ancestral components in the lead, which is not "filtered" so as to emphasize one. The Dienekes blog has a good collection of reading material: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Jews --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently I think we have only one citation of one of the most recent and important articles on the above point: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html . I think this is something we can use to improve this article, and also to address this point in a way which can satisfy most people. Because it is handy, I quote a blog, which was giving commentary on this article concerning a point of interest I understand to be pretty much the same interest as Jayjg?

The smoking gun of an ancestral Jewish gene pool is still missing. Note, for example, the emergence of a "purple" Mozabite cluster in the global ADMIXTURE analysis, or of three distinct Palestinian- Druze- and Bedouin- centered clusters in the regional analysis.

If modern Jews are descended from an ancient Jewish population, we would expect the emergence of such a Jewish-centered component in the ADMIXTURE analysis. Such a component would be centered on Jews but might also spill out to some degree to other populations.

Rather, Jews appear to be variable mixtures of three components (in the regional figure): pink, which is shared by them and Arab speakers; very light blue, which is shared by them and non-Arab West Asians and south Europeans; medium blue, which is centered on southern Europe.

The lack of a Jewish-centered cluster could be either due to a lack of a common core of shared ancestry in various Jewish groups, or to a lack of sufficient resolution in the genetic markers used. There is a common thread among Jewish groups (the pink element), but it is not specific to them.

Nonetheless, we can credit the two new studies with shrinking our universe of viable hypotheses: Ashkenazic Jews don't appear to be either Khazar or converted Slavs/Germans; Iraqi Jews don't appear to have any noticeable Arab-specific ancestry; the Jewish origin of Ethiopian Jews is a fable; Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews appear to be closely related; and so on.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• After some first readings, I think it can be safely said that this article does not really clearly agree with Jayjg's reading of the literature above that says that "the single largest (and therefore most notable) genetic component of Ashkenazi Jews is the Middle Eastern component". The reality is more complex.
• This study describes Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Moroccan Jews as being somewhere between Middle Eastern and European cultures, in terms of its apparent ancestral components (see the PCA analysis, page 3).
• In the 8 component ADMIXTURE analysis, these three groups show more "European" component than Cypriots or Georgians (the data set and type of analysis in the main article did not split up into multiple European components, which might have been helpful).
• What the authors do argue is that the European-ness of these groups shows signs of being due to more relatively recent inter-marriage with host populations, whilst the Middle Eastern components are more ancestral. That is quite different from the point Jayjg is making.
• The ASD table, which perhaps comes closest to addressing Jayjg's point, actually says that each of the Jewish diaspora populations (except the Morroccan and Uzbek ones) appears to be a bit closer to their host population than to Levantine populations. That is more or less the opposite of what Jayjg claims to be known.
• What they do not really discuss, but what you can see (I add this remark because I think it is helpful and in any case interesting) is that the particular mixture of Middle Eastern components is important. The Middle Eastern populations all have at least three big components:

• one is shared with Europeans, who have more of it, but always relatively less in the south, verging on the Jewish pattern.
• one is highest in northern Middle Eastern areas like the Caucasus,
• the other is highest amongst Bedouins.

• If we just look at these last TWO, the Meditteranean Jews compared to Levantine populations have less of BOTH, but in the same proportions. Europeans tend to have less of that Caucasian component, and Caucasians, Iraqis, Iranians tend to have less of that Bedouin component.
• I do not really see anywhere where the authors claim that modern Ashkenazi and Sephardi are more Middle Eastern than European. It is more interested in their shared ancestry, which is only part of their ancestry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Supplementary table 4b shows analysis not discussed in the main article. The similarity is clear between southern Europeans and Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Morrocan Jews. It is a good table, and shows that Sardinians and French are not quite as close as Tuscans. Spaniards and Romanians are probably closer than the Sardinians and French in this particular study. The Sardinians when studied at this level of detail are quite a special group, which makes sense of course because they live on a relatively remote island. The similarity to Tuscans might have various explanations, but as an objective fact it is real. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal I think there are several issues including poor sources, poor flow of discussion, etc, that can be improved in the final sentence of the lede. I think this has the potential to please more editors also. I believe the Behar 2010 source is the one which will help us best. Currently we have:

Autosomal studies have shown that Jewish populations share a common Middle Eastern and Mediterranean ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations. Additionally, people with ancestry within specific Jewish populations, such as [[Ashkenazi Jews]] and [[Sephardi Jews]] tend to be very genetically close to each other.<ref>[[Nicholas Wade]]. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?pagewanted=print "Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', June 9, 2010. "A major surprise from both surveys is the genetic closeness of the two Jewish communities of Europe, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim... The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population...".</ref><ref>Begley, Sharon. [http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/03/the-dna-of-abraham-s-children.html "The DNA of Abraham’s Children Analysis of Jewish genomes refutes the Khazar claim."], ''[[Newsweek]]'', June 3, 2010.</ref>

Proposal:

Studies of autosomal DNA, which are now considered the most complete way to judge genetic ancestry, show that Jewish populations tend to form relatively closely related groups, which have much of their ancestry in common. For all non Middle-eastern Jewish populations, with the exception of Ethiopian and Indian jews, this shared ancestry has been found to best match modern populations found in the Levant, near modern Israel and Lebanon. This common Jewish ancestry is complemented by significant but varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish historical host populations. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, the non Jewish component is mainly southern European, like it is in Sephardi and Moroccan Jews, with whom they are apparently closely related.

Discussion welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I could not write a better sentence.Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this small re-wording:
Proposal 2:

Studies of autosomal DNA, which are now considered the most complete way to judge genetic ancestry, show that Jewish populations tend to form relatively closely related groups, which have much of their ancestry in common. For all non Middle-eastern Jewish populations, with the exception of Ethiopian and Indian Jews, this shared ancestry has been found to best match modern populations found in the Levant, near modern Israel and Lebanon. This common Jewish ancestry is complemented by significant but varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish historical host populations. In the case of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Moroccan Jews, who are apparently closely related, the non-Jewish component is mainly southern European.

This seems to better focus on the general themes. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference seems just a tweak, so hardly worth mention if the basic idea is considered an improvement. Michael (or anyone else interested) what do you think? I propose by the way that the Behar et al 2010 article would be the footnote ref, not the newspapers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking my english is not so good so I can not appreciate the difference. Both proposals are suitabe for me. I would prefere to avoid using newspapers in this wikipedia article since scientific papers are quite understandable and give more weight. I would have added "southern European (Tuscans, Italian and French)" but I am not stuck on this point. I have other small concerns but I don't want to argue indefinitely.Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I bet no one thinks it is perfect, and editing does not stop, so it can be improved further as people find ways to improve it. I also notice we've not mentioned the Tuscan match at all now, and maybe that is not perfect, but in any case the text does not distract in any case the text now seems more neutral and better sourced. Perhaps the Tuscan/Italian thing can be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that the whole thrust of the paragraph is contradicted by more recent autosomal studies.

The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin1,2,3

Abstract

Background: This study aims to establish the likely origin of EEJ (Eastern European Jews) by genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers and haplogroups on the X and Y chromosomes and mtDNA.

Results: According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations.

The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. In contrast according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean. MtDNA shows a mixed pattern, but overall EEJ are more distant from most populations and hold a marginal rather than a central position. The autosomal genetic distance matrix has a very high correlation {0.789) with geography, whereas the X-chromosomal, Y-chromosomal and mtDNA matrices have a lower correlation (0.540, 0.395 and 0.641 respectively).

Conclusions: The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. The reasons for the discrepancy between the biparental markers and the uniparental markers are discussed.

See Table 1 on Page 3 in particular.

Some reference to the fact that recent autosomal studies are not unanimous about the issue of the alleged commom ancestry of Jews should be made in that paragraph. Which means it needs to be totally rewritten or removed. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tuscan/Italian is already mentioned in the body. Let's keep as it is. thank you.Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"more recent autosomal studies"? "it needs to be totally rewritten or removed"? Nonsense. There have been several studies of Ashkenazi Jews in 2009 and 2010, all cited in this article, all of which contradict the WP:REDFLAG study you keep promoting. I suggest you review WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course all the studies cited in the article support your position. You won't allow others to be mentioned, anywhere. Yes, many candidate WP rules are being offered as to why a peer-reviewed study which happens to draw an inconvenient conclusion must not be included. In fact, Zoossmann-Diskin references several of the papers cited by the article. In particular he points out that despite the use of a slightly different metric for autosomal genetic distance, Tian et al, from which the table on Fst autosomal genetic distances used in the article is drawn, shows that Italians and Greeks are closer to Middle East populations than Ashkenazi Jews are. The problem for you and others is the fact that Zoossman-Diskin goes further and gives the genetic distances of Ashkenazis to Middle East Jewish populations alongside those to European populations in Table1, page 3. What Tian et al hints at becomes unavoidably clear. If, as the article claims, autosomal studies are now considered "the most complete way to judge genetic ancestry", then you better hope he falsified his results for some reason. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)