Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype
1. Unnecessary fork. The topic of the CMH is already treated at Y-chromosomal Aaron, to which Cohen Modal Haplotype already points. That is the natural (indeed, inevitable) place for a full and detailed presentation of the CMH. This is an ill-concieved fork.
2. Bad science. The assertions made in the article, some of which are garbled from an early 1998 paper, do not reflect current scientific understanding of the topic. -- Jheald (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disclosure I am in content dispute with the creator of this article, at Talk:Y-chromosomal_Aaron#Recent_edits. People looking at this AFD might also like to look over that discussion. Jheald (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Content errors
- The CMH is described as a Unique event polymorphism. However, as the UEP article discusses, a UEP is defined by SNP mutations. In contrast, an STR signature like the CMH in general is not a unique event.
- The CMH is not inherited from a single common ancestor, because it is found in both haplogroups J1 and J2 -- descending from two different ancestors, both of which pre-date clusters associated with the CMH.
- The so-called "J2" signature given (which is an OR coinage) may actually arise from either haplogroup J1 or haplogroup J2. However, insofar as it is associated with "Cohen" names, it is overwhelmingly associated with J1.[1]
- The reason the original study found an unusual distribution for DYS 388 is now known to be not because DYS 388 mutated in some unusual way from some recent common ancestor, but rather because the original study did not distinguish samples from Haplogroups G, I and K, which are even less recently related, and all consistently have notably lower values at this marker.
- Failure to separate these out completely invalidates the age estimates.
- The dating calculation would in any case be very questionable (Zoossmann-Diskin 2001), and the error estimates are ridiculously over-narrow, based on a completely unrealistic model. Jheald (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Mr. Jhead is ignoring and is not up to accept the scientif facts from Dr. Karl Sckoresky from Bruce Rapparport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion, Haifa 31096, Israel and his team:
Mark G. Thomas / The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departament of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
Haim Ben-Amit/Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa 31096, Israel;
Turdor Parfitt / University of London, London WC1H OXC, UK;
Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein/ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
The infos that I used as references to write a small part of the main article, was from this team of Dr. Karl Sckoresky, and was first published by Nature , Volume 394 - 9 de July 1998- Origins of Old Testaments Priests. This article was published by Jerusalem Post in 2004 and also published on the THE DNA & TRADITIONAL - A The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews book/ Devora Publishing from Jerusalem and New York (2005)Author: Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman - Director of The Center of Kohanim located in the Old City of Jerusalem. The author met with the researches, and help collect samples for the studies. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the principal speaker for the next Internacinal Jewish Genealogical Society Convention, held in Jerusalem every year, since 2002. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the director of the Cohen-Levi Organization. http://www.cohen-levi.org
Mr. Jhead use as references to dennied Dr. Sckoresky and his team work, his personal friends opinions as from the Bonnie Schrack (?) from J Haplogroup personal project over FTDNA (as thousands of others). Mr. Jhead use as reference, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin from a Summary of the Journal of Comparative Human Biology 51 (2-3): 156-162)??????
Mr. Jhead does not present facts at all, only unreal poor staffs from personal point-of-view of uncredible persons. An indentified person said: “Zoossmann concludes that the existing studies of Jewish priests are problematic and arrive at ‘conclusions’ that are not supported by all available data”. Specific faults identified include a "failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes", and a "problematic method of calculating coalescence time".?????
Again Mr. Jhead use as references, e-mails from his personal friends, as from Mr. Bonnie Shrack ????? Please read this one: “Somehow, you all are going to have to break down this mental link between having a few Y DNA markers, and having a religious status. There is no inherent connection! I should think this would go without saying for any religious person”.
This is insane staff from Mr. Jhead. He wants to manipulate the main article, by deleting Mr. Skorescky and his professional team mentioned above, by using references and plenty of info that was never was published by any credible magazine or newspaper. And uncredible persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- *Comment – Gentlemen/Gentlewomen – First, I will say again, this is not the proper format to resolve this issue. I would ask that further discussions be moved to the discussion page, were I have copied all comments over to. Please leave this page for the Delete or Keep opinions, with reasonable explanations of that opinion. Further in-depth discussions can be viewed on the discussion page. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree that this article should be deleted. It is an attempt to circumvent the Y-chromosomal Aaron page, where more knowledgeable editors have been removing Chris' material, because it is full of unscientific, incorrect and misleading statements. I understand that Wikipedia's administrators may not be fully informed on this issue, but I will be happy to discuss it with them and provide more information.
The very title of this article, "Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype," is not a phrase that is commonly used, but apparently one that Mr. Cohen is trying to promote. The usual term is "Cohen Modal Haplotype." He is attempting to blur the boundaries of what is included within the definition of the Cohen haplotype, in a way that renders it meaningless. It is an old and antiquated concept to begin with, and people have tried to provide context on the Y-chromosomal Aaron page, discussing how greatly expanded knowledge has changed the way we understand the position of the Cohanim within the Y-DNA phylogenetic tree
Please do not allow the addition of this page in order to allow someone to post his eccentric, personal opinions that contradict the scientific consensus.
Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Again, this is my last post about this issue:
Hi Jhead, how are you?
I hope that you can read again the final answer and respect the Wikepedia’s editors decisions, otherwise this is going to get you in trouble.
So, the article of The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype “stays”, and will be “merge” as they said clearly. Dont delete it anymore, as just did it few minutes ago.
Wikipedia Editor´s decisions:
“the article stays” and “I agreed - merge both articles and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete”
Have a great time! Take care!
Chris Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)