Talk:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

Comments

Dear Editors,

I see how effective you are. I would ask you please also to edit this. All the case is now over and some of the information on the first part is not accurate. Cavalli-Sforza only objected the Palestinian paper (which was removed from Internet), but never any other anthropology HLA paper from Arnaiz-Villena or other authors, i.e.: about Greeks. One locus results are not "one locus"(including the Palestinian paper),the HLA papers also include "quasi-specicic" allele frequencies, genetic distances, most frequent HLA haplotypes and the multidimensinal representation of one or two loci genetic distances representation. These papers "based on one locus" are continuously published (1),(2),(3)

(1)-Human Immunology Editor
(2)-Tissue Antigens Editor.
(3)-International Journal of Immunogenetics Editor.

I don't think what you say is true. Cavalli-Sforza objected to the Macdeonian/Greek paper, not the Palestine one.[1]. Paul B 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please,go to Nature,see Cavalli-Sforza note on Palestinian paper (2002) and you will see that this is true. Tor

I have just now reading this oldish Cavalli-Sforza note in Nature (415:115,2002). He definetively refers to the Palestinian paper. He marginally mentions Greek and Japanese, questioning why long branches attract in dendrograms. This is a universal phenomenon and chapters of books are dedicated to it. However, a) There is an ongoing current discussion on "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe" in Wikipedia at present days, which you can consult. I am not interested in this topic. b) Dork et al, Am.J.Hum. Gen.63:656 (1998) find markers in Chromosome 7 shared only between Sub-Saharans and Greeks(among Europeans). HLA complex is placed in Chr 6. b) Hajjej et al, Eur Journal of Medical Genetics,49:43 (2006) find exactly the same relatednedss of Greeks and Sub-Saharans by using HLA markers.

Reversions

The article HLA Genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan Orgins of the Greeks is accessible online. At no point does it refer to "Macedonian Slavs", only to Macedonians. OnlY once in the entire article is the word "Slav" mentioned, in this passage:

"Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived between northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans and were considered by the classical Greeks as "non-Greek barbarians" that could not participate in the Olympic games. Herodotus wrote that Macedonians were "Dorians" and were never admitted to the Greek community. They did not speak Greek but another language presently unknown and of which only proper names remain; nowadays they speak a Slavic language. Macedonians fought against the Greeks between 337-356BC under King Philip II"

Now, it's difficult to believe that the jaw-dropping confusions displayed in these sentences could ever have been published anywhere. The slightest slither of research might have revealed to the authors that Dorian is a dialect of Greek, spoken, most famously by the Spartans. The idea that the Macedonians spoke some unrelated language is fantasy. Macedonian was almost certainly closely related to the various dialects of Greek. The whole passage is a piece of shoddy dishonest nonsense designed to separate them from Greeks, for whatever political reason. Of course the genetics of the local population is a different matter. Paul B (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And a new information about the suposed subsaharan origin of the Greeks. Another study was conducted in 2004 in the University of Ss. Kiril and Metodij, Skopje, Macedonia and used High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 following the methodology of Arnaiz-Villena.

They did not reach to the same conclusion as Arnaiz-Villena but instead no sub-Saharan admixture was detected

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111%2Fj.1399-0039.2004.00273.x High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population

Seleukosa (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy's work is all over Wikipedia

These fringe theories are cited as proof of the "racial" makeups of several ethnic groups in wikipedia. His work is cited as authoritative in:

• HLA-DQ8
• Genetic origins of the Turkish people
• Kurdish language
• Kurdish language
• Origins of the Kurds
• Iberian-Guanche inscriptions
• and is the sole source for Usko-Mediterranean languages.

All this seems a bit suspect. T L Miles (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy

It appears that wikipedia has in this instance failed in its design. Perhaps in a few years this page will correctly reflect the fact that the journal article was retracted because it contradicted Jewish religious dogma, and that politically charged wording was the pretence for attacking it. The fist of ignorance shakes itself in the face of science again. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)