Talk:Genetic history of East Asians

Untitled 2018 comment
Definition of East Asians here is not limited to Koreans, Chinese or Japanese. I'm looking forward to genetic information on other East Asians such as Mongols, Manchus, Turkics, etc. Koraskadi (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started to include ancient people. I will research about Turkic, Manchu and other Siberian stuff in the next time. Do you intend to include people like Khmer or Malays here too? Best greetings AsadalEditor (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. I meant the term as the indigenous peoples of what is now geographically East Asia, which comprises China, Japan, Korea and Mongolia. So long as the ethnic groups are there, I think they can be included. Koraskadi (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. I will include Turkic Asian people (Kazakhs, Altaians, Uyghurs,...) as next and than Manchu-Tungus people. AsadalEditor (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Genetic history of East Asians
CURRENT DNA MAP IS VERY CHINESE/ TAIWAN CHINESE HINDSIGHT. WHAT HAPPEN TO NEUTRAL WORLDWIDE DNA MAP THAT WAS THERE BEFORE. CLEARLY SHOWS KOREAN DNA MARKER O2B DNA MIGRATION MAP. ITS MORE COLORFUL MAP, PRECISE, SIMPLE MAP. CURRENT ONE I ALREADY SAW IT CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY " EDUCATION" REFORM TEXTBOOK. SHOWING HAN CHINESE POPULATION EXISTED FOR THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE KOREANS AND JAPANESE. TOTAL BULLSHIT HINDSIGHT. I WOULD LIKE WIKIPEDIA BRING BACK the PREVIOUS MAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanPenin5ulaKP (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Genetic history of East Asians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sato2014": From Jōmon people: Youichi Sato, Toshikatsu Shinka, Ashraf A. Ewis, Aiko Yamauchi, Teruaki Iwamoto, Yutaka Nakahori, et al., "Overview of genetic variation in the Y chromosome of modern Japanese males." Anthropological Science Vol. 122(3), 131–136, 2014. From Haplogroup C-M217: Youichi Sato, Toshikatsu Shinka, Ashraf A. Ewis, Aiko Yamauchi, Teruaki Iwamoto, and Yutaka Nakahori, "Overview of genetic variation in the Y chromosome of modern Japanese males." Anthropological Science Vol. 122(3), 131–136, 2014. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Genetic history of East Asians
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Genetic history of East Asians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hammer2005": From Haplogroup Q-M242:  From Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group: Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking and Satoshi Horai, "Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes," Journal of Human Genetics Volume 51, Number 1 / January, 2006. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

may need editing to fit the needs of a general audience
There is a huge amount of data that would be apparent to anyone interested enough to check a footnote, but which merely distracts from the actual point. For instance:

A 2017 study conducted by Fumihiko Takeuchi, Tomohiro Katsuya, Ryosuke Kimura and Norihiro Kato compared three genetically distinct Japanese groups, Hondu (Honshu), Ryukyu and Ainu to 26 other Asian populations to analyze the shared ancestry and genetic differentiation between the Japanese people and other Asians.[89] The study revealed ...

We only need the part after "revealed," right? The footnote for that will inform those curious about the exact authors and so on.

Likewise, a section titled "Genomic study 2018" starts: "A recent study (2018) shows that..."

Is there a tag for this?

A second problem is that nearly every sentence giving a list of percentages... and this is like 1/3 of the sentences in the article... could or should be replaced with a pie graph. Now, that would be difficult given that many such long lists of percentages do have error bars and confidence intervals, but is this level of detail required in an encyclopedia or is it something that interested parties can simply follow links to footnotes for?

To be clear, I have zero expertise on the matters discussed (except a fluency in Japan and 15 years living here). I don't want to upset or insult the original, prodidgious authors with a general dumbing down of the entire article, and I don't even know if there's consensus that my criticisms are right. But it's an interesting enough subject I could take a hand to editing it for readability, if there were some indication such edits wouldn't be simply reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article needs to focus on inferences rather than so much data. I have zero expertise on this topic as well, but I am of the opinion that encyclopaedia articles must be accessible to people like us. Can you tag the author to find out whether edits will be appreciated? KropotkinSchmopotkin (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Genetic history of East Asians
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Genetic history of East Asians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DiCristofaro2013": From Haplogroup O-M122: Di Cristofaro J, Pennarun E, Mazières S, Myres NM, Lin AA, et al. (2013), "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge." PLoS ONE 8(10): e76748. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076748 From Haplogroup Q-M242: </li> <li>From Haplogroup D-M174: </li> <li>From Haplogroup C-M48: Di Cristofaro J, Pennarun E, Mazières S, Myres NM, Lin AA, et al. (2013) "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge." PLoS ONE 8(10): e76748. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076748</li> <li>From Haplogroup O-M175: Di Cristofaro J, Pennarun E, Mazieres S, Myres NM, Lin AA, et al. (2013) "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge." PLoS ONE 8(10): e76748. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076748</li> <li>From Haplogroup R1b: </li> </ul>

Reference named "Karafet2018":<ul> <li>From Haplogroup N-M231: Tatiana M. Karafet, Ludmila P. Osipova, Olga V. Savina, Brian Hallmark, and Michael F. Hammer, "Siberian genetic diversity reveals complex origins of the Samoyedic-speaking populations." American Journal of Human Biology 2018;e23194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23194. DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.23194.</li> <li>From Haplogroup R1b: </li> <li>From Haplogroup C-M217: Tatiana M. Karafet, Ludmila P. Osipova, Olga V. Savina, Brian Hallmark, and Michael F. Hammer (2018), "Siberian genetic diversity reveals complex origins of the Samoyedic-speaking populations." Am J Hum Biol. 2018;e23194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23194. DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.23194.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Need to add Yue/Viet section
Yue/Vietnamese should be considered/categorized as East Asian, due to their origins located in Mainland China. King Duong Vuong birthplace was Hunan, central China. And the South East Asian page doesn't mention about the Viet even at least one word!2601:204:E37F:FFF1:CFB:5532:1532:B549 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No ancient DNA in Zerjal et al (2002)
This study had been misrepresented on this page for a long time:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419996/

It contains no ancient Y-DNA and does not offer any evidence that early Turks belonged to an East Eurasian haplogroup. Because it is a low-quality outdated primary research paper, and because the edit was made by a banned socktroll (AsadalEditor), I removed it.Hunan201p (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Han Chinese
Han Chinese are not related to Yayoi.

From the point of view of genetics, language, history books, they are related to the other Sino-Tibetan people like Tibetans so please don't put misinformation here.

If Yayoi were related to Han Chinese, they would be speaking Chinese or other Sino-Tibetan languages and not Japanese now.

Han Chinese and Tibetan are both O3 haplogroups. Their common history have been recorded in many CHinese history books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberxwiki (talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Southern/Northern route models recent unconstructive edits
Recently a user ("SsSsSs0909) removed content about the mainstream theory of a southern route origin, and replaced it with (old) content (from two 2011 and 2015 studies) discussing a possible northern route origin. These studies however do not found hard evidence for either northern or southern studies, and more recent studies demonstrated that East Asians originated from a southern dispersal route. While a northern route into northern Siberia indeed existed, it was used by a completely distinct population, known as Ancient North Eurasians which are actually closer to Europeans and Middle Easterners. As such, claiming a northern route origin for East Asians is obsolete and undue to WP:Weight as well as simply WP:OR. I have reverted these edits and included additional references and inline citations regarding this "controversy".

Below a inline citation from a 2021 (Osada & Kawai ) study which cited previous studies regarding the peopling of East Asia, and summarized this quite well:


 * "Via the southern route, ancestors of current Asian populations reached Southeast Asia and a part of Oceania around 70000–50000 years ago, probably through a coastal dispersal route (Bae et al., 2017). The oldest samples providing the genetic evidence of the northern migration route come from a high-coverage genome sequence of individuals excavated from the Yana RHS site in northeastern Siberia (Figure 2), which is about 31600 years old (Sikora et al., 2019). A wide range of artifacts, including bonecrafts of wooly rhinoceros and mammoths, were excavated at the site (Pitulko et al., 2004). The analysis of genome sequences showed that the samples were deeply diverged from most present-day East Asians and more closely related to present-day Europeans, suggesting that the population reached the area through a route different to the southern route. A 24000-year-old individual excavated near Lake Baikal (Figure 2), also known as the Mal’ta boy, and 17000-year-old individuals from the Afontova Gora II site (Afontova Gora 2 and 3) showed similar genetic features to the Yana individuals (Raghavan et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2016; Sikora et al., 2019). Interestingly, genetic data suggested that Yana individuals received a large amount of gene flow from the East Asian lineage (Sikora et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020)."

I hope this dispute is settled. Any further misleading or vandalizing edits will be reported.2001:4BC9:911:EE16:7145:5476:354C:9D9A (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The content and source of the overview you claim to write is more appropriate as one of several hypothesises in the paragraphs below. And you need to stop threatening to report it.
 * According to Da Di et al. (2015), "Recent genetic studies have suggested that the colonization of East Asia by modern humans was more complex than a single origin from the South, and that a genetic contribution via a Northern route was probably quite substantial." (Please look at the background in the research paper.)
 * If you want to deny this, you bring a paper that states "Only southern-origin model is the truth", more recent than 2015.--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is wrong and a violation of WP:Weight. There are tons of studies which already discussed this matter and concluded that modern Asian populations (such as East Asians) originated from a southern route dispersal. I have even included a inline citations which refuted the northern route model for East Asians, as the northern route was used by the ANE. Its even here on the talk page, above your comment (Osada & Kawai 2021). A paper from 2015, which was not well received by later papers has no place at the top, especially not when we have newer studies which dismiss the arguments. Also refer to WP:RS. Furthermore you again deleted sourced content which you did not explain at your edit summary. I will make an report for page protection if necessary. Personal views are prohibited in Wikipedia, see WP:POV.2001:4BC9:911:EE16:7145:5476:354C:9D9A (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean wow, you replaced the whole content with a sentence from a 2015 paper, without mentioning any more recent findings about this topic. Seriously. This is not a simple edit dispute, but balant vandalism, see WP:V, and misleading edit summaries!2001:4BC9:911:EE16:7145:5476:354C:9D9A (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now mentioned your cited paper per WP:Weight.2001:4BC9:911:EE16:7145:5476:354C:9D9A (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, ignoring what is written directly in the papers is never neutral. It is clear that there are three main hypotheses, and ignoring them and claiming only a single route is just your baseless argument. If you want to claim that, bring some research paper that states that the other two path hypotheses are dead. Please stop making claims based on your guesswork.--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are not reading the references and inline citations, or if you only want to push your personal agenda, which is a violation of WP:POV. The three models are mentioned, and it is explicitly explained which route contributed to which population. I have, here on this discussion, already included a inline citation, which explains this very good. The other studies also all are based on the southern route, as this is the mainstream model, based on genetic and archeologic evidence. According to WP:Weight minority views can be mentioned, but it must be clear what is the mainstream view. This is done. All three models are mentioned, but it is explained which is the main ancestral route for East Asians. As this article [Genetic history of East Asians] is, what surprise, about East Asians, not Siberian or Ancient North Eurasians. Other than if you are trying to say East Asians have substantial European-related (ANE) ancestry, which they apparently not have, your point of view is misleading. Your specific edits were not neutral, which is obvious and can be verified by everyone looking at the changes. I can only repeat that all models are mentioned, and presented according to Wikipedia policies, as explained before.2001:4BC9:924:6356:E52B:2951:FF6B:600C (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you claim, studies that support the 2011 and 2015 papers continue to emerge: 2021, 2020, 2020, 2021--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you using socks? If yes, why not refer to WP:SOC before WP:POV or WP:WEIGHT?--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In which universe do these papers you cited, support the 2011 paper about a northern route origin? The studies concluded that East Asians descended from the southern route dispersal and than East Asians splitted into an interior route northwards and an coastal route southwards and eastwards. See also Chuan-Chao Wangs papers from 2020 and 2021. Or McColl et al. 2018. They all pointed out that East Asians originated from a southern route, as did the studies which were already cited. So you do not only make unconstructive edits but also actively misinterpret and corrupt other references to support your personal point of view. And what is this sock accusation? If you refer to the changing IPs, this is because my IP address changes every time when I reconnect to the internet, it is a mobile address. We may request a third user opinion if necessary, but your arguments are invalid and a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of academic papers, which anyone can verify by simply reading them. Present inline citations which support a northern route origin for East Asians (and not an interior northwards migration, because that is part of the southern dispersal route). Explain why you ignore the ANE, which are the population which actually used the northern route into North Asia. And why you ignore the quotation from Osada and Kawai 2021?2001:4BC9:900:48C9:AD0A:75E7:4138:B9AA (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read the papers you cited here, an none, I repeat none, does support the northern route dispersal for East Asians, they not even mention the discussion about this topic. But at least one of the studies refers to the ANE (samplified by the Yana sample) which predated any East Asian-related group in northern Asia. The later Salkhit sample show ancestry of early East Asians and ANE (Yana), which further supports that East Asian-related ancestry arrived from further South. This is all well known and in accordance to the already cited studies. So I honestly ask what exactly you want here? A northern route for East Asians is obsolete, as the northern route was used by the Ancient North Eurasians, a West-Eurasian (aka deeply European-related population), which contributed ancestry to Paleo-Siberians and Native Americans between 30% to 40%. East Asians lack such ancestry component. If you refer to the differentiation between Northern East Asians and Southern East Asians, this has nothing to do with the northern route or southern route dispersal, as both lineages descended from a Basal-East Asian source population, which used the southern route. So your argumentation is not only a violation of WP:Weight and WP:POV but also balant WP:OR.2001:4BC9:900:48C9:AD0A:75E7:4138:B9AA (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I ping users with some knowledge about population genomics, and request a third user opinion. ,, . You may comment here.2001:4BC9:900:48C9:AD0A:75E7:4138:B9AA (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The user you pinged consider you as an LTA. Stop socking.--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he describes your actions and edits as well as the filing of the SPI as more harmful than the actual edits of the LTA. This page seems to have a history fully edited by socks, and you seem to show high affinity to another sock master (VeryGoodBoy or Koraskadi, who interacted with WorldCreaterFighter, so this explains why you know about this topic so good.) who similarly tried to push a northern origin and distinction from Southeast Asias, because of obvious racialist agendas. Probably a Northeast Asian supremacist. I will also initiate a SPI checking you, as you appear very suspicious.2001:4BC9:903:F17D:B1D6:102C:5B60:1D26 (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please request. I have nothing to hide. Meanwhile, come to think about WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, supremacist, etc., they're all about you. Looking at your behavior, everyone can notice that the LTA is here.--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and edited the section to present all theories and models, as well as shortening and simplifying the section. I agree with SsSsSs0909 that both the northern and southern route are reliable possibilities. The argument with Ancient North Eurasians does not change that, as they obviously used a different route into Siberia, probably from West to East, so not the "northern route" to East Asia.-213.162.81.129 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Page move discussion
Hi, sorry I don't agree with the page move. I believe it should remain as "Genetic History of East Asians". By moving the page to a broader name like "East Eurasians", it means the article needs to be re-written and be broadened so it speaks specifically about East Eurasian groups as a whole. Currently, the page is written in a way where it focuses on East Asian groups and then has a section at the end about other groups related to East Asians via East Eurasian connections. This is a dedicated page for the genetic history of East Asian groups and should remain like that. I think the "Relationship to other Asia-Pacific and Native American populations" section is great as its own section and compliments the rest of the article. However, the page move to "Genetic History of East Eurasians" is too much for the state of the article. Maybe, at this point, we need a separate page called "Genetic History of East Eurasians" and then we can transfer some of the information from this page to the new one and frame it in a way where it's specifically about East Eurasian populations. Saouirse (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have moved it back. User:Sausage Link of High Rule, please see Requested moves (especially WP:RM ) if you want to propose and discuss a page move and establish editor consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just about a wider and thus different scope. "Genetic history of East Asians" is the genetic history of something real: the population living in East Asia. "East Eurasian" however is a genetic ancestry; there are no "East Eurasians" unless you want to talk about the people living in the eastern part of Eurasia (that would roughly be East Asia and Siberia). Many genetic studies sloppily use "East Eurasians" to refer to populations with predominant East Eurasian ancestry (East and Southeast Asians, Papuans, Indigenous Australians, Pacific Islanders), but strictly speaking, there are no "East Eurasians" as a well-defined grouping (same holds for "West Eurasians"). East and West Eurasian ancestries have become interwoven in a complex history of admixture over a wide area since the Last Glacial Maximum. There are literally more than a billion people that harbor both East and West Eurasian ancestries in significant proportions (South + Central Asians, Siberians, Indigenous Americans; not to speak of people like me as a product of contemporary-age migrations ).
 * The ramifications of East (and West) Eurasian ancestry are IMHO best covered in an article about the genetic history of modern humans following the Out-of-Africa migration. The areally defined scope of this article is basically the best solution, in spite of its very messy present condition. –Austronesier (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is way too broad
This page is way to broad in defining East Asians, it doesn't even refer to genetics of East Asian people but multiple groups that are not even of East Asian ethnicity.Gemmaso (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article has been quite coatracked beyond its actual scope. But I don't agree with your concept of "East Asian ethnicity". East Asia is home to many distinct ethnic groups. Oddly enough, you keep the section about Turks, who are obviously not East Asians, but live in West Asia and Europe. I won't revert because this article is a trainwreck either way. But if someone else reverts, you should refrain from edit warring about it. –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gemmaso: If you want to remove ethnic groups from the article who you don't think are East Asian, please specify which groups those are and remove them individually. Your sweeping revert undid important changes to ethnic/regional groups that will presumably be kept in the article. It can't be difficult to just name who you want to remove and move on to the next group. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with just mentioning related groups in this article. Pacific Islanders probably aren't the first thing that come to mind when we think of East Eurasians but they're still closely related at least to Southeast Asians, so I think their inclusion in this article is justified since this article seems to talk about populations descended from the Eastern non-African proto-population in general. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not set up a "East Eurasian genetic" page. Since when did genetically East Eurasian mean East Asian people? The only thing in common with East Asian is they have some connection with East Eurasians. We also have many people who grouped Europeans, Middle easterners, North Africans, Caucasus, South Asians as one west eurasian group but we all know Europeans are a seperate group. Europeans are generally referred to as White people, because it specifically refers to people of European ancestry, so East Asians should refer only to East Asian people only.


 * I want to remove all of these people who are not East Asians. You can only say they are partly East Eurasian and even East Eurasian have many different components, there is actual East Asian, East Siberian component, sometimes just typically Southeast Asian, Amerindian, Ngannasan and many others (but ANE is controversial, is so high in the Native Americans is generally not treated as East Eurasian).
 * Australian Aborigines
 * Papuans
 * Native Americans
 * Polynesians
 * Central Asians
 * Ainu
 * Southeast Asians
 * South Asians
 * Siberians
 * Turkish? Yeah I think is quite obvious they are not East Asian, they are mixture of Central Asians and West Asian and we also don't consider Central Asians as East Asian.
 * EVEN BROADER: This page also did not include Uralic people, Samoyedic people, Finnic people who clearly have have more genetic relationships with Siberian/East Asians ( genetic, appearance) than Australian Aborigines, Turkish. But we also don't consider them as East Asian people, only this page does in a broad way.


 * East Asian people clearly means " East Asian people (East Asians) are the people from East Asia, which consists of China, Japan, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, and Taiwan. Is not that difficult to understand. Gemmaso (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually tried renaming this page to the "Genetic History of East Eurasians" in the past because in reality that's what this page is supposed to be based on its content.
 * Also "East Asian" is sometimes used in population genetics as a shorthand for East and Southeast Asians. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also Australian aborigines cluster a lot closer to East Asians compared to Turkish people on PCA charts. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just like Romani/Gypsies cluster a lot closer to Europeans on PCA charts but no one regard them as indigenous Europeans. People are aware their history have origins from a medieval South Asian migration and we can tell from their appearance. I always considered PCA charts unrealistic like in the case of Australian aborigines. Turkish people are migrants from Central Asia and have actual East Asian/Siberian DNA and culture to a certain degree. Australian Aborigines are migrants from Africa with no connection with Asian cultural roots. Gemmaso (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said Australian aborigines were East Asians, I said they were descended from the same Eastern non-African meta-population as East Asians.
 * And yes, I would in fact consider Romani/Gypsies to be West Eurasian-related. What's your point?
 * And come on, are you seriously going to claim Australian aborigines are of recent African ancestry because of how they LOOK? I'm sorry, but physical appearance alone is a terrible way to measure relationships between populations. It is universally agreed upon that populations outside of Africa are more closely related to each other than they are to populations in Africa. The similar appearance of Australian aborigines to Sub-Saharan Africans is due to convergent evolution, as the climate of Australia is rather similar to that of Sub-Saharan Africa.
 * You can't just say Australian aborigines aren't of Eastern-non-African just because they look African. That's preposterous. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I came back here to locate some information but noticed the entire article's name has changed from "East Asian" to "East Eurasians" again. I did not expect to see an argument over this article's content again because I thought we agreed not to change the name last year. So I am back here to discuss the name change again.
 * I agree with your suggestion to create a separate page for "East Eurasians". Please can we move all of the East Eurasian-related content to a new page titled "Genetic History of East Eurasia" or "Genetic History of East Eurasians"? That way we aren't going to erase a page meant specifically for the genetic history of populations native to East Asia. We can keep a little information in the overview section of this East Asian page about the trifurcation of East Eurasian populations and related groups but really go back to the fact that this page is specifically about East Asians and keep that as the focus.
 * I think over time the page (especially the introduction) has superseded East Asian genetic history to become an article about modern populations who descend from the Ancestral Asian/East Eurasian meta-population with Melinda A. Yang's review paper used as a basis for the layout of this article. It's either that or we move all of the East Asian genetic data to a new page for genetic history on East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Mongols).
 * The introduction is what has generated such confusion in my opinion. While it is very well written it really creates this idea that the page is about East Eurasian-descended populations and not solely about East Asians. However, when you read the article you can see that it mainly focuses on East Asians despite the name change "Genetic history of East Eurasians". If it is indeed about East Eurasians then why does it only speak about ESEA, what about the AASI, AA and Deep East Eurasian Tibetan lineages not to mention the extinct East Eurasian lineages of Europe (e.g. Bacho Kiro)?
 * We need two separate pages at this point, one specifically about East Eurasian-descended populations that explains all of the lineages of the East Eurasian meta-population and then the modern populations that descend from them (the current version of this page is a good starting point) and one specifically about East Asian genetics (the current version of this page with all of the information about East Asian ethnic groups is good enough to move to a new page). What do you all think? @Austronesier @Gemmaso @Sausage Link of High Rule Saouirse (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hunan201p Sorry I forgot to tag you too. Please read the above comment. Saouirse (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to give my 2¢, I broadly agree with the suggestion of Saouirse for a new article for the East-Eurasians meta-population and their respective descended lineages (I imagine a rather short/compact article). This article here about the genetic history of East Asians may be slightly overworked, but its main scope should be about Eastern Asian (or the ESEA lineage), not all East-Eurasians. Mentioning external links are no problem as currently done here; I disagree with Gemmaso's points, there is no distinct "East Asian", other than in a geographic sense, but in genetic topics "East Asian" is broader and includes a wider group, basically East, Southeast Asian and (Neo-) Siberian. There is enough literature about that, including references to "ESEA". Ethnic groups in East (and Southeast Asia) are largely made up of ESEA components, no such a thing as limited/distinctive "East Asian" as argued by Gemmaso. - I however caution that there are already some articles about the genetic history of X ethnic group. That should probably get merged with this article, so we would not be prone to redundancy and totally contradicting articles about the same topic. There should not be identical content about the same topic, splitting up different subtopics and linking them to overview articles should work just fine. @User:पाटलिपुत्र perhaps you are interested as well, you already have made great improvements to similar topics.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't what the sources say?
"Japanese populations in modern Japan are closely related to clusters found in North-Eastern Asia and are most similar to Koreans among other East Asian people.[60][61]" The first source states the Ryukans and Ainu are the same population in Japan and Kyushu Japanese bisect them? And the Second source thinks the same ancestor is 3,000 years ago-3,500 years ago, but both sources are more than 10 years old. The assertion about North Eastern Asian isn't found here... does the author have the sources?--KimYunmi (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The page has been edited multiple times throughout the past several months by numerous people so the citations might have been mixed up during the process.
 * I will retrieve sources that support these arguments and add them again. Kolossoni (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)