User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

File copyright problem with File:Robino algeria M81.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Robino algeria M81.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I already communicated with the users who edit the article & will work on a replacement map if you want, Cruciani made it clear that M78 is very rare in Oman (not more than 2%) & I went through all his studies I couldn't find any in geographical Yemen. The few E-M224 by Underhill are Yemeni Israelis & are few (living in Israel), studies done on Yemenis show no M78 so far, compared to moderate frequency of M34, M35* & M215* in Yemen. Cadenas2008 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you just downloaded the map off the article, then the editors will find it to breach copyright. When I get some time, I can make one, if someone hasn't already Hxseek (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

M78 in Yemen vs Yemeni Israelis

Even if you consider Yemenite Israelis as Yemenis they still only show 10% M78!

Now compare Y-DNA results of Yemeni Israelis vs Yemenis (combined 3 studies):

• Hap-------------------------------Yemeni Israelis (Shen)-----------------Yemenis (Cadenas, Malouf & Cerny)
• Q3 -----------------------------------------15%------------------------------------ ~ 0%
• E-M78 ------------------------------------10%------------------------------------ ~ 0%
• J2b! ----------------------------------------10%------------------------------------ ~ 0%
• R1b!----------------------------------------10%------------------------------------ ~ 0%

E1b1b in Yemen & Oman is in large E1b1b(xM78)

I know its very hard to draw an E1b1b map let alone an M78 map, but its not good to have a an incomplete map, maps should be updated on a study by study basis. Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

M78 Yemen

I completely disagree with counting the 2 Yemeni Jews (2/20) as 10% in Yemen, thats like saying Spanish Jews represent Spanish DNA! (in that map Iraq is left Blank & Yemen has ~20%) The map was done in 2007 so at that time everyone assumed Yemen will naturally have more M78 than Iraq due to its geographic location next to M78ville!

• Compare Yemen & Iraq
• Iraq (Sanchez)
• 4/64 = 6.3% E-M78
• 3/64 = 4.7% E-M123
• 7/64 = 10.9% E1b1b total

• Yemen (Cadenas)
• 1/62 = 1.6% E-M215(xM35)
• 2/62 = 3.2% E-M35(xM78, M81, M123)
• 5/62 = 8.1% E-M34
• 8/62 = 12.9% E1b1b total

• Yemen (Malouf)
• 5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
• 5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b total. Cadenas2008 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't we just post the Yemeni jews DNA above? It looks diff than DNA of Yemeni people. You found 2 M78 from Yemeni Jews, not from Yemeni natives who just don't have M78! That don't ring a bell?

Maghreb have M81 at 70% or so, does that mean Maghrebin Jews have a similar % of M81 -not even half of that! Cadenas2008 (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When the map gets criticized it only makes it better, if you want me to make a map I will do so, but only if you have a genuine desire to have a map in the article! if its going to bother you for whatever reason. Then by all means use the older map although I see clear data that needs to be updated in Sudan & Yemen Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Study on Yemen shows M78

Hi Andrew,

Turns out Cruciani's map was not off after all :) I am looking through the strs of a study that just came out this month, by the head of Dubai DNA Police Dr F. Shamali, her study shows some M78 I am not sure I am just looking at the STR but I can already see some M78 (V12 to be specific). I will give you the final total once I am done going through it. In the same study 11/106 Saudis are E1b1b, with 4 possible M34, 4 possible M78, the other 3 could be M35* or either. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me an email

stretca@gmail.com. Cadenas2008 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

M81-M78-M123

Is the relation between them (in general not strictly) West-Central-East?

Whats your estimated date of origin for each? -your own estimates- Cadenas2008 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Article

Hi Andrew, There is a recent publication by Tishkoff regarding the Genetic structure of Africa. Its been widely covered in the press, so it seems like an important article.I have only read the abstract. I was wondering whether you have access to the full article. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this link on on Dienekes, it has 102 pages ofthe supplementary material. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the Chadic speakers, there appears to be a contradiction in the study. As you mentioned, they use Ehret's theory of a Maghreb origin of proto-chadic, arguing that chadic speakers are nilo-saharans who only adopted chadic languages. However they also cite Cerny 2008, which argues that proto-chadic and proto-cushitic have common ancestry based on coalescence time for L3f3 8kya. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Battaglia 2008

Hi Andrew. If you have the full article, please email it to dr.robertg@gmail.com. Thanks. I'm working on a bit of a re-do on the G.H.o.E articele. Big task. Whan i'm done, i'd welcom your feedback. By the way, have you read my article on gentics of Neolithic Europe ? Hxseek (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got the article. It's an interesting read and I like the way they've done their frequency maps as shaded areas rather than distinct contour lines. Do you think we should adopt the same type of maps here ?

As for the European neolithic article, I only did the genetics section. As far as I can recall, it is sourced abundantly Hxseek (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup M1

I've been reviewing the articles on Haplogroup M1, namely Gonzalez 2007 and Olivieri 2006. I am not familiar with the exact statistical techniques, but I did a raw mutation count. The clade with the most mutations according to Olivieri is M1a1a(Egypt) with 16 mutations to the root of M1. The second is M1a1d(Ethiopia) with 15 and the third is M1a5(Somalia) with 14. Clade M1b in Olivieri, which corresponds with M1c in Gonzalez had a maximum of 9 mutations to the root of M1. Yet Gonzalez states that M1c, (M1b Olivieri), is the older lineage. I gather that they may use averages, rather than the one lineage with the most mutations to estimate the age. Or they may weight coding vs non-coding. Whatever the case, the lineages with the most mutations are found in Egypt and Ethiopia, yet Gonzalez argues that the ancestral lineages are in Jordan and Northwest Africa. I also did a raw count of M1 mutations vs the other Indian subclades of M based on phylotree. The longest branch of M1 had 23 mutations which is comparable with M2 and many other lineages. This is overly simplistic, but the initial impression is that M1 is as old as the Indian lineages. Do you have any information on how the ages are calculated. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

R1b

Hi again Andrew. Have you come accross any good recent publications on R1b ? For a major haplogroup, there is suprisingly little new data on its sub-clades, nor any updated origin theories. in fact, the R1b article here on wiki need some attention. Rather surprising given that R1b is such an important Hg in western Europe Hxseek Hxseek (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OR & POV-pushing on the Genetic History of Europe article

Hi Andrew. User:Wapondaponda is again attempting to force some pretty blatant original research and POV into an article, this time it's the Genetic History of Europe. He has basically added Cruciani et al. (2007)'s E-M78 map to a section of the article that's on recent North African/Near East admixture. As we both know, E-M81 makes up the bulk of said recent admixture in Europe -- not E-M78, which is of course largely of ancient origin, with its E-V13 sub-clade having arisen in situ -- and is only concentrated in a few places in the Mediterranean area such as Portugal. Wapondaponda, on the other hand, appears to want to create the impression that this "admixture" is widespread, so instead of including a map of E-M81's distribution in Europe, he has added to the "admixture" section in question a map of E-M78's distribution in both Africa and Europe. What's worse, he has falsified the caption Cruciani et al. (2007) attached to the original map that the map he added was based on. I've laid out the details in my first post in this new section of the article's talk page. Your input would be most appreciated. Regards, Causteau (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DE

No, it wasn't a typo. I'm actually thinking your edit was because Shi et al. (2008) did not find "2 individuals" in Tibet. They found DE* among 2 individuals -- do you see the difference? If not, here it is:

• Your revert => "More recently, one example of DE* was found amongst the Nalu in Guinea Bissau (1/17), and 2 individuals were found in Tibet (2/594)."
• My correction => "More recently, one example of DE* was found amongst the Nalu in Guinea Bissau (1/17), and among 2 individuals in Tibet (2/594)."

As can clearly be seen above, I am right. Unless of course your goal is to create the impression that only two Tibetans were "found" rather than two examples of DE* among two Tibetans, I strongly suggest you undo your revert. Causteau (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rewrite you just showed me looks fine. Causteau (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I also notice you've completely deleted the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study asserting an Asian origin for the YAP insertion. I would've expected that sort of bald-faced censorship from the other two editors, but not from you. I'm afraid the "justification" you provided for this excision in your edit summary is beyond inadequate. And unless you come up with a rational explanation for it or undo your edit, I will be forced to conclude that you too are attempting to suppress the Asian origin hypothesis for DE -- a hypothesis that, ironically enough, you yourself indicated on this very talk page of yours was "alive and well in the recent literature." Were you lying then? Causteau (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? The Asian origin hypothesis was "given the spotlight"? So you're remedy for that is to eliminate it entirely??? First of all, it's the African origin hypothesis that is "given the spotlight", and by a country mile since your own rewrite of the article. The Weale et al. (2003) study and Linda Stone and Paul F. Lurquin's book are both cited at the very start of the Origin section. This is followed by a lengthy enumeration of the reasons why Underhill et al. (2001) believe YAP originated in Africa. The Chandrasekar et al. (2007) quote naturally followed that because it is the newer source. But then again, the entire section is book-ended by some ambiguous quote from a press release, whereas an actual modern, unambiguous peer-reviewed study on the other side of the issue can't even see the light of day! Hugely disappointing stuff from you Andrew. Causteau (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I had drafted an elaborate response to your new message, but first got a chance to see your new edits on the haplogroup DE page before posting it to your talk page. So I'll discuss those instead of repeating the obvious points enumerated above. Your edits are factually inaccurate and constitute a major dilution of Chandrasekar's argument. For one thing, the authors do not indicate that "all Y lineages today have a non-African origin except for haplogroups A and B." They say that YAP & all the other Y clades that descended from M168 are of non-African origin. They don't, however, say M168 itself is of non-African origin. Secondly, the authors indicate that an Asian origin for YAP and subsequent back-migration of haplogroup E chromosomes to Africa is supported by both mtDNA & Y DNA data. However, you have only indicated the mtDNA data, which isn't constructive. And if your response is that this information is "irrelevant", I'll point out that it is already indicated in the article that Underhill et al. (2001) claim that "there was no archaeological evidence of a back-migration to Africa, and at the time of writing that there was no unequivocal Y DNA, mitochondrial DNA or autosomal DNA evidence of a back migration to Africa", so it obviously is relevant. Furthermore, Chandrasekar et al. (2007) also mention that an Asian origin for YAP is supported by their own findings:

"Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia."

Needless to say, I've corrected the edits. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It has already been reworked. By the way, I've been looking at the E1b1b article, and I noticed the following phrase attributed to Semino et al. (2004) but which isn't supported by that study:

"The distribution and diversity of V13 are generally thought to be suggestive that it was brought to the Balkans along with early farming technologies, during the Neolithic expansion."

Here's what Semino et al. actually say:

"E-M35 (fig. 1D) has been found in Africa, the Near East, and Europe, where it is believed to have arrived in Neolithic times."

That said, I do, however, remember reading something similar in one of the studies (was it one of Cruciani's?). That, then, is what we would need to cite to properly source that statement. Causteau (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to watch for it. Causteau (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the purpose of your edits. You write that Karafet "in contrast [...] believe the E haplogroup to be much younger than haplogroup DE", when they state no such thing. In fact, if you look at the TMRCA table from their study, the gap between the occurrence of haplogroup DE versus haplogroup E has on average been reduced by almost eight thousand years! It's actually the significant difference in age between haplogroups D and E that Shi et al. (2008) discuss, with haplogroup D being the older of the two:

"The estimated ages of the D-M174 lineages are older than those previously reported based on both Y chromosome and mtDNA variations in East Asia [8,9,21]. To see whether it is over-estimated, using the same method, we calculated the divergence time between DE* and E-M40. The estimated age is 27,176 years, which is much younger than the D-M174 lineage, but consistent with the previous estimation (27,800–37,000 years ago) [3]. Hence, the antiquity of D-M174 likely reflects the true prehistory of human populations in East Asia. The age estimation model developed by Zhivotovsky (2001) is not sensitive to effective population size and recent population expansion though the effect of population substructure cannot be totally ruled out. The antiquity of D-M174 was also supported by a previous study in which the origin of D-M174 was estimated more than 50,000 years ago [5]."

Causteau (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

'Fraid not. That passage is on Shi et al. (2008), not Chandrasekar. And you clearly wrote that: "These authors calculate that the defining mutation of haplogroup D (M174) occurred in Southeast Asia, amongst the earliest modern human settlers in that region, and has a similar age to DE*-YAP. In contrast they believe the E haplogroup to be much younger than haplogroup DE (in contrast to Karafet et al. (2008) mentioned above)." You're clearly talking about Shi there. Now if it's not asking too much, kindly undo your edit since you have already admitted that you made an error. Causteau (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that at all. What is wrong is what you did actually write and which is currently sitting in the article: "In contrast they believe the E haplogroup to be much younger than haplogroup DE". That's haplogroup DE, not haplogroup D like it should read. My edit that you reverted, on the other hand, made it clear that Shi et al. assert that E was younger than D, not DE. Causteau (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Shi et al. (2008) only mention DE* in the quote above to illustrate how far back E-M40 diverged from it. And they determine that it split about 27,176 years ago. They then quite logically conclude that haplogroup E is much younger than haplogroup D, which they estimate as having originated over 60,000 years ago. That said, I'm not certain if they would emphasize the difference in age between D-M174 & E-M40 after Karafet et al. (2008)'s pushing back of haplogroup E's TMRCA to about 52,500 years. That still of course makes haplogroup E over 7,500 years younger than haplogroup D, but not necessarily "much younger" as Shi et al. had indicated using Cruciani et al. (2007)'s old estimate. Causteau (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the paper & kudos on getting published! Overall, you make an interesting case. There are, however, a few things that I would like to quickly comment on:

• Regarding his linguistic theories, you write that Martin Bernal's "opinions in this subject are unsusual, but not particularly controversial." I would argue that Bernal's opinions are both unusual and outdated. For instance, he suggests that Afro-Asiatic may have originated in the Great Rift Valley area of southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya based largely on the presence of Omotic speakers there (which he believes is the most senior branch of AA from which the other branches split). However, it has recently been demonstrated that the Omotic branch of Afro-Asiatic, long-suggested as not being Afro-Asiatic (e.g. Newman (1980), Diakonoff (1996)), actually constitutes an independent language family of its own (more on that below).

• You write that "apart from the shared linguistic and genetic patterns above, it is also striking that both the leading genetics researchers of E-M35 (Cruciani et al., 2002, 2004), and the majority of linguists writing about Afroasiatic propose the Horn of Africa as a homeland for the subject of their discussion." While this is true for E-M35, it is not necessarily the case for Afro-Asiatic. Although several prominent linguists do indeed think that AA originated in the Horn of Africa, almost an equal number if not more linguists that support an African origin for this phylum actually believe it originated somewhere in the Sahara region (1).

• Much of the linguistic inferences you make are based on Joseph Greenberg's forty year old four-family system of classification of the languages spoken in Africa (Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan), a system which, while having obviously dominated much of the second half of the 20th century, has been shown by more recent data from this new millenium to be inadequate, in parts even inaccurate, and, especially, incomplete. For instance, it has recently been demonstrated that there are at least twice as many independent languages families spoken in Africa than posited by Greenberg. In addition, there are considerably more language isolates than had previously been believed. I've tried to email you some of these new studies; let me know if you receive them.

• I'd add that it's a risky business to rely on the idiosyncratic postulations of lay, non-linguists such as the controversial historian Bernal and the physician/bioanthropologist Keita. Keita, in particular, does not have the greatest track record when it comes to producing scientifically sound material. For example, in a study of his from the early nineties on the ancient Egyptians, he wrote that the hair of pre-pre-dynastic Badarians was ">80% Negroid" based on an earlier study by Eugen Strouhal. The problem with this is that Strouhal never said anything of the sort. What Strouhal did actually write is that the Badarian hair was "curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases ... black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases." Keita also forgot to mention Strouhal's actual conclusion regarding the biological affinities of the Badarian skulls: "We may conclude that the share of both components [Negroid and Caucasoid] was nearly the same, with some overweight to the Europoid side." There are many other such examples of Keita "fiddling" with data to meet a desired end; it's almost without precedent among modern researchers, IMHO.

Those are just some of the things I've noticed after a quick initial reading. But all in all, a great, thorough effort & very respectable contribution to the literature! Causteau (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and your points are well taken. Hopefully, in future, more similar attempts will be made to gather & synthesize data across different fields; my feeling is that much more probable conclusions can be reached this way. Causteau (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Publication

Congratulations, I enjoyed reading your publication. A very comprehensive review of E-M35. You did a great job of integrating information from several of the recent studies relating to E-M35, Afro-Asiatic and the Neolithic. Especially in demonstrating the E-M35 is an African clade, and that it contributed to the Neolithic in Europe. Reading your article is a lot more informative than reading some of the recent publications in isolation. Maybe you will write a book someday. The one area that, I would have liked to see more on is the origins of proto-semitic. You mentioned Blender had placed its origins in Ethiopia, Jared Diamond seems to favor this view too, since there is considerable diversity of Semitic in Ethiopia.

Even the Semitic subfamily itself is mainly African, 12 of its 19 surviving languages being confined to Ethiopia. This suggests that Afroasiatic languages arose in Africa, and that only one branch of them spread to the Near East. Hence it may have been Africa that gave birth to the languages spoken by the authors of the Old and New Testaments and the Koran, the moral pillars of Western civilization

page 366

Though, it has been suggested that some proto-semitic root words for sheep and goat have been found, which would place proto-semitic in the levant. But nonetheless, is it just by coincidence that Afro-Asiatic arose in Ethiopia, and several semitic languages are found in Ethiopia.

One more thing, according to 10000 year explosion, the authors argue that blue eyes in Berbers are the result of barbarian invasions. Does y-chromosomal evidence support their hypothesis. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

E3b again

Hello Andrew Lancaster! Could you help with what's going on at Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and Genetic history of Europe? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup E

Based on all the recent studies, I could not find any support for the Asian origin of haplogroup E. Most importantly, there are no ancestral clades of E found in Eurasia. All Eurasian clades are derivatives of M35. The logic that chandrasekar et al uses, if indeed the study is being quoted correctly, is untenable if it is not based on any ancestral clades located in Eurasia. Chandrasekar et al 2007 state that one individual with E* was located in western India. But a year later Karafet et al 2008, make no reference to this individual instead stating "The most basal paragroup lineage in this clade, E*, was found in a single Bantu-speaking male from South Africa". In addition, only one article cites Chandrasekhar et al 2007 [1], which means that the article does not have widespread acceptance. You have raised the point that we are always choosing the same sides in the Africa/Asia debate. But that does not mean we should inaccurately report the mainstream consensus. I have thus removed the chandrasekar reference, and relegated it to the footnotes in line with WP:UNDUE. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to make a distinction. The case you make above is convincing to me only in that it concerns the last common ancestor of all modern E people. He was almost certainly in Africa, although I should say that I think it unlikely that he was south of let's say Kenya. OK so far? Now let's consider something much further back, E. What we know about E is that it has one well-known sibling D, which is East Asian, not even Indian or Middle Eastern, but East Asian. There also appear to be some smaller siblings - at least one DE* clade in Africa and at least one in Asia. So concerning the last common ancestor of D and E the case is very even. So we have two points in time and the origin of E is somewhere between these two points: MRCA of D and E, place unknown. MRCA of modern E, almost certainly Africa (although I should say that E* is found in Asia). If you want more examples see http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Zalloua_et_al._(2008). Coming to your approach to the Chandrasekar article I find your approach untenable. It is your personal preference to try to ignore this article. This is not a good enough reason!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help, that the full text for the Chandrasekar article is not available. The article is peer reviewed and has been published in some respectable journals. But that does not guarantee notability or reliability. Wikipedia policies still give editors room to assess the notability of any particular study. I have been wondering why only one study has referenced Chandrasekar in the two years since its publication, especially since the claims the study makes are very important and relevant to human genetic history. Looking at Karafet et al, which is only one year old, it is already 28 articles. I don't know exactly why chandrasekar is not being referenced, but my guess is that scientific community is skeptical of the study, since the Chandrasekar's results have not been replicated by any other study yet. WP:FRINGE states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". I think Chandrasekar qualifies as a fringe theory. Over the last couple of months, I have been trying to search for any article that has published anything in connection with or consisted with the Chandrasekar article. There simply aren't any. We have given it the benefit of doubt for too long. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article on Zalloua et al, I looked up the full article and there isn't a specific discussion on these particular E* groups. Though it is an interesting find, it would be great if they could publish the sequences. At the moment, this particular finding was not included in the Karafet et al study, possibly because they were published in the same year. So we don't yet know the specific relationship between E* in Lebanon and the other E clades. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this is silly or dishonest or both. This thing about number of times cited is just something you are making up because you want to ignore the article. This is absolutely ad hoc, and you are doing it to fight against what other people think, not because there is evenly balanced doubt about this amongst Wikipedia editors. You are comparing it to Karafet knowing full well this is one of the most cited of recent articles in this small area of published articles. Please stop using this kind of argument. Try to be more constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that Andrew. The creators of Google scholar didn't add "cited by feature simply for the fun of it. I don't think it's "silly" to use the cited by feature as a rough measure of notability. I understand that not everybody uses search engine tests, but they are an integral part of checking notability for wiki articles. I use them extensively. I am not affiliated with any human genetics organization, so basically my main access to information is through search engines. Naturally search engines aren't always accurate, but nonetheless they correlate well with notability or reliability. If you recall, Causteau had insisted that M35 originated in Asia based on sources from the genographic project and ISOGG. But we know that these sources were simply not updated to reflect the current consensus. Likewise, just because Chandrasekar article has been published doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source. We still have to scrutinize sources to verify their reliability and importance. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence is right and the comparison to the case with ISOGG and the Genographic project shows how false your analogy. Nowhere have you shown that this article is unreliable or unimportant or controversial or etc. Your focus on the number of citations is irrelevant because this article is recent, and it is one of the articles which appears each year adding data incrementally to what is known. That is normal in this field. The Karafet article was far from normal. Why am I explaining this? You know it. It is an insult to both our intelligences that we are talking as if you do not know these things. You know very well that you made up this idea of checking how frequently cited the article was only because your FIRST wanted to find a way to get it out of sight. That is non-neutral POV pushing. It is not correct, but it also leads only to edit warring, not better articles. Try to find ways of editing which actually can lead to better articles instead of edit warring.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot even scrutinize the article, because only the abstract is available online. So it seems Causteau is the only editor who knows what is in the article. I have no idea myself. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you imagine the discussions on Wikipedia if editors felt it was a valid reason to ignore a source if any particular editors claimed to have trouble getting their hands on a copy? This is really a ridiculous comment to make. Have you tried getting a copy and found it particularly difficult?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Malyarchuk

Hi Andrew. I just noticed this edit where you indicate that Malyarchuk et al. (2008) identify M1 as Sub-Saharan (since the edit is featured in the Sub-Saharan admixture section of the article):

"Malyarchuk et al. identified 8 African haplogroups in Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Polish populations. These haplogroups included L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d, and M1, of which some, such as L1b, L3b1, and L3d appeared to be of West African origin. Haplogroup L2a1a was identified as most likely having entered Europe about 10,000 years ago, possibly through the Iberian Peninsula. "

However, Malyarchuk et al. do not state that. Here's what they write:

"To elucidate the origin of African-specific mtDNA lineages, revealed previously in Slavonic populations (at frequency of about 0.4%), we completely sequenced eight African genomes belonging to haplogroups L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d and M1 gathered from Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. Results of phylogeographic analysis suggest that at least part of the African mtDNA lineages found in Slavs (such as L1b, L3b1, L3d) appears to be of West African origin, testifying to an opportunity of their occurrence as a result of migrations to Eastern Europe through Iberia."

When discussing M1, they actually specify that it is North African and of pre-historic arrival in Iberia (versus the L haplogroups, which they indicate are of historic introduction, except for L2a1a):

"However, a prehistoric introgression of African mtDNA lineages into Eastern Europe (approximately 10 000 years ago) seems to be probable only for European-specific subclade L2a1a, defined by coding region mutations at positions 6722 and 12903 and detected in Czechs and Slovaks."

"In Northwest Africa, haplogroup M1 has been found at high frequencies in Algerians, and at lower frequency in Tunisians, Mozabites and Morroccan Arabs, showing a slight east – west cline. Haplogroup M1 is rare in Iberia, but the presence of North African M1 mtDNA in the Basques remains that pre-date the Muslim invasion (eighth century) points to the prehistoric arrival of M1 lineages in Iberia."

Since Malyarchuk do not indicate that M1 is Sub-Saharan but rather North African, it should not be featured in the Sub-Saharan admixture section of the article. If anything, it should be listed in the North African admixture section. Causteau (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not been "consistently removing reference to [M1] being "African"". That is completely false. What I have been doing is removing M1 from the section of the article labeled Sub-Saharan admixture, which you ironically added it to when Malyarchuk et al. (2008) do not describe M1 as Sub-Saharan mtDNA or as having come from Sub-Saharan Africa. Again, as shown in the quotes above, the study clearly states that it M1 is North African mtDNA that was introduced from Northwest Africa -- where, incidentally, it is most prevalent & its oldest sub-clades are found -- not "Sub-Saharan West Africa" (where it is absent), as you have somehow concluded. Causteau (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. To place haplogroup M1 in a section labeled Sub-Saharan admixture obviously suggests that it specifically constitutes Sub-Saharan admixture, not some generic "African" admixture. This is precisely why Wapondaponda has been consistently reverting the article i.e. he wants readers to believe that the presence of M1 in Europe constitutes Sub-Saharan admixture, not North African admixture. Again, my edits were me removing M1 from the section of the article labeled "Sub-Saharan admixture" because the Malyarchuk et al. (2008) study that the passage in question is sourced to does not describe M1 as Sub-Saharan mtDNA or as having come from Sub-Saharan Africa. The latter is something Wapondaponda fabricated, as is his wont, and you yourself have subsequently added to the article. As shown in the quotes cited earlier, the study actually states that M1 is North African mtDNA that was introduced to Iberia from Northwest Africa (and from Iberia to Eastern Europe):

"In Northwest Africa, haplogroup M1 has been found at high frequencies in Algerians, and at lower frequency in Tunisians, Mozabites and Morroccan Arabs, showing a slight east – west cline. Haplogroup M1 is rare in Iberia, but the presence of North African M1 mtDNA in the Basques remains that pre-date the Muslim invasion (eighth century) points to the prehistoric arrival of M1 lineages in Iberia."

"In this respect, a possible explanation for presence of African mtDNA lineages in gene pools of eastern Europeans is that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe might be the source of late glacial expansions leading to dispersal of some Northwest African mtDNAs in central and northeastern parts of Europe. It has been previously shown that ancient Iberian carriers of West Eurasian haplogroups H1, H3, V, U5b1b and U8a have participated in demographic reexpansion to repopulate Central Europe in the last interglacial periods (10 000 – 15 000 years ago).39 – 41 According to the data obtained in our study, it seems probable that Northwest Africans also contributed their mtDNA lineages to ancient Iberians, and further, via their gene pool migrations, to Europeans."

This is something I already made clear in my edit summaries:

• edit summary #1: "[...] Malyarchuk et al. (2008) do not identify M1 as sub-Saharan (far from it), so it should not be cited under Sub-Saharan admixture"
• edit summary #2: "[...] Gonzalez also make it clear that M1 is NOT of Sub-Saharan origin"
• edit summary #3: "[...] put M1 Malyarchuk info in proper section"

Also note that my penultimate edit (which Wapondaponda naturally reverted) was actually me adding the M1 info to its proper North African admixture section. This is something that I already suggested to you above that we should do (viz. "Since Malyarchuk do not indicate that M1 is Sub-Saharan but rather North African, it should not be featured in the Sub-Saharan admixture section of the article. If anything, it should be listed in the North African admixture section."). Perhaps you overlooked this too? Whatever the case, the article may be locked now, but when it is unlocked, rest assured that this as well will be corrected. Causteau (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup E (Y-DNA)‎

Hi,

I blocked Wapongaponga for a short time for low-grade edit warring on this article. However, I'm not familiar enough with the lit to follow who's justified. I'd appreciate any comments you may have on that talk page. kwami (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article. Wapongapongo tells me that you've made an edit which he accepts. Would you mind commenting on my talkpage? Thanks.

PS. The link to your website isn't working. kwami (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On your user page, in the little box that says "This user has a website, which can be found here." kwami (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cavalli Sforza

I have been looking at some of the older studies by Cavalli-Sforza. These were done long before any of the Y-chromosomes or mtDNA were sequenced. I had read these before I was ever aware of e3b. What i find interesting is the remarkable consistency between these older studies and what has recently been published, especially concerning e3b. I intend to use the material from these sources in some of the articles. If you have any free time, I would like to get your opinion. The publications are:

• History and Geography of Human Genes
• Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms

Wapondaponda (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some significant changes to the controversial article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. The dispute is still on going. If you have any free time, I would welcome your opinion. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

M-78

"In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to north-eastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa"

• Haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a). E1b1b1a (E-M78); formerly E3b1a

M78 see page 1304 Cruciani &a is at root so all other (on this graph) are descendant of it. Yes ? If yes then my edit was rather ok. If not why not? Anyway i reverted my edit so you can fix it if needed. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Causteau

Re User_talk:Causteau: you are achieving nothing useful there. Regardless of who is at fault, the discussion has got mired in pointless needling. Delete your last message and back off for a while (that is advice, not instruction) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b

I noticed the misleading edit and reverted it, but I'm not planning on contributing to this article too much. There's too much time-wasting conflict and POV-pushing, TBH. It's frustrating. I do commend you for your work on the article and related ones, though. It takes some real perseverance. Congrats (again ;)) on your article getting published, BTW. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

William de Lancaster I

Hello, I noticed your interest in this wikipedia entry, as well as your surname. As someone with an interest in Anglo-Norman genealogy as well as a participant in such a DNA-based surname project, I think you might find this group of interest, if you haven't already seen it. [2] Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great page there, with much more extensive discussion than most such pages. I would be most interested in seeing the article you wrote. Please drop me a copy at your convenience at the email user link on my page. Many thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, I've known both Satterfields and Satterwhites, but didn't realize that they were variants of Lancaster. Most interesting. I just emailed you direct. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I've also come across extensive mention of the Tallebois family in various English counties. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Hi. It has been drawn to my attention that this edit comment [3] (which you may or may not have seen) might be considered somewhat intemperate. So I apologise for it. But if I might explain the reason for my irritation: you wanted to draw my attention to something, and it would have been convenient for me had you directly linked to the user in question William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

From talk E1b1b page

Going through the above long post in more detail...

• Concerning formatting and looking at sentence structure, no problem, but the question is how we do this and whether deleting first is a good approach. It means parts of the article will be "down" for an undetermined time. Why not work here and insert new text when ready? What does deleting add to the process?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)

• Ah-hah. That is what your personal Talkpage User:Andrew Lancaster/E1b1b1 for example can be the new logical page for E1b1b1 while you are writing it, those people who cover and check the newpages will be so impressed at how ordered and well referenced you new page is (heh-heh). Create subpages of your personal page and take the sections and rewrite them there, that wikispace is your sandbox, you literally can create a whole page there and test the page before bringing it over. When the day has come you've made the desired changes, bring it to this page as a proposed replacement. Leave the paragraph on the main, even contact the other editors by dropping a note on their talk page. Wait a few days, if no comments are made move it to the main page. PB666 ^yap

Yes, I understand the types of options which exist concerning places to work. Indeed there is an E-M35 wiki we can work at, which is like an expanded E1b1b world, but my concern is specifically about DELETING - leaving the article with a hole in it while some self-assigned group of core editors fix bits of it. What happens if someone goes on holiday? I'm taking it from your answer that you don't see deleting as the essential ingredient?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If a section is bad enough it may have to be deleted for a time, there are instances were certain words in a paragraph are poisonous and attract edit wars or speculation. Its frequently better to delete and hash out what is best said on the talk page. These talk pages are really useful, even if two major contributors interact, because it hashes out what people are bothered by, seeks compromise and builds up a consensus to protect the article. An instance of this is the mention of the state of bodies as a consequence of informal autopsy reports in Air France Flight 447, the mention of body damage and clothing removal kept resulting in the addition of material that was speculative (bomb threats, terrorism claims) basically your Aquatic ape theory claims of 'disprove this'. When the reports were removed the speculative claims stopped. At some point that paragraph may be returned, but at that time it will have official statements and official interpretation, following a concept of WP:RS.

• Tables. I have proposed converting some types of data summary to tables a few times over the last year or two. If I understand correctly, Causteau is opposed, but he has allowed a few to be installed. I believe in any case that it is just a matter of time that the article requires this more, just as I think it is only a matter of time before the article must be split a bit. An E-M78 article seems to be called for relatively soon for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)

• Place the material in tables and rewrite to simplify here, if no-one complains move it to the mainpage. The only time I have seen a table pulled from a mainpage is when the information in the table proved to be incorrect (not the editors fault, but the literature source could not be substantiated since it was not a first hand source).PB666 ^yap

My experience is indeed, people don't delete tables, but they also don't know how to look after them. My experience is mainly on the R1a haplogroup article. The tables there are a mess because no one cleans them up. I've spent time on them only to see them ruined a little while later when someone objected to something in one cell.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Concerning Y age estimations, I think I agree, and in this article there is not much quoting of any age estimations, except where there is only one estimate widely known. I think if we put none at all we'll get disappointed browsers of Wikipedia pasting in stuff ad hoc so it is hard to avoid it totally. I'd also point out that estimation issues are probably different for different time frames. The time frame of your examples is much older than what we are talking about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)
  • Its not a question of numbers or how old, its a question of whether an ethnogenetic claim that is made today turns out to have a different better explanation tomorrow. Let me give an example of this, the authors of a paper a while back on mhc16 gene made an amazing claim that the gene arose simultaneously with the speciation of Homo sapiens and they gave an age and a variance in which the variance was about 10% of the age. Here is the basic problem, when we look methodically at all the sources of variation (not withstanding the oldest archaeology on human occupation and spread) we find that typically dates range in a skewed distribution from -40 to +60% of any stated age, therefore the evolution of a particular gene or clad can vary widely over several archaeological timeframes. Claims that are solely based on a determined age are to be question unless the confidence interval they provide can exclude most other possibilities and the confidence interval is consistent with known factors (variance in C/H LCA, variance in mutation rates, random variation in the appearance of new mutations, etc). With the Y chromosome in particular, until their is a broad consensus in the field as to the particular reason why the molecular phylogenetics so postdates the archaeological and mitochondrial evidence for major migrations(given the fact the human presence will invariably precede archaeological evidence by some random proportion of time relative to calibrated date), one has to be especially careful interpreting the TMRCAs. It may be the case that the Y chromosomal TMRCAs are no more erroneous than mtDNA. But if that occurs there is a large likelihood of single chromosome selective sweeps occurring in the human population after migrations out of Africa. This creates a logical minefield for interpreting migrations based on Y. Note I am not arguing for a genetic selective sweep as this wave may have been attached to differential cultural growth in the human population were density was at its highest, preferentially pushing males with access to certain technologies more rapidly outward. This in and of itself will create havoc in studies of peripheral population isolates.PB666 ^yap

I basically agree. My point is only that the controversy is not that big in the literature about the timeframe we are talking about and avoiding any mention of calculations in the literature might just backfire.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Conflict of Interest. What I understand is that putting in a reasonably well known article in the references is not a conflict of interest. If this issue is still open for anyone then I'd like to hear about it in a clear way. Otherwise I hope I will not see it mentioned again in order to defend any particular edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)

• Self-referencing, even through third parties should be done to an absolute minimum. It should not be the sole source of information. It is not, per say, a conflict of interest if it is one paper in 100 references and the papers mesh with each other. Do not engage in self-promotion on the mainpage or talkpage, instead promote the article as to make it better. On a more serious note, you will attract more flies with honey than with vinager. If the tone of the article is overly technical, combative, unwikified, you may be getting hits on the lead, but that is all that is read. To wiki is to do what, read the article, click on the links, read the background (what is a clade, subclade, haplogroup) return, read more. It is an educational experience for the reader, but in order for it to work the desire has to be promoted.PB666 ^yap My opinion, get the article in shape and then we can nit-pick about the references used. And BTW you can avoid this argument in the future by using a nick.PB666 ^yap

• Talkpages. I absolutely agree. These talkpages have way to much diversion away from the subject.
• Disproportionate discussion. This is of course a bit difficult. Fact of the matter is that there is an enormous literature out there which makes a lot out of Y haplogroups, and E1b1b is one of the ones that gets a lot of press. This means people come here to find a summary. So the outside world has determined that E1b1b is important in discussing the populations and periods mentioned in this article. We can only summarise that outside reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)

• The talkpage is about making the mainpage better. I deal with genetic misconceptions alot, so I know that people grope on certain things and ignore pretty much the big picture. With Y chromosome many (especially males) believe that since the Y chromosome contributes to their maleness that it is extremely important, whereas we know the chromosome is small and does not really encode for anything that determines the degree of masculinity other than being male itself. Ergo the Y chromosome takes on an almost mythical status. People are generally unaware at the low relative effective N of Y chromosome, and how poor a marker it is for that. But, here is how to handle the talkpage. Remind people that the talkpage is for the improvement of the article, this can be done on their personal talkpage. Anything greater than a few sentences of WP:NOTFORUM can be deleted to clean up the page, leave a note on their personal page.PB666 ^yap

LOL you have a point but I think you know the serious reasons that can be argued that it is interesting to focus on Y lineages. First they are simple because not recombined. Recombined DNA makes it very difficult to talk about any particular migration whereas with E1b1b we can I think actually point to regions where people in the "family tree" lived in particular epochs. The other related point (at least in my mind) is that Y lineages being male lineages probably do not all show mass migrations, but probably do show something about active minorities. You might like to read my article, because in a sense it was an experimental review trying to keep this very question in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You may think this is "unfair" for other types of DNA, but we can't really fix that. If there were big differences of opinion that would of course give you a stronger point, but you won't see too many arguments about these particular issues on these talkpages, because for the most part the literature itself is boringly consistent. I actually think that this is partly a result of genetics simply having less real debate that say linguistics or archaeology, but once again this is how the outside world is and we can only report that here.

Does anyone see any problems with these responses?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have moved these to your talk page, the questions and particularly the responses are out of the scope of the articles talk page, for now.PB666 ^yap

Hi -- Andrew, don't use a nick (which we'd call a sockpuppet) to add your own stuff, that would be sockpuppetry to avoid COI accusations. If you want something you wrote added, ask on the talk page for someone to add it. That's what our guidelines say, and you'd probably get caught if you used another account. I meant to say this earlier on the talk page when you asked me to comment, but got distracted and forgot, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. It looks like Causteau himself decided to re-enter the article, so this problem got fixed when I took it on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have read the review that is titled by Lancaster. The review should be the primary source of information in the article because it is a review and because it has information pertinent to the article.PB666 ^yap
• Doug I disagree, in the case of people who are using their real name, I think he should use a nick name and stop using his real name altogether, it is unfair to say to one person, its ok to be anonymous and to another person, you have to use your fullname. 2009 has been dubbed the year of internet crime and identity theft. I myself am stongly considering moving my stuff under a new name and stop using my old one. Second, the individual who criticized him has now backed off, but it appears to have been an unjust COI claim that he was singled out simply because his name matched the name on the review, more or less a groping argument. This is exactly the reason people should no be using their real names, otherwise we are arguing that they cannot, shouldn't edit anything they have an interest in. Why do people edit complicated articles like this if they are dis-interested. I am not going to create an article on Y-chromosome, it would take me too much effort to wrap my head around the complex and ever-changing nomenclature. Lay off the experts, Andrew is going to have enough trouble rewritting the article to make it encyclopedic to begin with.PB666 ^yap

I'm not saying he shouldn't edit, just that he should add his own work, that's the only COI. And if he used a sockpuppet and got caught, he'd be indef blocked probably. Not worth it. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The hypocrisy of that stance. In this instance the would be petty, its akin to victimizing the victim. Sometimes I just don't get these wiki-rules. On have run across people on wikipedia, once they get your name they all but stalk you, aside from that I can post under 4 different IPs and all are DHCP so that all I have to do is to unplug my router and I am as many people as I want to be. Nick or no nick, as long as the namespace is something people can communicate then it is fair.68.93.88.18 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article

Hello, Andrew. In response to your recent request, I'll take a good look. This is a very serious accusation, and I'll be as thorough as possible. – ClockworkSoul 20:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Check This out

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pdeitiker This is how some folks on WP play when they don't get their way. I am beginning to see what you mean about the main page.PB666 ^yap 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC). Hey, BTW since you are now me, can you go out an buy me some groceries, I have a couple of genes I need cloned but don't have the time, so . . . . . . . lol. Some people are too stupid.PB666 ^yap 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You let me know if you need any assistance with this, okay? MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess this will be dismissed pretty quickly, but it sure shows the nature of a bigger problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I know who one troll is. I am going to put these two pages E1b1b and E1b1b1a on my watchlist, if you start having problems with SOPHIAN I'll be able to keep up.PB666 ^yap 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty funny that Sophian tried to become an administrator after 37 edits. But worrying. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication

I was looking through your publication and Cruciani 2004. Specifically I was looking at the Omotic speakers. Though a small sample you state that 7 out of 12 tested positive for E-M35. I was a little bit confused bit confused with the percentages that Cruciani used, but could it be that 9 rather than 7 tested positive. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Errors are certainly possible in any article, and you could cross check with the source. But looking at the passage you mention, could you be confusing E and E-M35? There are 2 cases which were E(x E-M35).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OR and maps

I've raised this at the NOR noticeboard, about another map, would you like to chime in? It's at [4]. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I've been on holiday. Is there anything that requires attention on GHoE article ? Hxseek (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested

Per File talk:R1A map.jpg. See: this and this. Cheers,--B@xter⁹ 12:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible license problem

Is this image in the public domain? Or is it licensed under the GFDL? I don't think it can be both.--Rockfang (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Robino_algeria_M81.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Robino_algeria_M81.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Genetic Genealogy

I'm not at all sure about using for other than (perhaps) surname studies. It says "The main emphasis of this journal will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals since they may be based on datasets in which a statistically random sample cannot be guaranteed (i.e. surname studies)." Sophian has used it for a map - see User talk:SOPHIAN. The article is by Kalevi Wiik, see [5]. I'll comment on Sophian's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

X-linked fixation times

X chromosomal around 1 million years and other autosomes more than 3 million years.

There is no single citation for this information, while I did not provide this I can tell you that 50% of X-linked loci so-far studied have undergone fixation within the last 700,000 years. Using a C/H LCA of 6.5 million years I believe the median fixation time is around 540,000 years. There is a paper out there, I believe S Shaffner is a co-author, that did describe this. With regard to Autosomal I think Takahata (1999) proposed a time on the level of 1 million years. To be exact, X-chromosome have never undergone fixation, since it undergoes recombination large sections cannot fix only SNPs between recombination hot spots will undergo fixation. For autosomes the distance between relevant hot-spots (by relevant I mean relative to longstanding pre-expansion population sizes) is rather small and Takahata pointed out that there are few relavent SNPs that are useful for establishing fixation. There may be newer references out. From the HLA there appear to be >10 HLA (of 16) DRB1 allelegroups that passed through the minimum, along the same level of HLA B, and examining chimp and gorilla many variant motifs passed through the constriction without the loss of variation. Ayala 1996 argued that HLA-DRB1 had a TMRCA of 60 million years. IOW we can argue with certainty that certain parts of Chromosome 6 have not fixed within African anthropoid lineages. IOW, unless one can provide a reference, there is no assertible age for Autosomes, and the X-linked loci sort within a range from 0 to 1.8 million years (See Harris and Hey, 1998).PB666 ^yap 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is anywhere near essential for the article.PB666 ^yap 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is there any possible way to clean up (shorten) the Genetic Studies and Cavalli-Sforza material. Good to see we are cleaning up the page, I am going to fix the table so that there is a margin around it.PB666 ^yap 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 43-51 (January 2004) "The X chromosome in population genetics" Stephen F. Schaffner. doi:10.1038/nrg1247

You know that the X-chromosome, IMHO, is the best locus for tracking population movements, it presents with long-non-recombinant regions, and it does not have the problems associated with mtDNA and Y chromosome, I don't know why it doesn't get more coverage. Steve's interpretation and mine differ but from what I grasp he has analyzed the fixation of X, I spoke to him about this issue before he published, I haven't read the review.

I think there needs to be something explaining what "record longer genetic histories" means.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this from Shaffner's article?PB666 ^yap 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read this paper, it would seem that one result of the discussion has ended up in the review. Good Review. Table 1 and Box 3 provide you with the information. If one looks at the mean fixation time (or mean coalescence time) for X instead of the median it would be about 750,000 years (for X) as he states, also presents a 1 my coalescence time(For Autosomes). This is what really shocked me when I modeled Vigilant's results almost 15 years ago (I had a 80386 with 64mb of memory installed just to run the monte-carlo analysis). The fixation times spread broadly over a profile (see Box 3, panel b). People at the time where making wildly polar claims in the literature but when one looked at the TMRCAs and plotted them, the fell almost exactly into the disribution in his panel b for X-linked loci if we asssume the constrict population size was approximate as defined by mtDNA.

Ergo, the authors of these papers like Harris and Hey or Hey and Harris were not really presenting the great statistical unreliability of single results. It was a bit of an educational process for all. Now, if we look at certain loci, by random expectation we expect to see autosomal fixation times that exceed 2.5 million years, this contrasts greatly with observations at the Y chromosome.

So now you see where I come from. I have made some additions to the mitochondrial Eve, page, and I will be adding results of Shaffner's work. I came up with the same effective population size as he did (Several years previous I might add) of 11,000 versus his 12,000 individuals. The effective population size range was between 8000 and 16,000 individuals and thus the size is consistent in magnitude across all loci. The greatest deviation from expectation on the low end is the Y chromosome, and the greatest deviation on the high end is the HLA. There are both X and Autosomes that remain fixed, however the problem is recombination hotspots may be so close for these sites that there are inadequate numbers of mutations to confidently assert a TMRCA.PB666 ^yap 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jamesdean3295

A tag has been placed on Jamesdean3295, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Maybe you meant it for the article talk page, or the user's talk page? Cheers! --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I think I owe you an apologize- I was actually going to message you yesterday to tell you that your reformat of the R1a1 page was very fair, and more concise. Did a really good job! Thank you, and I'am sorry. It's hard to find editors who will actually be balanced. I will give Jamesdean3295 the benefit on doubt. Cosmos416 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good adds in the links!! Cosmos416 22:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for adding more studies and your edits! I think it's also a good idea for the r1a1 map to get an overhaul. I don't have the faintest clue on how to do that or even what studies to include, and how to manage it, etc. Hope you figure that one out! lol What do you think? Cosmos416 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Studies on Albanians

Thank you for your efforts on that section. I don't know if you have seen the pdf links I have posted in the talk page there [6] they might be useful of improving that section (if you have spare time:). Bests Aigest (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can add the one thing that both authors (Crucciani,Battaglia) agree that EV13 generated in situ in Balkans (probably in South Balkans giving the high % of both Greeks and Albanians?) and also their possible link to Cardium Pottery(Battaglia) or Bronze Age (Crucciani) culture? What do you think? Aigest (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I ment the population marked with EV13 was generated in situ in Balkans. Whether this was a population created in situ by the increase of existing EV13 mutation ( A single clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic. Crucciani 2007) or a population increase following newly created mutation of EV13 in the Balkans (In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence. Battaglia 2008 ) it looks to me that both authors suggest that this population (of EV13 origin) was created in situ in the Balkans. As for its link with J-M12 noticed above by Crucciani (Semino put J-M12 in South Balkans Whereas J-M67* and J-M92 show higher frequencies and variances in Europe (0.40 and 0.32, respectively) and in Turkey (0.32 and 0.30, respectively [Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004]) than in the Middle East (0.17 and 0.09, respectively), J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans.) but also the interpretation of Battaglia linking it to Cardium pottery, both point to a population increase in South Balkans than later entering Europe through water ways. So concluding in the end we have a population generated in South Balkans and subsequently spreading in Europe. Am I right? Aigest (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think to change only few words "from a common ancestor who lived in the Balkans in the late Mesolithic or Neolithic," to "from a local population who lived in the Balkans in the late Mesolithic or Neolithic," or something like that. I think is more correct to say population than individual. The local population of that time had that marker and part of them moved north and this is more correct form than just one single ancestor. Maybe the word "a (looks like just one) common ancestor" is somewhat confusing, what do you think? Aigest (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we say that "E3b1a2-V13 is typical of the southern Balkan regions" [7]? Aigest (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about the origin of EV-13 but for its characteristics, in this case typical of Southern Balkans. As I saw to the study above or even in other studies EV-13 marker is seen as typical of Southern Balkans marker, I mean it came from Southern Balkan into Europe, Right? Aigest (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Semino 2004 for J-M12 from Southern Balkans -> Europe "the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans" Crucciani 2007 linking V-13 and J-M12 "Asingle clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic." and also suggesting referring to clinal pattern frequency the same movement Southern Balkan -> Europe "Haplogroup E-V13 is the only E-M78 lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%)." and Battaglia 2008 linking it to Cardium Pottery again Southern Balkan -> Europe (see Cardium Pottery link in wiki) "In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence." . If you see all of them suggest a spread to Europe from Southern Balkans making it a typical marker for a descendance from Southern populations origin just like this study with the link here [8] says "typical of Southern Balkan regions", am I right? Aigest (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Pericic suggest from Southern Balkans -> Europe here "The spatial pattern shown in figure 4(C) depicts a nonuniform E3b1 geographic distribution with a frequency peak centered in south Europe and SEE (13%– 16% in southern Italians and 17%–27% in the Balkans). Declining frequencies are evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe (from 4% to 10% in Polish, Russians, mainland Croatians,Ukrainians, Hungarians, Herzegovinians, and Bosnians)." and here "These observations hint a mosaic of different E3b1 dispersal modes over a short geographic distance and point to the Vardar-Morava-Danube river system....as one of major routes for E3b1, in fact E3b1a, expansion from south and southeastern to continental Europe. In fact, dispersals of farmers throughout the Vardar- Morava-Danube catchments basin are also evidenced in the archaeological record (Tringham 2000)." So for Pericic it entered Europe from south Ballkan Vardar (Sesklo - Dimini culture) following river ways.

As for Battaglia he suggest that when he had in mind Cardium Pottery (pre-Sesklo) same area, south Balkan "these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations." only that he suggests that they moved from Sesklo to Adriatic not following river systems, but again the origin remains in Sesklo area, South Balkans, right? Aigest (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also King et al 2008 ([9]) suggest a Southern Balkan origin expanding further from that. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading this [10] and the statement there "..E3b1a2-V13 is typical of the southern Balkan regions.." brought in mind all the others. In fact looking back it would look like WP:SYNTH (albeit the direct reference of the article itself), but the way I see all the authors point to south Balkans ( somewhere in today's Greece territory and Greece quoting from wiki:) "is a country in southeastern Europe, situated on the southern end of the Balkan Peninsula") I find it logical explanation of all their findings that from there the population moved into Europe from river basins or along coast of Adriatic sea or both ways. This fits even with archaeology, Refrew model etc don't you think? Aigest (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree for WP:SYNTH as I explained above (no need to put in the article), this was more important for my personal knowledge than the article, however it would have been great if someone could have used those data in a scientific study concerning the possible creation of Albanian population, migrations, mixings, timings, population size reduction or founder effect etc. Thanks for the help anyway, you have done a great job there.

P.S. Now I know where to get help if I find more genetic articles;) Aigest (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Eurasian Adam

Hello Andrew Lancaster, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Eurasian Adam has been removed. It was removed by Small Victory with the following edit summary '(Nominator misread the article. See Talk.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Small Victory before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Andrew I completely understand that you want to list Asia in the High Frequency box.

I completely agree that Asia should be sighted as a place where R1a reaches high frequency. The purpose of the High Frequency box is to list countries with the highest frequencies. It is necessary to add % values to these areas in the high frequency box when sighting a particular area. I don't think that South Asia should even be in the high frequency box because 15-20% is not high frequency. The only countries that should be listed in the high frequency box are countries where R1a is greater than 40%. Or you could list the individual tribes in which R1a is greater than 40%. If you insist on listing Asia in the high frequency box then a value needs to be place on that listing. --Jamesdean3295 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups

Does this article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups, have a realistic chance of accurately displaying the correct information. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Small Victory

Andrew, if flogging a dead horse doesn't do any good, then neither does continuing to argue with a blocked editor. I know you are frustrated by him, but the problem has been solved (at least for a while). I suggest you concentrate on editing articles rather than continuing to argue with him. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

R1b

Hey Andrew, been well ? Has that new article on R1b by Cruciani come out yet ? ? Hxseek (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Eulau graves

Hello Andrew. I was looking this evening at the wikipedia entry on the Lichtenstein Cave, and wondering why there's not a corresponding entry about the gravesite found at Eulau near Naumburg in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, last year? As you well know, that trove yielded a bunch of remains, including three individuals as part of a nuclear family with R1a.[11] I just wanted to mention this as I think if Lichtenstein deserves an entry, certainly the find at Eulau of even earlier Bronze Age folks (some Indo-European) would seem to merit an entry of its own. (There is a brief reference to the find in the Kurgan hypothesis wikipedia piece.) Hope all is well. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I'll try to get to that Eulau graves stub soon. I have a new Scottish clan entry to tackle, and more than a few loose ends in New England to tie up, but I hope to write the Eulau entry before long. Please have a close look to doublecheck it. The discovery deserves way more than the one sentence it merits by way of the Kurgan hypothesis. Incidentally, how about that hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold in Staffordshire? Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, I added a brief graf on the Eulau discovery to the R1a page, as well as a footnote to the original paper by Haak et al. Please have a look and make sure I got it all correct. I wanted to add this in advance of writing a stub on the find. Thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think we can say that the Eulau find represents some of the earliest Y-DNA extracted from ancient remains, or at least that's what I take away from Jean's entry on the subject. [12] Here is Dienekes' table. [13] (Obviously there was the Cheddar Man and even more ancient finds that were mitochondrial.) But I wanted to run this by you first before inserting it. Also, the entry says the Eulau find is among the earliest indications of the spread of R1a among Corded Ware peoples. Obviously, that should probably read: 'the earliest documented.' I didn't add anything about the Kurgan hypothesis to the graf. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to make sure you concurred with the wording I used. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

These may be of some interest to you

Its open access."The Neandertal genome and ancient DNA authenticity". EMBO J. 28 (17): 2494–502. 2009. doi:10.1038/emboj.2009.222. PMC 2725275. PMID 19661919. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link)PB666 ^yap 04:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

also:Jewish Priesthood Has Multiple Lineages, New Genetic Research Indicates

Fault in Y chromosomal clock may lie in the chimpanzee males sperm production. Human-chimp interbreeding challenged

"Doubts about complex speciation between humasn and chimpanzees" Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24 (10) 2009 page 533- 540

"Evolution of X-Degenerate Y Chromosome genes in Greater Apes: Conseravtion of gene contest in HUmans and Gorillas but not chimpanzees" J. Mol. Evol (2009) 68:134-144.

Explain First

PROVIDE A DIRECT PASSAGE OR CITATION VERIFYING YOUR CLAIMS. VERIFICATION.

WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. SHOW DIRECTLY AND STOP STALLING.

From Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

NOW...WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. Because IF YOU CAN'T: This Violates the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position and also unpublished analysis section of Original Research. Cosmos416 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Revenge edits??? I asked for input, not a COMPROMISE ON SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES WIKIPEDIA'S synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

I used the same principles you were using, and found out it's all ORIGINAL RESEARCH to employ what you guys are employing. So I'm pointing that out. It's clear from your editing you try and position everything towards Eastern Europe. It's funny cause you avoid the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position' because you have not even demonstrated that WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. Cosmos416 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are "my claims"? You called me to look at an edit by another author. I adjusted it, to try to make sure your concerns were resolved. The edit as it now stands in modified form does not even contain any claims except a dry comment about which data was not included in a particular study. Take a step back and look at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

before responding to this individual further check [14]

Re-read this, it answers all of your questions.

(1) CONSENSUS CAN NOT OVERRIDE WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH

(2) Don't be a sock and make baseless claims like WP:POINT, which has no bearing. Like (a) I said I was following your OWN principles after you had legitimized it, and (b), I found it out AFTER IT WAS AGAINST WIKIPEDIA ORIGINAL POLICY, So now I will FOLLOW guidelines, AS SHOULD ALL OF YOU (c)STICK TO THE FACTS and DON'T PERSONALLY ATTACK ME.

(3) Point out in those 4 sources provided where does it make any type of CLAIM(S) DIRECTLY in regards to Kivisild's study from 2003.

(4) If you can't (like you said: "The sources HXseek has added at your insistence were not intended to be sources ABOUT Kivisild, but rather examples of data from the other area.") > THAN THAT IS: synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position Do you have trouble understanding that? Than maybe you should go back to school. I have to go to my girlfriend's house for Thanksgiving, I hope you understand wikipedia: original research.

--Andrew, YOU know it's not a "dry comment". It's putting 4 unrelated published studies that serves to position itself against and over Kivilid's study. That is in Violation in Wikipedia's Orginial Research Policy of:synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position'. Cosmos416 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My latest creation :^)

Portal:Molecular_Anthropology. In doing this I realized there is no real organization to the Human genetic history project. We need to do better catagorization of pages.PB666 ^yap 04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks for letting me know re: the R1a piece. I have responded in the appropriate place. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit to R1a

Hello. Yes, the broad sweep of Northern Europe, included in most all pieces about R1a, needs to be included, because it is *not* part of Eastern Europe nor Central Europe. I'm referring to the rates in Norway specifically, where it is quite high and from which it likely spread to the British Isles. I had many months ago added the mention of Iceland in the text, where the R1a1 accounts for something like a third of the Y-dna. Certainly Scandinavia – specifically Norway – needs to be indicated as it's probably a quarter of the population. Not only that, but a case can be made, I think, that the R1a population in Norway is important beyond its size because thanks to the ramblings of the Vikings, it was so widely spread from that location. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavia is not in Eastern Europe. If you'll look within wikipedia itself, it classifies Scandinavia as within Northern Europe. I don't argue for including Britain, and haven't, but certainly the level within Norway was disproportionate to its size (which was still substantial), as it became the jumping-off point of the spread of R1a across wide swaths of territory traveled by the Vikings. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the lede to remove the reference to Northern Europe, which was too broad, as you suggested. I have instead substituted Scandinavia, and moved it from the front end where there are 'substantial' populations, to the back end where the haplogroup is found in 'certain populations.' I think aside from taking note of one of the main sources behind the spread of R1a1, the sentence as now configured gives an idea of the sheer arc of the haplogroup, which is obviously enormous. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, R1a appears to be the topic of the day, I moved the table to its own page. I was checking out the references and I found that Adams et al. (2008) does not exist in the citations. There are a few other Harvtext links that don't work.PB666 ^yap 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I have changed some of the text-clades into tabled {{tl:clade}} however to try to condense things, maybe too much.PB666 ^yap 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the topic, once I condense there was not enough for multiple sections, according to the guidelines of having dangling sentences in sections I condense Europe into one section. Frankly I think the Balkan slavs, Northern slavs and Scandinavians should be treated in one paragraph.PB666 ^yap 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I should note regarding the Pas Valley and Neolithic Central Europeans. A strong HLA marker for Central Europeans is the A3-B7-DR15-DQ6 haplotype, it is at unexpectedly high frequencies in the Pas Valley dwellers of Spain, I always considered that the population may have been cut off from other Europeans by a strange migration westward, however there is signficant admixture and African derived genetics also.

For the record

I'm really not sure what in the world is going on with the R1a page, but for the record I'd like to state my dissatisfaction with the way it was handled. I suspect you're probably as dissatisfied with it as I am. I was waiting for the content to be smoothed somewhat and then I planned to iron out some of the grammatical issues. I just cannot see what good it will do to break this thing apart. As I indicated in my comments on the talk page, breaking it apart will create confusion among readers. Further, I've never seen in my entire time at wikipedia such a massive change made without prior consultation among editors involved. I cannot stress enough how unhappy I am personally with the way this thing has been handled. I hope that someone, anyone, can get this thing back on track. The article is too important to be handled in this fashion. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN

Sophian had returned in the form of various sockpuppets. I have listed one of the articles he created for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farming Berbers. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing of R1a

Hello Andrew, thanks for your message earlier today.

I left this comment on the talk page of the R1a piece directed to user Pdeitker: "I stated nothing incorrectly. Let's cut to the chase. The reason this article is 'such an insufferable piece of crap,' as you put it, is because you attempt to handle the whole thing yourself. Perhaps you know something about genetics. You don't know the first thing about language. I know little of genetics, but quite a bit about language. The way to make these articles work is for each contributor to seize on his strengths – and admit his weaknesses. You're trying to do it all, even though there are areas where you're not competent. If you want this piece to be more than "an insufferable piece of crap," then you need to collaborate with others who are better at some things than you are, and perhaps not as good at other things. End of story." MarmadukePercy

This piece desperately needs editing, but each time anyone attempts to criticize (even in a constructive way) Pdeiteker, he engages in sleights of hand to split the piece, and its talk pages, into ever smaller slivers. This is, in my view, simply a means of dodging constructive interaction with other editors. Until this obstructionist editor quits these practices, editing this particular piece will go nowhere. I'm not going to contribute further until this user is reined in, or something can be done to restore this piece to normal wikipedia editing protocol. Thanks for your earlier message. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what you call a paper tiger argument. There is no slight of hand as you say, the article will not be split, not by me, and not for the moment, and not before the GA review, that should be clear. Which means I intend to wait to see what the referees have to say. I keep my word, since, barely a structure was created that solved the problem. Likewise I am not man-handling the article, as Andrew now probably realizes, after coming to a compromise on the cladogram I did not revert his last change (Except the Page68 mutation). Since you cannot spell my nick, a five letter word, correctly, even though you say you an English specialist, and since you seem to favor ad-hominim and personal attacks, even from the first day, then why should I take anythin you say Marmaduke, seriously? First impressions. If you have something to say to me or about me you can have the guts to say it on my talk page. I don't go talking about you behind your back, although it would be well deserved if I did. As for participating in the R1a's 'advance' you really should give it a try, at some point. The article was in sad shape before I made even the tiniest edit, either to it or its talk page. So that logic is blown out of the water. Your feelings are hurt, that is no reflection at all on the state of the article.PB666 ^yap 07:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You flatter yourself if you think you've hurt my feelings. I can simply see that your reach exceeds your grasp. You don't know your core competencies, and lack thereof. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

wikt:VacuousPB666 ^yap 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the Lede and Nomenclature pages are increasingly inappropriate

It is rather clear that by your tone that you prefer ad-hominim attacks rather than page improvements, can you refrain from trying to stir things up when replying and remove the implicitly ad-hominim attacks. Simply stated I could replace both the 'lede' and the nomenclature, I am offering you the opportunity after reading MOS and looking at the edits to improve the selections yourself. You seem to be very adverse to changing these things by tone. Of course the alternative is I could wait this out and plop a new lede and nomenclature section in before review. This should be your baby, your kind of like a food critic that never lites a stove to boil a pot of water.PB666 ^yap 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

With regard to R-M173

I don't want you to be put off because I delete that from the Lede. The way I understand this they want to draw the reader in starting with very simple statements. Its not such a problem with the R1 clade but the other clades would benefit in the portrayal of the shift. Somewhere in that first paragraph in the second section the reader needs to be introduced to R- terminology and it needs to be explained. I would recommend something like, the SRY1532.2 mutation has two proper names R1a1 and R-SRY1532.2, the R subclade defined by SRY1532.2, identified cases are also SRY1532.2 positive. and you could have a note going into detail about the various nomenclatures (not 64 kb note either).PB666 ^yap 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have already done this.PB666 ^yap 13:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph structure of the Rx levels: If I can make a recommendation, the logic of the paragraph should be -

1. Name and alias
2. Other known unique mutations.<ref- the mutations -/ref>
3. Subclades - defined
4. Paraclade.
5. Distribution

PB666 ^yap 13:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be something like that, but different editors need to look at the structure they are editing in, and either make a complete new one (lots of work) or else respect the old structure. If that happened, then a structure would already long be apparent in these sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page behaviors and reversions are unacceptable

I made edits to the page in compliance with WP:MOS that you reverted in addition your talk page behaviors are completely unacceptable. Please stop your ranting.PB666 ^yap 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please start using the talkpage in a constructive manner and then it won't look like a one-person conversation anymore? For example, what is the point of making this comment here on my talkpage without saying anything about which edits you are referring to? It can not be that this is the behavior of a person wanting to work with others better and aim at a better article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:MOS, making false statements on the Talk page is a violation of the talk-page guidelines.PB666 ^yap 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Name the false statement please, and tell what I should read on MOS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles

Hi Andrew, I wonder if you'd be interested in taking a look at this article, which has prompted a lot of controversy in recent weeks (just see the talk page). A number of editors feel that it's giving undue weight to Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer, and that it needs a general update and clean-up. I've been trying to find expert editors who might be able to contribute. Thanks!--Pondle (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up Pondle's comment and your reply - I've made a couple of suggestions at User talk:DinDraithou about improving that article. Essentially, my view is that the article needs to be made more balanced and up-to-date, not necessarily dismissing all of Oppenheimer and Sykes' arguments but placing them in context, in a way that is understandable to the general non-specialist reader. If you are able to help in that process, I would greatly welcome it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

One piece of advice: do not wait for geneticists to turn up and give magic solutions. There are very few miracles on Wikipedia. You need to try to work together and do the best you can. If there are differences of opinion at least try to bring them into clear definition before calling for help. The most common response to requests for help is unfortunately nothing. I can see how this discussion could go wrong, but I think good faith can be assumed on all sides? If I understand correctly DinDraithou is agreeing in principle that Oppenheimer might fit in some parts of some articles. I noticed somewhere that he removed some references to him which to be honest really were pretty poor and unreferenced. I guess he'd say that if people want to put Oppenheimer in they at least need to do it properly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly needs work - I think one of the problems is that I and other interested editors have no background in genetics, and DinDraithou has said that he lacks skills in making technical research findings readily accessible to lay readers. The end result may be that we have a very unstable article, with different editors approaching it from very different and incompatible directions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. Ideally, what should exist is an accessible summary of the whole picture, setting Oppenheimer et al. in the context of wider and more recent research, firmly backed up by references. I know there are blogs claiming to cover the whole ground - but am I right in thinking that a reliable summary of the whole wider picture doesn't really exist at the moment? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You are putting your finger on the challenge in this field. The academics are limited in number and resources, but are being read widely and hungrily. They do not spend a lot of time speculating about what their figures mean, often making off hand remarks (connection between Tunisia and Middle East: must be Phoenicians etc) and leaving it pretty much there. There is also no tradition of debate and criticism between them, which gives no pressure to change. I believe the amateurs are starting to change this however, hence the importance of the JOGG which was why Doug originally contacted me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review

I have added comments here: Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)/Comments. You will note I did not mention key issues such as section headers, the bullet lists the frequencies in text, etc, as not to taint the outside referee.PB666 ^yap 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your compulsive reference to mitochondrial Eve page, it has nothing to do with the current process. I have repeatedly stated that the page needs work. As I have stated, I am well aware of the problems. The more time I spend here the less time I have for working on that page. If you think that the mtEve page requires help put it on the HGH project page and in order I will get to that page. It is not clear what your motives are but it is clear that your motives are not for the improvement of R1a by mentioning this. Please stop. If you have a specific critique of the paragraph then please state it.PB666 ^yap 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Both these discussions should be on the R1a talk page, which is indeed where they were being discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)