Talk:Genetic history of Europe/Archive 5

Relation between Europeans and other populations
but All of Modern Europeans and Modern Near Easterns have and share unusually high degree genetical European and Near Eastern homogeneity.

All of Modern Europeans and Modern Near Easterns have and share unusually high degree common genetical ancestral heritage.

(I think this sentences and sources added to Genetic history of Europe in topic Relation between Europeans and other populations or in a new topic because this sentences and sources is help to understanding to issue and wikipedia should to use of this sources information for improve to article and wikireaders learn better the this scientific issue and maybe this scientific informations contribute to prevent to racisim aganist near eastern populations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please show us which of these sources talks about a "unusually high degree homogeneity". I fail to read this in these sources (I only have taken a sample of four). And I don't see how such statements do not cater directly into the very hands of racialists/suprematists. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * there are similair explanations in source one and source two and this explanation is avaible in this article present (I think opposite about '('not'' cater directly into the very hands of racialists/suprematists) (statement) because if they know a not difference each other maybe they realize to racism is not scientific, not humanistic and not realistic opinion.


 * Source one says "relatively homogenous", source two says nothing about it. Source two only says that Assyrians are genetically closest to their neighbors, regardless of their linguistic affiliation. So it does not support in any way the text you have added. What about the remaining sources? How do they support your text? –Austronesier (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * source one says;"there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world" source two is not about only assyrian people and their languages about all near eastern My sources is based a lot of different sources if you look at these source you will see in reference part please read carefully all of these source and these sources' sources

if we have disagreement, we can talk and solve

we are civilized people

such as Balkan peoples (such as Phrygians and Macedonian Greeks) sentences I added to page and it is a my mistake which I wrote to sources and I would like to my mistake fix

and other information which I write is based a lot of sources including sources' source and if you read to carefully you will see these informations and if you have a different arguement and scientific research you share same topic thus People see the different scientific sources which have different opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, how does "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world" indicate an "unusually high degree of European and Near Eastern homogeneity"? Where is the "unusually high degree" supported?
 * Again, how can a study that focusses on Assyrians and its closest neighbors in the Near East serve as a source for a statement about "European and Near Eastern homogeneity"?
 * If your "flagship" sources already don't support the claim, what about the remaining sources. I have looked into a couple of them, but couldn't find any confirmation for the simplistic statement that you propose as "conclusion" here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe You should be read all of sources word by word all of them maybe you will success to see these information finally, I Hope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite to the contrary, all these sources either predominantly discuss the genetic history of Anatolia, and are thus not appropriate sources for such blanket statements, or they even contradict this claim, by characterizing the distribution of genetic features across Eurasia as clinal, without sharp barriers that would separate Europe + Near East from the rest of the world. In plain English: genetic studies do not support the concept of "Caucasoid", which is introduced through the backdoor by such a simplistic distortion of the results of genetic studies. –Austronesier (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In striking contrast, there was an "extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations [Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Druze, Saudi Arabians]

and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries (Turkey's neighboring countries are Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran, Cyprus)

The results of these scientific studies lead to the startling realization that Turks, Iranians, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, Lebanese are more closely related genetically to Assyrians than they are to other members of their own respective language families in Asia. These seven groups (and Jews) are genetically close

The differences between the populations were not statistically significant, demonstrating once again the close genetic relationship of Middle Eastern populations to each other. In fact, the Palestinians and Syrians were so close to the Jews in genetic characteristics that they "mapped within the central cluster of Jewish populations." As one of the Israeli scientists on the team said, "Eventually people will realize that they are not that different." Peace through Genetics?

Seven different Jewish groups from communities in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were compared to various non-Jewish populations from those areas. The results showed, first of all, that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.

The latter point is also made in studies of Jews. Based on earlier studies using classical genetic methods7, Cavalli-Sforza et al. came to the conclusion "that Jews have maintained considerable genetic similarity among themselves and with people from the Middle East, with whom they have common origins."

The PCoA clearly identifies four widely dispersed groupings corresponding to Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa (figs. ​(figs.1A,1A, ​,1B,1B, and ​and2).2). In these figures, PC1 appears to separate the Africans from the other populations, whereas PC2 divides the Asians from the Europeans and Africans and PC3 splits the Central Asians apart from the South Asians.

there is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continentwide sample only marginally more dispersed than single-population samples from elsewhere in the world. and their correletaions

I behave to respectful to wikipedia administration's decision but I would like to share information in my hand last time I don't would like to misunderstand, I love every people in the world, I don't care their origins.I admire and love plurality origins and cultures. I only would like to contribution in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You have added six quotes (from one source), all of which are very interesting, but do not support the statement "All of Modern Europeans and Modern Near Easterns have and share unusually high degree genetical European and Near Eastern homogeneity."
 * The 7th + 8th quote do not support the statement either. It is completely undersampled for that matter, with only 7 (!) non-European groups.
 * If you want to contribute to WP, please try to extract something meaningful from these sources about things which they actually say. –Austronesier (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you think about this stament
 * if a writter read and convince please added to article


 * Modern Europeans and Modern Middle Easterns share common genetical ancestral heritage.


 * That statement is irrelevant, since every human being shares heritage with every other human being. Also, please don't add too many sources, which makes it very difficult to verify a statement. In the warning I issued on your talk page, it says Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This includes the guidelines on primary and secondary sources, WP:PSTS. It also includes the Manual of Style. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree this statement (since every human being shares heritage with every other human being) My target is not to challenge this statement but I only working all wikipedia sources is benefited to writting to this article because There are a lot of source in wikipedia about the genetic history of europe and genetic history of other all of populations in different articles and the these sources are related each other I only would like to benefit to wikipedia community research to benefit to write to improve the article with the these different sources is in wikipedia archieve inculuding sources which I share. I don't have an any bad intent also I would like to say to care to behave more carefully about other issues which your say since right now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * and what do you think about source of avaible in wikipedia's archive topic of results and discussion part: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474783/


 * There are extensive reports of studies on and off of Wikipedia showing the commonalities between -- and the gradient between -- "Middle Eastern" and "European" populations (as well as other such gradients between adjacent regions...). What I find slightly weird here is discussion in terms of geopolitically defined "continents" that have no demonstrated genetic validity (do Finns or even Nenets really form a coherent group with Sicilians and Maltese that would somehow also exclude Turks and Lebanese who Sicilians are much closer to genetically with, among other examples, the high prevalence of G, J, E1b1b etc on the Y side? Of course not, that would be absurd, and it is equally absurd to assert that Yemenis form such a group with Turks that would exclude Sicilians). For most regions of Europe and the Middle East, with a few notable exceptions (i.e. the Caucasus -- Balanovsky 2009), all populations shade into each other and real sharp genetic boundaries are rare -- where they do exist it is because of recent events, like the expulsion of Germans from Poland as I believe was noted as early as 2001. "European" populations shade into Middle Eastern populations in the Eastern Mediterranean, this is notable, can grab sources for this but I bet they're probably already here. What is not notable or valid is any idea of a macro- ethnic group that includes all peoples that live in some large subset of Eurasia. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Selective Sweep vs Demic Diffusion
"The light skin pigmentation characteristic of modern Europeans is estimated to have spread across Europe in a "selective sweep" during the Mesolithic (19 to 11 ka)."

This is contradicted by prof. Johannes Krause, who states that the derived alleles became prominent after demic diffusion, the arrival of the Eary European Farmers at the start of the Neolithic (5500 BC in Italy), who carried SLC24A5. SLC45A2 arrived with the Russian Yamna and the start of the Bronze Age (about 2500-2300 BC). Source: CARTA: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution – Johannes Krause: Ancient European Population History. It is the near 100% prevalence of both today, which causes light skin pigmentation Europeans have today.

"The associated TYRP1 SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 alleles emerge around 19 ka, still during the LGM, most likely in the Caucasus.[47][48]"

This may be so, however the emergency of a gene on the one hand, and it's prevalence among a population are essentially 2 different dates. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede paragraph
The opening sentence of the entire article reads as if it is taken in medias res. What is it supposed to refer to? What is its antecedent? Why is it relevant right off? It sounds like something from a creative writing exercise, or a thought-piece. I suggest finding a better lead-in. Here's one definition of a lede:


 * the opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story.

Not quite sure if the existing sentence fits the def.

Dynasteria (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanks. Dynasteria (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for stimulating me to have a go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Name changes
The term "genetic history" strikes me as somewhat unusual. What about "Population genetics of Europe".

"Genetic History of X" is standard usage for articles concerning the population genetics of a particular human subgroup here on Wikipedia. 2601:603:4C7F:9A40:208C:2869:96CF:C82A (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Western Hunter Gatherer diet
Has enough study been done to determine if the WHG population across Europe had sufficient access to high vitamin D sources? It would seem obvious that the coastal peoples did but ISTR that there was an individual from the mountainous regions around Switzerland, from around the same period and DNA profile of Cheddar Man, who by inference might have had a harder time of it. The bones could tell the story, as with Kennewick Man whose diet was analyzed. Blueistrue (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Recently removed reliable content about historical migrations into Europe and Siberia geneflow
Recently an editor removed large parts of sourced content about historical migration events affecting parts of Europe and leaving high quality archaeogenetic samples, such as the Huns, Pannonian Avars, and historical Magyar/Hungarian conquerors. Furthermore, content about geneflow from East Asia/Siberia was removed without an constructive reason. These studies are relevant for the Genetic history of Europe, as this article is only useful if it shows the complete history of Europe, as such including minority linguistic groupings Uralic languages and Turkic languages, and not Indo-European languages. The specific improvements can be seen here:.

Specifically relevant for the history section:


 * European Huns and later Pannonian Avars, which migrated from the Inner Asian region and Mongolia, contributed specific East Asian lineages towards local European populations. A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in January 2020 examined the remains of twenty-six individuals buried at various elite Avar cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin (Hungary and Austria) dated to the 7th century AD. The mtDNA of these Avars belonged mostly to East Asian haplogroups, while the Y-DNA was exclusively of East Asian origin and "strikingly homogenous", belonging to haplogroups N-M231 and Q-M242. The evidence suggested that the Avar elite were largely patrilineal and endogamous for a period of around one century, and entered the Pannonian Basin through migrations from East Asia involving both men and women. examined the remains of three males from three separate 5th century Hunnic cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin. They were found to be carrying the paternal haplogroups Q1a2, R1b1a1b1a1a1 and R1a1a1b2a2. In modern Europe, Q1a2 is rare but has its highest frequency among the Székelys. All of the Hunnic males studied were determined to have had brown eyes and black or brown hair, and to have been of mixed European and East Asian ancestry. The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns.

(Reference links for the above content: )

Specifically relevant for the lead (as the lead must summarize the articles content and not exclusively talk about Indo-Europeans):


 * Geneflow from East Asian-related groups (samplified by North Siberian Nganasan people) towards Europe are associated with the arrival of Uralic languages during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age.


 * East Asian-related ancestry is found at low frequency among most Europeans, with maxima among Northeastern Europeans.


 * Ethnogenesis of the modern ethnic groups of Europe in the historical period is associated with numerous admixture events, primarily those associated with the Roman, Germanic, Norse, Slavic, Berber, Arab and Turkish expansion, including the earlier Turkic migration from Northeast Asia, as well as the arrival of Uralic-speakers from Siberia.

Relevant for the genetic section is this admixture component analysis, which is showing the various genetic ancestry components for Europeans:

Refer to the cited studies and references. These informations can not simply be removed, especially if they are relevant here. That would be against the basic principles of Wikipedia itself.2001:4BC9:923:2F:5471:DD29:A22C:9A9 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Howdy, could you please check and include the references and content explained above? You seem to be a good and neutral editor, so you may include this information or an rewritten form of it, if you have time. Have a nice day!-2001:4BC9:921:5E68:49C3:B287:2DC0:A46C (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)