| Revision as of 00:15, 16 February 2018 editZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,825 edits →Lead← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:36, 16 February 2018 edit undoDr.Greyhawk (talk | contribs)46 edits →LeadNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| : Oh I see, it is the reported public speech of businessman ], who not only has no qualifications in genetics but has an obvious commercial interest in making such claims. You should all hang your heads in shame for treating that as a reliable source. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | : Oh I see, it is the reported public speech of businessman ], who not only has no qualifications in genetics but has an obvious commercial interest in making such claims. You should all hang your heads in shame for treating that as a reliable source. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| : Besides that, the source statement "No less than 75 percent of Ashekanzi, Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews, their ancestors came from what we call the general Middle East." makes polemic sense but no scientific sense. Where I come from, everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents (except very rarely), etc.. With the exception of some indigenous peoples such as Amazonian tribes, it is statistically certain that everybody alive today had an ancestor who lived in the Middle East, say 2000-3000 years ago. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | : Besides that, the source statement "No less than 75 percent of Ashekanzi, Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews, their ancestors came from what we call the general Middle East." makes polemic sense but no scientific sense. Where I come from, everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents (except very rarely), etc.. With the exception of some indigenous peoples such as Amazonian tribes, it is statistically certain that everybody alive today had an ancestor who lived in the Middle East, say 2000-3000 years ago. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::Not only does their own unreliable non-scientific source say "general Middle East" and not "Levant," but I even made a and somehow the admin didn't see anything wrong with the constant reverting and intentional re-inclusion of this false information. ] (]) 02:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic of this article; WP policy == | == Topic of this article; WP policy == | ||
Revision as of 02:36, 16 February 2018
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic studies of Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 | Judaism B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Human Genetic History (inactive) | |||
| ||||
 | This article contains a translation of Études génétiques sur les Juifs from fr.wikipedia. |
 Archives | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Lead
I have been bold and modified the lead as per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and reflecting article content. One cannot have a lead with dozens of studies based on only one of them Asilah1981 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- The lead was discussed many times for many years. You came first time to this article and removed a work done through many years. The lead summarize the opinion of many authors respecting prevailing views in populational genetic science,exactly per WP:WEIGHTTritomex (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- By what I see the lead is not the result of many years of work, let alone consensus building. What is more, numerous studies have appeared since it was first drafted and more are appearing yearly. There is an ongoing dispute regarding this article and its sources. The lead, in its current form, does not reflect the diversity or the divergence in conclusions of the various sources. None of its statements are uncontested by at least a couple of scientific studies sourced in the article. I'm not taking a position on the various disputes here or on which academic study is more credible. I frankly don't care that much. What I'm saying is that as per WP:NPOV, we cannot cherry pick sources or statements from sources and include them as undisputed fact in the lead when they clearly are disputed within the scientific community. We should most certainly make it clear that different studies yield different results and consequently have different conclusions. The focus of the debate should be on the content, not on the lead which should simply reflect the debate.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- The lead summarize the results of all Y DNA, autosomal and mtDNA genetic studies, as all genetic studies came to similar conclusion regarding substantial Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish population groups. (The only among 30+ genetic studies that came to different conclusion is the controversial ELhaik study which was debunked by dozens of geneticists, historians and described as unscientific by virtually all in academic world. The divergence in conclusions is related to the scope of non Jewish admixture in mt DNA which is properly mentioned in the lead. Although not all authors are given in inline citations of lead, it represent the results of Hammer et al, Nebla et al, Shen et al, Bray et al, Behar at al 2004,2006,2008,2010,2016, all studies of Harry Ostrrer, Moorijani et al, Atzmon et al, L Hao et al, Bauchet et al, Pierce at al, Carmi et al, Pauli et al, scientific articles of N Wade, academic books of Toni Frudakis at al and many many more. If there is a need to add all 30 sources into the current lead (upon which the lead was already written, it could be done)Tritomex (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Further removals/edits without consensus, I will see as nonconstructive editing (This site was vandalized many times by numerous socks, 6 of them are currently blocked) and I will have to take action to protect the work that has been done for many years.Tritomex (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The article currently states Zoossmann-Diskin (2010) argues, that based upon the analysis of X chromosome and seventeen autosomal markers, Eastern European Jewish populations and Jewish populations from Iran, Iraq and Yemen, do not have the same genetic origins. In particular, concerning Eastern European Jews, he believes the evidence points to a dominant amount of southern European, and specifically Italian, ancestry, which he argues is probably a result of conversions during the Roman empire. Concerning the similarity between Sephardi and Ashkenazi, he argues that the reasons are uncertain, but that it is likely to be caused by Sephardic Jews having "Mediterranean" ancestry also, like the Ashkenazi. Concerning mitochondrial DNA, and particularly Y DNA, he accepts that there are superficial signs of some Middle Eastern ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews, but he argues that this can be ignored as it is may have come from a small number of ancestors.
This is a sourced genetic study and contradicts your version of the lead. I see you have been edit warring here for a few years now. I'm not saying this particular study is right or wrong. It simply invalidates your lead's assertion. I'm neutral about this matter and don't have any insecurities about my Jewishness so please don't give me attitude, threaten me or accuse me of vandalism. I will wait for 48 hours for an adequate rationale or argument.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The study of Zoossmann-Diskin, based on X chromosome and 17 autosomal markers, unlike 30+ additional studies is mentioned in the lead when it comes to genetic similarities between Ashkeanzi Jews and Italians. There are 34 genetic studies cowered by this text. 33 genetic studies confirmed the significant shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups. This includes all studies done after 2010, analyzing all transgenomic autosomal markers (studies of Atzmon, Behar and Ostrrer etc), studies of all Jewish population groups beside Iran, Iraq and Yemen. This studies includes hundreds of authors from dozens of universities and countries. All this studies confirmed the significant shared Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups. This is also confirmed by many secondary and tertiary sources. So to argue that that the population genetic studies results concerning the existence of significant Middle Eastern ancestry of Jews is controversial, would be tendentious. 109.111.235.66 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying that Jews don't share significant shared Middle Eastern Ancestry. The question of the degree of significance is where the divergence lies. The lead says they all have "a predominant amount of shared Middle Eastern ancestry which is simply not an established consensus (besides being increasingly refuted by more recent studies). Asilah1981 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- All unchallenged trans genome genetic studies carried out shows the dominant Middle Eastern origin of all major Jews, including the recent studies. However if no further objections are raised I am willing to change the wording for the sake of consensus. In my opinion sources have to stay in the lead.Tritomex (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC).
- Tritomex I slightly changed the wording also for consensus sake, I hope you agree. Another issue we have here is the concept of "challenged". As I said in my previous long post, we have to accept that this is a politically sensitive topic and we can't lace each genetic study with challenges by non-scientists who find the results offensive (that goes for anti-semitic khazar-theory edit-warriors as well, not just "our" side). The section on El Haik largely discusses linguistics for example. How is that relevant to genetics? There are also criticisms from people who are pretty much religious scholars or historians or what seem to be amateurs on the topic. The whole article has to remain within the scope of population genetics scientific research and be depoliticized. I know its hard but that's the way forward for this to be a quality article. We also have to accept that the final discussion sections of many of these studies are more often than not garbage and to a degree based on BS speculation by the authors. Population genetics is not that far advanced yet although it is advancing fast. There is a recent study which concludes 20% of the Spanish gene pool is of Jewish origin. That is speculation based on Middle Eastern admixture which is not necessarily Jewish. Although I'm sure there are millions of Converso desdendants in Spain, 20% specifically Jewish admixture is just ridiculous. The admixture could be from multiple historical origins (phonenician, punic, greco-roman and even arab-syrian, not just Jewish.) But I have the feeling it is the conclusions sections which get the studies to have the punch to stand out and make it to the news.
My key points are:
- 1) Caution with "conclusion" sections of genetic studies.
- 2) No non-scientific opinions should be in the content.
- 3) Avoiding sources on the lead because the quotes are taken from the "subjective" interpretation of results. My original version aimed at that.
- 4) What about genetics and health? Why does everything have to revolve about politics. One of the main reasons Israel is a leader in population genetics is due to high levels of historic endogamy in part of its population leading to inherited diseases. This should have a prominent section in the article.
- 5)Considering over half of Palestinians are descendants from immigrants from surrounding countries, Ashkenazim having European, Caucasian or Turkic admixture does not really impact the fact that all Jews ultimately descend from Israel and have a claim to our ancestral homeland land. It is even stated in the Quran that they do. So we should not be that touchy about that subject about our ethnic purity. I would frankly be worried if my family line was totally inbred for millennia and I sincerely hope I have a significant portion of Iberian and Berber blood in me, as well as Hebrew. We should not fall into the trap of edit-warring about ethnic purity to fight anti-semitic propaganda - since that is a "position" which is not very Jewish considering our history.
- 6) There is a trend in the US of DNA testing where everyone who finds traces of near eastern ancestry in their gene pool are told they are of Jewish ancestry. More often than not, this is not the case. This seems to be particularly popular among hispanics in the US and I suspect there is an element of social mobility involved. It is more prestigious in the US to be "Jewish" than to be "Hispanic" especially these days. You cannot as of yet determine Jewish ancestry of an individual based on genetics. That is why I am very much against this Bnei Anusim concept which is all over wikipedia. I have been editing lately to get rid of that, I find it more of a threat to the Jewish community than any Khazarian theory.
- If we collaborate here in good faith I will support in safeguarding article against the anti-ashkenazi POV editing here which I'm sure this article is constantly subject to.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Asilah1981 Thank you for your constructive help for precise wording of that sentence.The 2016 Elhaik study is not an autosomal genetic study but a mixture of linguistic study (described as "falls" "fabrication" and "manipulative" by relevant Yiddish scholars) and an "innovative" genetic analysis which used genetic "GPS" toold also described by the group of leading geneticists as unscientific. In my opinion his entire study should not be included in this text, but as it is, relevant opinion of geneticists and linguistics (who are many times more cited than Elhaik) has to be included. This is per WP:NPOV. The genetic study you mentioned does not claim that 20% were Jews, but that up to 1/5 of Spaniards may have Sepharadic genetic admixture. I really cant discuss political implications, or ideological motivations. There are 34 genetic studies and many secondary and tertiary sources which almost unanimously have same conclusions. All Y DNA studies (paternal origin) of Mizrahi and Ashenazi Jews confirmed the common and shared Middle Eastern origin of this two groups, without doubts or controversies . As for maternal X chromosome, all studies found Middle Eastern ancestry in both groups. While the studies of Behar and Fernandez found this component to be dominant, the study of Richards found the European admixture of X chromosome, as prevailing. This is covered extensively in the article. The study of Zoosman Disskin which is only a X chromosome study and covers only very limited number of Jewish population group (it is mentioned in autosomal genetic section, although it belongs here).
As for transgenomic autosomal population studies, all studies without exception confirmed the shared and significant Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups. This studies are covering the entire genome and are much more precise than just Y or X chromosome studies. Population geneticists do not like the idea of quantification of genetic origin, but if you read their articles, you will see that there is a consensus of 50% and upward regarding Middle Eastern ancestry of A and M Jews. Our goal is not to take politics into this question, or to hide something because of political implications, but to present the prevailing opinion of science, with proportional WP:WEIGHT. If the question is: If there is shared Middle Eastern ancestry in major Jewish population groups, or not, the population genetics science gave its verdict and there are no questions on this issue. As a medical doctor I cant agree with you that population genetics is not advanced, it is on its peak. By using conventional techniques, (as all geneticists beside Elhaik did) you have a very scientific, precise and hardly changeable result, and this is today accepted from forensic medicine to paternity tests. Keeping sources in the lead is very important. The entire artickle should be sourced (this article is under constant WP:WAN attack) Therefore I ask you for consensus to put them back. Tritomex (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Tritomex I have not really read the ElHaik study. All I meant was we should ignore the linguistics part of it. If its rubbish anyways then just mention the genetics part of it in the article. A Hebrew/Yiddish linguist is qualified to comment on the language side, but that bit doesn't come within the scope of this article.
- Regarding the study on Spain, no it literally concludes that "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources". The North African one is plausible but the Jewish one is just impossible. 19.8% of near eastern admixture, sure. But 19.8% specifically Sephardic Jewish??? If there were 5 million people in Spain after the expulsion and lets say a high figure of 300,000 former Jews remained by converting (assuming all were pure Jewish) that would give a maximum Jewish admixture of 6% Jewish today. The rest would come from elsewhere. This is what I meant by being careful with how geneticists interpret or communicate the results of their genetic analysis. The exact same markers were used to determine the level of Phoenician ancestry in one of the Balearic islands in another study, I think by the same authors.
- The issue is that Near Eastern ancestry is quite prevalent in Southern Europe, particularly in the South East (Greece, Albania for example), mainly due to Neolithic migrations across the Bosphorous. Ashkenazi Jews are typically compared with Northern European populations, when they are clearly not a Northern European ethnicity in origin. Some of their Near Eastern ancestry directly comes from ancient Israel and some must come from the fact that they migrated to Poland, Germany etc... from areas further to the South and East. Its all quite complicated but genetic studies seem to gloss over this complexity in their conclusion section. Are Southern Greeks or Kosovars more Near Eastern in ancestry or Ashkenazi Jews? I suspect the former have significantly more Near Eastern Ancestry. By what I have read of population genetics, to date, there is no way of identifying someone as being specifically Jewish, which is just as well since that would make us seem like martians.
- On a personal side, I know many Askhenazim hailing from northern and eastern Europe originally (Poland, Romania, Russia etc..). I would say about slighty less than half look specifically Jewish/Eastern Med (could be Jews from anywhere Sephardic or Ashkenazi) and the rest look like their host populations. If you add admixture during their complex migration history, it is normal that they picked up ancestry from a bunch of places in Eurasia/Anatolia/Caucasus. I mean, how many French people are pure "Gaulish". How many British people are pure "Celtic"? Jewish endogamy is one of our traits but also our higher level of mixture than our host populations of origins who have absorbed other groups passively rather than actively through migration. Geneticists take a personal decision on which of the two to focus on when interpreting results of their analysis. Are we "wandering Jews" or are we "Jews who only marry within our often tiny community"? I believe both are true but like to favor the former. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Btw, Tritomex yes, I'll keep this on my watch list if it is under attack and make sure no one starts POV pushing that Askhenazim are actually Mongols or anything. :-) I'll also go through all the sources carefully one more time as soon as I have time. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Jews are an ethnoreligious group whose religion is both 1. not easy to convert to and 2. for most of history very dangerous to convert to. Ethnoreligious groups are usually quite tribal and endogamous. The comparison to the British and the French are inapt at best and downright disingenuous at worst. Most Jews who exist today are linear descendents of ancient Jews and inherit much more than the name. In Europe most nations are relatively new. You cannot compare the changing of a land to the history of a people. Today's France was formed from the Franks, not the Gauls. Likewise today's Britain is "Anglo-Saxon", not Insular Celtic. Although "Anglo-Saxons" are generously only about 30% Anglo-Saxon. Most Jews in contrast left their land to become a rough slice in time of the people in that ancient period, though their host nations undoubtedly left an impact. (and so did expulsions from them) The Gauls and the Britons are invoked nationalistically but they are dead nations, the Jews are not. They have consistently kept the identity of their ancestors and have inherited their culture, religion, and yes, genes. You claim to be Jewish but your understanding of Jewish nationhood is completely Western.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Monochrome Monitor. Regarding the rest we can not keep parts of one highly controversial study in the text, and remove other. This would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Especially when that particular study is actually based on the core (or the criticism of it) which is proposed to be removed. For the rest, I do not see policy based arguments not to return academic sources removed from the lead. In 17th century, 1 out 100 of inhabitants of historic Poland had Jewish ancestry, before world war II without any major migration, probably one in five Polish citizens had some Jewish ancestry. This shows how unpredictable demography is, and here we speak only about 300 years time span. However, our task is to find appropriate criticism of any study concerned, from reliable secondary or primary sources. Otherwise our opinion on this subject could be described only as Original research. Tritomex (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Monochrome Hi Monochrome, you pinged me to continue this discussion, so responding. I can talk about my own community - the Moroccan Jewish one. Tbh, I don't even think Moroccan Jews are ethnically homogenous - there are those among us who are dark, with berber features and completely different from Arabs or Semitic peoples. Such physiognomy predominates among Jews of the Sous and other areas of the interior. Whereas Jews from the North West Coast are often very fair skinned with blue eyes - significantly fairer than the average Spaniard or Portuguese, probably due to endogamy bringing out recessive genes. Shlomo Ben Ami, Richard Attias, Andre Azoulay or Gad Elmaleh are typical north Atlantic coast Moroccan Jews. And of course, there is everything in between. Joseph Chetrit, for example has a typically Berber surname. It is wrong to say, as has been argued here, that Jews have been consistently persecuted in the Maghreb - thus genetic isolation. They arrived during Carthaginian and Roman times, long before Islam and even before Christianity penetrated the hinterland. There were important mass conversions of (largely pagan) Berbers and intermarriage between Berbers and Jews. A significant part of Morocco's Berber population practiced Karaite Judaism at the time of the Muslim conquest. Evidently, those of our ancestors which arrived from Spain or elsewhere many centuries later did remain a more genetically isolated community - but Monochrome, I would say that your vision of our community is more Western, indeed, it strange that you accuse me of that since I personally am not from a Western country like you are. In any case, you should be aware how long we have been in the region. We are very much awlad lablad, "children of the country" as we say, regardless of ancestry, and have no issue with being mixed. In fact, it is very common among our community to define ourselves ethnically as "hispano-berbers" (something I personally don't do but have often heard). In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, it is anti-semitic propaganda and Israel related politics where Ashkenazim are (were) portrayed as "white/European" or "western" colonialists which, IMO, drives the fear or insecurity about their origins. I personally think its silly to fall into this game. Ashkenazim are mixed as are Sephardim. They simply mixed with different peoples. So what? Jews are Jews and Israel is Jewish. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Edie Vanja, can you elaborate on your revert? Please help me find exactly where in the cited sources does it scientifically verify the statement "with most in a community sharing significant ancestry and up to 75% Levantine genes." I cannot find this at all in the cited sources and if not found, it will be removed for being inaccurate and/or unverified. WP:VER Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- This page was many times vandalized with over-inclusion of Elhaik controversial views and by removing criticism from scientific experts. Until now I caught 4 or 5 socks of same sock master who are now all banned from editing. All of them immediately after they opened their account came here to add Elhaik and remove criticsm. This topic is related to Arab-Israeli conflict, so new editors should respect Misplaced Pages restrictions on this issue. ] Tritomex (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are vandalizing the page by adding statements which I have already warned you are wrong according to your own source and even the source itself is unscientific. Another thing is that you and Shrike are removing Elhaik's actual objective scientific research and trying to replace it with commentary, conjecture, criticism, and opinion to try and discredit the scientific studies which is equivalent to pushing a point a view WP:POV. I have already warned you of this. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain why do you oppose the inclusion of the sourced material that you constantly removing?--Shrike (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The material you are adding is unscientific material which is basically commentary, conjecture, criticism, opinions with the goal of discrediting certain studies and not others. This is equivalent of pushing a point of view which is against the rules WP:POV. Not only that but you are also removing some of the important results from the actual scientific studies. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- We obviously are having to deal with fifth consecutive sock of historylover account. The previous 4 whose accounts were terminated after my report immediately after they opened their account, came here to add more Elhaik, theories and remove scientific criticism. The last one was few moths ago when Elhaik also wrote some article. Further attempts to continue this pattern while violating restrictions regarding new editors/Arab-Israeli conflict will be met by filling immediate SPI file.Tritomex (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been looking for a reliable citation for "most in a community sharing significant ancestry and up to 75% Levantine genes". I can see the question being asked, but I can't see it being answered. If it was answered already, please point me to it. Zero 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I see, it is the reported public speech of businessman Bennett Greenspan, who not only has no qualifications in genetics but has an obvious commercial interest in making such claims. You should all hang your heads in shame for treating that as a reliable source. Zero 00:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Besides that, the source statement "No less than 75 percent of Ashekanzi, Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews, their ancestors came from what we call the general Middle East." makes polemic sense but no scientific sense. Where I come from, everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents (except very rarely), etc.. With the exception of some indigenous peoples such as Amazonian tribes, it is statistically certain that everybody alive today had an ancestor who lived in the Middle East, say 2000-3000 years ago. Zero 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not only does their own unreliable non-scientific source say "general Middle East" and not "Levant," but I even made a report about this here and somehow the admin didn't see anything wrong with the constant reverting and intentional re-inclusion of this false information. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Topic of this article; WP policy
I'd like to open a discussion on the topic of this article. (This has been discussed a bit once before, in 2013 at Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews/Archive_4#Criteria_for_inclusion.3F)
This article appears to me, to be mostly editor-generated summaries of primary sources (research papers where scientists actually took samples, did sequencing, analyzed the results, and drew conclusions). In addition to primary sources, there are some press releases (ack), popular media (NYT, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Reuters, BBC, New York Review of Books, Jewish Press), some tech media (Wired), some blogs (boing boing ?!). There is also some science journalism (Science news, Nature news) and a book, and a few reviews.
But for the most part, primary sources, with lots of commentary like the 13 notes, each of which is pure WP:OR/editorializing by editors.
This page belongs more in Wikiversity which I understand welcomes this sort of thing, than it does here.
Otherwise it should be reworked and become either
- A simple list of primary source citations (this is what the title implies)
- a Misplaced Pages article that summarizes secondary sources, called Genetics of Jews (I'll note that we have Medical genetics of Jews)
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genetic studies on Jews. 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/20160303234334/http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/1_Weiner.pdf to http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/1_Weiner.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Categories: