Talk:Haplogroup R-M124

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haplogroup R-M124. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup R-M124. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 edits[edit]

@ViscontiEnsi: You should not edit war, when your additions are baseless. Here you added content without anu source. Then you added a source [1] that doesn't support the content and has constituted original research. Which I have reverted. Since the research was authentic, I've added it in Haplogroup R (mtDNA) article. Now you have reverted again today, [2], change the content and removed the previous source making the new content unsourced again [3]. Wikipedia doesn't work like this. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources in support of the content you add. Otherwise it gets reverted. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ViscontiEnsi: Don't act like you own Wikipedia. There are rules here. Unsourced content get deleted. How I'm supposed to know which research you are referring to? Your reference is still unreachable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: You are the one acting like you own this page. If you are not familiar with ancient DNA studies then why are you adamant about reverting it? I've posted additional sources, you should try to familiarize yourself with this topic and research a small amount, you could've easily found it out yourself after seeing studies and saved time.

@ViscontiEnsi: It seems you do not know much about genetics and nothing about Wikipedian policy of WP:V. If I1945 had been R2, it would have already been added here.
  • You are wrong about Lazaridis et al 2016. It didn't mention that Sample I1945 is R2. Instead it referred to as P1 ie P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a). From the reaerch PDF linked here

This individual belonged to haplogroup P1 on the basis of mutation P282. It was ancestral for

downstream haplogroups Q (F1237.1, FGC4603), R1b1a2 (CTS12478), R1a1a1b1a1b 52 (CTS11962), R1a1a1b1a3a (L448), and R1a1a1b2a2a (Z2123). Thus, it could be designated

P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a).

Secondly, Lazaradis didn't mention anything about origin. So mentioning that is WP:OR, another Wikipedia policy. And if you are coming from blogs where people "claim" that I1945 is R2, then we do not do this kind of stuff here, that is blogs are not considered reliable in Wikipedia.
  • R2a is mentioned in Narsimhan et al 2018, but it doesn't mention the origin of R2 neither the exact location. It was found in the "Iran / Turan" location in samples from Chalcolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age. Check link.
I'm moving the content to Historical section similar to R1a article and edit as per Narsimhan source. I'll remove Lazardis. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, as Narsimhan lists some other samples like I1946, I1947, I1952, I1954, etc as R2a. As for Lazaridis, I1945 was not properly defined as it should've been by it's markers; but, had you known something about genetics or science, you would know this can happen, and it was fixed in later publications. ViscontiEnsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says the one who couldn't differentiate between mtDNA and Y-DNA. Study WP:OR properly. If I1945 is not mentioned as R2a, we cannot list it as such. Simple as that. ISOGG doesn't list anything as I1945 as R2 either. Narasimhan didn't directly mention which sample is which. Link me properly to the page number and sentence. Besides, if we write that R2a is found in Iran ?Turan as in the main Narasimhan PDF, it would be as per Wikiepdia guidelines. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly unfamiliar with any scientific publications. Anyway, I1945 was mentioned as R2a, but it doesn't even matter, because there are several other GD samples like I1946, I1947, I1952, I1954, etc, that were mentioned as as R2a. Yes, it could be rewritten, earlier Neolithic R2a samples from Ganj Dareh, and later R2a samples from Iran and South-Central Asia. ViscontiEnsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is written that I1945 is R2a. Give me an explicit link. You simply are being defiant towards Wikipedia guidelines of WP:OR and WP:V. Lazaridis totally mentions it as P1. Stop assuming things, Wikipedia is not a blog. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being intentionally ignorant? I already listed the 2018 study that did all that. It even includes other GD samples I1946, I1947, I1952, I1954, etc, that were all defined as R2a, hence why you don't want to address that. I don't think you understand that mention of the sample specifically is not important to me, it can just be "Ganj Dareh remains included R2a". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViscontiEnsi (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read researches properly? Where it is written that I1945 is R2a in Lazaridis? I've provided a block quote too from the research. You simply are being defiant towards Wikipedia guidelines of WP:OR and WP:V. Lazaridis totally mentions I1945 as P1. It specifically mentions that the sample I1945 belongs to P282 and P282 is P1 as per ISOGG P. Stop assuming things, Wikipedia is not a blog. The scientific publication itself doesn't mention it as R2 and you are being hell bent on injecting it here. This kind of flimsy attempt at introducing original researches will not be tolerated. Only anthropological blogs "claim" that I1945 "may be R2" based on Lazaridis. Secondly Narasimhan et al 2018 is not explicit on which samples are R2. Neither the main PDF [4] or the supplementary [5] links "I1946, I1947, I1952, I1954, etc" with R2a. That research only mentions R2a with Iran/Turan N, C, BA and South Asian IA and H. Narasimhan and Lazaridis did not say a thing about origin of R2 either. Pinging @Doug Weller and Joshua Jonathan: for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Larzaridis 2016 is the source of the sample I1945, this was later corrected to R2a in Narasimhan 2018. There is a table of haplogroups on Narasimhan. Narasimhan 2018 does not include it in the main body, because it has a different focus on South-Central Asia, it only includes R2a samples of I1946, I1947, I1952, I1954, without commenting on them. It explicitly mentions R2a found in Iran Neolithic. If you are confused by the biorxiv link, you could always learn how to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViscontiEnsi (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original researches will be removed. We cannot use Lazaridis as such since it doesn't mention that I1945 is R2. Read WP:OR properly. We cannot write what's not explicitly written in the article. We should remove Lararidis from the article. If Narasimhan doesn't EXPLICTLY LINK R2a to I1946, I1947, I1952, I1954 or "Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic", we simply can't use it here as per WP:OR. The research only has a table of Y-chromosomes in page 21 of Main article where it lists 5 sample each from Iran/Turan from Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age and 4 samples from South Asia. We are at liberty to only write that much. The sentence would be: 

R2a was found in ancient samples of Iran/Turan and South Asia.

Unless you can provide a specific link with the specific page number and sentence that says that R2a was found in Ganj Dareh, it is an original reseach and will be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


You certainly didn't know how to read any scientific publication, certainly not the one I linked. Narasimhan 2018 EXPLICTLY states that Ganj Dareh samples possessed R2a. You have now been stunningly ignorant for the past couple hours. I have been telling you it's not in the abstract or text, it's part of the haplogroup table.

Under DataS1 - bioRxiv I1947, Iran / Turan, N, Ganj Dareh, Iran, R, R2a,

In light of this, I hope you will end your efforts, and simply accept that you were wrong from the start. Cheers. ViscontiEnsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the one who couldn't differentiate between mtDNA and Y-DNA. You are the one being complete ignorant for not linking to the proper source as I've been asking for so long, not to mention your disregard towards Wikipedia rules. Secondly, you are not suppose to edit war and change the content added by me which is source. Besides we typically do not write what's mentioned in the supplementary but only reliable secondary source. As for the origin, it is not mentioned in the source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using Lazaridis now is counter productive and would cause WP:OR and Narsimhan is enough. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_R-M124&oldid=1207543724"