Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 6

V32 Section

Eritreans have been reinserted into the text as a population with "prevalent" levels of V32. I tried using the sources given but can not see it. Can someone help me out? All I see is a contour map in Cruciani 2007 which of course is no substitute map for real figures, as shown also by the more careful wording of the authors themselves. (Yes, V32 is found in high levels in some parts of the Horn of Africa, and that is all the contour map can show. But there are clearly big differences between sub-populations.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Unlike the term "Somali" which refers to a specific ethnic group, the terms "Ethiopian" and "Eritrean" actually refer to several different and sometimes quite disparate ethnic groups (e.g. the Bantu minority in southern Ethiopia). I've therefore replaced the phrase "it is prevalent in the Horn of Africa among Somalis, Ethiopians, and Eritreans" with a generic "it is prevalent in the Horn of Africa". Causteau (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the article currently says that Cruciani et al. (2007) suggest E-V32 originated in North Africa. Surely this is an error? Perhaps I made it. But does anyone see any reason not to remove this comment? The Cruciani article implies that V32 is from Northeastern Africa, because it writes of a back migration from there to Eastern Africa, where it is also found, and in the same passage mentions that E-M35 as a whole probably expanded from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not an error. While Cruciani et al. (2007) do write of a back migration of E-V32 from Northeastern Africa to Eastern Africa, the term "Northeastern Africa" in their study specifically refers to the eastern part of North Africa (i.e. Egypt and Libya) as opposed to the Horn of Africa (see Table 1). Causteau (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't know if we can say that the text clearly claims anything quite so precise, but in any case the present wording of the Wikipedia article is clearly implying a link to areas further west such as the Maghreb and that is certainly wrong surely? Can you find a text to take away that implication?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Causteau (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Third, I am not sure why there is now a reference to Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears specifically concerning E-V32.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a reason not to remove this? Remember this article has been through some debates which have pushed people to cite things. No problem with that, but there is a risk that referencing can get silly, which means it will become harder to look things up unless references are treated with as much strictness and caution as the text itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed it. Causteau (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another questionable reference?

Can anyone see any reason why this article about Pakistan should be the reference for "E3b is common in Europe". Surely there are other articles which deal with that subject far more directly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not a questionable reference. The study states outright that "E3b is common in Europe". I even included a footnote that mentions this. And again, this is from a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia goes by. Causteau (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is not questionable in that sense. Indeed no-one was debating that E3b is not "common" in Europe although of course this is a vague word. (Which also by the way means that it hard to ever make it very controversial, nor to take all controversy away.) But given that the reference is not about the subject of E1b1b in Europe, but rather about Pakistan, and only indirectly referring to the same literature about that subject which the Wikipedia article already refers to directly, is this reference not unnecessary? Surely there has to be some "common sense" concerning the number of references per sentence especially if, when looked up, they all refer to each back to the same small number of articles such as those by Cruciani et al? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:RS. It specifies that material should come from a reliable source (which the study above is) and that the latter should directly support the material that's actually included in the article:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

In this case, the material that's actually included/presented in the article is the assertion that E3b is common in Europe, which of course the study states outright as I've demonstrated above. Causteau (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what misunderstanding you think I am making. I never claimed that the sentence was incorrect, or was not reflected in the reference. Are you arguing that any sentence in a Wikipedia article which can be referenced to one or more suitable sources, should be referenced to all of the ones available, even ones which refer all refer to the same original source, and that no such reference can should ever be questioned or edited out? There is obviously always a common sense element to editing Wikipedia. These "rules" are not intended to be taken to such extremes, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "extreme" about stating in the article that E3b is common is Europe, provided that that assertion is backed by a reliable source which directly supports it -- which it indeed is. Viz.: "E3b is common in Europe", from this study published in the European Journal of Human Genetics i.e. people qualified to know what they are talking about. Causteau (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I never questioned the statement that E3b is "common" in Europe to begin with (although I did say the word was vague) it would indeed be odd if I then went on to say that the statement is extreme. How could something be vague be extreme? I also, to say it once more, do not question that the referenced source about Pakistan might indeed have said that "E3b is common in Europe" though referring to what we can also read in articles about more specifically about Europe. So I am questioning the type of referencing in the Wikipedia of which this is a discussion page, which seems extreme. Nothing else. Please address that. I have also explained specifically why I think this. Please read what I wrote again and respond to what I really wrote? The way I understand it, an article on Pakistan is being used simply in order to justify the word "common", whereas the articles about Europe, which both the Wikipedia article and the Pakistan E3b article must refer to, perhaps do not use that exact word, but rather give more detailed and less vague numbers and comments? If this is so, then maybe that is the way we should go - less vague?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question and repeatedly, so kindly stop shouting. The study is not "on Pakistan"; it is on the Y chromosomal contribution of Greeks to the Pathan population of Pakistan. It therefore naturally discusses E1b1b/E3b since its E3b1 (E-M78) sub-clade is very common in Greeks. The study was also written by professionals in the field, and was in turn published in the reputable European Journal of Human Genetics, which is per WP:RS a reliable source. Again, this is what Wikipedia goes by, reliable sources. From WP:VER:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Causteau (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked up your "shouting" link and saw nothing to explain it except that I used formatting. Anyway, it does not matter: sorry if I shouted. I don't know how to defer more than I have above, listing out all the things I agree with (which you seem to ignore) except let me add one more statement I don't want to disagree with: I don't disagree that the article referred to has a valid interest in European E1b1b and discusses it as part of its subject matter (referring though to other studies). Good article. Great to have it in the references. But I still don't understand the justification for the reference in order to use a vague word like "common" about a subject which, for that article, is something for references to other articles. Being true, or dare I say it even correctly referenced, is not enough to mean "worth putting in an article". The problem is that what is worth putting in an article is of course what the punters get to decide - Wikipedia is terribly democratic. Cite any "rule" you like. So the reference might be deleted one day, and I would not know how to defend it. If this true comment (sorry, I dare to format) can be made less vague, rather than simply referenced, it might survive better. I'd think it better to take a less "artificial" approach: don't worry too much about wikilawyering, and just make true comments more convincingly and less vaguely put. I'd like to remind you once more that we rarely disagree on the facts. So in the most important way possible, IMHO, we are on the same "side"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Since that is, after all, what Wiki actually goes on: verifiability -- not the idiosyncratic whims of any of its many users (thankfully). There's also nothing "vague" about the statement that "E3b is common in Europe"; it's actually pretty straightforward. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That approach you've just described as your own is called edit warring. No editor of Wikipedia has any special right to repeatedly revert any correctly verified and true edit just because the edit being reverted to is also true or correctly verified. That's why if another Wikipedian has a concern that a wording might need improving, you can't just resolve the issue by assuring them you'll defend the current wording by edit warring. (Surprisingly, some people might even take such a reaction a bit negatively!) You actually should consider the remark. 99% of the time, the wording can be fixed in a way which achieves everyone's aims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote the relevant Wiki article...

Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

...

Edit warring features a confrontational attitude. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism.

Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

...

A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly. Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

Your quote above is quite ironic in that it actually proves my point, not yours:

A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly. Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source -- such as this study from the European Journal of Human Genetics, which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe" -- from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". This is especially true when one considers the fact that I have not only provided a direct paraphrase of what the study actually says, I've also provided a direct quote of it in the article's footnotes. No... this is actually a quite transparent attempt at trying not to include material into the text which for whatever reason personally does not sit well with one. But unfortunately, again, per WP:VS:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please check my summary of your position. I said basically that the text right now looks like it can be improved and asked you to justify how it is. I never it was wrong or that the sourcing was wrong. Your responses do not in any way address this, but only in effect say that the text now is itself a "good faith", and correctly sourced text, as if that was the only answer necessary. When I raised the issue more directly by saying that someone who thinks the text can be improved can change it, i.e. with a new edit which is also a good faith correctly sourced edit, you said you would simply revert any such attempt to make a good faith edit - not therefore on the basis of it being incorrect or wrongly sourced or a deletion of material etc (because no specific example was discussed), but only because the edit being changed is a good faith correct edit, with sourcing. Am I right? If so then this position is the definition of the "confrontational attitude" which is called "edit warring". If my description of your position is not correct, then please clear the difference up for me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, do not quote me out of context. In your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008, you very clearly wrote that "the reference might be deleted one day, and I would not know how to defend it". My response to you (dated 20:51, 23 October 2008) was logically then that removing a reliable source for no valid reason is a big no-no, and I would therefore re-insert it since Wikipedia thankfully functions on the sound principle of "verifiability -- not the idiosyncratic whims of any of its many users".

What's more, in this particular case, it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase of a study ostensibly because the word "common" is "vague" when that's the very word the study itself uses! In this instance, since what is actually included in the article is virtually a verbatim paraphrase of what is written in the reliable source it was taken from -- and since a direct quote from the study was already included in the footnotes of the article -- the only way that the statement in the article could conceivably be improved upon without losing its meaning is by quoting directly from the actual reliable source (i.e. the study itself), which again states outright that "E3b is common in Europe". Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim to be quoting you, so it is perhaps I who should now complain :). I indeed even explicitly asked you if I was summarising your meaning. As usual, you do not like direct questions like that but as far as I can see, I was describing your position correctly based on what you have now written. This time I will quote you in order to demonstrate the point: "it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase of a study ostensibly because the word "common" is "vague" when that's the very word the study itself uses". In other words, if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by your own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked. That is of course also what your actions say louder than your words. Basically you are saying that this would be vandalism, which is of course ridiculous. I repeat: this attitude is the definition of edit warring. I have to remind you that if anyone thinks they can improve a Wikipedia article, they may try. And it is possible to improve something which is correct and properly sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're grasping for straws, Andrew. I never said that "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by [my] own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked" -- you did. And your interpretation is an absurd caricature of what I did actually say and what I did and do actually mean. I very clearly wrote that:

• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe is a direct paraphrase of what the study in question actually says. It's not just "properly sourced", but an almost verbatim reproduction of what the study asserts.
• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe which is included in the E1b1b article is further supported in the article's footnotes by a direct quote from the study which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe".

In other words, the edit in this particular case -- an expression I very clearly also employed in my previous post -- can't be improved upon without it losing its meaning because it is already as close to what the study already states without actually being a direct quote of the study.

Furthermore, I never once used the term "vandalism", so I don't see why you felt the need to introduce that term into the discussion. What I did actually say is that it is bad faith editing to remove a direct paraphrase of a reliable source (backed with a direct quote, to boot) solely on the basis that a word in that paraphrase is "vague" when that is the very word the reliable source itself employs!

You can also twist my words all you want and keep trying to link me to what you label "edit-warring" (no edit war has taken place, so what's your point exactly?), but unless I explicitly tell you what my intentions are, do not even bother trying to deduce them. It is not only a textbook exercise in futility, it's also explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia. So kindly, for the umpteenth time, per WP:PA:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Causteau (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The implication that you are judging edits you revert as vandalism is given by the fact that you already announced that you'd revert any change to the sentence even though we had not discussed any proposed text yet. Or to put it your way: you believe that an edit of that good faith and sourced text can never really be "good faith". The problem still is that this is not correct. And the problem is concerning content: the word common is vague if you compare to the similar opening lines of Cruciani 2007 concerning V13, for example. That fact that I've raised the question on the talk page first is just good manners, and does not make this a theoretical discussion. If someone, for example me, inserts a direct quote from Cruciani, instead of a reference from an article about Pakistan for the single word "common" then you would revert it without further thought, right? Not on the basis of the new content, but rather in defense of the older version of the Wikipedia article. That is what you say you'd do right? If you want to clear things up, you can surely do it. Just to remind you of the definition I quoted: edit warring is defined by the attitude to reverting of edits. You are saying you'll start an edit way as soon as anyone tries to improve that sentence, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again: I never said that I "would revert any change to the sentence even though we had not discussed any proposed text". I was reacting (in my post dated 20:51, 23 October 2008) to your assertion (in your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008) that my properly sourced phrase "might be deleted one day" when I wrote that "should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Since that is, after all, what Wiki actually goes on: verifiability -- not the idiosyncratic whims of any of its many users (thankfully)". I wasn't speaking in tongues there; it's very clear what I meant and what I mean. Further, I never qualified even that putative removal as "vandalism", for one thing, because it is more properly termed "bad-faith editing" since there is no valid reason for removing my reliable source (as my previous post very clearly demonstrates) or for replacing it with Cruciani's as you've just alluded to. None whatsoever. Let me requote for you WP:VER in case you forgot:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

That's what I mean by the study isn't going anywhere. As a reliable source, Wiki policy ensures its inclusion.

And now for what an edit-war actually is:

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing.

Causteau (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see "bad faith" editing and "vandalism" are pretty much the same thing, and you are still saying that anyone who prefers a Cruciani quote over the present vague sentence would be guilty of "bad faith editing". (This is despite the fact that Cruciani is "the" article which all the others refer to.) You are still insisting that you already know this despite not having seen any proposed text change in detail. It is a rule for you (which you still argue to be a Wikipedia rule) that any attempt to improve an edit that was already correct and properly sourced, can be reverted without discussion, like vandalism. I have already cited the relevant WP text to demonstrate that your attitude is the definition of an edit warring attitude. It is Wikipedia itself which defines edit warring as defined by this attitude, and only as a rough practical measure by the number of reverts a person does.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So let's talk about a real edit I propose. The present text in the E-V13 section is like this:

E1b1b is common throughout Europe. Its E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade is the most prevalent clade of E-M78 among Europeans, especially in the Balkans...

The first sentence is not even about E-V13, but about E-M35, which is the parent clade and the subject of the overall article. So in fact it could be argued that it belongs in a more general section, and indeed, if you look in the introduction the exact same comment is there, without the same reference. We could therefore delete the sentence here, and if necessary insert the reference in the Introduction, without the Wikipedia article loosing anything.

Instead I think we can restructure this section around what is presently the standard article on this subject, the 2007 article by Cruciani et al. On p.1307 they write the following, which extremely clear and informative, and just the kind of thing we need...

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%).

The percentages and explanation about the clinal pattern are much more meaningful than a vague word "common". The quote also keeps the E-M35 comparison without making the confusing step of starting the E-V13 paragraph with a sentence about E-M35. (Remember many people reading this article will miss things like that because all these clade names look the same and are just letters and numbers.) My only concern is that the exact percentages given might not be the latest and best information available. For example the E-M35 phylogeny project finds a percentage less than 85%, and some studies have found small areas with local concentrations much greater than 19.6%. However, I think this can be worked around by ensuring there is some further discussion - which indeed there already is concerning the high concentration areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, bad faith editing is not the same thing as vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and commonly consists of things like "the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles". Bad faith editing, as I've very clearly already explained, involves things like seeing that a reliable source such as this study is "deleted one day" on the flimsy pretext that one word in it is "vague" when that is the very word the professionals that wrote it themselves employ.

Moreover, while the study for that one passage (viz. "E3b is common in Europe") briefly references another study -- as do, incidentally, most other studies -- namely, Cruciani et al. (2004), this isn't you or even me interpreting Cruciani's findings. It is an actual reliable source, an authority in relation to the subject at hand, and therefore a source that's here to stay per both WP:VER and WP:RS:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Furthermore, it is not "a rule for [me]... that any attempt to improve an edit that was already correct and properly sourced, can be reverted without discussion, like vandalism." I've already very thoroughly addressed this quite blatant misrepresentation of what I actually believe in my post dated 19:58, 24 October 2008. Since this is but a rehashing of the same hollow charge from earlier (the one that went "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by your own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked"), I shall give you the exact same response as before:

You're grasping for straws, Andrew. I never said that "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by [my] own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked" -- you did. And your interpretation is an absurd caricature of what I did actually say and what I did and do actually mean. I very clearly wrote that:

• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe is a direct paraphrase of what the study in question actually says. It's not just "properly sourced", but an almost verbatim reproduction of what the study asserts.
• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe which is included in the E1b1b article is further supported in the article's footnotes by a direct quote from the study which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe".

In other words, the edit in this particular case -- an expression I very clearly also employed in my previous post -- can't be improved upon without it losing its meaning because it is already as close to what the study already states without actually being a direct quote of the study.

You still likewise do not appear to understand just what an edit war is. The edit-warring "attitude" described here refers to an actual edit-war, not to a talk page discussion. This is why it talks about things like the 3RR rule. Again, here is what an actual edit-war is:

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing.

Causteau (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The E-V13 quote above from Cruciani et al. (2007) likewise only references the fact that E-V13 reaches its highest frequencies in Europe, a fact which we've already asserted in the article (viz. "Its E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade is the most prevalent clade of E-M78 among Europeans"). It does not address the fact that E3b at large is common in Europe the way Firasat et al. (2005) does, nor does it address the fact that E-M78 is commonly distributed in Europe. From Cruciani et al. (2006):

The human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe.

Causteau (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the identifiable points...

1. There is a definite confusion about terminology. Bad faith editing is not "bad faith" because "flimsy" but "bad faith" because the intentions are wrong. Calling an argument flimsy means that you think it's quality is not good in your opinion. It does not mean that the argument is a fake ("bad faith") argument. In other words, this is just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. When you suggested in your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008 that the direct paraphrase of the reliable source (namely, this study) I inserted into the text "might be deleted one day" based solely on the fact that the word "common" in it is "vague", you were also alluding to a textbook bad-faith edit since my assertion is a direct paraphrase of what the study actually says (namely, that "E3b is common in Europe" -- note the usage of the word common; nothing "vague" about that). My assertion is also backed by a direct quote from the study included in the E1b1b article's footnotes to the effect that "E3b is common in Europe", thereby rendering the hypothetical scenario that it "might be deleted one day" all the more indefensible. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2. There is a confusion in the defense you give of your position. You keep citing the quote about the "threshold for inclusion", but it is irrelevant to this discussion. The threshold for inclusion tells us nothing about the threshold for whether someone can edit a thing, concerning which there is not hard and fast rule in Wikipedia, by the very nature of a Wiki. It just means that if you say something not verifiable, you can expect to be challenged by other editors who'll feel justified to remove your work. This tells us nothing about what to do when there are two competing "good faith" edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. Your proposal was first to delete one day the reliable source in question -- not to modify it. And that is most certainly not a "good faith" edit. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3. You also mischaracterize the edit being proposed. A sentence saying that E1b1b is common in Europe is already in the introductory section of the article. So no-one is talking about removing the factoid. What we are talking about is making the detailed sub-section about E-V13, more detailed and specifically about E-V13.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. You very clearly wrote in your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008 that this reliable source "might be deleted one day". Let's try and stick with the facts. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

4. You are being rather dissembling when trying to dismiss the whole discussion because there is not yet an edit war. Your thinking is extremely well defined now. The fact is that you are saying that in principle, you will start an edit war immediately should anyone try to change the sentence under discussion which removes the word "common". This is something you said you'd do before there was any discussion of any particular proposal. So the only reason there is no edit war is because I have not yet made any edit. I am trying to seek agreement first. But your position is that no agreement is possible if it involves removing the word "common".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. So there is no edit war after all, just like I had suspected all along. Since the rest of your paragraph above is yet another rehashing of the same hollow charge leveled earlier (the one that went "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by your own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked"), I shall again give you the exact same response as before:

You're grasping for straws, Andrew. I never said that "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by [my] own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked" -- you did. And your interpretation is an absurd caricature of what I did actually say and what I did and do actually mean. I very clearly wrote that:

• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe is a direct paraphrase of what the study in question actually says. It's not just "properly sourced", but an almost verbatim reproduction of what the study asserts.
• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe which is included in the E1b1b article is further supported in the article's footnotes by a direct quote from the study which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe".

In other words, the edit in this particular case -- an expression I very clearly also employed in my previous post -- can't be improved upon without it losing its meaning because it is already as close to what the study already states without actually being a direct quote of the study.

5. As you'll no doubt soon be complaining about the length of this discussion, as you have done in the past when people attempt to discuss things with you, can you please avoid quoting large chunks of text over and over within the space of a few lines? To me I have to say that this pattern of events happens so often with you that it is starting to look like a "bad faith" strategy: make the discussion ridiculous, and then start complaining about the discussion itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Stop leveling the same hollow, empty charges, and you won't get the same responses. Also, if length bothers you, perhaps you should reconsider starting all of these pointless "new sections" as has already been suggested. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Concerning the Cruciani quote, which by the way, if it were inserted would be a verifiable source meeting the "threshold for inclusion"...

6a. It does not "only" reference "the fact that E-V13 reaches its highest frequencies in Europe". Any reader of the English language can see this.

Just so things are clear, you are referring to the quote from Cruciani et al. (2007) that you cited which goes:

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%).

The quote essentially talks about two things:

1) That E-V13 is the only sub-clade of E-M78 that reaches its highest frequencies outside of Africa.

2) E-V13 represents a large fraction of the E-M78 chromosomes in Europe. This part of the assertion is already cited in the article in the form of the phrase "its E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade is the most prevalent clade of E-M78 among Europeans". Nowhere, however, does the assertion mention the fact that E3b at large is common in Europe the way Firasat et al. (2005) does, nor that E1b1b "occurs commonly and is distributed in... all of Europe" like Cruciani et al. (2006) does. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6b. It does "address the fact that E-M78 is commonly distributed in Europe" although it clearly focuses upon E-V13 more, which is indeed my intention, as I explained, because this is the E-V13 sub-sub-section of the article. Other types of E-M35 and E-M78 in Europe can and should be discussed where appropriate.

No, it does not address the fact that E-M78 is commonly distributed in Europe. It only states that E-V13 "reaches its highest frequencies outside of Africa", and that E-V13 represents a large fraction of the E-M78 chromosomes in Europe. This is not equivalent to saying that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in all of Europe because Y DNA haplogroup T, for example, reaches its highest reported frequency among the Fulbe admixed peoples in the Sahel. However, in the rest of Africa, it is restricted to only them and a handful of North African and Horn African populations -- it is observed nowhere else on the continent. It does, however, enjoy a greater presence in Asia -- just not at the highest frequencies. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6c. Furthermore to accuse the Cruciani quote of being redundant seems odd given that the sentence being proposed for removal is certainly redundant, compared to the Introduction to both the article as a whole and the introduction to the E-M78 section. We are hear talking about the E-V13 sub-sub section of the E-M78 sub-section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cruciani et al. (2007) quote, save the assertion that E-V13 is the only sub-clade of E-M78 that reaches its highest frequencies outside of Africa, is definitely redundant. It's the Cruciani et al. (2006) quote that isn't. The intro paragraph in the E1b1b article also talks about where E1b1b is "found", not where it's "common". Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it comes down to this: I honestly (in good faith) think "common in Europe" is not only vague terminology, but also a point now made, to the extent that it means anything (because the way it is being used to refer to a presence in approx 2% of most of Europe, and never >50%, it only means something like "not rare" or "is found"), in several parts of the article. So I think the article can be improved by removing the word "common" from this particular section, even though "common in Europe" is neither wrong nor badly sourced. Anything that needs saving would be easy to save. So this is nothing to do with any "rules" about sourcing, or good/bad faith, or removal of valid material etc etc. It just has to do with working with Wikipedia being a collaboration.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, E1b1b is indeed common in Europe just like Firasat et al. (2005) assert. By way of analogy, R1b, which is often described as the most common Y DNA haplogroup in Europe, has an incidence of <5% in places like Finland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Bosnia. Nevertheless, that still doesn't prevent it from being the most common Y DNA haplogroup in Europe. Causteau (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy shows the problem pretty well. If you use the word "common" it makes no distinction between how common R1b is and how common E1b is in Europe. That language implies they are the same. That's exactly why most of these articles, rightly, do not use words like "commonly", at least for the subjects they are focusing on at the time. They use percentages, and they specify geographic patterns. Unless we are absolutely forced to be vague I see no reason to do so. A person who does not know the literature themselves, reading the sentence I am questioning, is certainly going to be surprised to hear that in the overall population of Europe E-M35 makes up <10% of male lines, if it is not <5%, and in the biggest geographical part makes up <5%, if it is not <2.5%, don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Firasat et al. (2005) phrase to the effect that "E3b is common in Europe" does not imply that E3b is on the same plane as R1b. It's just a statement on its prevalence in the region, a statement which Cruciani et al. 2006 themselves echo with regard to the prevalence of E-M78 in Europe: "The human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in... all of Europe."

OK it does not necessarily imply, it but it can and will be read that way. And giving more exact comments would remove the problem without causing any new problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it since E3b is common in Europe. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Because common can mean almost anything between 1% and 99%. This wording makes no distinction. It is not necessary to write vaguely.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing vague about the word "common". Again, it's just a statement on E1b1b's prevalence in the region. The word "common" is, as it so happens, commonly used in population genetics to denote a sizable prevalence. For example, Alonso et al. 2005 describe R1*(xR1a,R1b3f)-M173 as the "most common haplogroup" among Europeans. Arredi et al. 2004 likewise describe E3b2 as "the most common haplogroup in North Africa". And Ghezzi et al. 2005 similarly use the term not once but twice in their study to describe, first, mtDNA haplogroup M as the "the most common haplogroup in Asia", then mtDNA haplogroup H as "the most common mtDNA haplogroup in Europe". It's, again (and no pun intended), a very common usage. There's nothing vague, wrong or misleading about it when geneticists regularly use it in their work, and also since we already cite in the article's very next few sentences examples of some of the higher frequencies observed in Europe. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The word you are inserting might be used in articles, but it clearly is vague, and it is clearly being chosen for this reason to replace more exact words. The literature might occasionally use the word common, for example in abstracts, but never to mean "prevalent" or "most common" (both of which are precise terms that mean something very different!) and always in conjunction with much more detailed tables of data, and discussions about those tables. To revert good edits giving those details, and replace them with vague wording can not be justified just by saying that the word common was used somewhere in the literature. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The word is only vague in your personal estimation. It certainly is not in the minds of researchers like Cruciani et al., Firasat et al., and others who use it in their work. Moreover, the word "common" is frequently used by researchers in their work to describe the presence of not only haplogroups, but alleles, mutations, etc. in a given region or population. It is not just restricted to abstracts as you have suggested above, but features prominently in the body of their respective studies as well. Besides the links showing use of the word "common" by researchers (and even repeated use over the length of a single study in the case of Ghezzi et al. 2005) that I've already supplied in my previous post, here are two more similar examples: Tolk et al. 2001 (regarding mtDNA haplogroup F): "This haplogroup, initially defined by the loss of HincII site at nucleotide position (np) 12406,4,16 is common in populations of Central3 and eastern Asia4,13,14,16 ± 18 and to the best of our knowledge has never been reported in Europe."; Gresham et al. 2001: "the male VI-68A lineage was shared by Roma from all populations, and two pairs of closely related mtDNA lineages, of haplogroups M and H, were common to 13 and 8 Romani populations respectively" (this study actually uses the word "common" repeatedly). Again, there's nothing out of place about the word "common" when geneticists regularly use it in their work, and especially since we already cite in the E1b1b article's very next few sentences examples of some of the higher frequencies observed in Europe. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly it is becoming clear that you have some sort of agenda about E1b1b and Africa, because apart from your general theme of reverting new edits by other people in favor of old edits by other people, the one type of content you ever seem to insist on personally always seems to of this nature. You are clearly taking quotes from the literature out of context as was also pointed out to you recently by another editor here concerning your use of Ellen Coffman-Levy's article, which you have inserted in order to imply something I feel certain she would not agree with. If you want me to give more examples I can, but the first one that obviously comes to mind is the case where you actually insisted upon changing a direct quote from the literature so that the adjectives "sub Saharan" would not come out next to "E-M35". You described your intentions at the time quite clearly and many times, as making sure no one would ever get the impression that E-M35 was sub-Saharan overall instead of just in a branch. During that discussion you actually accused me of being part of some sort of Afrocentrist conspiracy, so it was a big issue for you. You also went out of your way to seek old webpages saying that E1b1b might not have originated in the Middle East, and then presented it in the Wikipedia article as if there is a debate in the scientific community on this subject, which you know is not true. The types of wording you keep rejecting are clearly the most accurate reflection of what is in the latest literature on the subject - including direct quotes. What's the big issue here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay Andrew, you've stooped back again to your habitual personal attacks. You're now also outright lying. I've already thoroughly addressed the Coffman-Levy issue, and it has nothing to do with what you "feel certain about" knowing. You write that I've "insisted upon changing a direct quote from the literature so that the adjectives "sub Saharan" would not come out next to "E-M35"". Well guess what? That might be because the source in question -- this study -- never once describes E-M35 as sub-Saharan! How on Earth is that then correct let alone a "direct quote"?

Just as a side comment on this accusation. I've told you before what the article says, and I've asked you several times if you have a copy, or want a copy from me. I've also typed out quotations from the article including these words which worry you so much. The last time you edited this wording out, you must have seen the quotation marks. Frankly therefore, I think you know very well that the article has these words in them. In any case, if you don't have a copy of the article, then your opinion about what is in the article is not worth much. The real point is though, why do the words worry you so much?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You write that I "went out of [my] way to seek old webpages saying that E1b1b might not have originated in the Middle East, and then presented it in the Wikipedia article as if there is a debate in the scientific community on this subject, which [I] know is not true". Well guess what? Whether you like it or not, there is a debate in the scientific community regarding the origins of E1b1b. If there weren't, ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project among others wouldn't cite the Near East/Middle East as a possible place of origin for E1b1b/E3b.

And to cover this other distraction. Just name any person who supports this position and is involved in this debate? I've asked around quite a lot and found no one, including both the present and former editors of the ISOGG webpage you quote, who say they don't know where the remark comes from. Of course I've told you all this before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Before you return with another pointlessly histrionic, illogical, untrue, and belligerent response, let me quote for you several important parts of Wiki policy you have just quite blatantly violated (and for God knows what reason); from WP:PA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

From WP:CIV:

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

And from WP:AGF:

Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle

Also have a look at the directives laid out at the top of this talk page and over at WP:TALK regarding how an editor ought to behave. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection I'd like to give extra commentary about my above remark, in order to try to avoid any misunderstanding that might lead to an emotive escalation of discussion away from discussion of the content of the E1b1b Wikipedia article. When I used the word "agenda" it is not my intention to claim that Causteau has any agenda which is pro or anti any particular race or culture or geographic region, which might be implied by the context. I only use the term in the sense of a non-neutral approach to the facts. For example, it is possible that Causteau believes that there are a lot of people with racial or similar agendas who might twist certain facts to the benefit of their own ideas, if we (Wikipedia editors) are not careful to first twist our citations in order to avoid this. (I know it is not good practice to guess at someone's motivations, but this is one way to understand various comments made on the E1b1b article discussion pages over time.) In this case, my dispute is with the means, not necessarily the ends. If we are worried about providing fodder for propaganda then we should write more clearly, and not less clearly. That at least is the only approach tenable on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for trying to engage you in discussion trying to understand the very distinct pattern in your edits. Causteau, I deny that addressing you by name or trying to dissect the comments you make yourself about your supposed intentions, in order to work out how to progress, is any violation of anything. If you want to do wikilawyering, and to try to escalate every discussion into a shouting match which you can then complain about, you go do that like you've done before on this article or others. I believe it does not work, even though the idea of pasting large passages of Wikipedia policy into every discussion page in order to scare of admins from looking at what you are really doing does seem to slow things down terrible. It is a "loose-loose" strategy. For my own part I'll keep trying to make this article better if I am permitted.

Concerning the word "common", I've made my point and you have not responded at all. I think that like so many other silly wordings you've defended over time, you don't have any real point. That people use the word "common" sometimes tells us nothing at all about when it should be used. You also, still, do not understand the meaning of "prevalent".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

E-M293

I believe ISOGG is about to announce as per FT DNA's customer information that E-M293 is the "g" clade of E-M35. Whoever notices a good safe way of referencing this first should of course adjust the wikipedia article accordingly. Do it carefully though so as to avoid being reverted. No rush, but I mention this early, to give everyone warning, because this has been an emotional subject here on Wikipedia. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. And until that fateful day when ISOGG does actually anounce the new name change (thereby rendering it verifiable), it shall remain an interesting talking point. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is has happened already. See the ISOGG webpage. But on the other hand, other information might have been found somewhere before it was changed. I think the YCC must have made the critical decision. I know FT DNA was proposing it some time ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If ISOGG published a new name for E-M293, then I don't think you are wrong in updating it here. Causteau (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE. The webpage of ISOGG made several expected changes, all of which are incorporated into the Wikipedia article now. Like I am doing here, ISOGG waited to see who would publish something first and the first news came via Family Tree DNA, who was known to have been comparing notes with the YCC. The YCC itself tends to be slow in picking up new things, and then publishing it, which is one reason that ISOGG set up the webpage like it did. More changes have been expected for some time, and indeed some of the YCC/FTDNA testing histories are a little unclear to the extent that there is a bit of doubt around about some of the positions the YCC currently has, and so the text of the Wikipedia currently mentions the "as of" dates in order to avoid any confusion later if confusing new announcements come out in future. "Watch this space".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Intro to the E-M78 section

The Intro to the E-M78 section has some problems because of the way it has evolved. The quote which a reader will at first think is holding together the core of the discussion actually turns out to not be about what it is said to be about. In other words it is introduced as the latest estimate for the age of E-M78, but it is actually about the probable timing of various E-M78 populations, after E-M78 came into being.

Here is the section as it stands right now...

Estimations of age are difficult and vary greatly, but E-M78's age has been estimated at about 18,600 years ago. This clade is thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, around Egypt and Libya (Cruciani et al. 2007).[23] Sanchez et al. (2005) found that 77.6% of 201 male Somalis tested in Denmark were in E-M78.

The most recent estimates are as follows:

The geographic and quantitative analyses of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a northeastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago), trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky), and flow from northeastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago. (Cruciani et. al. 2007)

It should be noted that the migrations to Europe mentioned above are the ones which are basically localized to Iberia and Southern Italy. Concerning the far more important part of E-M78 in Europe, see below concerning sub-clade E-V13.

E1b1b1a has been further divided into subclades by Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, 2007), on the basis of the following SNP mutations, and this is the basis of the updated phylogenies found in Karafet 2008, and ISOGG, as follows...

The last paragraph is probably a keeper. The rest needs work. The place to start is Cruciani et al. (2007) p.1305. As Curciani has rightly pointed out before though, these authors tend to use geographical terms like Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa in ways which might mislead readers, and if necessary we might have to avoid direct quotes for those terms (or else add a lot of extra explanation).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The section does not require a rewrite. Cruciani et al. (2007) estimate E-M78's age at 18,600 years ago (17,300 - 20,000 years ago) in Figure 1 of their study, just like the E1b1b article already affirms. They specify other dates for each sub-clade of E-M78 in the same Figure. Cruciani et al. (2007) also use the term "Northeastern Africa" to refer specifically to Egypt and Libya as opposed to the Horn of Africa, as can be seen in Table 1 of that same study and as already indicated in the footnotes of the E1b1b article. Causteau (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not the section that's wrong, but the phrase that introduces the Cruciani et al. 2007 quote since it alludes to the most recent age estimates for E-M78, yet it indeed does not mention a date for E-M78. A simple substitution of the phrase "The most recent estimates are as follows" with "Regarding the origin and dispersal of this sub-clade of E1b1b, Cruciani et al. assert that:" or something of that nature should then cover it. Causteau (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite. Please give it a fair reading and comment on anything you think needs comment. In editing this section I do not claim that there is/was anything "wrong" except perhaps the description of the quote. But fixing errors is not the only way of improving an article and it is permitted and indeed encouraged to improve Wikipedia articles - even if that means changing materials which were both correct and correctly sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your edits of the new version. I'd like to comment on each of them...

1. "the area of Egypt and Libya," reverted to "Northeast Africa (around Egypt and Libya)"

It was you who pointed out to me that the article defines Northeast Africa as roughly Egypt and Libya. If we use the same term in Wikipedia, we can create unnecessary confusion which is not in the spirit of the article being cited, because this term is often used to refer to the Horn of Africa, which is indeed precisely a region Cruciani is contrasting with. Your solution of making the text say "Northeast" and yet link to "North" is only going to help people who click on the link and in a sense admits itself to be confusing. Furthermore, it creates a new problem, because North Africa implies the Maghreb, which is yet another region. I see no reason to stick to the Cruciani article terminology, given that, as you yourself pointed out, the article shows us precisely what is intended in the table of raw data. So I'd like you to consider keeping my edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've since changed the article to read North Africa. However, I specified Egypt and Libya in parentheses so that people know which exact part of North Africa Cruciani et al. 2007 refer to. I'd like to use their "Northeastern Africa" terminology, but that only leads to confusion with the Horn of Africa. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include words just because they are in a source article, if they are potentially confusing? It is not like removing them from the Wikipedia article would be changing the intended meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I already removed the term "Northeast Africa" some time ago. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2. "Lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from the Maghreb to Somalia. E-M78 lineages, including several distinctive sub-lineages, dispersed to the Maghreb, Europe, Western Asia, but especially southwards towards the Horn of Africa. For example," ...replaced by... "E1b1b1a (E-M78) occurs commonly and is distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe."

This is clearly a removal of information. The higher diversity and frequency from the Maghreb to Somalia (or whatever terminology would be better, this is again an attempt to choose clear words based upon the meaning of Cruciani 2007) is an important fact, mentioned in the discussion in Cruciani 2007 as such, and should remain in the article, surely?

The phrase above wasn't sourced when I replaced it with the statement from Cruciani et al. 2006. The Cruciani et al. 2006 phrase also specifies that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in all of those regions, which the phrase I replaced didn't do. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this response addresses the reason for removing an important bit of information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I said the phrase above wasn't sourced nor did it specify the fact that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in all of the aforementioned regions. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the reference was to Cruciani 2007. You keep pushing towards a situation where every word will have a reference attached. Anyway, I can put a note on this, but I can not understand the importance of the words "occurs commonly and is distributed" in opposition to any other verb "to be". It sounds like bad writing style to me and nothing else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't clear. The assertion that "lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from the Maghreb to Somalia" is also flat out wrong, as it gives the wrong impression that all the Sahelian countries (e.g. Mali, Niger, Chad) standing between North Africa and the Horn of Africa are areas where E1b1b is observed in high quantities when it is virtually absent there and its small presence in those countries is usually attributed to Berber admixture. The whole phrase just does not work and is inaccurate, whereas the direct paraphrase from Cruciani et al. 2006 that I have replaced it with does work and is of course accurate. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not addressing the latest proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because this part of our discussion isn't about the proposal, but about the erroneousness of the initial edit that I replaced with my direct paraphrase from Cruciani et al. 2006. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, changing the wording so that it now vaguely implies that Western Asia and Europe have a similar diversity and frequency is in my opinion highly misleading.

Proposal: "Lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from Libya and Egypt to the Horn of Africa. E-M78 lineages, including several distinctive sub-lineages, dispersed to Northwest Africa, Europe, and Western Asia, where they are common, but especially significant dispersals occurred southwards into the Horn of Africa. For example,"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about the phrase since it is a direct paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. 2006 themselves assert. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal above is also unsatisfactory because Cruciani et al. 2006 clearly state that E-M78 "occurs commonly and is distributed" in all the aforementioned regions including Western Asia and "all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this addresses my concerns. You have to explain how your edit is better than the previous edit. The previous edit said the same things, but more clearly, so why did you change it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better because the previous edit neglects to mention that E-M78 "occurs commonly and is distributed" in all the aforementioned regions including all of Europe -- a key phrase. The sentence is also a direct paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. 2006 themselves wrote, so it's accurate. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about one sourced text versus another. Don't try to turn every discussion into Wikilawyering. As far as I can see you are trying to manipulate the quotes out of context so that they imply that the E1b1b population in Europe is the same as in North Africa. Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So "occurs commonly and is distributed" is a "key phrase" and a "direct paraphrase"? What is the significance of a "direct paraphrase? I guess we are comparing to the "direct paraphrase" which says "are still found in high diversity and frequency from ... to ... including several distinct sub-lineages...etc". So I do not understand what you are talking about. The words aren't a direct quote in either case, and the ones you think so important say a lot less in a lot vaguer way. I must be missing something, but it looks like a defense of a poor style by trying to find a way of saying that it is demanded by some sort of good form.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, "occurs commonly and is distributed" is a key phrase with regard to the distribution of E-M78 in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe. However, what I actually referred to above as a "key phrase" was all of Europe. I even italicized it so that there was no mistaking what I was talking about. And you are mistaken: Your statement is not a direct paraphrase; mine, on the other hand, most certainly is a direct paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. 2006 assert in the very first few lines of their study. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the difference in geographical terms, this is something I already stated, and we can try to perfect them. Trying to use consistent standard geographical terms is a Wikipedia policy. But "high diversity and frequency" are words from Cruciani 2007, the newer article, which you removed. The section I refer to is a section which explains this subject, and not one of the opening lines summarising what will be written in detail elsewhere. If you read any of the Cruciani et al articles, you get a lot of information about the details of where these lineages are found. Nothing you inserted replaces this properly. It is obviously ridiculous to imply that such detail should be deleted because the opening lines of articles in the literature are less exact.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not chop up my posts like that. I had to resign the part above to let people know that I'd written it. At any rate, please see the section below for more on why this proposal is unsatisfactory and even somewhat misleading. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Chop up? You refer me to somewhere vague where no such explanation exists. Please stop chopping up your own discussions! I stand by what I wrote, and I add now that you are clearly playing a game of avoiding directly explaining your edits or positions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal above is also somewhat misleading in that it states that "lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from Libya and Egypt to the Horn of Africa", which gives the impression that E1b1b is common throughout Sudan and Chad (which stand between Libya, Egypt, and the Horn of Africa) when it is virtually absent in the hundreds of different Nilotic groups in those countries except for a handful that have experienced admixture. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how Chad is implied, and Sudan does have a high E1b1b presence. What you say about it being scattered is probably true for several of the countries in the area. This can be adapted in the text without cutting out everything and trying to imply that Europe has the same levels of presence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Sudan does not have a high E1b1b presence. That is a sweeping statement which gives the impression that that country's hundreds of Nilotic groups -- who are concentrated heavily in the South -- are E1b1b carriers when it's absent in virtually every single Nilotic group except for literally a handful in whom it was introduced from the North during the Neolithic. Haplogroups B and, especially, haplogroup A define Sudan's Nilotic majority (see this). I also don't write that E1b1b is "scattered" among the Sudanese and Chadian Nilotic majority. I write that it is "virtually absent in the hundreds of different Nilotic groups in those countries except for a handful that have experienced admixture", wheras Firasat et al. 2005 make it clear that "E3b is common in Europe", and Cruciani et al. 2006 for their part ensure that "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in... all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are seriously claiming that E1b1b is less common in Sudan than in Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm stating established fact. Sudan's Nilotic majority are defined by the ancient Y DNA haplogroup A just like the Khoisan, not E1b1b/E3b. This is common knowledge. The presence of E3b in Sudan is considerable only in the Northern Afro-Asiatic groups and literally a handful of Nilotic groups based chiefly in the Western part of the country (the latter of whom acquired it through admixture from the North). It's almost completely absent in the South where the country's Nilotic majority are heavily concentrated. I've already directed you to a hap map showing the actual genetic makeup of Sudan at large. There are others out there like it that assert more or less the same thing. Causteau (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are not claiming anything then please do. Otherwise you are just playing a game. How do you defend your inconsistency? You insist, for whatever secret reason, on calling European E1b1b "common" even insisting that you'll revert anyone who tries to replace the word with more exact terminology. You deny that you can understand that this word is vague, and ignores large differences between important regions, using a wikilawyering manner of responding by saying that the word "common" is used in scientific literature and trying to describe this as a verification question(!). And yet in Sudan, you take the exact opposite position, extremely concerned that people might not realize there is local variation. The pattern, need I say it, becomes increasingly clear: at every possible opportunity you seek to de-emphasize the African aspects of E1b1b and emphasize its European aspects. Why? What's your issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I could've sworn I already directed you to Wikipedia's assume good faith policy and its directive to comment on the content and not on the contributor. However, for some inexplicable reason, it still obviously has not sunken in yet since you persist in your unfounded, unwarranted, and, frankly, offensive accusations. Look here: it's not my problem if you are not already aware that a)Sudan is predominantly inhabited by Nilotic peoples (see this), most of whom are concentrated in the South; b)E3b in Sudan is found at sizable frequencies only in the Afro-Asiatic groups in the North (such as the Beja) as well as a handful of admixed Nilotic groups (such as the Masalit) in the West; c)E3b is near absent in the South where, again, the country's Nilotic majority are concentrated; d)Sudan's Nilotic majority are overwhelimingly defined by haplogroup A followed by haplogroup B; e)Sudan's Northerners also have considerable frequencies of haplogroups J and, in the case of the Fulani and Hausa, R1b -- not just E3b. See, it's not a question of being "extremely concerned that people might not realize there is local variation". It's about being aware of other studies on other haplogroups and other populations (and the actual size of each of those populations), such as the frequency of haplogroup A in Sudan's Nilotic majority and J/R in its Afro-Asiatic Northern minority. So kindly stop with your mean-spirited, baseless accusations, and just admit to what you don't know. Causteau (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed stop directing me to Wikipedia policies and address the clear issue concerning the content. Are you implying, in the above non-answer, that you are not aware of the much bigger variations of E3b presence and frequency in Europe than in Sudan? Hassan et al. seem to say quite clearly that E1b1b is present in significant levels in all Sudanese populations, even if it is not most common in all of them. On the other hand it is almost entirely absent in large parts of Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Hassan et al. 2008 neither state nor imply that "E1b1b is present in significant levels in all Sudanese populations". They only state that E1b1b chromosomes are "widely distributed" in Sudan, and they're right. They also state the obvious, which I've already mentioned above and which seems to have escaped you for some reason: That this "haplogroup has exceptionally high frequencies among populations like those of Western Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern Sudan". In other words, that it's concentrated in a few Afro-Asiatic groups (like the Beja) "as well as a handful of admixed Nilotic groups (such as the Masalit) in the West". Take a look at Figure 2: It demonstrates exactly what I've been saying about the low frequencies of E1b1b in the Nilotic majority concentrated in the South (viz. the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, etc.). Hassan et al. (2008) also mention that E1b1b sub-clades were "brought to Sudan from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago" and that "it seems that gene flow is not only recent (Holocene onward) but also largely of focal [as opposed to clinal] nature". However, they're quick to add that the Nilo-Saharan groups were for the most part not affected by this gene flow: "Most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja." All the forgoing is very easy to see in the frequencies listed in Figure 2, as well as in previous studies on the Y DNA profile of Sudan, which have likewise already established the importance and overwhelming presence of haplogroups A and B in that country's Nilotic majority. By contrast, E1b1b/E3b's importance both in occurence and sizable frequency throughout Europe as well as the clinal (as opposed to focal) nature of its distribution there has already been established by Rosser et al. (2000) and Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, 2007) among others. Causteau (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hassan article you mention says: E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

On the other hand, the sources we both refer to for Europe say that over the largest part in either geographical or population terms E1b1b is present in amounts which do not even show up in studies as small as the Hassan one. Cruciani 2007 calls it "2.5%" in Western Europe. The Hassan article for Sudan on the other hand shows a stronger presence than this in every Sudanese sub-population even if it is not the most common in every group.

Anyway, as you can see, a "verifiable source" says that E1b1b is "common" (yes, that exact word) in Sudan, and it is clear that it is more common there than in Europe. Can you therefore agree that sometimes common is a vague word, and that it is not a bad thing to sometimes replace it with more exact wording?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hassan et al. 2008 study does indeed state that "E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese." However, this is only a reference to the percentage of the observed E-M78 chromosomes among the sampled Sudanese that belong to the E-V32 sub-clade of E-M78 as opposed to other sub-clades of E-M78 (i.e. 59/114 -- see the bottom of Table 2). It's not a statement on the percentage of Sudanese Y chromosomes at large that are represented by E-V32. The statement that "E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese" also refers to the figures in Table 2 (viz.: "The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2."). Table 2 for its part shows 0% of E-V32 in the Nilotic Dinka (who alone represent over 40% of the population in South Sudan), Shilluk, and Nuer who are all based in the South. It shows what I affirmed earlier and what is mentioned in the study's very next sentence, namely, that E-M78 sub-clades are focused in the Northern Afro-Asiatic groups (such as the Beja who live along the Red Sea Hills in the Northeast) and the Western admixed Nilotic groups (such as the Masalit and the Fur). Similarly, E-V22 accounts for 27.2% of the sub-clades of E-M78 in the Sudanese that actually have E-M78. And just how many Sudanese have E-M78 in this study? About 28% in total (114/413). About 34% of Sudanese were E3b carriers in this study: (27+114)/413; that's roughly the same as depicted on the hap map I linked you to earlier. Which begs the question as to what is exactly is signicant or new about this study? What is significant is that, according to Hassan et al. 2008:

• E-M78 chromosomes were introduced into Sudan from the North
• This gene flow was recent (Holocene onward)
• This gene flow is focally as opposed to clinally distributed
• Nilo-Saharan groups were for the most part not affected by this gene flow ("most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja").

By contrast, E1b1b in Europe, though indeed also "common" there, is clinally distributed (per Cruciani, Rosser and others), with relatively smooth gradations in frequency from region to region versus the focal distribution evident in Sudan. The average European ethnic group is also exponentially more populous than the average Sudanese ethnic group, which obviously has implications for the absolute number of E1b1b/E3b carriers per region. Causteau (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand and understood all that extra stuff. We were only discussing the word "common" - and not because I found it very important, but because you did. I notice that another interlocutor of yours once made a remark that one problem trying to work with you is that you never like to admit when an agreement or partial agreement has been reached. Can you please now state whether there is agreement? I propose that we have agreed that: E1b1b is "common" in both Sudan and Europe (actually more common in Sudan) but the term "common" is not always enough to give the full story when we are talking about population distributions. On this basis, wherever an editor thinks the word is giving a misleading impression, and he/she can find a way to make things more clear, then they should do so whether or not the word common appears in the scientific literature. What is alarming about this is how obvious this should be, and how often you seem to start arguments that are dead on arrival, for example your argument that prevalent does not mean "most common" but only "common": [1] [2] [3] [4]. More recently we have your insistence during reverting that Coffman-Levy never refers to sub-clades, and that Henn et al never refer to sub-Saharan E-M35. Presumably you'll complain as in previous cases that I am giving an account of your actions which requires me to guess wrongly about your exact thinking. But that's exactly what you should help everyone with. We only see your reverts and the types of replies you make on the talk page. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that "other interlocutor" of mine believes with regard to me is none of your business, nor is it your place to discuss anything pertaining to me on this or on any other page on Wikipedia. Do you understand this? Can you for once just stick to the subject at hand and not digress into petty, uninformed ad hominem? First of all, no, E1b1b certainly is not more common in Sudan than it is in Europe, as I've repeatedly demonstrated above. It is only common in certain Afro-Asiatic groups concentrated in the North (e.g. the Beja) and admixed groups in the West (Masalit, Fur). Those were the groups who were chiefly affected by the gene flow from north of Sudan, a gene flow which did not affect the country's Nilotic majority as Hassan et al. 2008 very clearly state. They also make it clear that E1b1b is focally distributed in Sudan (i.e. concentrated in a few groups). It is not clinally distributed across the entire region the way E1b1b is in Europe. Even in areas with seemingly low concentrations of only a few percent, we are more likely to find far more E1b1b/E3b carriers in Europe than in any given region in Sudan no matter that Sudanese region's E1b1b frequency. This is because the European ethnic groups are exponentially more populous than the Sudanese ones. For instance, if we take a European ethnic group like the French (who, at 8%, aren't even really noted for being E1b1b/E3b carriers), and compare them to the Masalit of Sudan (who are noted for being E1b1b carriers) -- and even, for good measure, assume that a generous 100% of Masalit are E1b1b carriers -- we still wind up with over 16 times more E1b1b carriers of French extraction than Masalit ones. This is because there are 52 million ethnically French people in France alone versus only 250,000 or so ethnic Masalit in Sudan and Chad combined. This underscores the importance of taking into account actual population size as I mentioned earlier. A clade may indeed be more "common" in a region, but just what is the size of that region's ethnic population? For example, do they only number about 5000 or so like the Khwe in South Africa? And is that distribution spread across all or most ethnic groups in smooth gradations (as in Europe) or only really focused in a few, select groups (as in Sudan)?

As for that old "sub-Saharan E-M35" debacle, although this is clearly a non-sequitur and has no relation whatsoever to our present discussion, Henn et al. 2008 do not once refer to E-M35 as "sub-Saharan". How many times must I repeat this? Look, I own the study; I believe I've already stated this as well. Henn et al. use the term "sub-Saharan" a grand total of once, and what they do actually say is that the SNP M293 is found in sub-Saharan Africa. They don't label the clade E-M35 as sub-Saharan, but the region in which M293 is found. Gonçalves et al. (2005), by contrast, describe E3b itself (along with haplogroup J) as consisting of "lineages that are typical of the circum-Mediterranean region or even East Africa." Causteau (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was, if you look again, that you seem to want to insist that you are still in disagreement with someone long after you have clearly shown in other ways that it was just a misunderstanding - even if it requires coming up with new ways of ignoring what people are saying, and pretending they are saying something else. It is called flogging a dead horse, but it is very distracting to others, who naturally think that such reactions require an answer to explain that you have misunderstood something. (And it is disturbing also then to have even more angry reactions from you about people trying to guess your intentions and breaking etiquette by talking to you instead of just about content, and so on.) You've illustrated the point perfectly above with your responses: no-one ever suggested any text which needed a comment about Europe having more people than the Sudan, and no one has ever argued that E-M35 is Sub-Saharan. The only point worth discussing is in effect long decided: the word common can be vague. If you would just give a quick nod when the real discussion is over that would be very helpful to everyone including you I am sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3. New explanation of the Cruciani paragraph, more similar to the old one. "The latest estimates regarding the origin and dispersal of this sub-clade of E1b1b assert that:" I guess if the quote needs to remain in the article it does need some sort of explanation, but I frankly think the best solution is just to remove it now, because it is confusing when taken out of its context like this. Most of what it says is incorporated into the text, or would need to be just in order to explain the quote without risk of confusion. So whatever needs to be saved can be of course. Maybe the quote just needs to be shortened down to do a more focused job.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not taken out of its context because it specifically discusses the origin of E-M78 (Northeastern Africa) and its areas of dispersal. It perfectly introduces what the quote is actually about, and the quote itself is obviously relevant. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By context I am referring to the fact that the article has its own terminology which a reader builds up an understanding of as they read through the article, looking at the tables etc. In the Wikipedia article, it does not work so well. It is hard to understand, and a paraphrase might be better. Direct quotes are not always better than paraphrases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The only conceivable problem with the quote might be the confusion which might stem from the term "Northeastern Africa". Readers might take this to mean the Horn of Africa when Cruciani of course really means the eastern part of North Africa i.e. Egypt and Libya. A simple addendum to the phrase which introduces the quote should cover this. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But why do that and not just use clear language to start with?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already taken care of this problem, and it didn't require getting rid of that valuable Cruciani quote. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is valuable in it which does not require being re-explained in the rest of the article? Please address this point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Africa replaced by North Africa as the dispersal point for V12, etc. Seems a good change. I also interpret Cruciani that way at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cardium Pottery

Why is there a picture of the distribution of Cardium Pottery in this article? I do not mean to imply ignorance of the fact that the E-V13 distribution is sometimes linked with various pottery types, in a fairly speculative way. But this argument is not discussed in the article, and I am not aware of any particularly strong relevance for Cardium Pottery specifically? Should this be deleted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall an editor adding the picture some time back. It had to do with the Cardial culture in the region, which is indeed linked to Neolithic E1b1b carriers. Causteau (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that there's some indirect way to link the subject to E1b1b, but is it really a good thing to just post in anything at all with any level of indirect association?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins - run-on sentence

This paragraph is one huge run-on sentence, and contains incorrect information -- E-M123 is not a subclade of E-M78.

"As E1b1b1 dispersed, all major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, apart from E-V13 and E-M123, both found in Europe and amongst Jewish populations, which are the two major sub-clades of E-M78 which originated outside of Africa, both apparently in the Near East."

I'm not sure when this wording about the subclades was introduced (I thought I found the diff, but I was wrong), but this sentence/paragraph has been chopped up and moved around quite a bit recently and neither of you realized that E-M123 is not a subclade of E-M78. C'mon guys, there's so much knee-jerk editing going on that neither of you are taking the time to really proofread the edits.

The entire paragraph needs to be rephrased -- even the first part. I know what you're trying to say -- E1b1b1 dispersed, and the major subclades were founded. But it's worded strangly right now and doesn't read well at all. How about something like this:

"As E1b1b1 dispersed, each of its major subclades was founded. E-M78 and E-M81 are thought to have originated in North Africa [or the Horn of Africa?]. E-M123, as well as E-V13 (the largest subclade of E-M78) appear to have originated in the Near East."

I don't think the mention of E-M123 and E-V13 being found in Europe and among Jews is necessary in this paragraph -- this section is about origins, not about where the subclades are found today.

Actually, I don't even think E-V13 should be mentioned here, since you're talking about the subclades branching off E1b1b1 -- which are E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, as well as E-V6, E-P72 and E-M293. E-V13 is more appropriately discussed in the E-M78 section below.

And, I'm not validating whether the origins are correct as stated or not -- I'm not the geography and history expert. I'm just trying to rephrase what's already been written so that it reads better. -- Efweb (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence has evolved badly because of the edit warring. The tendency in the article right now is that redundant material gets kept, and sentences get longer. I also have a concern about irrelevant citations. I'll try to work on what you've spotted here, and please feel free to name more tasks, but of course we should all try to edit when we see something that can be improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"occurs commonly and is distributed... in all of Europe" comes directly from Cruciani et al. 2006; please do not remove

Dear Causteau, The title of this sub-heading is your explanation for a new knee jerk edit. Please note that the grammatical words involved are not important to the content. The English used in academic abstracts is often awful and there is absolutely no reason to use bad English just because it can be found in an abstract! Can you please reverse your revert? EfWeb is absolutely right that this article shows scars from this type of reverting. Let it be improved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Andrew, but "bad English" (which it isn't) in a reputable journal is not an excuse to reformulate what the reliable source in question actually states. Cruciani et al. 2006 make it clear that E-M78 "occurs commonly and is distributed" in all of said regions including "all of Europe", so that is what the E1b1b article now dutifully relays. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is no such duty. The Wikipedia article does not have to be slavish to odd phrasing just because the odd phrasing can be sourced. I am afraid that you still misunderstand (assuming good faith) the rules you cite at me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing was only "odd" in your estimation. And what is a duty on Wikipedia is that materials need to be reliably sourced, which the phrase already was and is. Causteau (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First, so was what you reverted within seconds. Second, the differences you are insisting on are words like "and" and "is", just connectors, not important to the content.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. What I restored was a direct paraphrase containing words taken directly from an actual reliable source. Your modification of course removed those very words, and in the process changed the entire meaning of the statement. Causteau (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I used a direct quote, even better than a direct paraphrase, whatever that is, and when you took that out, you also changed the meaning just slightly, well not really. Look, this is silly. Surely you realize that your actions are edit warring, and clearly also a continuing attempt at bad faith opportunistic abuse of Wikipedia rules in order to justify your reverts. Please stop it. Nobody is fooled. (Accusing someone of bad faith editing is not "assuming bad faith" by the way if you have the evidence in front of you and are explaining it by the way, so don't - please - quote more pages of WP rules as a diversion.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No you did not. You first removed the words "occurs commonly and is distributed" that were taken verbatim from Cruciani et al. 2006, replacing them instead with "E-M78 male lineages are common" that by contrast wasn't taken from Cruciani et al. 2006. You then gutted the text of all reference regarding the fact that E-M78 is observed in "all of Europe" as Cruciani et al. 2006 also make very clear. After I restored the page, you came back with a study of Cruciani's from two years earlier that conveniently did not include any mention of the fact E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in the aforementioned regions including "all of Europe". You can quote me all of the rules you want, but it's your constant removal of reliable sources that are indefensible. Causteau (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I made several reverted attempts to make a long ugly sentence more clear and easy to read, by changing minor words. No doubt that your words such as "and" have good footnoting, I just don't think it is relevant. If I changed the meaning that was not the intention, and I put it to you that you could not have even noticed it given how fast you reverted. Surely the meaning of the sentence can in any case somehow be preserved without such awful English? Let's please stop having to have a source for every tiny word and think a lot more about the quality of the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so everyone please remember that Causteau and I are not editing the article for one week. For anyone looking for something to do, here was one of the sentences we could not agree about...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) "occurs commonly ... in" North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. (current version right now)

Neither of us are happy with this. Causteau believes more words are needed in order to more exactly match the wording of the article being sourced here, and I believe less are needed in order to take out redundant words which currently imply things which are not justified.

Causteau wants:

E1b1b1a (E-M78) "occurs commonly and is distributed in" North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe.

I believe the above is wrong, because bad English is wrong, not just as a detail, but also because when people see words they are led to believe there is a reason...

1. "occurs commonly and is distributed in" can be read as "occurs commonly (in) and is distributed in" or "is a common (clade) that is found in". Both these odd readings (there is no unambiguous reading) would imply similar high frequencies (presumably 50% or more) in ALL the places mentioned, which is certainly not correct.

2. "and all of Europe" instead of just "and Europe" is also odd, but can only be read to imply that amongst all the places mentioned (North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia and Europe) it is Europe which has the most consistently high levels of frequency, or the least low spots. This is certainly not true either. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewording - outside opinions

...Dear Wikipedians, why not have a go at making a better sentence? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying. Orpheus (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your input Orpheus. Your proposal seems a good alternative, as it actually preserves what Cruciani et al. (2006) write. It's also written in proper English, which was oddly one of the original objections against the use of Cruciani's own words. Causteau (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed, and I swapped the order of the two sentences leading that section as well. Seems to make more sense that way. Orpheus (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Causteau (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a definite improvement, and interestingly similar to proposals that were once routinely reverted. If I may, I'll suggest it can possibly be better:

• Concerning your comments elsewhere about clade term confusions, I wonder if it might be nicer to open the sentence with "E-M78 male lineages" instead of the more abstract "E1b1b1a (E-M78)" i.e. referring to real people, something people can visualize, rather the abstract "clade" or "sub-clade", and with the SNP based nomenclature which easiest to recognize in running discussion, instead of the phylogenetic terminology which is hard on the human eye (but quite appropriate for headings etc).
• "is a commonly occuring" is written with a complex verb construction where one is not necessary because "is a common" would mean exactly the same thing.
• How do you read the meaning of "and all of"? What does it change in the meaning of the sentence?

Causteau, for future reference have you accepted the idea that "There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying." If you can accept that these are simply discussions about better or worse style, then this would remove a major impediment to recent attempts to edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing grammatically or factually inaccurate about Orpheus' rewrite, nor was there anything wrong with the Cruciani direct quote to begin with (how could there be? it comes directly from Cruciani himself). Orpheus' rewrite fully captures what Cruciani et al. 2006 actually write, and does so without gutting the text of its key phrases: that E1b1b1a (E-M78) commonly occurs and is distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. What's more, opening the section with "E-M78 male lineages" only confuses the lay public, as the latter might take that to mean that E-M78 only pertains to or has significance for men, when of course the clade also tells a woman a lot about her paternal ancestry if her father, brother or other male relative in her direct paternal line is tested. Causteau (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Could you respond to my very simple question in order to help people understand your aims and thoughts, in order not to later get reverted by you? Have you accepted the idea that "There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

2. I shall respond to your question: "how could it be?" What we should be discussing is how best to word this Wikipedia article. The style used in academic abstracts is, I am quite sure, not what most academic authors would want people to consider their best style. But more generally neither you nor I nor anyone is arguing (I think) that exact quotes are always best in the context of a Wikipedia article. So I think that your own editing and any example of editing you can find shows that direct quotes might not be best in all cases. Of course if there is a serious difference in meaning, let's talk about that. Do you disagree or agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Concerning the meaning you think "gutted" by my suggestions, we've not had much discussion. The edit of Orpheus explains how you think the joint appearance of the words commonly occurs and is distributed in the Cruciani abstract should be interpreted. In any case it is an improvement, but it is notable that you allowed or encouraged no such compromise before when I asked you to consider one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

4. But what about the other words which I thought redundant (or potentially misleading)? How do you read the meaning of "and all of"? What does it change in the meaning of the sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Concerning the alternative beginning to the sentence, thanks for now explaining a reason for what you've reverted before without any explanation. I find the explanation quite odd I must say. Indeed women readers might think they are only potentially connected to E1b1b through male relatives, and that is indeed the truth, and also what you do not want the article to say. My own explanation of what I thought worth trying to achieve was making things less abstract: this is about men you know, and in a particular way, not some abstract thing that only academics can understand. Can you respond to this concern of mine and explain what the justification would be for deliberately trying to make the subject more abstract?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to offer another opinion here - you two should knock it off. Focus on the article itself, not on whether you have been proven right on minor points of procedure. Now I realise that you're both making a valiant effort to assume good faith and be civil with each other, and I think you should both be proud of how well you've conducted yourself on this talk page. It's obviously an issue you both care about, and any minor lapses of civility are outweighed by the great heights of restraint you have both reached to keep things well ordered and under active discussion.

However - I also think you should take the opportunity of this neutral opinion to back off and put the old discussion behind you. One thing about content disputes that I've noticed is that they become focused on the minor little things and lose sight of the point - making articles better. I could give examples for both of you but I'm not going to, because I don't want to make either of you feel singled out or (even worse) triumphant and vindicated. Email me if you want specifics - I'm happy to offer constructive comments in private. Orpheus (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps in this spirit we should ignore my questions about policy interpretation, assuming that there is no on-going edit war risk which requires me to be super careful about that, and narrow it down to my questions specially about the text. We currently have...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe.

I find that the end result of the compromise so far is better, but still containing redundant wording which can be removed without changing the meaning. The possible exception is "and all of" but to the extent that this has a special meaning, it is very open to interpretations which are wrong - in particular that distribution in Europe is somehow "more" in Europe than the other areas. "Europe" on its own without qualifier would mean "all of Europe"? The following is not intended to be a compromise, but for reference what I think might be the shortest possible version of everything that is clear in the existing version, so that we can then discuss which meanings we think are missing, and from there we can add them...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) lineages are common in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe.

I'd start by suggesting two things: 1. subclade, if that word has to be there, is relative, and to mean something it is better to say "of E-M35". 2. I don't see any point in using an academic passive verb, but if one has to be there, "distributed" is a old fashioned metaphor implying that a rational being spread things deliberately, that academic authors often use without thinking. "which can be found" is a possible alternative. 3. This minimal version, without any extra words, already implies that E-M78 is found in all parts of all the places mentioned. 4. To raise a new subject in fact, E-M78 is found in small amounts far to the east in places like Pakistan. (But the distribution of E-M78 from the Levant to the Himilayas is clearly complex and involves very low frequencies for the most part. So this is probably better though of as something for thinking about for the time being.) 5. I took out "male" which I'd mentioned in previous suggestions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to put this, but this non-issue has already been settled. Orpheus and I have already agreed to go with his grammatically correct and accurate paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. (2006) (the reliable source in question) actually write: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe." If you think that Cruciani (who is one of the foremost authorities on E1b1b) is somehow mistaken when he and his colleagues assert that "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe", perhaps you should consider taking it up with him personally. Causteau (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just happen to not yet be fully satisfied with the style of sentence. I can't help that, so can you please do more than just giving me a proclamation? Both of us have read the full Cruciani article and all the statistics, so we know pretty well what they might have meant or might not have meant. To treat the first line of the abstract as something we may not question is purely arbitrary, and I wish you would stop doing it. It implies that I should go back to the policy question, because it clearly has not gone away for me: Have you accepted the idea that "There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying"? In other words, are you willing to discuss things with other Wikipedians as equals or are you going to insist on playing Don Quixote to the Wikipedia windmill?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cruciani states in no uncertain terms that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in the aforementioned regions including all of Europe. While he does indeed state this in the study's abstract, an abstract is not chopped liver; it's an essential part of a study. And when Wikipedia writes about reliable sources, it doesn't just pertain to only certain sections of a given text. It pertains to the entire study -- all of Cruciani et al. (2006) is a reliable source. What's more, Cruciani repeats again in the study's body that "haplogroup E-M78 is characterized by a broad geographic distribution, which includes northern and eastern Africa, western Asia and all of Europe". It's by no means arbitrary; it's fact from people who ought to know. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I see your point on how "all of Europe" could be interpreted as emphasising the European frequency over the African frequency. It doesn't actually say that, but the lay reader could potentially see it as that. However, I don't see an alternative that isn't insanely clumsy. The only other wording I'd suggest would be to change "all of" to "throughout". I think something along those lines should remain there, because all of the other regions mentioned have a regional qualifier. To not have one for Europe would raise an ambiguity - is Europe too small in terms of population genetics to warrant dividing into regions, or is the haplogroup spread through all of the regions? That's my reasoning as a non-biologist, anyway - the author of the paper may have a different one.

I think that "throughout", like "all of" implies that E1b1b is particularly widespread and common in Europe, whereas compared to at least the two regions of Africa we mention, it is particularly NOT widespread and common, but rather very patchy indeed, and nowhere near as common. Your point about the other words having "regional qualifiers" is interesting, and this might indeed have been the intention of Cruciani et al. I had not thought of it at all. So is everyone going to get that? If the intention of the wording is unclear, I guess we should ask ourselves what else we can write that gets across what is most essential?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b/E3b doesn't have a patchy distribution in Europe. It is very common there, and is distributed in relatively smooth, clinal gradations throughout the entire continent. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you that distributed could be changed to something else. However I don't think it's particularly necessary - the chance of misinterpretation is fairly small IMHO. The only reason to change it would be to add more information (change "distributed" to "found in relatively high proportions" or something else informative and true). Disclaimer: I don't know if my suggested alternative wording is, in fact, true or not. I'm a physicist/engineer. Orpheus (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, do we need a passive verb at all? Let's start from a simple base and ask if we need any embellishments. It is a general rule that wording like "is common in" is preferable to "is commonly found in" and really looses nothing of the meaning. What do the more complex possible additions to the simple version add in terms of meaning, rather than ambiguity? Simplest style is best style, and the article should not be left worse than we think it can be made?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "distributed" should not be changed to something else because that is what Cruciani et al. are talking about; that is the term they themselves use. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are just going to insist that if you cite something from a source, the wording can never be misleading or confusing in the context of the Wikipedia article, and no improvement can be possible? This seems to be a very unreasonable and impractical approach!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. I have not written any such thing, as can quite clearly be seen above. Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've said that passive verbs when unnecessary are bad style. In response to this you have said only that the wording comes from the source. Is there another argument you are making?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've haven't "said only that the wording comes from the source." I've said "the word "distributed" should not be changed to something else because that is what Cruciani et al. are talking about; that is the term they themselves use." They are talking about where E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed, so the term distribution needs to be mentioned (as it indeed already is). Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. I am saying that I believe that "is common in", "is common and occurs in", "is commonly occurring in", "is common and distributed in", "is frequently found in" etc etc etc all mean the same thing, and it is just a question of style. Therefore, I am saying, we should select the shortest and neatest one, that fits the Wikipedia article. The way I read all your replies, you have never explained any extra meaning which comes from using all the extra words. You have only said that the wording is similar to the wording in Cruciani et al. If there is a difference in meaning then I am genuinely interested to understand it, and I would like you to explain it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the above discussion so far the only alternative seems to be to put in qualifications, making the sentence admittedly very silly. Obviously I do not see the following compromise as good, but at least it is not misleading. Keep in mind that major studies find E-M78 absent in a large part of Europe - a fact which can of course be sourced, meaning we can potentially end up putting 2 sets of contrasting sources next to each other, which would be silly, because there is not a real dispute about the facts. Comments please--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe, though falling to very low levels in Russia, Belorussia, Finland, Scandinavia, Ireland and Scotland, as well as in parts of Spain, England, Germany.

Actually, even this is still misleading, and more qualifiers seem needed. Personally I would prefer something like this...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is very common in Egypt and the Horn of Africa, as well as many parts of North Africa, West Asia and Europe.

Then no qualifiers are needed, and the details are going to be discussed below anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. New version by Causteau, seems better to me than the previous one:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe,[23] with a frequency peak centered in south Europe and southeastern Europe (13%–16% in southern Italians and 17%–27% in the Balkans) and declining frequencies evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe.

A great time for people interested in this subject to start helping to edit it!

Dear E1b1b watching Wikipedians, Causteau and I are taking one week off from editing this article. This would be a great time to try out wiki-editing. And having more people involved could be very good for the article. It is understandable, but not good, that having two busy editors like Causteau and myself constantly focusing on this article may have discouraged people from making changes in the past. So here is your chance to change that!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Question - is "E1b1b1a (E-M78); formerly E3b1a" a clade or a subclade? The article seems ambiguous, and as a result I'm not sure if my recent edits are correct or not. The ambiguity is that E1b1b1a seems to be (hierachially) beneath E1b1b, the main subject of the article, but then E1b1b1a1 is referred to as a subclade of E1b1b1a. Can subclades have subclades, or should they be sub-subclades? Orpheus (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe no one will dispute the following, but if I get something wrong I hope people will be happy to say so. All of the above, any level, can be called "clades". "Clade" is a very general word like "category" or "grouping" and not one where there are defined levels like the species, genus, etc system in biology. "Subclade" is a pretty common word, but it is always relative, to the clade above it which is presumably the one in discussion in a particular context. "Sub-Sub-clade" is a bit quirky, but I would say acceptable in some contexts. I guess that raises the question of what the correct context is. The article is about both E1b1b, and it's one and only dominant sub-clade E1b1b1. But there are sections about the dominant sub-clades of E1b1b1, and so on. Having said all that, it is quite likely that this can get confusing, and if the confusion can be tamed at all please try to do so. A fresh perspective would be good for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

reference formats

I've switched the article over to the more complete Wikipedia citation format. Here is what the template looks like if you want to put in more articles... {{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | date = | year = | url = | doi = | id = }}

One handy trick this allows is to do "Harvard" format citations in the text or in footnotes, which are then links to the references. The basic format for this is as follows... {{Harvcoltxt|Sengupta et al.|2005|pp=12-24}}

This can also include page numbers etc. See [5].

Currently the article has the full links, titles etc of articles in BOTH the references, and in the footnotes. It also has to be put in newly each time a footnote is not just a reference to an article but also contains a quotation, page reference or comment.

Now we can put the Harvard citation in the main text without any footnote at all if it is just a citation without special comments. Everything is better linked, and does not have to be redone every time you add a reference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative photos

(You can use these photos) because we know they are E1b1b

Orville Wright - E1b1b1a2 (V13)

William Harvey - E1b1b1c1 (M34)

Another suggestion is looking for Berbers, Somalians, North Afircan Arabs & Albanians who are confirmed E1b1b.

This is even more important with Jews or Albanians (More than 70% of Jews or Albanians are not E1b1b1 how do we know the photos you posted are E1b1b1?)

I have some photos of confirmed E1b1b, but I have to ask them for permission to use their photos first, for now we can use these two confirmed ones.

Also a group photo of Somalians with a text description saying that more than 75% of Somlians are E1b1b1 will be much safer than listing one photo of an untested person.

Cadenas2008 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cadenas. Thanks for your message about this with your suggestions, which I also see you posted to Causteau. Let's definitely consider such ideas, but first, for the time being, I suggest not actually removing pictures just because we do not know the haplogroup of the person in the picture. I think the readership of Wikipedia is smart enough to understand the pictures and not be mislead - and no picture at all would seem a shame? No about the ideas you have my general answer would be "go for it" however I'd suggest that if you want to put a picture in of the Wright brothers, we'll need to double check the sources for that, and put something in the article, maybe under a famous people heading. I know they are said to be E1b1b, but I forget the details. Are you more familiar with it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Andrew here. It's a bit much to remove someone's picture just because we don't happen to know if they have been tested. I mean, were the Jewish man and the Libyan Arab boys whose pictures you didn't remove tested? Is that why you retained them but got rid of the Druze Arab and Somali men? This is one of the things that puzzled me about your edits. At any rate, the point is not to suggest that a particular person is E1b1b, but rather that the people that that person represents are E1b1b. This is why the description for the Druze man, for example, read "many Druze men are in the E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) lineage most commonly found in Europe, especially the Balkans" rather than "this Druze man is in the E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) lineage most commonly found in Europe, especially the Balkans". There is zero chance of readers misinterpreting what it is we are talking about. Also note that I didn't just add the pictures all by my lonesome; Andrew and I both did because we both saw value in their inclusion. Causteau (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to try to define how I understood the photos: I see the ones there now as pictures "representing" ethnic groups. Does that make sense? To me it seemed to make sense. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and that is exactly how I too saw it. We both also made it clear in our descriptions of the photos in question that said ethnic groups were, in turn, somewhat "representative" of the sub-clades where their respective pictures were featured. That is why the Berber man's picture was in the E-M81 section, the Jewish man's picture in the E-M123 section, etc. I honestly don't really see any valid reason why those pictures were removed, and I think the page is the poorer for it. Causteau (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Cadenas is inviting us to put any photos back in. In the meantime I see no problem with him making new proposals. Concerning famous people by the way, I know many people are interested in such things. So if we get truly famous people with good paper trails, I see no big problem starting such a section - perhaps at the end of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can find famous people, but will they be "representative" so-to-speak of the sub-clade in question? For instance, are the American Wright brothers really a good representation of a population that E-V13 is most characteristic of? I don't believe they are whereas E-V13 is observed at among its highest frequencies in the Albanians that the removed image represented. Wouldn't an Albanian or a Greek or a Macedonian man then be preferable for that particular sub-clade section? I believe so. This is not to say that we have to completely do away with Cadenas' admittedly interesting suggestion that we include famous known examples of E1b1b carriers. We just first need to make sure that the sub-clade section they are featured in is also characteristic of the larger population they in turn represent. Alternatively, we could start a new section where we could perhaps cite some famous examples of E1b1b carriers and include photos of said people for good measure. This gallery area would of course exist in addition to the images in the sub-clade sections that we already had. Causteau (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that no individual shows what a Y sub-clade looks like, ever, because the Y chromosome is too unimportant for most physical traits. A photo can show an ethnic group though, and an ethnic group can be carriers of a Y chromosome, just like a particular family line can, or a particular person, who may or may not be famous. I should say that photos are not a make or break for me, I am just explaining how I think they can be though about. The same goes for famous people. I can understand that people like a bit of colour in an article, which helps people get a grip on the subject matter. The famous people discussion comes from a member of the E-M35 phylogeny project, so Cadenas and I will ask there what list of solid examples there is. Definitely something for a separate section though. Who is going to get a sample of Mr Obama? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, by "representative" and "characteristic of", I wasn't talking about physical traits but relative sub-clade frequencies. As for famous people, I'm indifferent either way. We, do, however already know of two, so a draft could look something like this:

William Harvey

Famous English physician William Harvey, that was the first one in the Western world to describe the systemic circulation, belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1, more specifically to the subclade E1b1b1c1 (M34). Ancient ancestor known was Humphrey Harvey (1459-1526, Kent, England). Ysearch: B2YWY. Look also Harvey Y-DNA Genetic Project

The Wright Brothers

The Wright Brothers belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1, subclade E1b1b1a2 (V13). They are descended from Robert Wright of Brook Hall. Look at Wright Dna Project.

As an aside, I doubt Obama is E3b, as most Kenyans belong to E(xE3b) and haplogroups A and B, including his father's tribe, the Luo. Causteau (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

True. The rapid change in haplotypes between the Horn of Africa proper and Kenya is actually quite staggering, and if anyone is good at making contour maps, it would be great to have one to show this - for this article just the E1b1b differences on their would show how stark it is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Although more Southern Tanzania E1b1b frequency is higher at 37%, but I am not sure if they propotioned the Khoikhoi for their actual size? Cadenas2008 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that in Tanzania most E-M35 is E-M293? This fades quickly north of Tanzania it seems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b also shows up in South Africa again! Not sure what part of Tanzania is more E1b1b. The groups with Ethiopian links are usually small, so I am just quoting Luis et al. Cadenas2008 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

E-M293 is a sub-clade of E1b1b. It is the most recent discovered, so last in the list in the present Wikipedia article. It dominates E1b1b from Tanzania south.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous People

Thanks to Cadenas for raising this subject. But the real work has been pushed along by Sergey Lutak, on the E-M35 Project at http://community.haplozone.net/index.php?topic=818.0 His own summary is here, but in Russian: http://www.rodstvo.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=446

I would suggest we consider what Sergey collected so far. Any with a Wikipedia entry might perhaps be worth starting with?...

1. Peter Shirts (b1808 Ohio,d1882 New Mexico). He was an explorer for the Mormon Church, who has been referred to as the 'Daniel Boone of the desert'. There are several references to him on the internet that a quick Google search turns up: http://history.utah.gov/apps/markers/detailed_results.php?markerid=3119 http://history.utah.gov/apps/markers/detailed_results.php?markerid=1227 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paria,_Utah spam://www.onlineutah.com/montezumahistory.shtml ftdna kit number is N3997. YSearch id is 887NW. Several in the line also on http://www.smgf.org Furthest known ancestor is Michael Schertz born 1660 Hesse-Darmsstadt, Germany/arrive in New York on one of the 'Palatine ship' in 1710, died in New York 1711. Michael Schertz is listed in the FTDNA Palatine DNA Project (referencing my DNA) at: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/PalatineDNAProject

2. Dr. William Harvey (b. at Folkestone 1 April, 1578), noted as the discoverer of the circulation of blood. Dr. Harvey died without issue in 1657 The modern descendant is Bill Harvey in the USA, who has a good paper trail, that can be used to link to William Harvey if you also use the "Extensive research ... done by Oscar Jewell Harvey in the latter part of the 19th century capped with his "Harvey Book" published in the US in 1898." SNP test is: E1b1b1c1a (M84+) Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/HARVEY&fixed_columns=on (B2YWY in Ysearch)

3. Arthur Wilde Parsons (1854 - 1931) is recognized as being a fairly well known British marine artist, and many of his paintings used to hang at the Royal Academy in London. His great grandson in England has been tested. I think no Wikipedia entry?

4. Wright brothers. Steven Bird noted it first: "Nearly forgot! The most famous PROVED pair of siblings that are definitely E-M35 are Orville and Wilbur Wright. They are descended from [Robert Wright of Brook Hall], whose other descendants are E-V13. Their relationship is proved solidly through conventional genetic research. "The Wright family of Essex is rather infamous in genealogical circles because of the overabundance of men named John. Cheesy The three brothers from the same 17th c. generation were called "John the Elder" "Middle John" and "John the Younger." Their father was John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch. A bit like the George Foreman story; all of his boys are named George. The Wright DNA results are available at: http://www.wright-dna.org/dna/OtherResults.html See the fourth group on the page.

5. The Hatfield clan. Hatfield-McCoy feud Ysearch user 3AC8Z Decended from Ephraim Hatfield here is his link http://www.ysearch.org/alphalist_view.asp?uid=&letter=H&lastname=Hatfield&viewuid=3AC8Z&p=0 If you go to this link its the hatfield group project http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/hatfield/results kit number 79827 is decended from Ephraim Hatfield.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we list a few photos of the verfied European E1b1b, but we also list an equal number of African group photos so it doesn't seem that E1b1b is a European gene. I am not sure whats caused previous arguments (We can try to avoid that & make the article look better). Is that a good solution? Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really because when Andrew and I were posting pictures, neither one of us was thinking in terms of posting "more" or "fewer" European, Middle Eastern, or African pictures. We were simply thinking in terms of adding photos to the sub-clade sections showing representatives of ethnic groups that typically have considerable frequencies of those sub-clades. Our image descriptions consequently reflected this e.g. "E1b1b1b (E-M81): The most common Y haplogroup among North African Arabs and Berbers". It's a sub-clade first, ethnic group second model because this article is after all about E1b1b itself. Causteau (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I am trying to make sense of whats going on! Notice the situation only exists in E1b1b, so it has to do with ethnic groups & we are trying to be balanced right? I said that because you hinted that I kept the other photos on purpose! Cadenas2008 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)