Thanks for your contributions to 3 Leaf Audio. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Josh, I agree it is not quite ready for public view. I appreciate you moving this to a draft, I did not realize that was an option!

I imagine by the time I am done setting up the page with initial info it should have 10-15 total sources at least, would that be sufficient? Teflawn (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teflawn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:3 Leaf Audio, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you give examples of primary sources used in this article? I didn't find any. It based on many academic articles. 2A06:C701:4387:900:5690:F794:805F:349B (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be both primary research and an academic article. For genetic research this is the norm. A primary source doesn't need to physically collect its own samples to qualify as a primary source. Reanalysis of existing datasets and the use of reference panels are very common in population genetics.

By contrast, secondary sources synthesize and interpret the findings of multiple primary studies to draw broader conclusions.

Examples of primary research cited in this article include:

Moorjani et al. (2011), "The history of African gene flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews"

Behar et al. (2013), "No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews"

Shai Carmi et al. (2014), "Sequencing an Ashkenazi reference panel supports population-targeted personal genomics and illuminates Jewish and European origins" Teflawn (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are absolutely not Primary sources and citing them is absolutely not primary research. You are changing the meaning of those well defined terms. Meta-analysis doesn't always exist. Currently the template makes the article look unreliable while this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:48B:6D4:455A:4401:8813:79B9 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation on my contribution to the genetic history of the Middle East article, but it' been vandalised by the same user who sometimes likes to follow me and harass me. You are free to give your input on the article talk page or anywhere else. Persian Lad (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Persian Lad! I do believe that the lead would be fine either way, but personally think Anatolia is preferable due to it being listed alongside regions such as "the Levant" and "Mesopotamia" etc. Considering the sentence ends with "and other areas" I think that sufficiently accounts for the relatively small areas of East Thrace and the Caucasoid region that lies east of Anatolia proper, if one were to use Anatolia instead of Turkey.

I suppose Egypt being in that list kind of throws a wrench into the scheme a little bit, but unavoidable.

If you are able to find and add some studies on ancient Anatolian populations specifically to help bolster this stance that would be helpful, and I would be more than glad to voice support on any talk page discussions or edit disputes. Teflawn (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]