Talk:Haplogroup D-CTS3946

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haplogroup D-M174 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Name fix?

It would be maybe better to rename this haplogroup as “D” only. Because the new name change with every new evidence/sub-haplogroup. Currently the newest name is D-CTS7583. I will include some new information.—Tiberiussan (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tiberiussan: It seems that it is (at least for the time being) best to keep the name "D-CTS3946" to help distinguish it form other more derived branched of D (such as D-M174, which was previously called D). Perhaps the title could be changed to someting like "Haplogroup D (D-CTS3946)" with the more precise term in parenthesis. I could possibly propose that to the editor who began the article (and to others), but I am not sure that is necessary - I think it likely may not be; full names seem to be standard here for the titles of haplogroup pages, even pages on major clades/basal lineages. For example, the title of the Wikipedia page on ancestral/basal haplogroup E is "Haplogroup E-M96" [[1]], and the page on basal C is "Haplogroup C-M130" [[2]]. I have not been able to find a source for your statement that the newest name for D-CTS3946 is "D-CTS7583". I cannot find that in Hallast et al. (which, being not-peer-reviewed, is not, yet anyway, [[WP:RS]/an acceptable source). In the most recent tree it still seems to be called "D-CTS3946". See: [[3]]

Also (though this may be a moot point since it is not peer-reviewed) Hallast et al. does not seem to propose a Eurasian origin for basal D (D-CTS3946), but rather proposes a rapid migration (after the ca 60-50 kya Out-of-Africa migration) that reached the area of Southeast Asia by ca 55-50kya, apparently within about 5-10 thousand years, whereupon the ancestors of the major modern non-African y-haplogroups (including the branch of D now common in Asia) formed/diverged and then migrated west (within Eurasia) largely replacing the older haplogroups that had been established in west and central Eurasia previously by the intial route of the the OOA. Hallast et al. also say: "we have argued that the initial splits within CT are likely to have occurred in Africa before the exit, and that three lineages, C, D and FT, were carried out by the ancestors of present-day non-Africans" (study: [[4]]). And the dates for the OOA migration (as well as the divergences/ages of haplogroups including basal/ancestral D) in Hallast et al. are about the same as those of the Haber et al. study (which calculated ages for DE, E, D2/D0, and the common ancestor of D0 and D-M174, predating the OOA migration, and concluded that those haplogroups had likely originated in Africa before said migration. This is also explained in my notes in the edit history here: [[5]]. Skllagyook (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding material of questionable relevance from Cabrera et al 2018

To the IP editor User:46.125.250.56. (as I wrote on your Talk page), Concerning your addition of material from Cabrera et al. 2018 to this page. Cabrera et al. concern the proposed origins of the DE and E lineages and do not mention D-CTS3946 or D2, two lineages discovered after Cabrera's article was published. Adding cabrera because of your opinion of what the study's implication are for D-CTS3946 or D2 would be WP:OR. This page specifically concerns D-CTS3946 (and D2, whose discovery led to the discovery of D-CTS3946 (its proposed origin, distributions and phylogeny). A source published before its discovery about its ancestor DE is not relevant to this topic and adding it is as mentioned, original research WP:OR. What Cabrera says about DE and E cannot be applied to D-CTS3946 unless that is explicitly done in the source (which it is not). It might seem that the origin of DE is directly relevant to the origin of D-CTS3946, but that is not necessarily the case. For instance, in theory, DE could have come from Asia, back-migrated to African and mutated into D-CTS3946 there. We do not know, and it not our jobs as editors to judge. Our job as editors is the summarize and report the sources nd what is explicitly presented/argued in them, not interpret or synthesize them, or to assume or judge what their implications are based open our opinions/personal analyses (which is WP:OR).Skllagyook (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The same argument can be made for Haber et al., on this page and Haber et al. on the page of DE. Haber mostly concerns about D2/D0 and what this newly found sub-group may mean for D. The article is nearly completelly based on the study of D2/D0 which is already a violation of WP:Weight and WP:Recentism. Thus I included Cabrera et al. to make it more balanced per WP:NPOV. If we delete Cabrera et al., we should also delete Haber et al., as this is unbalanced and centered on a single study. WP:SCIRS also notes that it is better to have several studies, best tertiary references and not secondary research, such as Haber which is the first and only study about D2/D0. My main concern is that this article is biased towards Haber and does not represent D and its respective origin. We can shorten both studies paragraphs and make a summary of them rather than completelly be based on Haber alone. Thank you for the start of the discussion.46.125.250.56 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid this does not follow (see my replies below).

You wrote: "The article is nearly completelly based on the study of D2/D0 which is already a violation of WP:Weight and WP:Recentism."

It is not a violation of WP:Weight or WP:Recentism. Because the discovery of D2/D0 was in fact recent, only recent sources cover it.

(As you also You wrote in your most recent edit summary):

"Again, Cabrera et al. speaks about D and this article is also known as simple "haplogroup D" as written in the introduction. Haber et al. talks about D2/D0 and is still mentioned. I can make the same argument and delete Haber et al., as this study is concerned with a new sub-group found. Cabreras findings concern DE and all of Ds sub-groups too. Thus there is no valid argument to keep Haber but delete Cabrera. This is a violation of WP:NPOV."

You seem to misunderstand. The D that Cabrera spoke about in 2018 was not "simple D" or D-CTS3946 as we now know it (what this page is about). The D Cabrera spoke about was D-M174. This is because before the discovery of D2 (by Haber et al.), it was thought that D-M174 was the only D (and that the only branches of DE were E and D-M174). After Haber's paper, the tree was revised to include the two branches (D-M174/D1 and D0/D2) that both split from the older basal D (now known as D-CTS3946, their common ancestor), which in turn had split from DE. Thus Haber's paper is directly relevant to D-CTS3946 and D2 (Haber et al. discovered them and is where we get the information we have on them, along with the information from Michael Sager and FTDNA) and Cabrera's is not. The article is based on a single study (and actually also the Sager FTDNA findings) because that is the information that actually discusses, concerns, and explicitly addresses the topic of D-CTS3946 (the topic of the article). What the relevant sources say on the topic is what matters, that is, there should be a balanced representation of what the notable experts explicitly say on the specific topic. Whether or not one feels a particular perspective is underrepresented is not relevant if there is no such source specifically concerning the topic. It is better to have several studies if there are several studies specifically discussing the topic, but Cabrera does not do that (as far as this page is concerned) and adding that study as though to imply that the proposed origin of DE (discussed in Cabrera) is directly relevant to the origin of D-CTS3946 (when we are not in a position to judge that) is WP:OR and seems to be a form of editorializing. (It might also be helpful to ask the opinion of User:ABCEdit who is the one who initially created this page.) Skllagyook (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, as Cabrera said, DE and its subclades originated in Asia and back migrated into Africa. This possibility is even mentioned by Haber et al, but they suggested that the African origin is more likely. We can also expand on the other possibilities raised by Haber. Cabrera concernd not D-M174, but D*, the direct offshoot of DE, which gave rise to all the D lineages. The newly found subclade does not change the origin of the ancestral clade. D2/D0 could have simply arisen in Asia and migrated into Africa. This is what the frequency and distribution also suggests, this is even mentioned by Haber et al. too. However as said before they are more inclined to the African origin,anyway they mention both possibilities. Basal D, as referred by Cabrera et al., is not D0/D2 or D-M174, it is the ancestor clade, which is D-CTS3946. Only the names changed. But the names have already often changed. D-M55 as example was once referred as D1, D1b, D1a, D1a1 and currently D1a2a1. In this logic we must delete every study as all the names changed and or now refer to non-existing clades. Do you understand this. D and D-CTS3946 refers to the ancestral D which Cabrera talked about in reference to ancestral DE. Thus the study is directly relevant. I see no reason why we should not mention Cabrera et al.. DE(*D) is concerning the basal D, in this case the clade currently known as D-CTS3946. Regardless if a new subclade was found. I hope ABCEdit will make a comment here.46.125.250.56 (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I fear you may not be listening to what I am trying to explain. Cabrera was not (and could not have been) referring to basal D as it is now understood and is discussed in this article, because the existence of D2 was not known. Before the discovery of D2 (which is part of D but is not part of D-M147), all D was considered/thought to be included in the D-M174 lineage, and it was thought that D-M174 had diverged directly from DE, that is why Haber speaks of the divergence/split of D0 and D (still using "D" to mean D-M174). (Basal D before the discovery of D2 was understood as basal D-M174). This is now known not to be the case. The concept of D-CTS3946 as distinct from basal D-M147 derived from the Haber et al. study.

A change in nomenclature, like your example of D-M55 changing from D1, D1b, D1a, or D1a1, or the change in name from E3b or E1b1b to E-M215 (if the phylogenetic structure stays basically the same), is not the same as a change in the structure of the phylogenetic tree resulting from the discovery of a new deeply-rooted haplogroup or more which requires/results in a reshuffling/rearrangement of the tree (as resulted from the discovery of D2) - the tree being that of the D lineage.

You wrote: "D2/D0 could have simply arisen in Asia and migrated into Africa. This is what the frequency and distribution also suggests..."

It could have or it could have not. We do not know. And our opinion regarding the likelihood of this is not relevant at here at all (as I have been trying to explain). Allowing that kind of interpretation or speculation to influence the article (as I have explained) is a clear example of WP:OR. We can only go on what the authors, who specifically speak of basal D (in the sense of the common ancestor or D2 and D-M174, i.e. what this article is about) explicitly say. Skllagyook (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I disagree with your assumption that the basal D referred to D-M174. Anyway, we could mention that this was before the discovery of D2/D0 lineage. But to mention that again, Cabrera refereed to basal D, regardless of sub-clades. Cabrera referred to the D which splitted from DE, and thus is the currently D-CTS3946. The authors of Haber et al. mention several possibilities, we can also expand on that per WP:Weight. (Not to change the final conclusion, but to explain what possibilities exist and why they decided their final conclusion). Furthermore, Cabreras findings are relevant for any D clade, as DE. Cabrera did not say that they refer to D-M174, but to the ancestral clade of D which gave rise to D-M174 among others. So I see no reason why this is not relevant for D-CTS3946.46.125.250.56 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not seem to understand. Before the Haber study, all known D was D-M174 (they were not equivalent), which was thought to have given rise to other clades of D-M174, but not to "others" because there were no "others" (no D that was not D-M174) known at the time. That is the point. As explained, the the concept of D-CTS3946 as distinct from basal D-M147 (D-M147*) comes from the Haber et al. 2019 findings (and that concept is what this article is all about). There is no mention at all of D-CTS3946 (the common ancestor of D-M174 and other D) in Cabrera (unsurprisingly) because no other D was known yet. Before Haber 2019, there was not an ideas of Basal D and Basal D-M174 as distinct, certainly not in Cabrera et al., and it is not the case that Cabrera's study made that distinction (you assert that it did, but there seems no evidence of that). Your statement that "Cabreras findings are relevant for any D clade" is also not the case. Just as here, it would not be appropriate to add Cabrera's view on DE to the origin section of every page on a D clade, because those sections are for the origins of those specific clades of D.

As I have explained elsewhere, what was previously called "D" or "D*" (basal D), also D-M174, is now classed as D1 or D-M174 (since the discovery of D0/D2). The common ancestor of D1 and D2 (or of former D and D0) is D-CTS3946, which is thus the new D* (the new undifferentiated/basal/ancestral D). Before the discovery of D2/D0, D was equated with D-M174 (which is no longer true).

D-CTS3946 is mentioned by Runfeldt and Sager of FTDNA (who built upon the framework of Haber et al). That is why Cabrera is not relevant here and Haber and Runfeldt and Sager are. You could imagine that Cabrera's study could mean (according to Cabrera, if they had known about D2 at the time) that DE came from Asia and then migrated to Africa, mutated into basal D in Africa with only D-M174 forming in Asia and D2 in Africa. Or you could imagine that it means that all D likely came from Asia. Or some other other scenario. But it does not matter what we think is likely. Cabrera 2018 does not and cannot engage with the implications of the discovery of D2 and what that means for basal D (D-CTS3946) and its origin because that information was not available at the time. Inferring any kind of relevance for a paper written at that time is original research. And I'm afraid I do not understand what you are not getting. Skllagyook (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To the IP editor 46.125.250.97, regarding your recent additions

To the IP editor User:46.125.250.97. I have just noticed that, in addition to not replying to my last comment in the orevious topic (assuming you are the same person as the last IP editor), you have made substantial new edits to the page, with which and there seem to be some significant problems. You have added a significant ammount of WP:OR here. You used the Roberta Estes source in the infobox as though it supported the theory that D originated in Asia. The blog page does not state that anywhere. It summarizes the findings of Haber et al. 2019 and the 2019 findings of Ftdna relating to D0. Your use of it as supporting the Asia hypothesis is very misleading and seems a clear case of WP:OR.

You also seem to habe used the Haber ref to support the Asian theory in the infobox (here [[6]]), which it does not support.

Regarding your use of the Hallast et al. 2020 study as supporting an Asian origin, this is also not supported. I already discussed thus with another user on the Talk page before. As I explained there, Hallast et al. does not seem to propose a Eurasian origin for basal D (D-CTS3946), but rather proposes a rapid migration (after the ca 60-50 kya Out-of-Africa migration) that reached the area of Southeast Asia by ca 55-50kya, apparently within about 5-10 thousand years, whereupon the ancestors of the major modern non-African y-haplogroups (including the branch of D now common in Asia) formed/diverged and then migrated west (within Eurasia) largely replacing the older haplogroups that had been established in west and central Eurasia previously by the intial route of the the OOA.

And the dates for the OOA migration (as well as the divergences/ages of haplogroups including basal/ancestral D) in Hallast et al. are about the same as those of the Haber et al. study (which calculated ages for DE, E, D2/D0, and the common ancestor of D0 and D-M174, predating the OOA migration, and concluded that those haplogroups had likely originated in Africa before said migration.

Hallast et al. say: "we have argued that the initial splits within CT are likely to have occurred in Africa before the exit, and that three lineages, C, D and FT, were carried out by the ancestors of present-day non-Africans" the study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02204-9

They explicitly state that the initial splits if CT (into DE and FT, and the split of D and E) occured in Africa, and that the haplogroups that left Africa (and established themselves in Eurasia) were C, D, and FT). They then argue that the haplogroups/branches that had reached southeast Asia back-migrated/expanded from back there to western Eurasia and replaced the local haplogroups (but not in Africa). The idea is that modern Eurasians descend from a group of early people than left Africa (around 70-50 ky ago), migrated "rapidly" to east/southest Asia, and then (around 55-50 ky ago) migrated back to west/central Eurasia from where they had come and took over (with their haplogroups). It is a bit complicated but that is what they are proposing and is is not a Eurasian origin of D-CTS3946, D2, or DE. But they are proposing an "expansion" from southeast Asia of modern Eurasian Y lineages.

Here are some other quotes from Hallast:

"The genomes of present-day humans outside Africa originated almost entirely from a single out-migration ~ 50,000–70,000 years ago, followed by mixture with Neanderthals contributing ~ 2% to all non-Africans. However, the details of this initial migration remain poorly understood. ...Three present-day Y lineages were carried by the initial migration: the rare haplogroup D, the moderately rare C, and the very common FT lineage which now dominates most non-African populations. Here, we show that phylogenetic analyses of haplogroup C, D and FT sequences, including very rare deep-rooting lineages, together with phylogeographic analyses of ancient and present-day non-African Y chromosomes, all point to East/Southeast Asia as the origin 50,000–55,000 years ago of all known surviving non-African male lineages (apart from recent migrants)."

They mention that "the rare haplogroup D, the moderately rare C, and the very common FT" were "carried by the initial migration". The initial migration is the initial migration out of Africa (of around 70-50kya mentioned above by then), meaning, according to the study, that these lineages were carried from Africa to Eurasia by the OOA migration.

They then state that the evidence points to a "East/Southeast Asia as the origin 50,000–55,000 years ago of all known surviving non-African male lineages (apart from recent migrants)." Early in the study they are stating that the migration is the source for "non-African male lineages" not African ones, just as explained above.

They then say, further down:

"Taking into account a rare African D0 lineage and the timeframe summarized above, we have argued (Haber et al. 2019) that the initial splits within CT are likely to have occurred in Africa before the exit, and that three lineages, C, D and FT, were carried out by the ancestors of present-day non-Africans. Each of these three lineages subsequently expanded: C and D moderately, and FT massively."

As mentioned, according to the study, the initial splits of CT occurred in Africa, with only D, C, and FT leaving (that is, taking part in the Out-of-Africa migration). Then, they argue, there was a massive expansion of lineages within Eurasia, expanding from east to west. Hence the study's title: "A Southeast Asian origin for present-day non-African human Y chromosomes" (i.e. for non-African human Y chromosomes, rather than African ones). Hallast et al. 2020 does not conflict with the conclusions of the Haber et al. 2019 study regarding the origins of Y lineages, but adds to them (making suggestions about the routes haplogroups took after they were established in Eurasia).

The large recent additions you have made have been misleading and do not accurately represent the sources, cherry picking quotes from Hallast, which in the source support an expansion of certain basic lineages in Eurasia but not their initial origin there, to misleadingly imply that they support Asian origins, and leaving out sections such as those I have quoted above. I request that you self-revert. Your edits are looking increasingly and persistently WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:OR. I fear I may have to contact an administrator and/or file a report. Skllagyook (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reformed and delete the misleading information included by me. It should be correct now. However feel free to make edits if there is still a problem. My intention is to balance the article. Not to make biased edits. I may have included misleading information as I seem to misinterpret the study results. I still do not see the exact misleading part, however I guess you are right as you can speak and read English better. Anyway, I hope you understand my concerns and try to make the article better. If you agree I will make edit ideas to the talk page and you include them if they are correct. Maybe I am misunderstanding English to much to make constructive edits. Your arguments seem tl make sense, so I will follow your conclusion. Regarding Cabrera et al.,I still do not see any reason to delete it. If DE and its sub-clades arrived from back migrations, this clearly includes D-CTS3946, regardless of any new found sub-clade. I simply do not get it, sorry. But if other users agree with you I suspect that you are right. I hope ABCEdit will make a comment.46.125.250.59 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You have not yet adequately explained why including Cabrera on this page makes sense, when that study predates the restucturing if the D tree (as I have repeatedly have truied to explain. Please See WP:LISTEN). And your misuse of the Hallast, Haber, and Roberta Estes sources seems an even bigger issue now.

Regarding your last edit to the article, it does not seem to have reformed very much. The Hallast addition still misleadingly suggests that D came from Asia, when the source clearly argues that basal D came from Africa (with D-M174/the D found in Asia difersifying in Asia later and migrating from east Asia to west Eurasia). You do not mention this at all. Hallast's study supports and African origin for basal D (and of the main branches of CT abd DE), which is important to mention if one wants to include Hallast. You have also continued to use Hallast, Haber, and the Roberta Estes blog as sources for the Asian origin theory in the infbox (at the top right of the page), which is clearly wrong and misleading. And your adding them is difficult for me to understand as an honest mistake. I want to assume good faith but your edits seem to continually show a pattern of the misuse/inaccurate represenation of certain sources and the deletion (or attempted deletion) of others to support a POV. Skllagyook (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand. There is no reference of Roberta Estes Blog. (I do not see it.). Hallast does not mention the exact origin of D as I can see. He only mentions that the split of CT happened within Africa and D, C and FT were among the population which gave rise to the people of Asia. My addition now does not include any information about the origin of D, but only that the greatest diversity is among people in East/Southeast Asia. I do not see what is incorrect. I did not use Haber et al. Another user has edited the references and also deleted the FTDNA reference of Roberta Estes. This is not me. Regarding Cabrera et al., I already said that as it refers to DE and its sub-clades, it refers to the ancestral D, not D-M174. Cabrera does not refer to D-M174. She basically refers to DE. And to mention the information of DE, which is ancestral to D is clearly relevant. I do not understand your disagreement with this. I apologize if I make bad or confusing edits, but I simply try to make a balanced article. Thus I hope a third user will comment here.46.125.250.59 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hallast says that D (with C and FT) was one of the haplogroups that left Africa as part of the initial OOA migration of 70-50kya. See my quotes above from the source. This is consistent with Haber's similar alstatement that DE split in Africa and D (and C and FT) migrated out as part of the OOA (in the abstract of Haber). This is explained in detail in my comment to you aboveat the top of this section.

You used Haber and Hallast (and Roberta Estes) After "Asia" in the "Origin" section of the infobox). See here: [[7]] and here [[8]] where you included the Roberta Estes source as though it was a WP:RS supporting Asian origin, and here [[9]] where you added Hallast to the infobox as a ref for the Asian origin theory, which it does not support. These edits are all very misleading. Skllagyook (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have deleted the Hallast reference from the box. But there is no Roberta Estes reference anywhere. In the box there is only Haber and Cabrera. Yes, Hallast says that D, C and FT were among the Eurasian people which left Africa and gave rise to Asians. I now even mention that they left Africa, if this was the part which you referred to? Is it now correct? Hallast does not seem to mention DE, only CT.46.125.250.59 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent change to the Hallast section is an improvement. Thank you for that. But the section could use some further clarification and rewording.

For example, in the Hallast section you wrote:

"...C, D and FT were among the ancestral Eurasian groups which left Africa, and which gave rise to the modern people of Asia and later expanded westwards, replacing other local lineages"

I would write it as:

"...C, D and FT were among the ancestral pre-Eurasian groups which left Africa around 70-50,000 years ago, and rapidly expanded across Eurasia, later diversified in southeast Asia and then expanded westwards around 55-50,000 years ago, replacing other local lineages within Eurasia"

This seems closer to the source and better clarifies the scenario the authors are proposing, and that the lineages are argued to have migrated west within Eurasia specifically (ftom east to central/west Eurasia).

Regarding adding the possibility of an Asian origin to the Haber section, this seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Before that edit, it already mentioned that Haber et al. "considered other possibilities" before concluding in favor of an African origin, especially since they say that the two proposed Asian origin scenarios would be "excluded" by the dates they determine for the OOA and of the haplogroup divergences.

You rewrote it as follows:

"The authors consider several possibilities, specifically an African origin or an Asian origin, but in part because of the likely deep-rooting of haplogroup "D0", as well as recently calculated early divergence times for it and its parent haplogroup, DE, the authors conclude in favor of an African origin, while noting the possibility of an Asian origin, for D0 DE, as well as for the common ancestor (now known as D-CTS3946 or "D") of D0 and D-M174."

I would rewrite it more like this:

"The authors considered several possibilities, specifically an African origin or an Asian origin, but, in part because of the likely deep-rooting of haplogroup "D0", as well as recently calculated early divergence times for it and its parent haplogroup, DE, the authors conclude in favor of an African origin for D0 DE, as well as for the common ancestor (now known as D-CTS3946 or "D") of D0 and D-M174."

It seems fine to still mention that they considered the possibility of an Asian origin, but it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. The authors make it fairly clear, in the abstract, body of the paper, and the end/conclusion, that they decided in favor of African origin.Skllagyook (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I would like to try to explain again, in case I did not adequately explain this point before, a point that has now come to me: A reason that Cabrera is not an appropriate source for this page, is that, as mentioned, it was written before the discovery of D2. But also, the discovery of D2 (and it's distribution in and near Africa) is one of the reasons that an African origin for basal D (D-CTS3946) has been proposed (along with the Haber study's dating of the the haplogroups before the OOA migration). Before the Haber study, all (or most) sources assumed that D had come from Eurasia because the only D known then was D-M174, and the distribution of D-M174 was/is (as far as we know) entirely in Asia. If Cabrera is included on this page because it mentions a Eurasian origin for "D", then you might as well add all of the other old studies (from before D2's discovery/before Haber) that also talked about the origin of D (which would also not be appropriate). But the D discussed in those older papers (like in Cabrera) is D-M174/D1, from before the rearrangement of the phylogenetic tree of D (when D-M174 was thought to be more basal than we know now. That is why the use of Cabrera is simply not appropriate here. I am asking you to please try to understand what I am explaining, and please reread my comments on this. The D discussed by Cabrera and other earlier papers is in fact only D-M147 (that is the only "basal D" they knew about then). The discovery of D2 does make a difference. This page is not about D-M174. It's not very complicated. Skllagyook (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry if I don't understand all of this series of discussion because of my lack of English reading comprehension.
What I thought was a problem after reading the article is that the part of Cabrera et al. 2018 is written to deny the previous contents. "However previous studies, such as Cabrera et al. 2018 which analyzed maternal ..." is as if it were more recent interpretation than Haber et al. 2019. In fact, Cabrera et al. 2018 is before the discovery of D2 (or D0) of Haber et al. 2019.
The mention of Cabrera et al. 2018 should be at the beginning and in less detail. For example, how about like this? (User:ABCEdit/draft)（Strikethrough and underline are the changes. ）--ABCEdit (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ABCEdit: Thank you for commenting. I hope I will be understandable. I agree that what you have said is one of the problems. But I think that another problem is that Cabrera probably should not be included on this page (in my opinion) because Cabrera is from before D2 was discovered (when they believed that all D was D-M174) and geneticists had not yet distinguished D-M174 from D2 and what we now know as D-CTS3946 (their ancestor). This article is about D-CTS3946, but Cabrera is from before they knew there was a difference between D-CTS3946 (early D) and D-M174. So, for that reason, I do not think that Cabrera belongs in this article, because Cabrera's 2018 study does not mention D-CTS3946 or any D that is not D-M174. The idea of D2 and of and older ancestral kind of D that is not D-M174 (D-CTS3946) cane after the study of Haber from 2019. I have explained this but the IP editor does not agree or understand. Skllagyook (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I basically agree with your opinion. The concept of D-CTS3946 was generated in Haber et al. 2019. Therefore, Cabrera et al. 2018 has no effect on this article. I don't object to removing all the description about Cabrera et al. 2018. In consideration of the IP user, I have suggested above to barely include the content of Cabrera et al. 2018 at the beginning. However, if the IP user do not accept this, it will move away from early solution.
Perhaps this IP user seems to be trying to disseminate the Asian origin theory of haplogroups D, E and DE through Wikipedia. This violates WP: NPOV and WP: SOAP. I also think this IP user may be a sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter, and I often see similar editing in jawiki and Wikimedia.--ABCEdit (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ABCEdit: I agree with what you have said above. Adding Cabrera to this article also seems like a violation of WP:NOR (since Cabrera 2018 never mentions D-CTS3946 and the concept of D-CTS3946 came later). It does seem to me that the user is trying to push a WP:POV (some other recent edits they made to this article and related articles such as Haplogroup D-M174 and Haplogroup DE also make me think that). And I have also suspected that the IP user mmay be trying to disseminate the Asian origin theory of those haplogroups. The user does also remind me of WorldCreatorFighter, especially of User:AsadalEditor (who was a sock of WorldCreatorFighter) and also reminds me of some older IPs that were also blocked as socks. I was thinking the same thing. And I mentioned some of the similarities between them and this IP on the Talk page of User:Doug Weller, toward the end of my comment here: [[10]]. Skllagyook (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What are D0 and D2 defined by?

This article is extremely confusing at the moment, because phylogenetic names – D*, D0 and D2 – have not been reconciled with SNP names.

It appears that D-CTS3946* = D*? If so, then which SNP(s) are now deemed to define D0 and D2?

58.162.241.149 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)