Talk:Anatole Klyosov/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

contest delete request

klyosov is a top scientist in his field, he became millionare from his chemical discoveries in the USA. his articles are in top russian scientist journals, where russia obviously is one of the most advanced nations in science in all fields if not surpassing most other countries. their scientific journals, discoveries colleges even if not acknowledged in the west to just to protect western medical discoveries/medicines etc, does not lessen russian contribution to science, unless if you want to transform wiki to just the anglosaxons knowledge encyclopedia with scientific research not mentioned in Pub Med such as most the world scientific discoveries in ancient times like Avicenna etc making this request for deletion a hate/discrimination gesture. Klyosov chemical doscoveries made in the us in the english language of which he became millionaire, and other studies he done are also in english and his findings are extensively resourced by other academiaViibird (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Some dubuious journals of his

The "Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba" and the "The Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy" are his - self-published via Lulu.com - and should not be used as sources. He's also editor of "Advances in Anthropology" published by Scientific Research Publishing - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatole Klyosov. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The anthropology papers of his I've read come across as the work of a crackpot. (They are also among the snarkiest papers I've ever read, and have racist overtones.) I am not at all surprised that (like so much of his stuff) they had to be self-published, and are virtually never cited in any peer reviewed papers. Since credible researchers don't want to dignify his junk with comments or rebuttals, I hope that the deletion idea will come up again, as there may be no way to accurately represent this author within the confines of BLP. 173.228.54.175 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Venomous comments without any proof

First, a journal itself cannot be taken as a proof of quality of papers published in it. Only the paper itself can be considered for its quality. For this, a qualified review is needed.

Second, venomous comments without any proof and which reflect an opinion of a person who wrote it cannot be considered as a qualified comment.

Third, any journal "for pay" can be easily called as "predatory". Klyosov's papers in Advances in Anthropology are downloaded by many thousands, they are the most downloaded papers in the journal. The Editorial Boards of Advances in Anthropology consists of University Professors. It seems there is a problem with author(s) of those negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.214.64 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but our WP:VERIFY and WP:RS make it clear that it is the journal that normally determines whether we use a source. And a lot of Klyosov's work is self-published via Lulu.com - his "academies" aren't what they seem to be. And numbers of downloads are irrelevant. We have an article on the publisher: Scientific Research Publishing which doesn't make it appear at all impressive. We don't even know if the professors you mention know they are on the board or are in relevant fields - "Some of the journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own.[10] In 2012, one of its journals, Advances in Pure Mathematics, accepted a paper written by a random text generator." Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, there was a mass resignation of the editorial board. He took over as editor in chief.[1] "I resigned as Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Anthropology after consistent and flagrant unethical breaches by the editorial staff in China. [ ...]. The senior members of the Editorial Board resigned as well and we wrote up the editorial conditions we wanted implemented before we would return. The editorial staff in China was unwilling to integrate the scholars on the Editorial Board into the decision-making process regarding the review, acceptance, and publication of articles. This was unacceptable. For them it was only about making money. We were simply their “front”. [...]." Signed by Fatimah Jackson. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Mass resignation" and its (non) relevance to Anatole Klyosov profile

Interesting. Why such a desperate attempt to discredit Klyosov by "Dougweller"?

1. "Mass resignation" (in fact, a third of the Editorial Board stayed) has happened before Klyosov have assumed a position of Editor-in-Chief. So why to put it into his profile? The former Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Fatimah Jackson, could not get along with the journal' staff, so she agitated the Board and talk them into resign. Not a big deal, since all who left did not publish a single paper in the journal, so to leave was a relief to them. The journal has invited Klyosov to accept the position of new Editor-in-Chief since May 2013. Was that the main reason Dougweller wants to sanction Klyosov? It is ridiculous. For the last year and a half Klyosov has changed the journal, invited new Editorial Board members, some of them are prominent university professors, wrote editorial papers. What is wrong with that?

2. Regarding his "self-publishing", what is wrong with that too? People from all over the world publish in his Proceedings. What is wrong with that too? Gosh, just do not read it, that is all. Easy.

3. Recently Klyosov has published a paper in European Journal of Human Genetics. Is it also self publishing?

4. Klyosov's Advances in Anthropology is NOT on the list of "predatory" publications. Why this comment was removed from the Klyosov profile?

5. Klyosov is highly decorated for his scientific achievements. He was elected to the World Academy of Art and Science, founded by Albert Einstein (along with a number of Nobel laureates), he was elected to the National Academy of Science (country of Georgia), his books are published by recognized publishers, such as John Wiley and Sons, Oxford University Press, etc. So why those negative comments by Dougweller, who did not review his books and papers, and based his venomous comments based on his personal and non-qualified opinion? He bends every event associated with Klyosov (and those not associated with him, such as "mass resignation" to a negative side. It is grossly unfair. Looks like a personal vendetta. Or as a character assassination, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.195.229 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest for deletion

I've never done a AFD myself, but I know an article that needs to be deleted when I see one. This is one.

1. Self-published works are not counted toward notability
2. Some works here are mis-represented. For example, #14 is not a published paper, but a paper stored at an open "pre-print" site.
3. Cite 4 is his own site, so is not a reliable source
4. Cite 3 does not mention him
5. Cite 2 does legitimately state him as an Internet pioneer.
6. Cites 8 & 9 are in a journal with a very poor reputation, known as a predatory journal
7. Cites 11 & 12 are in a "free" journal with zero impact factor
8. Cites 17 - 19 (Proceedings from the Russian Academy of DNA Geneology) are published via LuLu.

Also note that many edits to his page are from a single IP address that appears to be a Single Purpose Account. All of this is enough to qualify this article for deletion. If no one else takes it up, I'll commit to my first AFD request. LaMona (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually fixed some of these. What is missing here, of course, is any mention of his career positions. The only source I can find for those is on his own web page. I added what I could from the Galectin page, a company he founded. As I don't know much about the company, I cannot guarantee that it is a reliable resource. The company listed on his editorship of the journal of dubious quality is not listed on his home page, and the page I do find does not list staff. [2] Personally, I'm still not sure what's going on here in terms of who he is and what he's up to at the moment. But I did do as much clean-up as I could. I would like to remove the articles published in poorly regarded journals, as they have little academic value, but I don't think that would be ethical. The books published by OUP and Wiley should be sufficient, although in all but one case he was the editor, and it is hard to know what that means. (For conference proceedings, it can just be the person who forced everyone to cough up copies of their papers; for some books, the editor has a major contribution.) I haven't look into the patents, and I don't know how those affect notability. The problem that I see is that we have no solid information on who this person works for and what work he is currently engaged in. For a biography of a living person, that's a real lack.LaMona (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

LaMona, this isn't actually an WP:AfD, but if you really want I can start one. I'd want to quote your rationale so that it's clearly yours. Let me know what you want me to do. The criteria that apply to him are at WP:NOTABILITY. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dougweller. I think the other criterion is WP:ACADEMIC. He seems to be somewhere between an entrepreneur and an academic, having been a visiting prof at Harvard (acc. to sources; this is something we may not be able to confirm). This article was listed for deletion once before, and the decision was 'keep'. I looked at the discussion there, though, and it wasn't very detailed. He does have some highly cited articles Google Scholar search, some with reputable publishers, but others in "pay to play" journals with poor reputations. If you'll set up the AFD, you can use my criteria, with attribution, and I'll take the heat. LaMona (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Self Publishing

Folks, if you do not like self-published editions, just remove them from the article. It would only improve the article. After all, the article does not contain any reference of his to self-publishing. Why someone needed to include those in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.195.229 (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue why you think that "Through Lulu.com Klyosov self-publishes the The Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy[16][17] and the Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba" isn't relevant. The fact that he runs two 'academies' that are actually self-published titles is as relevant as any of his other work as an academic. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the credentials of those who contest biographical statements made by a third party regarding Dr. Anatole Klyosov?

I have been using Dr. Klyosov's methods for several years with much success and in fact are a key reason for my research success. I have found that most comments made about Anatole are from those who do not have the math background to understand his work nor do they have the development background to handle the processes necessary to build phylogenetic trees. In reading statements made against Anatole, I do not see anything but opinion and mean spirited opinion. None of these negative comments include their background or credentials. So I ask, what makes their statements qualified to have any standing whatsoever? If they had the credentials they would proudly include them.

My credentials include having an equivalent of a minor in engineering math and computer science, worked as a software developer and manager for 20 years, am currently a MSPA candidate at Northwestern, I have been researching yDNA for 5 years and using Anatole's methods for 3 years, am in the process of publishing my work on yDNA based on a base haplotype, and am representing submissions to ISOGG in my area of expertise.

So Dougweller, who are you? And the other detractors with unqualified opinions? If indeed those are your real names. The statements you have both made are libelous and unfounded which comes with a legal remedy attached based on the public written documentation above which I am saving for future reference. Your statements demonstrate your ignorance. Your willingness to post your ignorance is evidence of itself. Unless you can prove your identity, the Wiki editors should dismiss your statements outright. I will be writing directly to the editors with my complaint regarding your libelous comments against Dr. Anatole Klyosov. What you are attempting to due is unlawful, unethical and simply bad character.

As a Certified Fraud Examiner and former police officer, I suggest you remove your unlawful comments immediately or face legal consequences. Before conducting yourself in this disreputable manner again online, you may consider that your IP address is connected to your posting, as well as your login account, and everything on the internet literally remains stored somewhere forever. The paper trail already exists and is available for a determined investigator to follow the path to you.

Science is not established by popular opinion or by consensus. Science stands on its own merit. Krkerwin (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked Krkerwin for this legal threat. One can edit here, or you can pursue legal action, but not both. As for the rest of the nonsense above, please read the links to our guidelines and policies in the welcome template on your talk page, this is not the ay we do things here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not out of Africa

I don't know if this is significant enough yet (by which I mean I cannot find any discussion of this in reliably published (academic) sources, just blogs), but Klyosov states that "“Ancestors of the most present-day non-Africans did not come from Africa in the last 30,000 - 600,000 years at least. In other words, those who migrated from Africa, or were forcefully taken out as slaves, are not ancestors of the contemporary Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians, Polynesians. This follows from the whole multitude of data in anthropology, genetics, archaeology, DNA genealogy." in Advances in Anthropology 2014. Vol.4, No.1, 18-37 Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (www.scirp.org/journal/aa) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.41004 "Reconsideration of the “Out of Africa” Concept as Not Having Enough Proof". Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not fair to blame a scientist for non-conformance. The science was and is created by non-conformance, it is based on the discovery of unknown, not on conformance to the already known. The "Out of Africa" theory was based on modern diversity, it was a first attempt to explain the then scientific findings. A scientist must be credited for applying alternative methods and proposing alternative concepts for scientific exploration. The initial theory did not discriminate between the original and migratory diversity, and that difference has to be studied by the scientific community. WP pages are not a proper venue to discuss scientific alternatives, much less to advocate for any side in a scientific discussion. In addition to the previous methodologies, Dr. A.Klyosov suggested a novel method of calculating genetic dating based on methods of stochastic kinetics, a major development in the field of genetics, and as any new approach, this approach brings new results that pave the way for new paradigms and discoveries. The author of this scientific achievement can't be blamed for non-conformance with the past. Any party involved in scientific or carrier dispute should abstain from using WP to vent personal views. WP already has numerous references to A.Klyosov related to different disciplines, these references are needed, and it would have been hurtful to WP if these references were stripped of the bio links. Barefact (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying this shouldn't be included? And of course we discuss scientific alternatives on Wikipedia so long as we follow our guidelines and policies. I don't know what a carrier dispute is. We'd need reliable, peer reviewed sources on his 'novel method' before we include it - the same point about significance as I've made on the NOA issue. It's covered by WP:UNDUE. And of course Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the dissemination of new ideas before they've been discussed elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a hard one. The article is indeed published, but it is published in a journal with a very poor reputation. There is no definitive measure of journal quality, but, as mentioned in the article, this one is listed as one of the predatory journals in Jeffrey Beall's list. I actually dislike that the term "predatory" is used because it sounds way too nefarious, but in general these journals are not considered to be holding to accepted academic standards of peer review and quality monitoring. Klyosov has numerous articles in one of [www.scirp.org/journal/Articles.aspx?searchCode=Anatole+A.+Klyosov&searchField=All&page=1 those journals]. This leaves us with the dilemma of how to weigh academic notability for these publications. Should they be given a light weight? zero weight? or even a negative weight, since anyone smart enough to write the articles should also be smart enough to understand the reputation of the journal? Rather than debating "science vs. pseudo-science" it would be highly useful to find other academics responding pro and con to Klyosov's theories, and for those to be published in known reputable journals, as Dougweller suggests. I mention, though, that the article does no give much information about Klyosov's contribution to science, and that such information, with proper 3rd-party references, would greatly enhance any measure of notability. LaMona (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

>The article is indeed published, but it is published in a journal with a very poor reputation.

Let's start with this one. Who says that Advances in Anthropology is a journal with "a very poor reputation"? It is NOT on the list of "predatory" journals. Why to disseminate false accusations? What is a purpose?

>...as mentioned in the article, this one is listed as one of the predatory journals in Jeffrey Beall's list.

This is a lie. It is NOT listed on said list.

Again, why to lie? What is a purpose?

>Klyosov has numerous articles in one of those journals.

Which "those"? Open access? PLOS ONE is an open access journal, with around $2000 per publication. NATURE requests pay for publications. Is it predatory?

>I mention, though, that the article does no give much information about Klyosov's contribution to science...

Lie again. Klyosov was elected to the World Academy of Art and Science, to a National Academy of Science, he holds major scientific prizes, his books are published by major publishers in science -- does it "no give much information"? Why that acrobatics? What is a driving force for such negative comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.195.18 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please tone it down. Perhaps it's your command of English, but "lying" implies a deliberate attempt to tell something that is wrong. If you disagree with someone, it's enough to just say something like "incorrect". The journal is crappy, its publisher is (deservedly) on Beall's list (meaning that all journals of that publisher are suspect). As for your last remark, you're missing the point. LaMona bemoans that Klyosov's contributions to science are not well described in the article, she does not say anything about the honors he has received. I would think you would actually agree with that, instead of accusing LaMona of lying. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to convince this editor that the list is of predatory publishers. The journal in question also publishes work by fringe authors, eg Clyde Winters[www.scirp.org/journal/articles.aspx?searchCode=Clyde+Winters&searchField=authors&page=1] who disagrees with Klyosov and also argues that the Olmec, etc were from Africa, as were the Celts and Vikings[3]. No way does Advances in Anthropology meet our criteria as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another bit of fuel: I decided to look at the latest issue of this journal. This [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=48897#.VEvzQuczv8o article] is a study of teenager's stress reactions to a set of videos. There are four authors listed, all from Universite' Laval, Quebec. Three of them do not exist in the U's database of people; #4 is a professor of ophthalmology. The article is quite clearly bogus; full of sentences that would not pass muster in a high school class. [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=48899#.VEv2Puczv8o This] article's author exists, but his publication page does not list this publication nor the cited publications that are attributed to him in the -- obviously bogus -- SCIRP journal article, nor does he appear to have done any "aquatic" research. In [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=48762#.VEv4p-czv8o this article], the listed primary author is unlikely to have written about the hemorrhagic fever epidemic in Grenada as he is a professor in the veterinary school (and does not list this nor any publication like it on his site). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. A large number of these articles are bogus. I found many where the authors were not listed at the institutions cited, although usually at least one author's name can be found. What could one say about the editor of such a journal? LaMona (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, suppose all what is written in the above paragraph is true (and there is no reasons to believe that it is not). It might well be that the journal staff does not inform its editor and bypass him, sending many papers directly to press. In other words, the same situation is repeated when Prof. Jackson was editor-in-chief, and eventually she resigned. So, are we going now to blame Anatole Klyosov for that? Does this overweigh all his achievements in science? His memberships in Academies? His scientific awards? His books that he publishes in leading world editions? Doesn't this attack on him sounds unreasonable? Why the critics pick some secondary issue and pound on it? What is he resigns tomorrow from the journal, would it greatly improve his notability and achievements? Where is logic here?

The same is with the "self-published journal". It might be so. So what is such a big deal about it that it is described in Wiki? There is no any single reference to it in his publications profile. What if he keeps his photo album, which is "self-published"? Would it be another reason to doubt his other achievements? Why such a bias in the consideration of the matter? It is hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.195.18 (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has mentioned a self-published journal. You are simply speculating in any case, suggesting that he has no real control over his journal. If you mean his 'academies', of course it's relevant that they are self-published. An 'Academy' is normally a professional organisation with a reputation, not a way of publishing material that you couldn't publish in a proper peer-reviewed way. Just as the journal that he edits it appears. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The integrity of the journal is important not only because he is now editor, but that he has published in that same journal, and those articles are cited on the WP page. Therefore, to use those articles as part of the argument for academic notability, it is important to understand whether they were published using academic standards of peer review and editorial integrity. LaMona (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The only way to evaluate scientific papers is to evaluate scientific papers themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.195.18 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That ducks the question of whether they were published using academic standards of peer review and editorial integrity. And of course we don't evaluate papers ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A Collective Response by a Team of Russian Academics to Klyosov's DNA-Genealogy. Klyosov's Counter-Critique

In January 2015, a group of Russian academics wrote an "article" (or a collective "letter" signed by 24 prominent names listed in alphabetical order) in a popular science magazine "Troitskii variant" denouncing DNA Genealogy as "pseudoscience" (http://trv-science.ru/2015/01/13/dnk-demagogiya-kljosova/). The ensuing discussion generated 2800 comments authored by the anti-Klyosov majority, by Klyosov himself and a number of his followers as well as by a couple of independent observers from a wider Russian and U.S. scientific communities. The anti-Klyosov majority criticized Klyosov for flawed historical interpretations, a deficient conceptual apparatus, crude and antiquated phylogenetic methods, association with radical pseudoscientists and racists, misreading of mainstream genetic publications, self-publishing as well as non-collegial behavior and vitriolic language against opponents. Klyosov responded to the critique with several posts on Pereformat.ru (e.g., http://pereformat.ru/2015/02/klyosov-position/) supported by posts by his supporters and academic allies. He accused "mainstream" Russian academics of "bad science", extrascientific politics and reaffirmed the viability of his version of DNA Genealogy. Judging by "likes" on Pereformat.ru his supporters vastly outnumber his opponents on that online property. A Boston-based science journalist Valery Lebedev (http://lebed.com/) published an attempt to discredit Klyosov's commercial activity and past Harvard University academic credentials and later collated and published some of anti-Klyosov's posts from the "Troitskii variant" discussion as "articles" in his web-based magazine. Independent observers agreed with some of the "official" assessments of Klyosov's methods and interpretations but raised concerns about the style and format of the "official" critique of Klyosov's DNA Genealogy as well as some persistent factual mistakes and misunderstandings. The debates around Klyosov's DNA Genealogy are tightly linked to the ongoing conflict between Normanist and anti-Normanist interpretations of the origin of Russian statehood that preceded the emergence of DNA Genealogy. Klyosov sided with anti-Normanists and marshaled Y-DNA data to argue for no substantial Scandinavian contribution to the Russian gene pool. Hot debates around Klyosov's DNA Genealogy have continued into the Russian Wikipedia where some of the co-authors of the anti-Klyosov article in the "Troitskii variant" supported by anonymous but potentially anti-Klyosov Wiki editors published some of the assessments by Russian academics of Klyosov's DNA Genealogy. The Russian Wiki article may currently be biased against Klyosov and may not follow Wiki rules and principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov). A discussion around some of the controversial aspects of the conflict between Klyosov's DNA Genealogists and Russian academics was swiftly moved into the Archives and closed for further contributions. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Обсуждение:Клёсов,_Анатолий_Алексеевич/Архив.

The topic is very controversial and needs an objective, neutral analysis. At the moment it's being dominated by advocate groups on both Klyosov and anti-Klyosov sides. There's a dearth of reliable sources on the controversy and different online sources are being called upon by both parties as "reliable" when they express their point of view.

German Dziebel, Ph.D., Anthropology, independent participant observer in the debates on "Troitskii variant" and the Russian Wikipedia. 71.66.241.156 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC) 71.66.241.156 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In January 2015, a group of leading Russian academics (geneticists, anthropologists, linguists, archaeologists) published a letter in the popular science magazine Troitskii Variant denouncing Anatole Klyosov’s “DNA demagoguery” (link). Alexei Kassian (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can you go ahead and add some material to the article based on your sources? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately my English is too poor to edit Wikipedia. But our denouncing letter in Troitskii Variant (I'm among the 24 authors) will be translated into English in the nearest future and hosted at an independent site. Alexei Kassian (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your English is good enough, and any errors will be corrected by other editors. So please make any edits that you consider to be relevant. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's a good idea. I have to wait until the Troitskii Variant letter is translated into English, but then I'll make a massive contribution. Alexei Kassian (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexei Kassian is one of the co-signers of the letter at the Troitskii variant that I mentioned. If he authors a section against Klyosov on Wikipedia, then we should invite Klyosov to write a section on himself and roll back Kassian's contribution. We need independent and unbiased contributors, not biased promoters of their own agenda. German Dziebel (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like several scientists have registered in Wikipedia to participate in Klyosov talks, and it's definitely very good for Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• • SSR. I've reverted the reference you included to Klyosov's article in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy about mutation rates. This article provides no support for the claim that "Klyosov has been prominent in the Russian mass media concerning his controversial theories of the origin of the Slavic peoples and the Arkaim historic site". If Klyosov's claims have been featured in the Russian mass media then I'm sure there will be plenty of sources that can be used instead that support this claim. Sources do not have to be in English. Dahliarose (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anatole Klyosov. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/profile/anatole-klyosov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to NPOV

I am trying to keep some neutrality per WP:BLP. I restored referenced info removed by an anonymous editor but made the modifications to avoid stating as a fact (not an attributed opinion) that his DNA chronology theory is Pseudoscience. I think it is quite sufficient that we inform readers that many authors consider this theory as such but Klyosov himself disagree. I guess adding some references to authoritative publications (preferably Western) that praise DNA chronology would farther balance the article (assuming those publications exist).

Another problem is that currently the sources stating that Klyosov's journal is published by a predatory publisher do not mention the journal itself. It looks like a violation WP:SYNTH to me. I propose to remove the information unless a reliable source has made the connection for us. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reliable sources say it is pseudoscience — WP:FRINGE/PS — We need another reliable source with opposite opinion (not author himself with his non-scientific publications) to make some changes... --Q Valda (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views" --Q Valda (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for undertaking this. I don't quite understand your second paragraph - that the sources don't mention the journal; the statement is that the sources name the publisher and all of its journals. For an article that actually names the journal, you can link to this from that same site. LaMona (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Balanovskaya, E. V.; et al. (2015-01-13). "ДНК-демагогия Анатолия Клёсова" [Anatoly Klyosov's DNA-demagogy] (in Russian). TrV-Science. — here 24 russian scientists have stated that Klyosov's journal is published by a predatory publisher --Q Valda (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I think there are two BLP problems with current version: (a) he is mostly known for his work in physical chemistry and enzyme catalysis and very good one, and (b) Intro suppose to summarize content in the page - the phrase: "In Russia, Klyosov is also known ..." - what it summarizes? If there was a significant subsection about this controversy on the page, them such phrase in Intro would be justifiable. I fixed it simply by moving this phrse from intro to a separate section. If this section will be better developed, then reflecting it in Intro will be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • [4] — not 'described as pseudoscience', it is obvious and crystal clear pseudoscience with strange and bizarre claims that cannot be supported by mainstream science. --Q Valda (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

MIR International

Klyosov used this name (MIR International) in his publications on composites (eg [5]) and on DNA genealogy (eg [6], [7]). Seems like this company registered at his home address ([8]). In 2012 it was — [9] — a private company categorized under Banking and Finance Consultant, Management Consulting Services, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (and not composites or DNA Genealogy). Company employed "a staff of approximately 1" (probably Gail Klyosov, president, wife). --Q Valda (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC

Good catch, thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to point out a similarity between addresses of home and office? --Q Valda (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be original research. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN and POV qualifiers

This edit was explained in edit summary. I checked the quoted source, and where does it make connection between Klysov and resignation by another person? I do not see it in the source. In addition, one should not make POV qualifiers about subjects that were already described on other pages. Also, in this case, we can not tell in WP voice that his work was outright pseudoscientific. Yes, it was described in some other publications as wrong/pseudoscience/mistaken/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edit. I added another ref with connection. Also returned sourced information about predatory publisher. 'Described as pseudoscience' — we need another source to say this. --Q Valda (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Which source makes connection between Klyosov and resignation by other people? Please quote here what it tells about it. Yes, I can see that people resigned because they did not like the publisher. But they did not resign because of Klyosov, right? Given that, making such connection on this page is WP:SYN. In addition, we should not describe on this page anything about Scientific Research Publishing because it is already described on its own page. This is "POV fork". My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

1) [10] — there was no such connection in article ('they did not resign because of Klyosov'), just people resigned and he took vacant position. 2) yes, page Scientific Research Publishing exists, but in russian article quoted earlier — [11] — 24 russian scientists have stated that Klyosov's journal is published by this predatory publisher. Why to omit this important (for scientists) information? --Q Valda (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

One strong connection is that he himself publishes in this journal, but none of those are listed here, only his articles in Russian. You can find them on his home page here and it would make sense to include some of these in the WP article. There are at least 9 on his home page. LaMona (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(a) I agree that describing his DNA research as pseudoscientific per these sources is probably OK (no time to check this more carefully); (b) info about people resigned and publishing house claimed to be "predatory" is fine, but it belongs to the page Scientific Research Publishing, and it is already included out there. Repeating the same info on every BLP page of every editor is WP:Content fork and actually goes against WP:BLP. If he resigned or forced other people to resign, than yes, that would belong to this page. But this is not the case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why Advances in Anthropology should represent Scientific Research Publishing as a whole. Information (about mass resignation from editorial board of one of journals) is there today, but may be missed tomorrow. This info is important for this WP article. --Q Valda (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(a) Why exactly information that other people resigned would be important in a BLP of another person? (b) Consider someone who works in University X - would any controversy about University X belonged to BLP of that person? Frankly, the desire to include as much negative information as possible in a BLP page, even if this is negative information about other people, is ridiculous and goes against WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

a) Anatoly Karpov became World Chess Champion because of other person (Bobby Fischer) resignation in 1975. Isn't it important information for Karpov's bio? (Anatoly Karpov#Match with Fischer in 1975)
b) I just think this is important circumstance about questionable journal headed by Klyosov and about himself. Klyosov with his academies and journals clearly tries to mimic science, but these activities have no scientific status (as reliable sources say) --Q Valda (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Did Klysov have a widely publicized competition with another editor to win his place? If he had, let's include it. Besides, this is not "his" journal. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Klyosov became editor-in-chief after a widely publicized resignation of other people (and Karpov became World Champion similarly) --Q Valda (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What? This is getting ridiculous. So, in which sources his role in resignation of other people has been "widely publicized"? My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

his role in resignation are your words, not mine. Karpov himself had no role in resignation similarly --Q Valda (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) (Fisher resigned because of FIDE, not of Karpov, but this episode is in Karpov's BLP, right?) --Q Valda (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CFORK

Seems like WP:CFORK is about creating entire articles, not about moving parts of text. In case of need editors may repeat the same info on every BLP page — 'in 2013 he/she became a member of editorial board of AA after mass resignation...' — why not? --Q Valda (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See above. Forking is also about content. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

'New science'

Reverted this — [12] — one of Klyosov's books (2013, in Russian) is named Entertaining DNA Genealogy. New Science Gives Answers.

• Balanovsky says — [13] — ...Klyosov's DNA genealogy ... is proclaimed new science and counterposed to population genetics. --Q Valda (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anatole Klyosov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930230306/http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Science_in_RUS.html to http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Science_in_RUS.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/12/16/the-chinese-publisher-scirp-scientific-research-publishing-a-publishing-empire-built-on-junk-science/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy

[14] — reverted this. Klyosov claims that his ″DNA genealogy″ is not a part of genetics at all, but of chemical kinetics. And reliable sources say it is pseudoscience with strange and bizarre claims that cannot be supported by scientists. --Q Valda (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you spotted.that. Doug Weller talk 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with such approach. I read WP:NPOV and think we are breaking the principle. I tried to read the sources, with translation, and it is obvious that one group of scientists tried to discredit his work in genetic genealogy, whose conclusion we cannot accept as the majority and mainstream conclusion, without showing the answer by other scentists who support him or his own answer. As well, the title "Pseudoscientific publications" is implied that all his publications are pseudoscientific and wrong. Where is reference that each of those publications are of pseudoscientific value? Instead of using an imposed label by a group of scholars, like "pseudoscientific", to marginalize a notable scientist, it should be noted and explained to the public in which parts his work is erroneous. Also I would like you to cite me the exact sentence and reference in which is explained that he does not think DNA genealogy is not related to genetic genealogy, yet to chemical kinetics. If you read any his publication, and you are familiar with genetic genealogy, his work is not different anyhow. Chris Stringer in Why we are not all multiregionalists not (2014) cited and agreed with work, published by Advances in Anthropology, [file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2013112216082807.pdf African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis?] (2013) by Robert G. Bednarik who cited four references, notably used in his work, by Klyosov.

Also, I cannot but ping My very best wishes to note him that user Q Valda continued to edit the section, although they had a substantial discussion at "WP:SYN and POV qualifiers", from revision of 13:17, 28 June 2016, when user JzG who did not participate in the discussion re-added the info as of 11:02, 31 August 2016.--JoyceWood (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are not satisfied with this version, one possible solution would be to expand the section entitled "DNA genealogy". Here you should explain (based on independent publications in RS rather than in "predatory" journals) the following: (a) what exactly was so novel in the "DNA genealogy" by Klysov; (b) why exactly this theory has been described as pseudoscientific in a number of publications (those are Russian language sources and beyond my area of expertise). If there are any positive publications in 3rd party RS about this theory, (like [file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2013112216082807.pdf here]), they can be used per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that I don't agree with the use of such a short sentence that his publications on genetic genealogy are simply pseudoscientific, thus not even in the category of controversial, but without any value of consideration, yet without explaining in which parts his scientifical approach, understanding, terminology, calculation is considered wrong by one group of Russian scientists. Also, like in mine edit on 30 December, it should be given context to his work in the specific field - what it caused (triggered a debate); when (2015); among whom (Russian scientists); who considered and labeled his work as erroneous as well pseudoscientific (a group of Russian scientists); what they considered erroneous or failed scientific standards and methods ([we need to read and cite it from the articles in the Russian language]) and so on. Current sentence "Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy" and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science"" for me it is badly formulated, against NPOV, WP:FRINGEBLP, even WP:FRINGE/PS, because what I read and understood, from my personal opinion, I find more than questionable the label of "pseudoscience" for his whole work rather than "alternative theoretical formulations" or "questionable science". We have, numerically, references 12, 13 and 14 related to the issue, and thus we should cite them properly to give to the public information for e.g. why and what caused such a reaction in a group of scientists. I would like first and foremost a discussion, if we agree with mine and yours proposition, an analysis of the sources, and only then to edit the article. --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• when (2015) — Earlier. In fact, in Russia Klyosov's "DNA-genealogy" became widely known in 2012-2013, when he participated in pseudohistoric film by M. Zadornov — "Rurik. Lost true story" (see ru:Рюрик. Потерянная быль) --Q Valda (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't understand - those remarks are about when the issue of debate and criticism about his work emerged among the Russian scientists.--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian scientists started their criticism right after the film, then debate was triggered by Klyosov's article "Our ancestors didn't came from Africa" published in 2013. --Q Valda (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You should have been more specific, you did not say that. Is there any reliable source about the 2013 debate?--JoyceWood (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I consider this article ("Militant dilettantism on a screen" in Troitsky Variant 2012-12-25) to be a start of debate. --Q Valda (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In it, Klein roughly wrote "biochemist A. Klyosov, which, settling at Harvard, and considers himself an expert on DNA genealogy, but the international community of paleogenetics does not recognize his authority, his works are not referenced". Thus it could be cited, but there's no need as exist better RS which are already cited.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. You also need to take a look at WP:FRINGE and understand that it is not against NPOV to call something what it is. And it is definitely not against NPOV to say what reliable sources say. --Majora (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I started the WP:BRD on edit by Q Valda. I opened this issue, I know what is the policy to edit Wikipedia, and while writing my reply you entered the discussion, and even reverted it saying "Status quo ante". How we know those publications are pseudoscientific? Where is the reference that each of those publications is pseudoscientific? Does such a title imply that all his articles, not only publications, are pseudoscientific? --JoyceWood (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I quickly checked ru:Клёсов, Анатолий Алексеевич with some refs and "Web of Science" database. It appears that in addition to being an internationally recognized researcher in Enzymology and Biochemistry, Klysov also has cited publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal). Given that, I think describing him as an outright "pseudoscientist" in the area of human genetics would be incorrect and should be avoided, especially in light of WP:BLP. And I am a little suspicious about all involved strange accounts including JoyceWood and "Q Valda" ("sledgehammer" in Russian)... My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • please don't transliterate my name from latin to russian (and then again to latin), my infobox on ru.wiki asks the same ... thank you --Q Valda (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • what (exactly) was cited in his publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? by whom those citations? --Q Valda (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • 5 references by Klyosov cited in Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood (Human Genetics, 2009), 2 references cited in Afghanistan from a Y-chromosome perspective (EJHG, 2012), 1 reference in co-work The ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that isn’t: a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perry’s X-degenerate portion of the Y chromosome (EJHG, 2014), 1 reference in co-work Reply to Mendez et al: the ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that still isn’t (EJHG, 2015), 4 references in co-work Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplotype motifs as diagnostic markers of Jewish ancestry: a reconsideration (Frontiers in Genetics, 2014).
      • 3 references (the two article from 2012, and one from 2014 about "Out of Africa") as well chapter Clarifying the ‘African Eve’ concept are also included in the Archaic modernity vs the high priesthood: On the nature of unstable archaeological/palaeoanthropological orthodoxies (Rock Art Research, 2014).--JoyceWood (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't impose any censorship on the consideration by the group of Russian scientists, however, it should be mentioned in neutrally and well formed paragraph (see below), as you said, to not violate the WP:BLP. There exist sources by him, or others who used his sources as reference, in peer-reviwed publications, even Advances in Anthropology, and like mentioned below, which are seemingly alright, but also different from his controversial or pseudo-"DNA genealogy" publications. Like in the discussions e.g. "Not out of Africa", the next issue is to consider; a) are all sources by Klyosov, including those published in peer-reviewed publications, and Advances in Anthropology, unreliable due to label of pseudoscience b) are articles by Klyosov, reliable, but his publications unreliable c) are his articles published by Advances in Anthropology, which are again used as references in the listed sources, reliable d) are only his peer-reviewed articles, not including those in Advances in Anthropology, reliable?--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
        • articles in peer-reviewed journals are unreliable because of existing criticism (e.g. [15]), other publications on DNA-genealogy are unreliable for the same reason — not due to label but because of existing criticism --Q Valda (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
          • that is constructive criticism, every scientific study must have a critical review, and it does not include any conclusion that the articles by Klyosov should be considered completely unreliable (we don't even know if he used the same method in later articles), actually "Finally, regarding the detailed ‘‘haplotype trees’’ offered by the Comment, these are indeed interesting and can be very instructive". Such a simplified consideration is against that all sources before, or those after 2009, are completely unreliable if they are cited in reliable articles and peer-reviewed journals - by this criteria deduction we can consider that Chris Stringer's specific conclusion or source is unreliable when it agrees with conclusion and source by Robert G. Bednarik who cited several sources by Klyosov, source or conclusions by Jason Randall Thompson (latest listed above) is unreliable because it cited several sources and included a chapter by Klyosov. This kind of deduction is against RS policy.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Analysis

As we can read at source "Problematical theories", his work is not labeled as pseudoscientific, rather "In January 2015, a group of leading Russian academics published a letter in the popular science magazine Troitskii Variant denouncing Anatole Klyosov’s “DNA demagoguery”". In the article signed by 24 scientists in Troitskii Variant [14], with bad translation, we read:

- "This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy"... Using ready-made database and pulling from an extensive toolkit of population geneticists Y-chromosome (occasionally mtDNA), it adds to one of the techniques of genetic dating of several formulas, usurps the term "DNA genealogy" and by exploiting all the growing interest in genetic reconstructions of the history of nations, announces all this "new science", and himself - the creator" - we see that the the term "DNA genealogy" is Genetic genealogy, not Chemical kinetics - but "Anatoly Klyosov, claiming that he created a new science that the formulas of chemical kinetics reconstructs the history of the peoples" - according to them he allegedly uses formulas of chemical kinetics in the study of genetic genealogy, even claims the credit for it, which logically other scientists find offensive, but I don't see where he uses those formulas, better to say, to me it seems like his or their spin due to his work and reputation in the biochemistry.

- "Eastern Slavs - the genus R1a1... Genetic the term "haplogroup" AA Klyosov replaces the social category of "race", putting in his biological sense... an attempt of biologization of social categories" - they criticize his rigid use of the linguistic and ethnological terms Slav, Aryans with the haplogrup R1a1 and vice versa.

- "These methods can refute anything, such as "out" man from Africa... In the writings of A. Klyosov the hypothesis that the Russian North - the ancestral home of Homo sapiens: "160 thousand years ago, people lived on the Russian plain, or in the north of the Russian Plain, and hence of his relatives had gone to the south, to Africa. Arriving there after a long migration of about 140-120 thousand years ago" - they criticize his opposition to the Recent African origin of modern humans theory, however his view on migration, dating and other things in the two or three sources mentioned at "Problematical theories" or African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis? (2013) are different from the web article they cited this quote, so this is questionable.

- "The creator of the "new science" demonstrates not only the pressure of an aggressive, but also an excellent ability to mimic academic standards, which sometimes leads to confusion not only viewers, but also scientists. For example, in an article for a scientific audience names geneticists M. Hammer, T. Karafet, L. Zhivotovsky listed among the forerunners of his "new science"... Mimicking in response to criticism... A skilful populist AA Klyosov produces the expected results for public consumption" - they criticize his linkage of geneticists with his "new science", and like stated above, to sometime contradicting and populistic conclusions or results.

- ""New Science", designed to "re-format representation of the past," not only denies the results of genetics and anthropology, and linguistics, and archeology... Language is imposed hard biological context: if two people have the same haplogroup, their languages are required to consist of kinship... According to the "new science", each ethnic group is associated with "their" main haplogroup... Harvard... priorities of DNA genealogy" - they again criticize his rigid, simplified, uncritical use and connections of the haplogroups with languages or ethnic groups, but which is nothing controversial per se, see Father Tongue hypothesis or Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA, Eupedia. They question his position at Harvard and other which hardly understand.

- "To sum up: the "new science" AA Klyosov de facto is not a scientific concept and can not therefore be the subject of scientific debate. This parascientific concept, unfortunately, is not harmless. Signs of language and culture is not transmitted as haplogroup or color, these are two different mechanisms. Phantoms AA Klyosov in which biological mixed with social - populist dangerous tool of management and hidden forces. Its packaging in fashionable pseudo-scientific layman shape flatters their accessibility and attract readers, the national political ambitions which does not satisfy the scientific world" - the 24 scientists are uniformic in considering his concept pseudoscientific, however, their statement that there's no connection between language and culture with haplogroups i.e. denying the biological (genetical) differences between human populations is stunning because it's the very opposite, implying that they resent his simplified populistic "packaging" and sometime erroneous understanding and conclusions.

In the Gene pool of Europe (2015):

- ""Pseudoscience" - a strong word, but DNA genealogy in the version promoted by AA Klesova deserves it fully... The discussion of pseudoscience would be probably no place in the scientific monograph, if AA Klesov not spread DNA genealogy as widely and aggressively in the Russian-speaking Internet, that many scientists who are not professional geneticists, necessarily acquainted with it... beyond simplification AA Klesova genetic data, methods and results... (1) faith in the infallibility of the "genealogical" mutation rate, and (2) in the infallibility of the age of the method of calculation of the share of the original haplotype (developed jointly with genetic genealogy Dmitry Adamov). During the years of independent activity, he (3) declared a "genealogical" speed of their personal invention, (4) was the age of the calculation of the instructions and look-up table (5) introduced an amendment to reverse mutations (6) called it the only true way of dating, and more that (7) of the new science, which has no relation to population genetics." - in short, they criticize his approach to the understanding of the facts about the genetic genealogy, and like above, its use as a doubtless method in the explaining and dating of migrations or specific events (in simplified, populistic, or very recent events, like Slavic migration). From these quotes, as could not translate very good the source by Klein [15], should be made a short and neutral (not implying no use of the label pseudoscientific in the paragraph) summary about his work related to genetic genealogy which sparked a debate and harsh criticism, for example a summary without much detail:

- "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology. His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience."--JoyceWood (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy"... — RS gave exactly this characterization. 1) Publishers are not scientific and "controversial" at least. 2) Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" is not the same as genetic genealogy. Some of his methods are not good and Klyosov incorrectly uses them in the fields of anthropology, history, lingvistics etc. /with bizarre results/ --Q Valda (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Read again - it is more than clear that the DNA genealogy is the same as genetic genealogy (This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy").--JoyceWood (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course genetic genealogy is not pseudoscience, but Klyosov's "version" (or "new science') — is (as RS say) --Q Valda (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No one said that genetic genealogy is pseudoscience. A group of 24 scientists considered that Klyosov's approach/method showed in some of his publications make "DNA genealogy" (term they deliberately use to make it seem like his work is different from genetic genealogy, yet it is not) pseudoscience.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Klyosov himself often claims that his DNA genealogy is "new science" and not part of genetics (in fact, he holds antiscientist, particularly antigenetics position). Group of scientisits considered his whole concept (with claims in the fields of genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history and lingvistics) to be pseudoscientific. --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is part of genetics, what is considered by "DNA genealogy" is both genetic genealogy and "new science" i.e. multidisciplinary approach to population migrations. Sometime he is populistic in approach, but we cannot twist and oversimplify the facts. The case is complex, and your approach is not neutral at all. --JoyceWood (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My approach? I just show some RS.
"It is part of genetics" — cite your sources, please --Q Valda (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sincerely, I am starting to doubt your WP:GOODFAITH. You did not "just show some RS", you're trying to discuss by imposing a very narrow and specific POV and consideration about his complete work and the use of related sources on Wikipedia. There have been listed several sources in the discussion here, above and below, which showed more than enough that his work is part of genetics and about genetics, however the weight of each individual or group of sources is specific and thus cannot be put in the same basket.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are for working on subject, not for speculations about editor's viewpoint or behavior. So I would like to repeat my asking — please cite RS that consider Klyosov's concept to be "part of genetics". --Q Valda (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I already did, do you understand or is your question just an act?--JoyceWood (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but I cannot find this quote. Help me please. --Q Valda (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"This application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy"", a simple read of any of his publications, and especially articles in journals. You dare to say that his articles published in European Journal of Human Genetics, Human Genetics (journal), Frontiers in Genetics, Rock Art Research are not about genetics i.e. genetic genealogy?--JoyceWood (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[16] — Using existing databases and pulling Y-chromosome from an extensive toolbox of population genetics (sometimes mtDNA), he adds several formulas to one of the methods of genetic dating, usurps the term "DNA genealogy" and, exploiting the ever-increasing interest in genetic reconstructions of the history of peoples, he declares all this as a "new science" and himself as its creator --Q Valda (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In the words of geneticist E. Balanovskaya [17] — Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" is related to genetic genealogy just like astrology to astronomy. --Q Valda (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, My very best wishes, firstly and finally we need to resolve this issue. If you're not familiar with the situation, the three discussions started with the discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" above by Q Valda after his revert of mine edit, because Q Valda does not consider Klyosov's work in genetic genealogy (or "DNA genealogy") to be genetic genealogy, despite the undisputable facts. Which summary without many details (later it can be disccused whether or not to include them) is better:

1) "Klyosov is also known for pseudoscientific publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy" and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science"."

2) "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology. His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience."

3) "Klyosov is also known for publications and article on what he calls "DNA genealogy" (i.e. genetic genealogy) and its applications to history and anthropology which he describes as a "new science". His work in 2015 triggered a debate and criticism among the Russian scientists, of whom 24 scientists published a letter denouncing his approach and methods in the genetic genealogy, as well their use in his populistic publications, for pseudoscience." --JoyceWood (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry, but reliable sources do not allow to equal Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" and genetic genealogy.
  1) First of all, author himself in his primary article about his concept (translated to English) published in scientific journal Biokhimiya/Biochemistry (2011) :

  This paper describes a new scientific discipline that is progressively accumulating new experimental material... The name of this science is “DNA genealogy”.

  2) Leo Klejn (2013) Haplogroup R1a1 Was Aryan and Slavic? (in Russian)

  Klyosov's "DNA genealogy" (as he prefers to call his science to distinguish it from the rest of population genetics) is really different from all the rest of science

  3) Open letter of 24 russian scientists

  To sum up: the Klyosov's "new science" de facto is not a scientific concept and can not therefore be the subject of scientific debate

  4) Balanovsky's book Gene pool of Europe (2015)

  "Pseudoscience" - a strong word, but DNA genealogy in the version promoted by A. A. Klyosov deserves it fully...

  etc --Q Valda (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring the reality and facts - 1) "new scientific discipline" - "This paper presents the basis of DNA genealogy, a new field of science, which is currently emerging as an unusual blend of biochemistry, history, linguistics, and chemical kinetics... The goal of the analysis is to translate DNA mutation patterns into time spans to the most recent common ancestors of a given population or tribe and to the dating of ancient migration routes... Its experimental data are essentially patterns of mutations in the nonrecombinant part of the male Y chromosome and female mitochondrial DNA... In conclusion, the author wants to emphasize that he does not ascribe to himself a role of the pioneer in this new field of science... It should be noted in all fairness that DNA genealogy has descended from molecular biology, genetics, and population genetics, which was and is being developing by many specialists in the area", a simple look, not even a read, of the article is more than enough to conclude that it is nothing else but genetic genealogy. 2-3) there contradicting quotes about his work, so do you dare to consider [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] as not related to genetic genealogy, yet related to the "DNA genealogy"? 4) cherry-picking WP:SYNTH quote that is not about if "DNA genealogy" is genetic genealogy.

Even if we make a conclusion that "DNA genealogy" is not genetic genealogy, yet a "multidisciplinary new science", it is partly and mostly related to genetic genealogy and thus it must be properly explained and linked to the specific article. The current statement is not neutral and well explained. We cannot leave the term "DNA genealogy" to open public (mis)understanding.--JoyceWood (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, let we decipher this puzzle. According to RSs — 1) DNA genealogy and genetic genealogy both have equal meaning. 2) Klyosov's concept has the same name — "DNA genealogy", but is totally different. 3) In the words of geneticist Balanovsky [23] and of 24 scientists [24] term "DNA genealogy" is usurped by Klyosov and proclaimed a new science. 4) Despite of declared "new science" (author considers it is not part of genetics), many Klyosov's claims must be examined exactly in the field of genetics/genetic genealogy (some claims already were examined and found to be incorrect) 5) DNA genealogy (i.e. genetic genealogy) is not pseudoscience, but Klyosov's concept (with the same name) is pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As according to recent edits, Q Valda, Jytdog, My very best wishes, the formulation of the "DNA genealogy" paragraph should be discussed here. I recently made an edit, which again was reverted, this time by Jytdog. The paragraph must be neutral and chronological to the context, and thus it cannot start with "books" (because they are not his only publications), "2010 and 2016" (because his complete work was not between these years), include quote "the idea that the human species originated in the Russian North and that the view that humans derived from Africa is an expression of Western political correctness" (because for its first, and most important part, does not correspond to his considerations in [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=19566], [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=24586], [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=42557] which were cited in RS [25], and [file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2013112216082807.pdf] which was cited in [26]). The terms "outlandish claims" and "erroneous methods" (mine edit) should be enough about the issues of his work in genetic genealogy, which are primarily explained in the RS by Balanovskaya and Balanovsky, and thus, for now, it should only have references to specific RS (in which the public can read about the issues), otherwise it is given too much notability if every issue is mentioned and explained, or if not every, then they are cherry-picked (or worse, even wrong) which makes the paragraph less neutral and credible. If the issues need to be mentioned, which would explain the act of Russian scientists and label of pseudoscience, it must be discussed which one. For now, I don't thik there's any need to expand the summary of paragraph due to reasons explained above.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We follow reliable secondary sources. The foreign affairs article discusses books published between 2010 and the date of the article in 2016. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is an obvious implementation of WP:OWN and WP:BIAS for this article and talk, in which is not allowed and intentionally ignored neutrality and guideline to formulate a paragraph. In your revert and reply above did not provide a credible substantiation for such an action, because I did follow reliable secondary sources. As well, the foreign affairs (both in Russian and English), including uncited (2009), do not discuss only his book publications.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just following reliable secondary sources. If you have independent, reliable secondary sources that says he started publishing about DNA geneaology (not genetics generally) earlier than 2010, please cite them. Thanks. Also per WP:ELNEVER please stop posting links to copyright violations on this Talk page. I have redacted the one above and will remove the rest in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You totally ignored the main point of my comments. I cited you a secondary RS which shows that at least he worked on genetic geneaology earlier than 2010. Also according your most recent edit, you ignored the quote "his application branch of genetics called genetic genealogy, although in Russia often called "DNA genealogy" in the cited [27], by which is again ignored the issue of proper explaining of "DNA genealogy" and Klyosov's work. Why this intention to not mention genetic genealogy in the article? --JoyceWood (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be raising several issues at once. The dating and something about what "DNA genealogy" is or is not. Dealing with the second, if you actually read the genetic genealogy article you will see that this field is mostly about applying genetics to genealogy (people tracing their family trees and paternity and the like) - our article has a link to Population genetics - and that is the field, along with human evolutionary genetics, in which "DNA genealogy" makes pseudoscientific claims (per the reliable sources cited in the article); hence the links to those fields. Thanks for citing this source which discusses both of those. That ref doesn't seem to have any discussion about when K began publishing on "DNA genealogy". Do you see it there? Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You again diverge from the main points of my comment (formulation of the paragraph) as in my article edit I never raised an issue when Klyosov started to publish on "DNA genealogy". The matter of when (if we search on his website it seems to be around 2006) is not an issue because it is not even mentioned in the article. We cannot start and focus the paragraph with only his book publications on "DNA genealogy". The genetic genealogy goes beyond individual and family tree, it is concerned about phylogenetic analysis, and thus articles like [28] (2012) and [29] (2014), actually [30] (2009) and [31] (2009) which were published in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, which along [32] (2009) and uncited (2009), also factually show that he worked on genetic genealogy / "DNA genealogy" before 2010.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I now have no idea what you are after. You say it is not about when and then your whole post is about when. This isn't productive. If you want to propose an actual change, please do it here on the Talk page in a new section, and please cite reliable secondary sources when you do. I'll respond again only when you bring a concrete proposal to change content. Thanks. (if you haven't noticed, I am ignoring your citing of non-independent, primary sources, as this article needs to be driven by independent secondary sources. - please base content proposals on such sources, not on non-independent, primary sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The first comment in this sub-section is more than clear about what change of content I propose and thus I won't repeat myself and open another section. It is not my problem when another editor repeatedly does not listen and read what I write about. My whole post was not about when, the comments which followed were answer to an issue you started to discuss. We cannot ignore facts, as well [33] (2009) is not non-independent, primary source.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok so this dif. The problem with that is you removed well-sourced content from a reliable, independent, secondary source. Your edit note wasn't accurate - you removed an actual quote so you cannot say it is not supported, and the source is very reliable. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not question the reliability of the source nor there is any need to mention it. As I already stated several times, especially in "Analysis", we cannot cherry-pick claims i.e. quotes with no reference in which publication he considered that claim (as well, is Maria Antonova a scientist we can rely upon the quote?), which very the same claim cited in the RS doesn't link to any of his books yet [34], more specifically not claims like this one which are contradicting to what he considered in other publications (which are cited in RS; listed above). The another problem with the claim is that it wrongly replaced previous sentence "In some of his writings on DNA genealogy Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory" supported by ref. It is enough to mention "outlandish claims" with related references, also, "erroneous methods" which are not mentioned in the current revision, but imporant as are the reason why some Russian genetics were against his "DNA genealogy", which again we don't need to cite any or each of them, because we give too much detail, weight and notability instead of chronologically and neutrally mentioning his activity. I propose to revert to my paragraph revision, replace population genetics with genetic genealogy, add the link to Human evolutionary genetics, and re-add the removed sentence about Out-Into Africa with its reference. Otherwise the paragraph has several issues already mentioned above.--JoyceWood (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote has relevance in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, then we are going to WP:DISPUTE i.e. WP:DRN. Before that, I will wait for other editors opinion. We can ask for WP:DRR/3.--JoyceWood (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have read your comments several times, and I honestly cannot follow them. I think there is perhaps a language issue? In addition they are not based on WP's policies and guidelines nor on reliable secondary sources. Finally, it seems that there are many issues you are raising, beyond the one change in your diff and the additional changes you just mentioned, and it is unclear to me (and likely will be to anyone trying to understand you) exactly how this article should look, in your view. Would you please take some time and provide a version of this article that you would find acceptable? I copied the whole article into a sandbox in your userspace, User:JoyceWood/sandbox. Please work that over so that you are happy with it, and let me know when it is done. Again, please make sure content you add is sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources for the key issues. How about that? If you don't want to do that, let me know and I will have that sandbox deleted. Jytdog (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog Thank you for opening the sandbox, I hope it will help. See [35] for the content change and revision I proposed above.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Better to avoid the wording "considered pseudoscience" and to prefer "is pseudoscience" instead, I think --Q Valda (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

is that it? That change and you are fine with everything else? Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Due to recent edits by Q Valda, mine revision would be this. I don't understand what you mean by "everything else", in this section we are discussing the formulation of the paragraph, and don't see what else should be changed. I would prefer "considered pseudoscience" because there is an exact group of 24 Russian scientists as well their opinion was published relatively recently in 2015. It gives neutrality to the paragraph, and not to mention the issue, which was several times mentioned, if his complete work in the field can be considered of pseudoscientifical value.--JoyceWood (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We need to understand everything you are arguing for. Please revise the article in your sandbox so we can see what you actually want. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand you, how many time I have to say - that's it.--JoyceWood (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In your last comment you very clearly wrote "we are discussing the formulation of the paragraph". I put the whole article in your sandbox for a reason. Thanks for confirming that you no other changes to other parts of the article and we can focus on this. I will look at it now. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Q Valda with these edits you created two instances of "pseudoscience" in this section. One is enough. Fix it please so that the section is finalized from your perspective and possibly acceptable to the community - two instances will never fly. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • fixed, thank you for notice. --Q Valda (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow WP:BLP please

I quickly looked at some publications and think that

1. Dr. Klysov is a well known mainstream scientist. 95% of his publications were in the areas in Enzymology and Biochemistry and highly cited.
2. Dr. Klysov did not make significant scientific contributions in the area of human genetics. The lack of notability in this area is indicated by the relatively low level of citation of his works in this area' in English language sources. That does not make him a pseudocientist. To the contrary, he made publications in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal), that are main stream peer-reviewed publications, not a "predatory publishing".
3. Dr. Klysov apparently support certain controversial (possibly fringe) ideas on the origin of Slavs, which led to significant controversy in Russian language sources and trading mutual accusations. As an example of a similar controversy, one might consider Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry that received a lot more coverage. Should people who support that theory be described as "pseudoscientists"? I doubt because very same people had many publications in mainstream journals, just like Klysov. It seems that the entire subject area about origin of ethnic groups based on their genetics is controversial, but this is not pseudoscience.

Hence, I do not think that word "pseudoscience" should appear anywhere on this page. It seems that user "Sledgehammer" (Q Valda) is a little too biased. If no one but "Sledgehammer" objects, I can quickly fix the potential BLP problem here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to ask again not to transliterate my name, please --Q Valda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think "pseudoscience" is my problem here, or it is something specifically russian — just not many scientists in the whole world can support "Into Africa" theory or "protoslavs" as ancestors of all modern humans or many other Klyosov's bizarre claims ... so please don't try to counterpose your opinion to those of russian scientists, all we need is another RS which examines Klyosov's theory and says it is scientific --Q Valda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please provide a few RS by scientists in English that explicitly tell "work by Klysov in such and such areas was a pseudoscience"? I can not assess reliability of Russian language sources you are talking about, such as [36], [37], but the titles of these sources sound like attack pages ("Dangerous demagogy of ..."). This whole subject area is full of political bullshit, as exemplified by the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. Did anyone of these people published anything criticizing Klysov in journals like European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal)? And if they did not published anything criticizing Klysov in such journals, maybe that's because their criticism was bullshit? Being non-expert, I can not (and not suppose to) independently assess it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do not understand how much I have to emphasize that we cannot simplify and label all his articles and publications with the same criticism, or even pseudoscience. For example the sources [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=19566] and [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=24586] (2012), and [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=42557] (2014) used in reliable sources listed above (see discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy") do not provide any "Into Africa" theory like Q Valda or [38] claim, have different consideration from the third note at "Analysis" which criticized those 24 scientists, as they re-consider and re-examin the current claims of the "Out of Africa" theory, there is nothing bizzare. If they are bizzare are also the reliable sources and considerations in which are used bizzare and unreliable - no they are not. Klyosov stated some controversial claims, but not in articles like these or those published in other peer-reviewed journals. If we are going judge and dismiss the complete work by some scientist because of some bizzare claims, even political correctness, it is foolish.--JoyceWood (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please take scientists' views on Klyosov's writings on his 'new science' as they are — in their opinions Klyosov is not reliable in the fields of genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history and lingvistics --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Please stop to twist and oversimplify the facts - not all his writings are mutually related, show the same pseudoscientifical or scientifical, reliable or unreliable, self-published or published, low weight or hight weight peer-review criteria.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We allow foreign language sources. The other issue that I don't think we can ignore is his self-publishing. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we allow foreign language sources. Yes, let's ignore everything self-published, published in "predatory journals" and other questionable sources, exactly as WP:BLP requires. However, these particular Russian language sources (those criticizing Klysov and currently used on the page) look to me exactly as poor quality and possibly self-published sources that should not be used on BLP pages. Perhaps Sledgehammer Q Valda should post them on RSNB, but I am not sure that too many people can assess their reliability. At the very least, those are "advocacy sources" that should best be avoided.My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Haven't you read this talk page? I don't think we should ignore the fact that his "organisations" etc are self-published. In other words, he can't get the material published via lulu.com in academic journals, even though he can get other material published respectably. We can probably find a way to assess Russian language sources. Please strike through your use of a nickname you created for an editor after you were asked not to do it. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how organizations can be "self-published", but I simply think we should not use self-published or other non-reliable sources in BLP pages, exactly as the policy requires. I would like to emphasize that Klysov has a number of his own publications in mainstream scientific journals (this is not self-published), even on human genetics, however, what we need here are high quality 3rd party sources about the person, and I do not think that these particular advocacy/attack publications in Russian qualify as such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, this source criticizes genetic research by Klysov. Is it an RS? I am not so sure because it can be easily dismissed as an "opinion piece" or polemics. But OK, let's consider it RS. However, it does not call Klysov "pseudoscientist" anywhere. There is a significant bar for calling someone a "pseudoscientist" in Western culture (and English WP). No so in Russian culture. Just another important reason to request English language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling him a pseudoscientist and saying that others have called specific work of his pseudoscientific are not quite the same thing. The article mentions his self-published organisations, " Between 2007 and 2010 it was the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy and in 2010 it identified itself as international and was renamed as the Academy of DNA Genealogy (Boston, Moscow, Tsukuba). Klyosov self-publishes its proceedings through Lulu.com" Doug Weller talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That source does not call his work "pseudo-scientific". Person X self-published something. Is it bad? No, this can be anything. Should this be noted on BLP page? Yes, if this is something significant as reflected in multiple publications in secondary RS about this author. My impression is that he simply did not do anything significant in human genetics based on low quotation of his articles in this subject area in scientific international citation databases (Russian language sources by his critics do not count because they are NOT included in the scientific databases - yet another reason not count them as RS). My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please provide a few RS by scientists in English that explicitly tell "work by Klysov in such and such areas was a pseudoscience"? — unfortunately I don't know English language sources that examine Klyosov's concept in depth. --Q Valda (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC) And, of course, scientists not often work in area of Science studies (where study of scientific status of theories belong). Moreover, something about pseudoscience rarely published in scientific sources at all — not many people want to deal with bizarre claims like with valid scientific concepts. --Q Valda (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I can not assess reliability of Russian language sources you are talking about —
  1) [39] contains fragments from Balanovsky's scientific book Gene pool of Europe (2015) (published by KMK Scientific Press)
  2) [40] from the bulletin "In defense of science" (ru:В защиту науки) published by the Commission on pseudoscience within Presidium of Russian Academy of Science (ru:Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований).--Q Valda (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think #1 (the book by Balanovsky in Russian) does qualify as RS, and it calls his work "pseudoscientific"; #2 - I am not sure, reads like propaganda. Is that enough to label whole his work in this area as "pseudoscience" rather than a controversial or disputed research? I do not understand why it would be so important to label his work in this area as pseudoscience on this page. But whatever. This is just my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

#2 — RAS commission's bulletin "In defense of science" is aimed to convey scientific views (on some pseudoscientific concepts) to general public. --Q Valda (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller said that you are also active on ruwiki, so I checked. It appears that Balanovsky does not have very clear definition of "pseudoscience", even according to you [41]. In addition, there is a discussion about this on Fringe theories Noticeboard, and according to one of participants, you are actually affiliated with this organization, "In defense of science" [42]. Is that true? My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"In defence of science" is not an organization, it is the bulletin published by commision of RAS Presidium. I'm not affiliated with it, but consider it as a good skeptical source with many top class scientists participating. --Q Valda (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

As already stated, there is no issue with the reliability of the sources, the main issue of the description of his work in genetic genealogy is the cherry picking - if we are going to take such an uneutral and oversimplified POV to label all his work as pseudoscientific and unreliable.--JoyceWood (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

if "no issue with the reliability of the sources" then I would like to repeat what is said above: "We say what reliable sources say. Period. Full stop. End of discussion." --Q Valda (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't discuss like this anymore because with you constant repeat of the same thing, which we already accepted, we don't move on other issues. Then why are you making a problem with the summary in discussion "Analysis"?--JoyceWood (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

JoyceWood I am going to ask you to stop using this page to make assertions. We determine WEIGHT - including what is FRINGE - by looking at independent, secondary or tertiary reliable sources. Please cite three such sources that discuss Klysov's "proto-slav" or "into africa" hypotheses at all. I have looked at the recent literature (PMID 27127403, PMID 26267436, PMID 25168683, PMID 24492235, and PMID 21850041) and he and his views are not mentioned in any of them. That makes his views on human population genetics a) not mainstream; b) not a minority opinion, but rather c) simply FRINGE pseudoscience. Again, future postings by you that do not cite the kind of sources mentioned above, will be removed per WP:SOAPBOX. Please also see your talk page with regard to discretionary sanctions. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog are you aware that you made a personal attack on me with accusation that I did not cite sources, for a POV I did not make, and only showed that you actually did not bother to even read what I posted in discussions above. I know more then well how Wikipedia is edited, and I am not here to make unsubstantiated assertions. I did not write a thing about Klysov's "proto-slav" or "into Africa" hypotheses (see "Analysis") which are more than populistic considerations in his publications, but different from the considerations in the articles which are cited in several reliable recent sources by reliable scholars (see discussions above). Next time before you make a reply and accuse someone for something please read the discussions.--JoyceWood (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course he is not mentioned in these reviews as someone not notable in the field. In fact, he published very few papers in the area on human genetics. But it does not make his publications in mainstream journals (see above) pseudoscience, unless there are multiple secondary RS telling that his work in this area was indeed "pseudoscience". My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see he has not published his views in mainstream journals. Predatory publishers are not mainstream. Please do read the WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI portions of NPOV - his views on this topic are far, far outside the mainstream. They are not even minority opinions. Again if you can cite me any review published in an actual mainstream journal that is independent of him and cites him you will have a leg to stand on. (btw Linus Pauling won 2 nobel prizes but went completely FRINGE about vitamin C megadoses; doing world-beating science in one area is no guarantee that someone is not a loon in others) About sourcing the "pseudoscience" designation, do see WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog They are already cited in the "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" discussion above.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytog. His work was cited in this paper in Nature Genetics, for example, according to citation index database. See also my comments above. Do you think that European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal) are "predatory"? No, they are not. His refs? This is easy: The 'extremely ancient' chromosome that isn't: a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perry's X-degenerate portion of the Y chromosome By:Elhaik, E (Elhaik, Eran)[ 1,2 ] ; Tatarinova, TV (Tatarinova, Tatiana V.)[ 3,4 ] ; Klyosov, AA (Klyosov, Anatole A.)[ 5 ] ; Graur, D (Graur, Dan)[ 6 ] EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS Volume: 22 Issue: 9 Pages: 1111-1116 - cited 9 times including two papers in Nature; or Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood By:Klyosov, AA (Klyosov, Anatole Alex) HUMAN GENETICS Volume: 126 Issue: 5 Pages: 719-724 - cited 3 times including paper in Genome Biology and Evolution. That does not make him notable in this field of course. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Just noticed this source. OK. Whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The paper citied in Nature Genetics is the the one you note above about "investigation" - it is PMID 24448544. Here is what the Nature Genetics paper says that cites it: "One important application of the MSY mutation rate is for estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA). Recent studies have provided conflicting estimates of the mutation rate (11-13) and the TMRCA for all Y chromosomes in humans (17-19)." PMID 24448544 in reference 18. PMID 24448544 (per its title) is a whole paper (!) that remarably, argues with the TMRCA for the Y chromosome used in reference 19. He is fourth author on that paper. whoopee. The other "paper" is also just a comment on another paper that has actual work in it, and this time was appropriately classified that way - see PMID 19813025. When we talk about "his work" we are not talking about his comments on other people's work. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I just noticed that the first author in this publication, Elhaik, is actually the one who promotes the questionable Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry mentioned by me above. Surprise! My very best wishes (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that he is doing genetic research and those sources are reliable, only that his conclusions did receive not much different criticism. @My very best wishes, [43] the use of the word "pseudoscience" was needless to discuss, we should concentrate on the formulation of the article's sentence (see bottom of "Analysis"), and later the issue on "reliable" sources (articles, not publications) and their review. @Jytdog, can you read the cited sources in the discussion "Klyosov's ″DNA genealogy″ and genetic genealogy" above (to not copy-paste them again) and give your opinion?--JoyceWood (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We now have three secondary sources in this thread that describe at least some part of his work in this area as pseudoscience. His other work in this area apparently was not pseudoscience because he has several publications in good peer-reviewed journals and they were quoted in other good journals, including "Nature". However, the overall level citation is low, so he is not notable in this field. As non-expert, this is all I can tell. I would therefore suggest to reduce the weight of "DNA genealogy" section and soften the language (telling "fringe" would be OK to me). Based on the scientific literature, there is no such thing as "DNA genealogy by Klysov" in science. At the very least, this is something hardly notable. But it still must be mentioned on the page because there are secondary sources about it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass resignation — 2

Info about mass resignation from AA journal was here since 2014 — [44]. Seems like for a long time this was the consensus version. Even after repetitive removing in 2016 by My very best wishes [45] [46] [47], and after our early discussion here on talk page, this notable thing was returned by another editor [48]. So I would like to ask My very best wishes not to remove this again without clear permission from other editors. --Q Valda (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest a very simple solution: let's remove all contentious content from this page that was sourced to primary and unreliable sources, including self-publications on Lulu and personal claims published in predatory journals, such as "Advances in anthropology", etc. That is what WP:BLP explicitly requires. How about that? My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I just did it. Keep in mind that lab website was also an unreliable source. Do not restore poorly sourced contentious materials on a BLP page. If you have any good secondary sources to support these claims, please post them here, just like you did in section above. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

UCL, Molecular and Cultural Evolution Lab — why this website is unreliable? --Q Valda (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

what do you think about scholarlyoa.com? --Q Valda (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, UCL is just a laboratory web site, without any editorial control. This is not an RS for contentious BLP claims. http://scholarlyoa.net is an openly advocacy organization and therefore not a good source. I think something like WorldNetDaily is actually a lot more notable and reliable than scholarlyoa.net, except that it has a different "target" of advocacy. It is also important that relevance of the resignation on this page and repeating qualifiers for Scientific Research Publishing on this page clearly shows your POV. Now, speaking about sources discussed in previous thread, they can also be challenged (an opinion piece by a journalist about science, misleading terminology by Balanovsky: "antiscience", "parascience", "pseudoscience", etc.). However, if Jytog and others agree with your edits and believe there is no COI problem despite of this, I could not care less. I said my opinion. This is now your and their responsibility. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

But OK, you can keep these questionable sources if you wish. Perhaps it is enough to rephrase it [49]. We tell everything you want here, "pseudoscience", his version of "out of Africa", and self-publishing on Lulu. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are not many english language sources that independent of Klyosov. --Q Valda (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, that edit by Jytog was just fine. This is well sourced - no objections. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• been trying to make sense out of his story. i think the current version gets us there. He seemed to be a pretty innovative/ambitious guy (most immigrants are) and he did good science and participated in the biotech revolution..... up until 2010 when he got into this nationalistic (i mean that in the bad sense) DNA geneaology thing. the next year his company started easing him out of a management role. weird that they still keep him on their SAB. i wonder what in the world made him go south. sad. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have three problems with this version:

1. Including POV qualifiers for Lulu and Scientific Research Publishing on this page ("a vanity press" and "a predatory open access publisher, after a mass resignation of editors from the journal"). This is generally not recommended because we already have pages about these publishing organizations where reader can find all info in more detail. For example, naming someone as Stalinist Yuri Zhukov instead of simply Yuri Zhukov is a variety of POV-pushing common on political pages (yes, Zhukov was indeed described as a Stalinist in many sources, but that can be bound on his page). In addition, these qualifiers simplify the situation and therefore are disputable. For example, self-published materials are not necessarily bad or a "vanity press". Yes, they are not RS for WP.
2. The expression "patriotic science". Did it come from the opinion piece about science by a journalist no one knows about? So, unless this Maria Antonova is an expert in science or at least a highly notable journalist, I think that giving such significant weight to her opinion was undue.
3. I think that some info included by Q Valda (according to Klyosov, his new discipline was aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics into genetics) was actually good, correctly reflects claims by Klyosov, and should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Klyosov invented term "scientific patriotism" in 2015 [50] during discussion after publication of 24 scientists in Troitskiy Variant. Initially it was just the opposition to the "Norman theory" (before this he wrote book "The Origin of Slavs. DNA Genealogy Against the 'Norman Theory'" in 2013, and participated in "antinormanist" film by M. Zadornov in 2012). Then some of critics equated his "DNA genealogy" and "scientific patriotism", e.g. geneticist E.Balanovskaya [51] [52], historians Klejn and Gubarev [53].--Q Valda (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

point 1: we differ - i think those are reasonable descriptions. we can source them if you like. point 2: the "patriotic science" thing is a quote from Klyosov so it is unclear why the journalist matters. point 3: our practice is not to source descriptions of FRINGE stuff from primary sources from the FRINGE people.Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

point 1 - I think this is wrong, but I am leaving this to you; point 2 - the "patriotic science" is nonsense, there is no such thing, but OK; point 3 - no, that was in secondary sources about Klyosov if I understand correctly, was not it, Q Valda? My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

point 3 — My very best wishes is right, it is from secondary sources independent of Klyosov. --Q Valda (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok i took out the characterizations of Lulu and the journal. i agree btw that "patriotic science" is kooky but he said it, which just goes to show how off the rails he has gone with this DNA geneaology stuff. you were correct, the characterization of DNA geneaology was from an independent source and I have restored it. are we good enough now? Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog, for improving this page! My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes! Thanks for the vigorous but always civil dialogue. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I included date of birth and the fact that he worked most of his life in the field of enzymology (actually, I studied it by his book, although it had two authors). Welcome to fix though. I am tired and will rather do something else. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific publications

I would like to note that cannot agree with removing [54] such section. At least few notable pseudoscientific publications may be retained, e.g. book "Origin of Man". In current version — section Books in Russian contain scientific books like "Enzyme Catalysis", and publicism with pseudoscientific ideas "Who is Against DNA Genealogy?" --Q Valda (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we do it like this. The distinction is clear, and most rigorously we would need a source calling each of those books pseudoscience to use that header. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 1) Origin of men (Klyosov & Tyuniayev) was defined as pseudoscientific e.g. in article of historian A. Chubur [55] — Stone Age of Eastern Europe in the Distorting Mirror of Russian Pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Undefined Klyosov's 10 books were mentioned [56] as "link between nationalism and pseudoscience" in Russia, author was named among other pseudoscientists. --Q Valda (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

2) In open letter of 24 scientists [57] following books defined as pseudoscience: Origin of men (Klyosov & Tyuniayev, 2010), Origin of Slavs. DNA Genealogy Against the "Norman Theory" (Klyosov, 2013), The Aryan Peoples in the Vastness of Eurasia (Klyosov & Penzev, 2015) --Q Valda (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

publications are "pseudoscience with respect to population genetics"

These books and related journal publications are pseudoscience with respect to population genetics — not only to population genetics, and not only these books and journal publications. They are pseudoscience also in relation to anthropology, archaelogy, history and linguistics, 24 russian scientists [58] are from those areas. Klyosov is also very active in Russian Internet, his pseudoscientific column — http://pereformat.ru/klyosov/ --Q Valda (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be described by telling: (a) that according to Klyosov, his new discipline was aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics into genetics, and (b) that all of that (his "DNA genealogy") was criticized as pseudoscience, i.e. as it was in my version. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

b) it IS pseudoscience, criticized by specialists in genetics, anthropology, archaelogy, history and linguistics --Q Valda (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, I do not think that everything he published in the area of human genetics was pseudoscience simply because some of this work was published in good peer reviewed (non-predatory) journals and later cited in Nature Genetics and other good journals (see above). This is one of problems in the version your made: it creates impression that everything he did in this area was in fact pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect not every publication is pseudoscience, but his "whole concept" (=discipline=theory+practice) is pseudoscience (according to RSs). --Q Valda (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

biographical detail in lead

I removed that stuff in bits in this diff and this diff and revised the remainder in this diff, summarizing the sourced content in the body of the article. We have no sources for his citizenship, where he was born, his birthdate, or the exact year he immigrated. The content I wrote about when he immigrated is vague on purpose (sometime after Gorbachev came to power .... late 80s or 1990 apparently). Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

DNA genealogy section

OK so we have two versions for this section, which are not terribly far apart and use the same sourcing:

Q Valda's

From 2008 Klyosov became also known for publications on what he calls "DNA genealogy", a pseudoscientific discipline proposed by him and which he describes as a "new science" and a "patriotic science". Between 2010 and 2016 Klyosov published 10 books on this topic in which he made "outlandish claims, including the idea that the human species originated in the Russian North and that the view that humans derived from Africa is an expression of Western political correctness." According to Klyosov, "DNA genealogy" is aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. These books and related journal publications on "DNA genealogy" have been criticized by experts from the fields of biology, population genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics and have been characterized as "DNA demagoguery”.

References

JoyceWood's

From 2008 Klyosov became also known for what he calls "DNA genealogy", a new discipline aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Between 2010 and 2016 Klyosov published 10 books in the field, characterized as a "patriotic science" in which he made "outlandish claims", and used erroneous methods. These books and related journal publications describing "DNA genealogy" are considered pseudoscience with respect to genetic genealogy and human evolutionary genetics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”. In some of his writings on DNA genealogy Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory.

References

Is it possible to work out a compromise version? Here are differences:

minor, perhaps.

1. JoyceWood's makes it seem like someone else called this "patriotic science" but he did. That would need to be fixed, as it is Q Valda's version.
2. The last sentence of JoyceWood's version should be moved to the end of the content describing the details of "DNA genealogy" so that all the description comes together.
3. the location of "pseudoscience" Q Valda puts it up front, JoyceWoods moves it after the description of the ideas. (in general, JoyceWoods' approach is the one we take in WP - describe it, then characterize it)

major, perhaps.

1. Joycewoods appears committed to using the term genetic genealogy here but that term doesn't refer to these fields in English. The correct English terms (used in the English reliable sources) are population genetics and human evolutionary genetics.
2. JoyceWoods omits the "the human species originated in the Russian North" bit, which is important for understanding why "patriotic science" is relevant. That needs to be added back.
3. Q Valda's version uses the active voice (copulative actually) and states that the ideas are pseudoscience; JoyceWoods uses the passive voice, "are considered " I understand the intention to soften but per WP:MOS we generally avoid passive voice in WP, especially if we don't include the agent (doing this inevitably leads someone to tag the article "by whom?")

In my view the most policy/guideline compliant version would be as follows:

From 2008 Klyosov became also known for what he calls "DNA genealogy", which synthesizes anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implements methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Between 2010 and 2016 Klyosov published 10 books in the field, in which he made "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia, and used erroneous methods. In some of his writings on DNA genealogy Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory. Klyosov describes "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science". These books and related journal publications describing "DNA genealogy" are pseudoscience with respect to population genetics and human evolutionary genetics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”.

References

Thoughts? If we cannot agree we will do what we can to get this down to two versions, and just hold an RfC and ask the community to choose. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you people are close to consensus. I would prefer your version, with removed words "and used erroneous methods" as something definitely redundant in this context and potentially disputable (one source tells the methods were wrong, but we can not tell it as a fact). Note that such words also were not included in version by Q Valda. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to taking that out but others may. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

2nd round

• 1) Klyosov's claims belong to wider area than of population genetics and human evolutionary genetics. According to 24 russian scientists [59]:

  "New science", designed "to reshape ideas about the past," denies the results of not only genetics and anthropology, but also linguistics, and archaeology. For example, renames the proto-Indo-European language to proto-Slavic ... Languages imposed rigid biological context: if two people have the same haplogroup, then their languages must be related... Not less strongly deals A. A. Klyosov with the eternal problem of archaeology — relations between ethnicity and material culture. In the "new science", every ethnic group is associated with "its" main haplogroup...

  2) "From 2008 Klyosov became also known for what he calls "DNA genealogy", which pretends (purports?) to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics." (in the reality his concept is far away)
  3) Klyosov's claim that the human species originated in Northern Russia is part of his alternative Into Africa theory (or perhaps vice versa) — needs to be in one sentence, I think
  4) used erroneous methods — according to O.Balanovsky [60] not all genetic methods used by Klyosov are erroneous.

  ...So, belief in the infallibility of the genealogical speed of mutation, although it has no scientific background, is unlikely to lead to scientific errors, especially in time intervals that DNA-genealogy deals with. So in this first paragraph Klyosov's doctrine of DNA genealogy do not cause complaints... The method of calculating on the proportion of the original haplotype, as mentioned above, is eligible, but has several limitations and in general the least optimal... So here no problems (though no benefits), and Klyosov's DNA genealogy remains within the eligible methods from the point of view of population genetics...

  I would suggest to remove this phrase.
  

My new version:
From 2008 Klyosov became also known for what he calls "DNA genealogy", a "new science" invented by him which pretends to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov describes his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science". In some of his writings, including 10 books published between 2010 and 2016 and journal articles, Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience with respect to population genetics, human evolutionary genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”.

References

-- Q Valda (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• please make your posts shorter. "invented by him which pretends to" is too heavy-handed. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• OK, here is my version. It is shorter and I think more BLP-consistent:

Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy". According to Klysov, this new discipline was aimed to synthesize anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. In his writings on "DNA genealogy", among other things, Klyosov tried to propose his alternative to the Out of Africa hypothesis. His version of DNA genealogy was criticized as pseudoscience.

Yes, I know, you disagree, but this is my version. My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• "was criticized as pseudoscience" (by whom?) (may be those people wrong and there are chances e.g. that homo sapiens originated from Russian North after all?) --Q Valda (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

yeah the passive voice is suboptiimal. i think we have enough refs to call it pseudoscience straight up. With that change, this might be useful as a minimal version for an RfC. I think we have to say more about it tho. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• lighter, ok:

  From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the inventor of what he calls "DNA genealogy", a "new science" which pretends to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov describes his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science". In some of his writings, including 10 books published between 2010 and 2016 and many journal articles, Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience with respect to population genetics, human evolutionary genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”.

  --Q Valda (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Just stop with this nonsense that "Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory[5] with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia". It is WP:SYNTH which need to be removed. I mentioned and cited you journal articles by Klyosov ([www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=19566], [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=24586], [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=42557]), which are cited in the source [5] (as well other RS), in which he did not claim that the human species originated in Northern Russia. You have an abstract and full articles and you can easly confirm it. Then again we go on, in the source [2] the Klyosov's claim is cited from [61] and [62] i.e. not his books or journal articles, and again his claim is wrongly cited and undertood. We go on, in the [4] it is stated the claim you quoted about the books in which he made outlandish claims "that the human species originated in the Russian North and that the view that humans derived from Africa is an expression of Western political correctness", but we don't know in which book he made such a claim, while in those journal articles we know he did not made such a claim at all.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

According to 24 scientists [63]:

Such methods can be used to refute anything, for example human species' "exit" from Africa. "The theory of African origin of modern humans is currently accepted only as a tool against racism. It is not related to science", says A. A. Klyosov. However, even the new data is not necessary — you can use the same genetics data that the global scientific community accepts as indisputable evidence of man's exit from Africa. The trick is simple: explain the maximum genetic diversity in Africa by migration not out, but into there. No matter that theory of "many arrivals to Africa" requires a lot of assumptions: for hundreds of millennia there must be purposeful migrations from Eurasia to Africa, and that many genetic lines in Africa is obliged though cramped, but to survive, whereas in Eurasia the lines at the behest of A. A. Klyosov should disappear without a trace. In the works of A. A. Klyosov it is hypothesized that the Russian North is the ancestral home of Homo sapiens: "160 thousand years ago, a man lived on the Russian plain, or in the North of the Russian plain, and hence the part of his relatives left for South Africa, arriving after a long migration of about 140-120 million years ago"...

--Q Valda (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Just stop with this nonsense.." — I don't want to see such attacks anymore (WP:NPA).--Q Valda (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I advise you to delete your latest sentence because you accused me for NPA I did not say. It is more than obvious that lack of understanding English-language is the primary reason the discussions are so long. The so-called Klyosov's claim is twisted as it is not what he meant and considered in the journal articles, while the claim which is quoted above, in which quote you omitted to show references, is shown that 1) it is not from a book or journal article(!) 2) it is from pereformat.ru 3) it is probably cherry-picked out of context 4) it is contradicting to the 2 sources from 2012 and one from 2014 which are mentioned in source [5]. --JoyceWood (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You called my text "nonsense", not a personal attack? Please stop opposing scientists. You need another RS with opposite opinion. --Q Valda (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not call "nonsense" your text, yet the sentence and claim about the so-called Klyosov's claim. This claim cannot be included because it is not what Klyosov claimed (i.e. cannot be WP:VERIFY in the primary sources), cannot be supported and connected to reference [5] (WP:SYNTH), and having a wrong claim by Klyosov is against both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. --JoyceWood (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

not only called "nonsense" my text, but tried to accuse of violating the rules (e.g. SYNTH) Even after I showed whole text from RS, you don't stop and continue to blame — now VERIFY, BLP, NPOV. --Q Valda (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You're crossing the line - I did not call your text nonsense nor tried to personally accuse you, as well did not continue to blame anyone. You have a serious problem of understanding English language. You cannot accuse someone for blame of following Wikipedian editing principles like VERIFY, BLP or NPOV - if you have something against them, then your behavior is WP:OWN. Please, stick to the topic as this talk is not about editors. The whole text does not resolve anyhow the issues and facts which cannot be ignored. If this ignorance continues in the discussion we are going straightforward to the dispute resolution.--JoyceWood (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

ok, sorry for my english. Just look, you call nonsense and violation of SYNTH this text — "Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia". I translated RS [64] that does not allow this text be considered a violation of any norms (only "outlandish claims" from another RS). --Q Valda (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That part of the text can not be forced for inclusion in the article due to raise of issues and violation of principles which were explained above and which can not be ignored - the end.--JoyceWood (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That text is from the secondary reliable source [65] Please stop, wikipedia says what RSs say. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources..." --Q Valda (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that quote does not support the inclusion. The information can not be included because of the issues explained above.--JoyceWood (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't read all Klyosov's books, so cannot confirm or refute whether they all contain his "Into Africa theory" or no. Probably better is:

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the inventor of what he calls "DNA genealogy", a "new science" which pretends to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science" and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field. In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience with respect to population genetics, human evolutionary genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”.

--Q Valda (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The intermediate I agree upon, "and used erroneous methods" removed if all three editors approve it, "considered" is not an issue when it is in the same sentence and has the same references in which are mentioned Russian scientists (if needs better C/E then propose it), is:

From 2008 Klyosov became also known for what he calls "DNA genealogy", a "new science" which synthesizes anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and implements methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov describes his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science". Between 2010 and 2016 Klyosov published 10 books in the field, in which he made "outlandish claims" and used erroneous methods. In some of his writings on DNA genealogy Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory. These books and related journal publications describing "DNA genealogy" is considered pseudoscience with respect to population genetics and human evolutionary genetics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery".

--JoyceWood (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with last version by Q Valda, with two minor corrections. (a) Replace "inventor" by "author" (this is standard terminology). (b) Instead of telling a "new science" which pretends, let's write: "According to Klysov, this new discipline was aimed to". That sounds good and neutral.". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

maybe someting like this:

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy" and "new science", aimed to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science" and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field. In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. "DNA genealogy" was described as pseudoscience with respect to population genetics, human evolutionary genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”.

as for me, it is desirable to retain the wording "new science" since it indicates Klyosov's pretension to scientific status. This wording is notable and can be seen in many RSs --Q Valda (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I fixed a couple of words. In addition, instead of "is pseudoscience", I would write "is considered pseudoscience" (as in version by JoyseWood). That would be more neutral, and I am sure it would help JoyseWood to agree with this version. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

How about simply telling: "DNA genealogy" was described as pseudoscience and "DNA demagoguery” in the last phrase. Mentioning all scientific disciplines in such context sounds awkward. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. 1) "was described" — In my opinion, this cannot be applied to statements that are 100% wrong and claim to have scientific status. 2) Many scientific disciplines — scholars from different fields deliberately came together and wrote an open letter [66] not to leave loopholes to make it look like their statements are authoritative only in a specific area of expertise. 3) My version (retaining "is pseudoscience")

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy" and "new science", aimed to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science" and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field. In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience with respect to population genetics, human evolutionary genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics and have been characterized by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery”.

variant of My very best wishes

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy" and "new science", aimed to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science" and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field. In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. "DNA genealogy" was described as pseudoscience and "DNA demagoguery”.

----Q Valda (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It was described as pseudoscience in the letter and a few other sources. So, the statement is correct. We do not provide any additional attribution ("it was described by ...") since we think this something probably accepted by most sources. However, given that at least some part of his work in this area is probably valid based on referencing in mainstream journals (see above), simply telling this as a matter of fact ("is") would be wrong and against WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"It was described", right, but it IS pseudoscience since chances are 0% that "desсribed" consept is nonetheless valid, and this concept is presented as scientific (nonscience presented as science = pseudoscience) --Q Valda (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Another version:

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy" and "new science", aimed to synthesize biology, anthropology, linguistics and archaeology and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science" and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field. In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with "outlandish claims" that the human species originated in Northern Russia. According to scientists from various fields, "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience, they characterized it as "DNA demagoguery”.

"according to" is very close to "described as", "scientists from various fields" instead of "with respect to (different fields)" --Q Valda (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This version lacks C/E: "DNA genealogy" and "new science" can not be both behind a comma "," because it is meaning he is the author of something which is called as "DNA genealogy" and "new science". The sentence is not specific and "DNA genealogy" is not anymore in the focus. Similarly in the last sentence there is C/E problem with "comma" and "they" and so on. The "biology" is a new add not mentioned in the sources [2] and [6] (not even a single biologist signed the letter); "population genetics, human evolutionary genetics, anthropology, archaeology, history, linguistics" is again WP:SYNTH as in the references [2] and [6] the "DNA genealogy" is considered pseudoscience with respect to both population genetics and genetic genealogy. Also to list every scientific discipline, two times, is too much. The "DNA genealogy" is generally about genetics and thus changed the order in the first sentence and added "population". New intermediate I could agree upon:

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy", a "new science" which implements methods of chemical kinetics in population genetics and synthesizes them with anthropology, linguistics and archaeology. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science". Between 2010 and 2016 Klyosov published 10 books in the field, in which he made "outlandish claims". In some of his journal publications Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory. According to a group of Russian scientists from various fields, "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience and has been characterized as "DNA demagoguery".

--JoyceWood (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1) He calls his concept "DNA genealogy" and he also calls it "new science", both are the same his concept, what the problem? 2) It does "implement" and "synthesize" nothing of the above, just because it is pseudoscience, i.e. nonscience posing as science. 3) Klyosov's problem with scientific status of his concept is not specifically russian. That is why he doesn't publish "new science" papers in the Western scientific press. --Q Valda (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not really mind if you include your latest version on the page, and I think no one else will have objections. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

done. Thank you all for your help. --Q Valda (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes you were not specific to what version you were referring to. Also, I made a revert of Q Valda edits as the discussion did not finish and there was no mutual agreement. 1) C/E 2) Wrong, don't twist the facts 3) The consideration is made by the Russian scientists. We're again moving away from neutrality.--JoyceWood (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[67] — I cannot agree with this.
1) what means C/E? 2) the facts are those — according to RSs "DNA genealogy" is a pseudoscience, and every pseudoscientific concept is out of science 3) you again ignored my argument - Klyosov has no papers in the Western scientific press, hence the problem is not particularly Russian. --Q Valda (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if you do not agree with the revert - because you did not care about the discussion WP:CONSENSUS. 1) WP:C/E. 2) Wrong, as well in the sense it is needless of any discussion and intention you want to use it. 3) Sorry, but I did not ignore your argument as I already answerd you. You made a needless personal assumption as well wrong argument which has nothing to do with the topic of content change. He did publish in the Western scientific press as shown with the article links in the discussions above, thus your argument is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Please be concise and comment the content change.--JoyceWood (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, everyone except you agree with current version. Given that your version is in fact very similar to the current version, I wonder why are you doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Because it raise several issues which can not be ignored and they violate several Wikipedian principles as explained above.--JoyceWood (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• The difference between the two versions is negligible, in fact the one that JoyceWoods has edit-warred to keep in is more harsh. CONSENSUS is not unanimity. JoyceWoods you have made no policy or guideline-based objection to the consensus version. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not negligible, there was no consensus, I did made several policy and content objections above, however they were again intentionally ignored (!), it is again imposed WP:OWN behavior. That's it, I am going to write WP:DR.--JoyceWood (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect to your edits to the article, there are only two options here. 1) You believe the version you were reverting to is more policy-compliant and better-worded than what you were reverting, or 2) Your reversions were WP:POINTY. Which is it? Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the content change and policy violation mentioned above. Please comment on content, not on the contributor.--JoyceWood (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I will file at WP:AE tonight or tomorrow; enough is enough. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog This discussion really reached its pinnacle point - it is really enough when the issues, violations, and facts are intentionally ignored or twisted. Instead of making a comment on my latest version, you made two useless comments about a contributor. In the very beginning of the discussion you said, quote, "If we cannot agree we will do what we can to get this down to two versions, and just hold an RfC and ask the community to choose". Now we have, if not then almost (because the other two contributors constantly changed their version), the wanted two versions - and instead to continue the discussion, finally make your first comment about the issues I am constantly warning, you are going to report me at AE?--JoyceWood (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No to everything up to the last clause; yes to that. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the paragraph

Should the quoted paragraph replace the current paragraph?

From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls "DNA genealogy", a "new science" which implements methods of chemical kinetics in population genetics and synthesizes them with anthropology, linguistics and archaeology. Klyosov described his "DNA genealogy" as a "patriotic science". Between 2010 and 2016 Klyosov published 10 books in the field, in which he made "outlandish claims". In some of his journal publications Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory. According to a group of Russian scientists from various fields, "DNA genealogy" is pseudoscience and has been characterized as "DNA demagoguery".

--JoyceWood (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support replacement of the paragraph, because of C/E, neutrality and the issues and policy violations mentioned in the discussion(s) above.--JoyceWood (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• oppose' this tendentiously leaves out the "Northern Russia" bit, which is completely supported by two independent, reliable sources in the current version. This has been a key thing that the OP has bludgeoned this talk page trying to remove. (note to others, "C/E" refers to WP:C/E") The current version could probably be improved, but this is not it. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This paragraph mainly omits the so-called Klyosov's "claim" - "that the human species originated in Northern Russia".[15][17] It does that because: "In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory"[18] in the reference [18] are referred and mentioned the journal articles [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=19566] and [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=24586] (2012) and [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=42557] (2014) in which Klyosov did not claim that the human species originated in Northern Russia; in the reference [15] the Klyosov's "claim" is not cited from his publications (books or journal articles), yet web articles [68] and [69] (2013); in the reference [17] it is mentioned that Klyosov in his books claimed "that the human species originated in the Russian North and that the view that humans derived from Africa is an expression of Western political correctness", yet there is not any mention in which source (book or journal article) in which Klyosov considered such a "claim". Thus, such a sentence formulation is WP:SYNTH because the references don't include the same Klyosov's reference, the Klyosov's "claim" can not be WP:VERIFY and WP:EXCEPTIONAL in the primary sources (especially not in the three journal articles), the "claim" is not true or contradicting to what Klyosov really claimed and thus a defamation of WP:BPL.--JoyceWood (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• The RfC is a) premature since neither version is really perfected enough to bring to the community; and b) it will be difficult for folks to respond to, since the two versions are not presented together. Additionally the arguments above are not an accurate reflection of WP policy. We follow reliable, secondary sources and there are two that mention the Northern Russia thing. There is no BLP violation when reliable sources are accurately summarized and given reasonable WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As shown in latest comments in the discussion above, as well the recent article edits, there was no patience and will by the contributors for the two versions and consensus, as the first version was already rashly included in the article.--JoyceWood (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We have been doing our best to work with you. Edit warring to remove a version with which you don't agree to keep a version with which you also don't agree makes no sense and is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE, as was your filing this RFC which has no chance of succeeding. You should withdraw it instead of wasting the community's time. That will look better on you at AE. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again you are commenting on contributor, and not on content change. Doing "our best" is not constant ignorance and push of defamatory claim. In defense of my action, basically, you wrote that "If we cannot agree we will do what we can to get this down to two versions, and just hold an RfC and ask the community to choose". You pushed one and not perfected version before the agreed discussion was finished, held RfC, and reached consensus. You transgressed WP:BRD with WP:GAME policy.--JoyceWood (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes "we". Unilaterally launching an RfC is not "we". Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no "we" in the situation when the contributor is deliberately reported for an AE in order not to held the RfC and consensus.--JoyceWood (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Current version is a little more precise (agree with Jytdog), but essentially the same. Therefore, I think this is one of cases when WP:DR was misused to create WP:DE and also possibly WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

peer-reviewed article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Klyosov has published his underlying methodological argument in the peer-reviewed journal Biochemistry (Moscow), the international English edition of the Russian scientific research journal Biokhimiya: [70]Inequalityofrights (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

we avoid using non-independent primary sources in WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, but this is a peer-reviewed article, so isn't it more independent then, say, a book of his?Inequalityofrights (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you see any of his work used as a source in the article now? Jytdog (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't, but it certainly seems that the pubmed article I highlighted is valid enough (meets the proper criteria) as a source explicating his perspective, and possibly to be contrasted with the negative viewpoint.Inequalityofrights (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Inequalityofrights:, I see that you are a new editor who hasn't edited anything but this page. I can't help but wonder how you found it? Anyway, no, we can't do that. We would need a good independent source meeting our criteria at WP:RS making a comparison between the article you mention and the "negative viewpoint". Read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Our articles are or at least should be very different from an essay or an article in a peer reviewed journal. They are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say about the subject. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place for the article I mentioned anywhere in the main article - perhaps as an explication of his thesis?Inequalityofrights (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it can not be used due to reasons already explained. Doug Weller Perhaps it could per WP:BLPPRIMARY. --JoyceWood (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Klyosov's article in Biokhimiya [71] is quite notable. Mentioned e.g. by 24 scientists [72], by russian media: [73] etc (usually as the only "Klyosov's DNA-genealogy" article in a scientific journal). We can put it in "DNA genealogy" section of "Publications" if remove "DNA genealogy" from "Books in Russian" section. --Q Valda (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would just as soon not list his entire CV of journal articles and once we have one there is little way to avoid including the rest.... Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only another Klyosov's article deserves to be included in the "Publications" section — Did our "anatomically modern" ancestors exit Africa in the last 100-200 thousand years? Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy (2013) — it was reviewed in depth by anthropologists Anatoly Klyosov. Lost logic and by geneticists Anatoly Klyosov. Lost logic. Part 2 +Part 3 + Addendum, however I do not insist... --Q Valda (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this key Biochemistry paper by Klyosov has exactly zero citations in "web of science" database. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This stuff is perhaps interesting mainly for science studies, I think, not for science itself. Google scholar shows only one citation (apart of couple of self-citations) — by Claflin academics --Q Valda (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for improvements in the last series of edits! Good work. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dismissed as pseudoscience

Sorry for reverting this — [74] — Klyosov has only one peer-reviewed article on DNA genealogy (as a whole concept) — in Biochemistry/Biokhimiya journal (paper mentioned above), and it was dismissed as pseudoscience by 24 scientists [75] --Q Valda (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course I did not mean his paper in Russian Biochemistry. I mean his papers in European Journal of Human Genetics and Human Genetics (journal) - did you read this above? These papers are: "The 'extremely ancient' chromosome that isn't: a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perry's X-degenerate portion of the Y chromosome"cited 9 times including two papers in Nature; and "Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood"cited 3 times including paper in Genome Biology and Evolution. I am not telling this is something important or notable, but this is clearly not a pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Those 2 articles were not on DNA genealogy. --Q Valda (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. If so, one should clarify that not all his work in population genetics was dismissed as pseudoscience, but only his publications he called "DNA genealogy", including his publication in Russian "Biochemistry" (if I understand correctly). My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The letter in EJHG by Elhaik, Klyosov et al was not original research but a comment on published research by Mendez et al. There was a subsequent response by Mendez et al Reply to ‘The ‘extremely ancient’ chromosome that isn’t’ by Elhaik et al. Mendez et al concluded: "After detailed examination of the criticisms presented by Elhaik et al, we show that there are both technical and conceptual flaws that undermine their claims. While not central to the arguments of Elhaik et al, there are multiple additional problems in their manuscript, some of which we discuss in the Supplementary Note. However, we do wish to point out that the supposed quotation, cited as personal communication FLM, was entirely fabricated, and we have placed the full set of email correspondence between FL Mendez and E Elhaik on our website." Similarly the contribution published in Human Genetics was a comment on research published by other authors. The authors of the original article replied here. The full response can be found here. Is it worth mentioning these exchanges in the Wikipedia article, given that they have been published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, unlike the other "DNA genealogy" articles? (Disclosure: I am one of the contributors to the UCL Debunking Genetic Astrology website that has been cited in this article.)

Yes, the paper by Elhaik et al. (with Klysov) was not original research and therefore probably qualify as a "secondary source" by WP terminology. It is important that it was published in mainstream journal and cited 9 times in other mainstream journals. As non-expert, there is nothing else I can tell beyond noticing that Elhaik (unlike Klysov) is a well known expert in the field of population genetics, based on his significant citation record. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, there are no secondary sourcesabout this exchange; the lack of such refs means that this would be UNDUE and the lack means it would be very difficult to generate NPOV content. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's why we do not have anything on the page about this exchange and probably should not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Response in Human Genetics

We thank Dr. Klyosov for his Comment. The speed of response is unusually impressive, and it covers a widescope. However, we are concerned that this haste may not be in the best interest of the sound scientific process, as evidenced by the heavy reliance on non-refereed publications, unpublished work and work not accessible to the scientific reading audience through usual scientific channels (categories that cover all five citations to Dr. Klyosov’s previous work). Reference to non-peer reviewed and poorly accessible data and formulations renders the constructive critique process problematic. Furthermore, the use of unconventional and ‘‘private’’ terms without definition or reference renders response problematic. This includes terms such as ‘‘…genealogic haplotype series’’. Moreover, a statement such as ‘‘Since the logarithmic and linear methods give the same datingthe common ancestor, it means that there was indeed just one common ancestor for the whole series of 98 of 22 marker haplotypes’’, lacks scientific rigor and robustness. Nevertheless, we wish to provide some responses to the best of our ability, given some of the limitations andconstraints noted above... Dr. Klyosov’s Comment makes the erroneous claim that the haplotypes found in a population (and representing a sample) form a genealogy, and that ‘‘familial’’ rates are therefore appropriate... Dr. Klyosov’s kinetics equation (Comment, p. 12) operates on infinite-size populations and does not take into account the effects of genetic drift, or any specific feature of microsatellite mutation. We were not further informed on the relevance of this approach when going through Dr. Klyosov’s self-cited previous work, so far as we could gain access to it. Finally, regarding the detailed ‘‘haplotype trees’’ offered by the Comment, these are indeed interesting and can be very instructive. However, it is critical to treat these trees with great caution. We only observe extant samples, and reconstruction is an algorithmic process subject to uncertainty. Without a careful consideration and quantification of this uncertainty, it is inappropriate to over-interpret such trees.

seems like some polite way to call it "nonscience presented as science = pseudoscience" --Q Valda (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am lost. Was not it reply to paper by Elhaik et al.? Why Klyosov? My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point that this exchange has not been covered by other sources so it shouldn't be included in the article. Elhaik (one of Kloysov's co-authors on these exchanges) has published original research but some of this has come in for criticism, and other researchers have not been able to replicate his findings. We cover that here in the section on the DNA satnav, a commercial venture started by Elhaik. Dahliarose (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a link to some off-wiki site; nothing "we" about that. Entirely offtopic. Is anybody proposing any actual change to the article content here? If not, please stop. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing any changes. I was only responding to refute the claim in the comment above which stated that Elhaik is a "well known expert in the field of population genetics". Dahliarose (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's Eran Elhaik, right? Are you telling he is not an expert? My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

peer reviewed article, pt. 2

can the article mentioned here [76] be included in the "Publications on "DNA genealogy"" section?Inequalityofrights (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

already asked and answered above. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Human origins

User:GENVELES here you introduced content based on a non-independent, primary source, and here you made extensive edits again based on the same kind of sources and removed content based on independent, secondary sources.

These edits violate some of the basic content policies here including [{WP:NPOV]] and WP:OR. Please discuss. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)