Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 9

Please delete the mention to Afro-Asiatic language hypothesis as this theory is not widely accepted.
In the passage below

E1b1b and E1b1b1 are quite common amongst populations speaking an Afro-Asiatic language. According to at least some theories on the origins of this linguistic group, such as those advanced by Christopher Ehret, Afro-Asiatic and E1b1b1 may have dispersed amongst the same populations from the same point of origin, making E-M35 a useful tool for speculation into the origins of Afro-Asiatic (Ehret et al. (2004)[9]).

E haplogroup is rather connected to Niger-Kongo and Nilo-Saharan families,and the theory of Ehret is not widely accepted as the few common roots and similar grammar between Semitic and Kushitic languages are merely borrowings and spracbund that are due to different waves of J haplogroup middle-easterners migrations(which is obvious in the presence of J1 haplotype among Berbers,Egyptians,Ethiopian and Somalis whereas it's impossible to think that these J1 haplotypes are due to Berberistaion/Somalisation... of Arabs or Semites)to Africa but these African languages still have heavy African substratum and lexicon.

Have you questionned yourself why the called Afroasiatic words related to numbers,animals,relationship etc.. are so different whereas these basic words are always similar in the widely accepted language families such as Semitic,Turkic,IE,Finno-Ugric etc..?

You can read the text below http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/ive-been-having-a-rethink-about-afro-asiatic-origins/

I’m having a rethink about Afro Asiatic’s origin after having a good look at the reconstructed nouns.

Particularly those dealing with with animals. I had a brief look through the nouns for PAA, and quite striking was the number of words for goats and sheep. Also included were horses and camels. Since goats, horses and sheep and camels were not native to Holocene Africa prior to the neolithic, I’m reconsidering my support of an African origin for proto Afro Asiatic. Although, as has been kindly pointed out, the reconstructions are all pretty hazy for PAA, but still it’s suspicious.

Another factor making me reconsider is the dating suggested for the languages. The presence of goats and sheep (many and varied terms) also gives an oldest possible date to the last node (a languages TMRCA) for Cushitic, which is a pastoral language of sheep, goat and cattle herders. Since Cushitic is sub Saharan, very relevant is the oldest known date for the arrival of ovicaprines in the Sudan, which is about 5,500 years BP ( Esh Shaheinab, Sudan). This would suggest the proposed 10k date for proto Cushitic is off by about 45%- although this may just be it’s last node and the 10k date for it’s seperation may be correct.

Relevant to this is the R1b Y chromosome present in the Ouldeme and the Hausa, both Chadic speaking groups, one in Cameroon and one in the Sudan. The Hausa have R1b ( R-P25* (R1b1*) at about 41%, and Ouldeme at 95%. This is quite a bizarre find for groups in the middle of Africa, as R1b is typically European and West Asian. It would be a logical suggestion that the Ouldeme and Hausa are quite closely related paternally, and may point to an East to West route for Chadic speakers- suggested by Blench in the ‘The Westward wanderings of Cushitic Pastoralists’- although there have been suggestions the Hausa moved from West to east recently, which would make the R1b in Cameroon possibly from a north to south route across the Sahara.

This particular branch of R1b has been dated to an entry of about 4,000 years ago- but bearing in mind the older (2002) papers tend to seriously underestimate the date of the Y chromosomes – a pet peeve- the oldest entry date for it at 8,000 BP would be more reasonable, and a good match for the Neolithic sheep and goat pastoralists arriving in Africa from West Asia. It doesn’t do my older theory of M78/M1 being linked to the spread of Afro Asiatic any good though. Oh well.

The coalescence age of the African haplotype 117, which we estimated as 4,100 years (95% CI 2,400–8,060 years), could thus represent a date for such an expansion and a lower limit for the time of entry into Africa.

From this paper.

This all has some relevance to Ehrets dating of Proto Nilo Saharan (both families dated by glottochronology). He gives the same 15k date for Nilo Saharan as for proto Afro Asiatic.. so I’m thinking 10-9,000 bp for Nilo Saharan too. This also brings proto Northern Sudanic into the outer estimate for the Neolithic in Africa (7,000) although it’s unlikely as they have a dearth of terms for pastoralism and agriculture. His dates seem to vary from 35% to 45% off the possible, which may be due to the difference in geographical points of origin in proto Cushitic and Proto Sahelian, so I’m assuming proto Sahelian is a little more Northerly in origin than proto Cushitic and have adjusted the dates for it  for a ‘best fit’. Even if it does give a close date for age of separation fro the sub groups, Ehret never seems to take into account there may have been more recent nodes to account for the pastoralist terms.

This doesn’t really support Omotic as an afro Asiatic language, as it shows no proto words for pastoralism before it’s split. But it has been pointed out by several linguists that it has no more in common with Afro Asiatic than it does with it’s other neighbouring language groups, so it’s AA status is pretty suspect to start with.

Edit:

A little more DNA evidence has come out showing a pre Neolithic population movement into North and East Africa dating to 11-10k ago, involving J1 (Y) and H (mt DNA) which coincide with the IM/Capsian transition in North Africa. This could be the reason for the odd structure of the tree; Cushitic languages are the result of an earlier AA population expansion into East Africa from the near East. This expansion (as far as I can tell) seems to start about 13,500 BP from southern Turkey? I’ll need to dig into it a bit more. This cultural expansion may have been of a food ‘managing’ culture as opposed to food gathering or producing cultures, a proto Neolithic expansion wave of people that kept wild animals (a domestication step) and harvested and planted seeds from the wild. There are domesticated seeds from Syria at 12,500 BP so the people of the Turkey/near East area were definitely doing something along those lines at the right date.

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The present text of the Wikipedia article does not say that there is an accepted theory, but actually it could be changed to be a bit more assertive. See my review article about this subject here http://www.jogg.info/51/index.html. Several of the major genetics papers which considered E1b1b suggested a link to Afroasiatic, and my article goes on to show the arguments still look good when considered both in detail and from a multi-disciplinary perspective. The only person who ever questioned this proposal, an Australian archaeologist named Peter Bellwood, effectively really only said that genetic evidence is useless. He did not address any particular evidence as such. The theories you are mentioning come from a blog so you can't use them on Wikipedia. They are very casual and indecisive anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Coffman-Levy a fortune teller (in 2005)? PART 2
Despite my constant requests to try to avoid these discussion sections becoming too long to edit on all servers, User:Causteau has filled up a few more sections with very repetitive and long postings which quote themselves constantly and appear not to stick to the subject. He now demands an explanation about why I asked him to keep separate discussions in separate sections, so despite some concerns I have that this is a distraction, here it is.

Firstly let me reassure Causteau that I did not accuse him of moving any text on the talk page. I stated reasonably clearly, I thought, that I was going to move some text. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but on the other hand please let's not spend time writing about how outrageous it would be IF someone would do something they haven't done yet, such as when Causteau waxed poetic about how "diabolical" it was that I would "undoubtedly complain about [him moving text] to an administrator". I guess we can fill many talk pages with outrage about things that MIGHT happen.

Obviously there are currently two specific discussions about two specific sets of words on this Wikipedia article. Each has its own discussion sections.
 * One concerns the words "incorrectly described as African" which Causteau proposes need to be given special prominence in the article section about the origins of E1b1b. It was being discussed [here], but I see User:Causteau has just started discussion in two different sections instead.
 * The other concerns Causteau's change from "continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005" to "continues to pervade the public and media". This one is the subject in this section, which continues from [the similarly named previous version], although it should be noted that Causteau's last "reply" on that thread was not about this subject anymore.

I believe it is best that we keep these two discussions apart. I think anyone looking at the discussion will see that for this discussion to get anywhere Causteau needs to give clarity about his what his points are, so all of this confusion of different issues, including all the personal stuff, is not helpful.

So to now repeat the question outstanding for this section, what is the source for specifically putting in wording that means that the misinformation continued from 2005 to 2009? The source can not be a 2005 article, and it can not be a Wikipedia talkpage, so what is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A new talk page section. Ha! How did I know that was coming! Above, Andrew writes in the third person because, you see, he is no longer looking to resolve the issue with me (not that he ever was) but strictly trying to conceal the damaging text that preceded this one. He is also looking to revise the progression of the discussions that have already taken place, by rewriting a new and utterly fabricated version of what has transpired. For instance, here again is that post of mine where he claims that I "now demand[s] an explanation about why [he] asked [me] to keep separate discussions in separate sections, so despite some concerns I have that this is a distraction, here it is" as well where I apparently "waxed poetic about how "diabolical" it was that [he] would "undoubtedly complain about [him moving text] to an administrator"; see what a different picture it paints:


 * If the subject were as simple as you claim, then you wouldn't have had any difficulty actually understanding what Ellen's quote meant to begin with, would you? The truth is, it does not take you long to post responses because you are not answering what has been presented before and asked of you (as you still are not). It also does not hurt that more text means more visual confusion on the page, which thus makes it easier to obscure older arguments, as do the new talk page sections you keep starting. This, in turn, allows you to ask questions, post arguments, and make accusations that have already been thoroughly addressed and/or debunked as if they were being leveled for the very first time (which is then, at least in theory, supposed to frustrate the other debating party i.e. me). I know the drill, Andrew. Now quit stalling and answer the questions I put before you in my post above from 19:37, 23 June 2009:


 * When you "write that "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005", where in Ellen's study does it support the bold part? And where is that passage written in the past tense, as you have rewritten it to?


 * If your argument is that Ellen doesn't actually write what you've claimed she does in her study but only implies as much, where then in her study or talk page posts does she do this? Again, I wish you the best of luck with answering those points.


 * Oh, and before I forget, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by "this discussion", "a separate edit" and "this section" in your post above? You see, I'm no good with vague talk. Also, please produce a dif proving that I moved said things you claim I've moved (after having first clarified what you mean by them, of course). Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to bait me into moving whatever talk page section you are talking about back to where it originally was after you promised to move it ("I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject") -- something you would then undoubtedly complain about to an administrator. Diabolical.


 * See how he completely distorts things? Andrew claims to be big on context, but as can be seen above, he isn't very good at quoting within it.


 * He is right about one thing, though, and that is that there are two main issues involved here:


 * 1) The first issue involves his deliberate omission of the key term "incorrectly" in the phrase from Ellen Coffman-Levy's study that goes "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"".


 * 2) The second is his deliberate omission of the key term "often" from that same phrase, replacing it instead with a phrase and verbs that refer to the mistreatment of E3b by the public and the media that Ellen speaks of in the past tense.


 * Both issues have been thoroughly addressed and repeatedly in the sections above. For example, here is the first issue (i.e. the fact that Ellen made a point of indicating that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms) addressed using Ellen Coffman-Levy's own words from when she dropped by a couple of months back to shed light on this same issue:


 * "'But in a larger context, I [am] not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group 'African' because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b 'African,' we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole.'"


 * Note the bold phrase above. Andrew believes that his edit (cited in first blockquote above), which studiously avoids mentioning that it is incorrect to describe E3b as "African" according both Ellen Coffman-Levy's study and her talk page comments (including my analysis of her quote) -- somehow still captures the full meaning of what it is she is trying to say! Absurd!


 * Regarding the second issue, I already wrote in my post dated that:


 * Are you listening to yourself? You write that Ellen's "article is the source, not her personally", yet you have ironically been pushing for a time limit on her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" that the study itself never makes. Here is your edit:


 * "'In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) 'arose in East Africa', 'E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup', and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005.'"


 * Your additions above in bold are not cited in Ellen's study. If you think they are, prove it with a direct quote(s) from her study asserting as much. Didn't think so. I, by contrast, am quoting directly from the study itself -- that is my reliable source (what's yours again?)! Here is my edit:


 * "'In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) 'arose in East Africa', 'E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup', and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media.'"


 * And here is the statement in Ellen's study that it is sourced to:


 * "'Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.'"


 * As can clearly be seen and verified by anyone, my edit is directly drawn from the reliable source in question -- not your edit.


 * If your argument, then, is that Ellen is instead implying in her study that her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" only applies, as you've written, "at least until the time of writing in 2005", that too is clearly untrue since the author herself indicated in her own talk page posts from just a couple of months ago when she dropped by to shed light on the matter that the problem is still very much ongoing:


 * "'It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.'"


 * Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. If you don't think it still applies, then you are necessarily hoping against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. That, of course, is very doubtful, and certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words.


 * And there you have it. Either you are asserting that Ellen directly states in her study what you have attributed to her in this Wikipedia article (she doesn't) or you are implying that she does (she doesn't do that either, as just shown). Either way, your edit is based on neither the author nor her study, but strictly on yourself.


 * As can be seen above, the issue has already long been addressed. Andrew just didn't appreciate the answers (though, ironically, he never bothers providing any of his own, and certainly not in the way of textual evidence -- just idle talk). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I did not see any clear answers in these explanations before, why just repeat the same enormous and repetitive words over and over? Quoting yourself quoting yourself quoting yourself is aimed at what exactly? Achieving a consensus? Just explain your source for the period 2005-2009. What is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, you do lots of quoting of quoting of quoting, but you do not ever quote for example my latest proposal and state what is different about the meaning. You just point to how the words are different. So what about those differences? I can also complain that your words are different from mine. Where does that take us?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to change what Ellen said
Why whould you LIE about what someone said unless you have an agenda and are an extremist? Go ahead and debate me: all I have to say is you will not stop twisting what Ellen said. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recommend referring to other editors in that way. See WP:CIV. Causteau (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Causteau, but he nevertheless is reverting for you whether this is pre-planned or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Spare me the backhanded compliments. SOPHIAN isn't "reverting for [me]" any more than the user Yom -- someone whom you've just contacted for support in this content dispute -- is reverting for you. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither you nor Causteau have yet explained any way in which I have changed the meaning of Ellen's article. Causteau's main concerns over this long debate has been to try to stop others putting in information from the original article. As part of this effort, Causteau has in fact specifically argued that the crucial words he wants to keep in say exactly the same as words I want, i.e. that it does not imply that E1b1b did not originate in Africa.
 * How can there be a double argument that (a) Causteau's wording means the same as the counter proposals already, so no change is necessary and (b) the proposed changes will change the meaning? It is ridiculous. It is one or the other.
 * Rather than writing such rude accusations why not read what has been discussed and make your points clearly about the job at hand which is how to word a Wikipedia article? If your only source of opinion is Causteau then please cease to edit on that basis. Only edit when you have something to say yourself. Go and read the article and the discussions you have suddenly entered. In practice, your current editing appears to be "meat-puppetry". Please read the link and ensure that it is not in future?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your methods are so transparent Andrew, it's not even funny. First of all, you are not attempting to "put in information from the original article". You are, in fact, trying to add quite blatant original research to the article. This has been repeatedly demonstrated above by me (in my post from 05:16, 25 June 2009, for example). Secondly, I have not argued that the crucial words [I want] to keep in say exactly the same as words [you] want." I have shown you the importance of those key words (and therefore what is wrong with your edit in replacing them with your own words) by referring to Ellen's own comments (see my post from post from 19:37, 23 June 2009). Thirdly, my edit bears absolutely no resemblance to yours (the latter of which is presumably what the "counter proposals" you mention above refers to) nor have I indicated or would ever indicate it does. This is a content dispute, remember? We are on different poles on this issue, and only one of us is right (hint: it is not you). When you find the time to stop casting aspersions on other editors, do me a favor and quote from Ellen's study or her own words during her visit to this page the parts you think support your edit. Good luck with that. Causteau (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tell me, for the first time, which information I have removed or twisted or whatever in my proposed wording? I've asked many times but you refuse to explain your own position. My proposed quote makes it quite clear that Ellen thinks using the word "African" to categorize E1b1b is wrong, and in what particular sense she said it. I did this by adding direct quotations from her article. So what is the change in meaning I am creating? Please just answer. If you and SOPHIAN can not say how I am twisting the words, then please stop all this rude accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer screen, then, because I quite clearly did explain it (in post 13:23, 23 June 2009, for example). Of course, it's much easier to feign incomprehension when one has successfully obscured older text by continuously starting new topic sections. Again, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with what you've previously suggested. It has to do with two things that you are simultaneously omitting in not including said passage:


 * The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):


 * "'But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group 'African' because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b 'African,' we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole.'"


 * E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:


 * "'It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.'"


 * Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.


 * Here's where you start a new talk page section to obscure the earlier discussions, and then turn around and act like we haven't been through this song and dance before. Causteau (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No this section is still short enough. I don't see how you can say I've ever acted like this is not all repetition. It is indeed repetition, and I wish it were not. You keep quoting yourself in circles as your own source. I just followed through all the cites, after putting in a proper diff link, and it all just comes down to saying that the words I want removed were in the original article being cited. Why do you need such long and complex postings to say this? But anyway it is not relevant. Yes, this is a wording question, so define what change in MEANING you are concerned about in the proposals I have made. Get the text I wrote, and say which things it gives the wrong message about. That seems like the best way to stop this "song and dance" surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew I apologize for implying that you have a agenda and are an extremist ): sorry. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Once again welcome to Wikipedia. I hope we'll laugh about it one day, but we'll see. Please remember this is just a community. If you walk into a group of talking people and start making heavy accusations before you even know them, this can have complex and negative effects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, look who's talking. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman citation yet again
In the editing I just did of the Coffman-Levy citation I have gone through several steps and explained each change step by step. Please, everyone, take a few breaths and go through the editing history step by step. I have tried to find a wording which actually even keeps the critical words according to Causteau, but properly calls them a "sense" of what could be meant. Concerning the issue of contemporaneity I've taken on board the most sensible critique I could read of Causteau, and shortened the wording, just making it simple. The current version follows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I commend you for actually trying to resolve this thing for a change, your latest edits are still obviously unsatisfactory because you have for some inexplicable reason completely omitted mention of the fact that Coffman-Levy asserts that the "misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media." This is unacceptable and smacks of censorship. I have already demonstrated above that Ellen neither states nor implies that the mistreatment of E3b in the media & public is a thing of the past but quite the opposite actually, so I won't repeat myself here. I've re-added this crucial information to the article. If you object to this addition, you will have to explain how omitting it as you've done still somehow captures what Ellen says. And you'll have to do this not just with your own words, but with those of Ellen per WP:PROVEIT. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Inexplicable? That is a little disingenuous. As you know, my concern, and the concern of other editors, is that the wording you insert goes awkwardly out of its way to imply that the time being discussed is 2009, 4 years later than the article was written. No amount of citation of a 2005 article can be a source for this, ever, and in genetics it is absolutely impossible to think of 4 years as a short time - as you show that you know at least when you are arguing in favour of the latest literature concerning mitochondrial haplogroup M, proposing that it did not originate in Africa.


 * What I mean by saying that the words are fitted in awkwardly and not just as a "natural quote", is that if the words are not intended to imply this then they are simply un-necessary, and certainly not "crucial". "She thought X" and "She thought X at the time" mean the same thing unless there is a specific contrast between periods being made. The new version I've made implies no contrast either way as would be normal. Before you accuse me of always having wanted this, I'll say it myself. That is indeed how I always wanted it, and my addition of the "at least until 2005" was only because of your insistence of adding in words implying dates after 2005, which has always been disputed as wrong. It was an ugly compromise which should never have been necessary, and which you have yourself recently brought back into question when you removed the words accusing them of being unnecessary.


 * I believe the new version resolves all the problems you admit to having with the section. I understand that you might have other issues, in that your main aim is to de-emphasize any links between E1b1b and Africa, but the reason you don't argue openly about this anymore is because you know that mainstream science is absolutely clear and unanimous about those links.


 * Anyway, although we can not use it as a source you and I do know more, don't we? The first time we discussed this in 2008 the issue was settled in favour of that compromise when Ellen Coffman-Levy explained on these talk pages that "I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA" and that "It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews is no longer present". In other words she told us what she'd been writing about and she said it clearly it was over. Concerning whether there was still any other similar misinformation around in 2008 she was explicitly non-committal - although she did indeed say in general that "there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history" (who wouldn't agree?), concerning the subject of this Wikipedia article she said "perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b" and "I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups". So even putting the sourcing question aside, you and I as people do know that what you are trying to use Ellen's name to say, is not Ellen's position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The "concern of other editors"? Again, do have your eyes examined because it is just you pushing for this preposterously obvious stab at censorship. Your argument that "the wording you insert goes awkwardly out of its way to imply that the time being discussed is 2009, 4 years later than the article was written" is utter rubbish and was exposed as such a long time ago (post from 05:16, 25 June 2009). It's also highly ironic to hear you talk again about me wanting to "de-emphasize any links between E1b1b and Africa", since that is almost word-for-word the same charge you leveled at me months back when I had the audacity to interpret Ellen's quote for her -- only to have the author herself say that it perfectly captured what it is she was talking about! LOL Face it pal: you don't have a leg to stand on, just like you didn't last time. Your disgraceful selective quoting above of what Ellen writes is inexcusable, for she states in no uncertain terms that the mistreatment of E3b in the public and the media is ongoing -- that was her concluding sentence, for cryin' out loud! Here as proof I'll do what you unsurprisingly didn't, and that is quote in full her talk page comments:


 * "'To all, thank you for the warm welcome. Causteau, you have restated my argument quite eloquently. It is precisely what I was trying to convey.'"


 * "'I do not, however, have any objection at all to removing my statement about public and media bias.'"


 * "'When I wrote the article, there was an extremely strong bias against acknowledging the diversity and complexity of Jewish DNA results. There was instead a strong urge on the part of many researchers and lay geneticists to find primarily what I would describe as 'non-European' origins for all Jewish DNA results. In my opinion, that bias tended to corrupt the research in some cases.'"


 * "'I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA. I was disturbed by their so-called 'analysis' of Jewish autosomal results, which were never published or subject to peer review. One particular section on their website indicated 'African' ancestry for Jewish DNA. Another was 'Middle Eastern.' There was no mention of 'European' - that would have undermined what I suspected was their attempt to insure that Jewish ancestry was seen primarily as 'non-European' in origin. Although they provided an autosomal test for consumers, no autosomal studies were cited. Instead, the 'evidence' presented by AncestrybyDNA was exclusively based on Y chromosome results such as the E3b study from Semino. And because E3b was deemed an 'African' haplogroup, then it allegedly supported AncestrybyDNA's assertion that Jews were primarly 'African' (as well as 'Middle Eastern' and hence 'non-European') in their ancestry.'"


 * "'It was, of course, terribly biased and scientifically unsupportable, but they were able to use these ideas quite effectively to assert 'African' ancestry for Jews. Of course, they weren't alleging African ancestry for Europeans with significant E3b frequencies. Instead, they used selective labeling and emphasis.'"


 * "'This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies. It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged 'African' ancestry of Jews is no longer present.'"


 * "'It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.'"


 * As can be seen in the bold phrases above, Ellen is not just referring to AncestrybyDNA and the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews, as you have attempted to imply. She is talking about a much more widespread mistreatment, a bias which she only concedes is perhaps less widespread as more research is conducted & released (not nonexistent, as you have also attempted to imply). Despite this, she's quick to point out that although the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still much of said bias going on. That, I'm afraid, is not "non-comittal". In case you've forgotten, I also personally analyzed Ellen's quote and made it clear on that occasion that the mistreatment of E3b in the public and the media that she is talking about is current, and that it concerns E3b as a whole and not just in a Jewish context:


 * "'From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as 'African' in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as 'Jewish' or 'Semitic') simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its 'complex history'.'"


 * "'This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that 'concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago', which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is 'African' just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against.'"


 * Note that a) I described her as presently believing that "E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media", and that b) the distortions by the media regarding all of the E3b-related things I discuss above (i.e. its genetic diversity, origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade) are not subject to this imaginary "time limit" that you and only you have concocted and have in no way proven no longer exist. Quite the contrary, actually. Ellen described that analysis of mine above as "precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Given all that, I can't believe you'd have the gall to try and distort what she it is she actually wrote and then turn around and project that distortion onto me. That takes serious POV and/or gall. Causteau (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A load of nonsense and padded out nonsense at that. An article written in 2005 can not be a source for 2009.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel any better. Causteau (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing battle here is not encyclopedic
I have been asked by AL to mediate a dispute. In fact this is difficult. The current ongoing battle is ruining the main-page in terms of encyclopedic content. This page is probably 3 times longer than it should be given comparison with other Y-haplogroup pages and is not written so a highschool student would understand it, let alone interesting enough that they might read it. Some ways the article could be improved:
 * Subpopulation Frequency dropping in text - Put frequencies in table, no less than one table per continent.
 * References should be at the end of sentences after the period.
 * References should be in wiki style. (Not Journal of Cell Biology style)PB666 yap

In section:Other names,. . . "The current phylogenetic terminology 'E1b1b' and 'E1b1b1' was proposed by Karafet et al. (2008). This paper was intended to be an update of the 'Y Chromosome Consortium'(YCC (2002)). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - 'E3b' (E-M215) and 'E3b1' (E-M35) - which is still found widely especially in older literature."

This is not encyclopedic. The entire section is made of one or two sentence paragraphs. Each paragraph should be no more than one sentence, condensed and wikified, in a paragraphed. References should be at the end of sentences and avoid name dropping midsentence. Unless the author is an official or it is an official nomenclature commisions and that commision needs to have its own wikipage where it credentials are made clear.PB666 yap

In Origins: "Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004)[15], Cruciani et al. (2004)[16], (2006)[17], and (2007)[18], ..." The 11th grader who, for whatever reason just clicked on the section head has switched to the article about Britney Spears. This is not the way to write an encyclopedic article.

In ''Subclades of E1b1b1 (E-M35): "As mentioned above, nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35). Cruciani et al. (2004) found 2 out of 34 Ethiopian Amhara tested, to be M215 positive but M35 negative, and therefore in the paragroup 'E-M215*'. More recently, Cadenas et al. (2007) found one more E-M215* individual in Yemen, just across the Red Sea from the Amhara, out of 62 people tested there. [New paragraph] Turning to E-M35, the most current phylogeny of E1b1b1 includes the individuals with no known sub-clade mutations (who are therefore said to be in the 'ancestral state' referred to as E1b1b1* or E-M35*) plus seven known 'derived' branches, which are defined by the following SNPs: M78, M81, M123, M281, V6, P72, and M293, all of which are discussed below."

Yikes! Folks, think about the reader or the encyclopedia, first. If its this complicated make a picture, a star diagram. For situations were you have a subclad and a particular distribution, make a table. I can go on but I am not.PB666 yap

The conflict of Interest claim. WP:COI is clearly at play. Wikipedia is not a battleground not even for scientist. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted." Please see: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. To simply state this for my fellow scientist: if your edits are not for the improvement of the article as a wikified encyclopedic entry (See WP:MOS) designed for a highschool reading and interest level, then you may have a conflict of interest in what you are editing.

Recommendation: This article is grossly non-encyclopedic. Since deleting it would be a conflict of interest I recommend deleting section by section an moving each section to the talk page. The section should then be criticized on the talk page for content, rewritten, and agreed upon, then returned to the main page in its edited form.

Talkpage recommendation: Talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not for personal attacks and counterattacks. One can discriminate whether a discussion is personal attack or working toward improvements when there is a generally hostile critiques but no offers of compromises toward the improvement. Much of what is on this talk page can be refactored to the bit bucket. This talk page on this obscure Y-sub-sub-sub-haplogroup has 6 archives???!!!! Sheeeeesh.

And since I am supposed to disclose any COI I have: I am an ex-participant in the UseNet group sci.anthropology.paleo since almost its creation, I am the owner and chief moderator of the Yahoo DNAanthro - molecular anthropology newsgroup. I have watched many arguments concerning origins on the UseNet and many have appeared in various other groups.

I have seen my fair share of highly imaginative 'extrapolations' of origins based on the Y-chromosome. Its a shame people don't have the same interest in HLA as they have in Y-chromosome. I would point out that the tMRCA of mtDNA in the two most current papers is 192 kya and 194 ky+/-32kya (Gonder et al 2007), my own estimate based on several techniques is around 230kya. The TMRCA listed in the Y-chromosomal Adam is "37,000–49,000 years ago [7] to 51,000–411,000 years ago [8]". The most recent mtDNA article suggests an exodus from Africa 55 to 75kya when the archaeological evidence from India, china and the Levant suggest human spread from central or south central Africa to be well older than this.[e.g. the dating of liujiang (67-150 kya), the archaeological finds in eastern India dating to 80 kya and LM3 which parsimoniously dates to about 52 kya, the earliest dates for Skhul and Qahfez to 125 kya] Indeed the most recent paper on mtDNA which deals with the issue of selection in the coding region (although by my standard not sufficiently enough) suggests that not long after the SeqMRCA formed that the population within Africa grew significantly. In general, since Vigilante et al established the first TMRCA for mtDNA there has been a recognize understatement of TMRCAs based on a number of assumptions that have proven to be just that - assumptions. These assumptions have been applied across the board and recently came up with a highly erroneous guess of the age of two 'popular' autosomal genes, FoxP2 and MC1R. As a consequence the spread from Africa of Y-chromosome is problematic and inconsistent with two independent sets of facts.


 * 1) Either the molecular clock of Y is incorrect or subject to change of unknown cause.
 * 2) Or there is a global pattern social/sexual selection that has been acting for long periods of time.

In either case the datings and the importance of Y-derived migrations needs to be questioned in terms of its relevance to molecular anthropology. Despite the rather critical weaknesses of Y chromosome as settlement or migration markers, in its capability to coordinate with archaeological evidence (i.e. that Roman british migration could have been the Neolithic migration that occurred 5100BC), ...... numerous instances on the Internet by some 'not-so-fact-based'-groups are made ascerting Y chromosomes to various historic and prehistoric migrations. The few papers that I have read on the issue of effective male population sizes suggest a male to female effective population size of 1:2. In the studies recent enough to compare HLA haplotypes, mtDNA, and Y this has been shown to be roughly true. Past this mixing ratio, Y chromosome often undergoes rapid differential selection and within 100s of years can shift frequencies rapidly as a consequence of the popularity of a name or a paternal (ruling) line.

Why am I presenting this? Because the level of information in this article is disproportionately large relative to its certainty in dating and relevance to overall population genetics in humans. This is a guide to which information can be trimmed down by willing editors with some confidence, particularly primary literature which draws an opinion that is not likely to be correct or more importantly (coming from the moderator and long term observer of molecular anthropology - their confidence is overstated, confidence interval is undersized, and conclusions do not account for all possibilities). Be conservative, if there is doubt about a conclusion, present the results, hold the conclusion. I have no better advice to offer on the subject than this, it is my opinion that if all editors agree to re-examine the literature and assume that these confidence intervals are larger than stated, and hold back or remove statements that, from a more distant perspective, could have many interpretations, then this battleground atmosphere can be resolved into a cooperative atmosphere. This allows the editors to create a shorter and more pleasantly read article. This is an encyclopedia, please the interest and reader not the ego.PB666 yap 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First an answer to your general point, without going through all the detail. I think you raise a good general point even if I end up disagreeing with some details (I realize Y haplogroups are not your big interest BTW), but the problems you point to arises from the same editing disputes which led to the deletion of a reference that you were called to look at. Every wording must be agreed after long debate, and normally this means long sentences, too many details added in etc. Have a look at recent editing disputes as examples. The source of the problem is known to those who've ever tried editing here. E1b1b gets to much attention from editors who are worried that Afro-centrists, or Euro-centrists will be having too much influence on the wording, and therefore we get a lot of pre-emptive "compensation". Again, have a look at some recent debates. Past experience shows me that these debates are actually quite simple that even a little bit of occasional help from outside editors has been very helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew, first off, I did not say anyone had a conflict of interest, in a discussion that needs mediation I will let the admins do that. What I said is that the tone of the article is in COI with the goals of wikipedia, the COI that exists on the main is clearly the composite construction of multiple contributors, has placed the reader at a disadvantage. The point I am making is that the article is not placed first. You probably don't want me as an editor, because when I see what appears to me to be opinion, even opinion from the primary literature I am inclined to delete it, particularly in an article this size. Building concensus is a key word here. Elicit the cooperation of your fellow editors in protecting the page by getting agreement with those editors first what should be on that page. In the page edits I have been in when two priniciple editors of a section become entangled, rather than having an edit war on the main page, the section can be discussed and edited on the talk page, so that these things can be hammered out. I have done major edits on some featured articles, and that edit environment is as tough as one can get.PB666 yap
 * The second issue you brought concerned splits. I have no problem with splits, if they logically uncomplicate material, and I hold to a deviant wiki-philosphophy of inevitability, IOW with the growth of the encyclopedia and links to a group whatever that contains whateverites, that if the interest of whatever increases then inevitably the whateverites will have their own page. However, first we need to test the hypothesis. To do this I look at hits. Your traffic (outside of editwars) is [ http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) 120 hits/day] on this article, therefore it might justify spliting off the largest subgroup and observing traffic in that new split.


 * The third issue is how much resolution is needed. I have created many HLA pages on wikipedia, I decided to start with the serotype level because there are 1000s of HLA alleles of certain types, >100 for example of HLA-B15. Within the allele group there are serotypes B-62, ....B-76. These can be individually presented if there is enough relevance. Within each allele say B*1501 there can be suballeles such as B*150101, 150102 etc. Ask yourself the basic question. What relevance does it have that invites it into wikipedia, is there a population relevance or is it just a rare allele, is their a functional relevance (for XXXX0N in HLA these are generally synonomous or non-coding mutations). Finally what is the distribution, does it offer anything beyond there 'were 10 cases found in a village in Zimbabwe'. There are lots of villages around the world, we cannot possibly disclose all the deviant genetic markers from every village in the entire world. Is there a way to condense this information? To the right is an example of one HLA allele B*8101, it was one of the rarest I felt comfortable presenting, compared to some of the Y statistics however, is it so rare?


 * Great points you raise there! I'm glad to see that another editor (and a knowledgeable one at that) understands at least some of my concerns for having cited potential COI issues. Causteau (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way concerning a very specific point, I do believe that with all Y haplogroups, there is a natural evolution whereby they eventually need to be split up as details become more known.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section

 * Here is the first section that needs to be rewritten, completely.PB666 yap 14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "==Other names, and history of the classification=="
 * The current phylogenetic terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed by . This paper was intended to be an update of the "Y Chromosome Consortium". The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" (E-M215) and "E3b1" (E-M35) - which is still found widely especially in older literature.    It was also the 2002 consortium which proposed guidelines on the mutation nomenclature, "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names have increasingly been used since then because they avoid the confusion which comes from the increasingly frequent discoveries of new SNP mutations - for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

Prior to, both E1b1b and E1b1b1, not yet distinguished at that time, had been referred to as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21) within 's nomenclature, or as Eu4 according to 's classification. They were also within 's "Group III", and in terms of "p49/TaqI" tests, E-M35 came within Haplotype V. (It should be generally be kept in mind that some older haplogroup testing methods could not distinguish between related clades in a way perfectly consistent with more recent findings.)  Other older names are referred to in the YCC 2002 report in the referenced articles, but are less common in the literature.


 * All very well but please say why? You've just deleted a section. Great but why? These old names for E1b1b are extremely important. For example they still appear all over Wikipedia. Frankly if autosomal DNA is your standard you are not going to get any feeling for the enormous public interest and confusion about Y haplogroups. As soon as you deleted this section what happened? Look at the new edits putting the old nomenclature in piecemeal. How is that good? This section you just deleted was created to resolve edit wars because of exactly the type of edits using old nomenclature which have already now started to reappear. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is deleted true, but not because it does not belong on the page, because its entire construction is unencyclopedic. It needs to be rendered 'wikipedia' in its tone, in the grammatical construction. This is not a negative thing but a positive thing, as in how to improve the page by improving section at a time. Here is the first step.


 * "E1b1b and E1b1b1 are the current accepted names by the Y Chromosome Consortium. The nomenclature E3b (E-M215) and E3b1 (E-M35), respectively[?] is used to designate the same haplogroups within the older literature. Prior to 2004 both haplogroups were referred to collectively as Haplogroup 21 (HG21) or Eu4. Prior to this the two haplgroups tested as 'Group III' with 'p49/TaqI' and E1b1b1 was identified within HaplotypeV."


 * Note you'll need to build the page for the Ycc. BTW if you are not already using this tool, this tool makes referencing easy for wiki and also adds identifyer tags, all you need is a pubmed ID or similar ID tag.Wikipedia template filling


 * I'm not sure I follow yet. Are your proposing to reinsert a section, just with clearer wording? Seems a bit harsh to fully delete before we have a new version ready? Even though I certainly agree that the language and construction of this article are tortured, I've explained the reason why. So I'm happy to work with someone to try to redevelop sections, but frankly if you are going to just delete and then walk away I think editing here is going to be a nightmare.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic sentence structure is better, but going through it a bit more closely I'd propose:


 * "'==Current and previous names=="
 * "E1b1b and E1b1b1 are the currently accepted names found in the proposals of the Y Chromosome Consortium(YCC). The nomenclature E3b (E-M215) and E3b1 (E-M35) respectively were the YCC defined names used to designate the same haplogroups in older literature with E-M35 branching as a separate subclade of E-M215 in 2004. Prior to 2002 these haplogroups were not designated in a consistent way, and nor was their relationship to other related clades within haplogroup E and haplogroup DE."


 * In the spirit of trying to simplify I've left out discussion of pre-2002 nomenclature, because it requires a lot of discussion. The clades being named were not even understood in the same way by all the different authors previously. This is sumarized however in the 2002 YCC paper which is cited. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have exchanged your reference for a more suitable style. I thought it over after I rewrote the first bit, and questioned why we are mentioning a PCR kit when we are not describing that kit, so that removing it is a good idea. Yes, it is easier to read, now come up with a simplified title and place it back on the main page and move onto the next section.

E1b1b?
The article is almost exclusively devoted to the discussion of the E1b1b1 subclade and descendant clades. Why is nothing on E1b1b presented in this article, does it represent the state of the literature? Is there a branch diagram available that can be used as a guide to all the E1b1b1 variants.PB666 yap 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the paraclade E1b1b1*? In fact every individual ever tested is mentioned. Amharan and Yemeni only and very few seen so far.

Here is how I think the phylogeny should be displayed.PB666 yap


 * At first sight this looks like a handy picture either for this article of for the E haplogroup article or both. There was once a debate whereby Causteau objected to too much concerning parent and sibling clades of E1b1b in the E1b1b article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions
In the article E1b1b is described as having arisen in or near the Horn of Africa. However the sources cited use different naming conventions. None of these scholars use the term "Horn of Africa". Though parsimony indicates that E1b1b most likely did emerge in Ethiopia because M215 with ancestral M35 was found in ethiopia. It should be noted that E1b1b is a sibling of E1b1a and thus have a direct common ancestor E1b, E1b1a dispersed from West Africa. So where this common ancestor lived may have important implications for the origins of E1b1b. It could be that E1b1a also originated in East Africa but spread west accross the Sahel. Another complication is that E1b1a seems to have swamped all pre-existing lineages with the Bantu Expansion. Blench speculates for instance that Cushitic speakers may have had a much more southerly distribution prior to the Bantu Expansion.
 * Cruciani et al 2004 mention "Sub-Saharan Africa" and "East Africa".
 * Cruciani 2007 refer to East Africa
 * Underhill et al refer to Sub-Saharan Africa
 * Semino et al refer to East Africa


 * The area Cruciani et al. define as East Africa is the Horn of Africa plus Kenya. This is clear from reading the articles, and looking at which countries they include in which of their designations. The reason for homing in on the Horn of Africa has been the need in Wikipedia to use standardized geographical terms, something which a researcher breaking up their data does not need to do. (You might want to look up the WP references to the debate on Gdansk or Danzig.) This is important when we deal with the Cruciani et al. articles, for example their northeastern Africa is pretty much by their own definition. I suppose that what you are saying should be taken seriously because our current wording ignores Kenya in the implied meaning of Cruciani et al. Here is the Wikipedia article on East Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa. It is not too far off from what Cruciani et al. us, and so I guess I see no problem with replacing Horn of Africa with East Africa or eastern Africa. I guess it depends upon how close it is to "original research" to say that Cruciani et al's argument seems to apply mostly to their Ethiopian data only.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Origins and Coffman
The section on the origins is dominated by a large paragraph devoted to quotes by Ellen Levy Coffman. However she is a family lawyer, should her quotes be given such prominence. This has been previously discussed here Talk:Khazars Xavier Bolton (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with being a family lawyer? I think the more important question is whether the passage is clear, relevant, mainstream etc. I am not a strong defender of the presence of this passage, but it is true that there have been issues with the way haplogroups such as E1b1b have led to strange ethnic generalizations, and although her article is very specific about the Jewish experience in this, to me it does seem to be part of what people might want to know about E1b1b.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think its great to be a family lawyer, must be a lucrative job. However being a family lawyer isn't the same as being a geneticist. Because of this, her personal opinion should not be considered reliable or as reliable as a qualified geneticist. If her statement is referring to a scientific observation that has been published, its okay to user her as a source, but if it is her own personal opinion then it is unreliable. According to WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". The article is published by Journal of Genetic Genealogy, JOGG, however JOGG may have different standards than the most scientific publishers. In any case, it should be made clear the Levy Coffman is not an "Expert" herself in genetics. Xavier Bolton (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The JOGG seems to be widely accepted as a reasonable source. It's specialization is obviously not cutting edge lab techniques but rather more about genetic genealogy, which is of course exactly what the cited passage is about. The JOGG certainly is not a form of self publication. See their webpage. Have a look at some of their volumes . I have a conflict of interests issue in commenting on this because this is where my review article was also published. Also, I have been corresponding with Ellen Coffman-Levy quite a lot over the years (since long before I did anything on Wikipedia I think). I consider her to be a very experienced and respected genetic genealogist. (Specifically in her case this means she has a lot of experience interacting between scientists and Jewish genealogists, which is exactly the expertise called for in this case.) I am also a genetic genealogist by the way. This is not a paid profession of course, but so what? Being paid for something can cause bias in itself and has nothing to do with being a reliable source. I think you can take my comments seriously just based on the logic and ethics on this case:- I have not been one of the people fighting to keep this passage in, but I think that trying to make VAGUE accusations about someone or somethings reputation only because you want them out of an article (this is the latest in a long line of arguments) is not good practice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of dates and confidence
Just to extend one thought AL made on his talk page. There are aspects, probably many on the X-chromosome that have undergone no significant recombination in the last 2.5 million years. PDHA1 is one example. These particular sites paint a much more complex picture of human evolution than do Y, in fact I did a comparison between expected fixation times versus observed fixation times in 22 X-linked loci and they pretty much agreed with a fixation time of about 500ky, of course made the assumption the constriction that caused fixation in many of these loci ended about 150+kya. That has to be contrasted to the Y-chromosome which has only a ploidy of 3 fold lower than X and its fixation time occurs after the putative constriction and is one 10th the age, even if we assume effective ploidy of 1.66 (X) vs. .33 (Y) that is a ratio of 5, still 2 fold lower and occurring after the constriction ended when the population was larger. I would discuss median population sizes versus ages but the fact is that the last fixation event for a given haplotype makes further backward analysis impossible. . . . Y-chromosome may be haploid and the picture may be simple, but the unfortunately it lives in its own self-explained genetic universe.

"E1b1b (E-M215) and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) are believed to have first appeared in or near the Horn of Africa[18] about 22,400 years ago."

Without a confidence range this cannot be accurate past the first decimal place. In fact I would say greater than 20,000 years ago and leave it at that.

Here is another one (again I don't know who wrote these)

"The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".

The second episode has a credible confidence (at 1SD equalling their range) but the first 17.3-23.9 is less than the calibration error, it would not even consider random factors associated with the sequences evolution, not withstanding the issue of that pertain to Y descrepancies. The other thing is what do we care what the authors 'believe', what does their data suggest are the limits of the argument what can a consensus generate. This is why wiki likes reviews as sources of information, it is supposed to be up to a reviewer to digests beliefs, look at results and formulate a structure that meshes various sorts of information together into something better. If there are papers that handle confidence carefully then we can probably include those dates, but if their tightly unrealistic, I would say these are two much opinion and too little objectivity.PB666 yap 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with all of this. Approximate dates are normally better than confidence intervals, because then they are obviously approximate, which however an accurate rendition of what most authors intend. Cruciani et al. are actually quite careful on this, giving many remarks about the contingencies involved, and even showing alternative calculations. When in correspondence I tend to say things like E-M35 is approximately 20,000 or more years old, and E-M78 is between 10,000 and 20,000 years old. Once we get within 10,000 years some clade look more accurate to date because they appear to result from a simple "star shaped" network. Remember by the way that very few age estimates for Y chromosomes are done with polymorphisms. I think this is something we'll see more of soon though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to prune down the beliefs about date to those that have been reviewed in the article?PB666 yap 12:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which article? Perhaps it would be easier if you note which dates have caught your eye, and then we can consider them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

the referencing system
Continuing thanks to User:Pdeitiker for his efforts here. I hope won't mind my ignorant question about the subject of changing the referencing system.

Most haplogroup articles I've worked on or looked at have a horrible mixture of referencing styles which makes it very difficult to edit them without loosing the references, or doubling them up several times. Most, unlike E1b1b, are full of broken links, and incompletely referenced end-notes. Often editors don't have time, and hope someone will fix it all up later.

Therefore some time ago I started using Harvard style references (e.g. Lancaster (2009)) in E1b1b. There is a template for this on Wikipedia which I find works really well in conjunction with a nice neat bibliography. So I built that up.

Frankly (call this a COI if you want to) I now sometimes come to the E1b1b article in order to get my references right when working on other articles. This is the only one where you can find the references quickly and easily.

What I understand now is that the Harvard style is not seen as appropriate. I wanted to make sure I understand if that is really the case, because changing all the references over is going to be a massive job, and I believe it is at least arguable that (a) it is not easier to read in the sense that lots of footnotes scare people just as much as abbreviations like "et al."; (b) I fear that on-going editing is going to get messier.

If we are changing all referencing I suppose it means eventually moving every item in the present bibliography (reflist) up to a ref footnote somewhere where it is will become the basis of a ref name= footnote? And then we all hope no one ever deletes that particular footnote? And every time we recite an article we'll have to remember the right name (e.g. "cruciani2004" or "Cruciani2004" or "Crucianietal04").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful. I think the wiki standard is to use the [#]. It is particularly handy in medical/science articles because of the Pubmed linking style and the autoreference generator that I mentioned. In addition we also have the ability to create footnotes. This does not preclude the other references since they can be placed in a section called additional reading in which, for example a book or review, has a broader context than a few sentences of text mentioned in the article.
 * I am not going to eliminate any references already given to point, and if you want to be careful place all you harvard references on one of your subpages. The disadvantage of the current referencing system in the article is that one has to hunt though a 90kb size article and have the whole article loaded at once to follow references. If one uses the autorefname generator in the ref generator even if a full reference is given a second time it will not be duplicated e.g. refname generator from PMID, PMCID, URLs

The disadvantage of this generator is it does not capture URLs if they are available outside of pubmed. PB666 yap 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support Andrew on this. Seems to me that PB666 is being far too prescriptive (particularly in his opening "ongoing battle" comment), both as regards referencing style, and as regards prose style, in ways that go far beyond the specifics that are actually in the style guide.


 * Templates for Harvard referencing are made available so that they can be used. It may not be the most popular referencing style on Wikipedia, but nor is it deprecated.


 * It is especially useful in articles like this one, where there is a considerable volume technical literature being cited, and where additionally the subject matter has recently been moving very fast, so that it makes a real difference to know whether a reference is a 2008 paper or a 2004 paper. This in addition to the practical points Andrew makes above.


 * Finally, certainly it is very important to make articles accessible, but it is also sought to make them comprehensive. WP is not just pitched at highschool student level.  The aim is to be a ready source for whatever information people are looking to find, at whatever level.  Yes, adopt a pyramid approach if necessary, and present only the most broad-brush outlines first and up-front; but that doesn't mean eliminate nuance and complexity and history from the article, if they are a relevant part of the story that needs to be told.  Jheald (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the best summary of my thoughts on this is "doubt". I did not intend to take a strong position. But the thing is that if we start flipping over, we should do it the right way. I mentioned all the work I did but that is not the point. A bigger concern is my concern about a future article that might be hard to keep well referenced. I am into low maintenance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the intro, would it not be easier to just cite Semino 2004 and Cruciani 2004 at the end of the list of regions? I believe they cover all of these areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to unclutter the page and make it more user friendly, the page was difficult for even myself to read, if there where only a few references of this type it would not be bad, but one is stumbling over them. In regards to the critique, that statement would be true, however, if it were not for the fact this article badly needs to be simplified. Many of the references are not needed, for example there is no need to discuss J1 lineages in Ashkenazi Jews in the lead paragraph. Alot of information borders on trivia and makes the article unreadable.


 * Here is an clear example of unneccesarily cluttering up the page, this is the figure legend for the Africa distribution of M35 . ..
 * The ancient dispersals of the major E1b1b1 (E-M35) lineages. The map seeks to show the standard theory based upon the most recent articles: Cruciani et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2007), Henn et al. (2008) and Hassan et al. (2008).
 * Replace with:
 * A proposed dispersal pattern for E-M35.[1][2][3][4]
 * PB666 yap 03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to use this thread to discuss just the formatting of references. It is a very specific question where a choice needs to be made. Concerning simplifying sentences as a general issue that can never really be a bad thing. But are footnotes simplifications in any straightforward way? I am not sure everyone would agree and I am not sure this is a matter of Wikipedia policy in any simple way.
 * Concerning the specific sentence you mention, it is not complex English that you are removing. So this is more about removing explanation which you think might not be necessary. I don't like the word "proposed" because it makes it unclear that this is simply the consensus as based on the latest articles. It is not OR, for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki make no preference in the referencing system, however having written a great many articles on wiki, the Pubmed based reference generation system provides major advantage or hand generation of references.
 * A condensed foot note, if you so desire you can use the name which appears at the bottom of the screen when you mouse over it.
 * The ability to use endnotes to separate information such as worded text.
 * A much more condensed format in the text, and references at the end of the sentence, not scattered about.
 * Much more compatible for use in infoboxes, figure legends and tables.(An area which we are going to delve into pretty soon as this page has major problems with meaningful descriptions of tables and figures).
 * Attenuating name dropping. This is a major problem in this article, 'Such and such says . . . ' If you look at Harris and Hey and then Hey and Harris they say almost the opposite thing in subsequent years. Paabo says Neandertals contributed to human population in mostly out of Africa scenario, now he is saying no evidence of Neandertal contribution. These are examples where authors have changed their mind. Even the last publication may not reflect the authors view, he might say something at the next seminar that contradicts what he says in his last paper which is at odds with his last review. This article has more name dropping than any other article I have seen in wikipedia. This also goes back to the issue of confidence, there are so many opinions out there one cannot possibly reflect every opinion, yes I understand one has to rely on the cited literature, but given the huge problems in confidence that have not be resolved, error should be made on the side of less opinion, and more about ranges, less about who said what when and more about the various opinions establishing a range.PB666 yap 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very important statements need to be quoted in text, less important statements can be resolved in notes and this can be a good thing, it helps to clean trivia and tangential material out of the main body of text.


 * If you are for simplifying, then start simplifying, lol. I can bow backwards out of this, I have many articles I need to create. Here are the major problems with the article:
 * Rambling disscussions. Start with "origins", right of the bat we talk about the horn of africa and wandering around in the highlands. Much of africa is above 3000 foot elevation. So what. Just delete this unreferenced speculation, thats it, they may leave a nasty note on your page, if you need support leave a note on my page. There is little discussion of how we got from E mentioned in the Lead to E1b1b. I provided an image to work from. Even an intermediate ancestral clade is not wikilinked.
 * The map of Africa, what do all those arrows mean, it looks like a bowl of spagetti to me, is that figure explained adequately, could it be simplified. V12/V13/V65, are those defined anywhere in the text previous to that map, I made a graphic and place it in the nomenclature section, but if you are going to have a map as such you need more graphics in from of the map, otherwise that map needs to be simplified.
 * Those tables with tandem repeats (which BTW still are not that useful in clocking anything), someone tell me that an 8th grade high school student is going to figure this out by the material on the table. Wikipedia gives folks the ability to create legends on tables. If you need to know how I can show you.
 * Cluttered text (referencing style, unsimplified information, intermixing of trivial or tangential facts with facts pertinent to the E1b1b clade.
 * I would actually like to see more tables where the population frequencies are listed for specific genetic types. I may be spoiled because 10 million people have been HLA typed, but that has the most meaning to me, I have no idea what those density lines on those maps mean. Could be 10% or 0.1% depending on what the author wants to emphasize.


 * Given that this article already has a very long list of pre-made citations, what is the advantage? The one you generated so far just doubled up a reference which already existed? (I deleted it and connected to the one that was already made.) Trying to learn here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've added a lot to your original comment since I posted the reply making it look a little lost. Still the basic point about those pmid refs, if I may try to focus in on something: do average wikipedians know how to use these or are we going to get dozens of slightly different versions of references to the same article. Yes, this articles references can be simplified, because a small number of articles are very crtical. But then wikipedians who drop need to know how to reference to citations that already exist. The subject matter does not have big changes of mind yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As an example please see footnotes 11-15. All the refs here already existed, so this series doubles up and splits the referencing. A hybrid system where different parts of the article work different ways is a poor system.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone, Context Provision, Clarity, Topicworthiness
[begin referencing - building a better article] Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.

Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the metalanguage, are appropriate.

Evaluating context

Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context:

* Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? (Special:Random) * Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about? * Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around? * Would a reader want to follow some of the links?

State the obvious

State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:

Stay on topic

The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them. [End referencing building a better article]

Many things in this article can be directly deleted, there is alot of Jargon, individuals switch from using M35 to E1b1b1 and the like, you've got figures with labels that are not explained. The article does not take a basic up approach, instead it takes a top down approach. Wikipedia can present complex topics, but they have to be explained in a way that someone following the leads can figure these things out. If the links do not explain the background then that is a priority for presentation in the article first. What I have noticed is that the combatives here are more interested in getting their point across than actually making the article understandable, and we are now having an argument about references. There are references scattered all about the article, but in terms of clarity, they don't add a bit. Before you guys get into your next big dispute read WP:TONE and the other and see if the article manages to meet the basic criteria.PB666 yap 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong. The article definitely has a lot of wordiness issues and growths of various sorts. Citations was a very specific issue because it is a choice of system.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest accusation
'''I need to ask for more input from other editors because an accusation has been made. I want my freedom to edit defined, and not to have to defend myself repeatedly in case this builds up further as have other distractions.'''

I am surprised to see a new indirect attack building up from Causteau, against me personally, and specifically my neutrality. As part of his latest campaign I am now being accused of being a non-neutral editor with a conflict of interest. I think, looking at WP:COI (the reference Causteau pointed me to) that it is best to raise this here.

1. Reference to my review article was deleted at the same time as Causteau made his latest revert on the controversial Coffman-Levy citation which Causteau wants to put in to the section on E1b1b's origins.

The edit comment said, referring to both elements in the edit at once "restored author's assertion that problem is ongoing; rm editor's addition of his own article per WP:COI".

Of course many editors of articles on these subjects see Casteau's specific wording as a veiled attempt to twist some snippets of text from an article about Jewish DNA in order to say that there is scientific doubt about the African origins of E1b1b. If this is not what he intends, then the reasons for including such awkward wording with supposedly the same meaning are mysterious and Causteau can only explain it in terms of defending the original author's words from supposed censorship.

I mentioned that once more because the article reference Causteau has deleted is from the same journal as the Coffman-Levy article, but specifically about E1b1b, not just an article that mentions it as a side subject. It is one of only a few articles which exists which is so specifically about E1b1b, and it is by far the most detailed and most recent. Seems to me it should be referenced here?

If I can't I guess another editor will eventually. And why make such a big point when Causteau might be an author but we just don't know because he posts anonymously?

'''So, should the article be references or not? Was this deletion of a reference justified?'''

2. Causteau has reported in the same context to an admin's talkpage as follows, in reaction to a discussion about SOPHIAN's edits which have been helping Causteau to edit without editing:

So, am I not neutral because I am E1b1b, and don't hide it? As a secondary consideration I'd like to point out that even more in this case, this accusation would not be possible if I were an anonymous editor like Causteau.

3. The third thread of accusation was posted as a follow up on the same admin talk page...

By the way, I am not British and I also do not say Causteau claimed this would make me non-neutral. Don't ask me to explain why on earth he mentioned a British card though.

'''But am I non neutral because I have a well known interest in this subject? For example because I participate in online discussions about it, or because I help run a wiki?'''

I call for comments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not at all why I reverted your edit. I quite clearly explained my reason for removing your own addition of your own paper to this article as follows:


 * "'rm editor's addition of his own article per WP:COI'"


 * I'm not surprised, though, that you should try and make more of it then it is & yet again selectively cite passages from previous completely unrelated conversations we've had out of context and without allowing readers the benefit of seeing for themselves the full extent of those discussions in question. That includes the whole Coffman-Levy issue, which readers can always read up on above and minus your predictable attempt at retelling it without the benefit of actual facts on your side. I also noticed you've spammed a legion of other users' talk pages soliciting comments rather than simply going to the conflict of interest board as an administrator that you already contacted recommended you do (viz. "if a question of COI has arisen, it is best asked at the COI noticeboard. Try to do so concisely and unemotionally"). Again, that whole image of a mountain & a molehill comes to mind. Causteau (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So this is all just a concern for dotting the "i"s? Then it is easily fixed and neither deletion nor citing me for COI would seem very appropriate. Causteau, as a fellow editor on this article, you could vouch for the reference and put it in yourself. Then law and order would be maintained. So then, do you think the reference is not an appropriate one for any reason apart from the fact the I inserted it? Sorry, but if you start making a series of strong accusations that imply that I should not be allowed to edit, then you should have a real reason, no? Please decide if your were serious or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew, I think you know how I generally feel about your paper since I already congratulated you on getting it published. I have no problems if someone else cites your paper, only if you do. Imagine if I were to one day include an article of my own that perhaps contained one or two seriously debatable and/or questionable points (if I recall, for example, you reference Martin Bernal of Black Athena fame for certain parts of it), and then later cite from it myself, you would naturally object, wouldn't you? Well, that's obviously the sort of thing I was guarding against. Now if another editor sees fit to cite your study, then that's obviously not a problem since it is, after all, still a reliable source. So it's not so much a question of citing it that makes it a COI issue, but who is doing the citing: one is kosher, the other is potentially self-serving. That's all. Causteau (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So now I've re-added the paper as a sign of good faith. But hopefully, its presence among the references won't be abused as described above. Causteau (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Andrew is non-neutral at all on this subject. I've been impressed in his general ability to appease both sides (those who try to de-Africanize the origin of E1b1b vs. those who over-emphasize its origin) and maintain an accurate article. This is, after all, an individual who has written a rather substantial dissertation on E1b1b published by a peer-reviewed journal. Really, the passage in question from the Coffman-Levy study is peripheral to study of E1b1b in general. Its presence in the article isn't really required; there are much better sources that explain just how E1b1b dispersed and became so widely distributed, rather than just saying E1b1b isn't "African" because it has a distribution outside of that continent (which is how the quote has been twisted and reinterpreted to mean). That would be as silly as saying mtDNA macrohaplogroup M isn't South Asian for not being restricted to the peninsula. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the COI issue has been already been resolved. And it wasn't so much over being non-neutral, but potentially being non-neutral. While your arguments against the inclusion of the Coffman-Levy quote altogether are also well-taken, I'm afraid the veteran editor Hxseek (in addition to myself and the previous editors before him as expressed above) does not share your view. If you'll scroll above, you'll see that the author of the study from which the quote in question was drawn has already affirmed with her own words during her visit to this talk page some months back the importance of the passage in its present context, and the fact that it actually has not at all been misrepresented in the study but rather well presented. The entire issue has already been argued from quite literally every possible angle, and the scope of what Ellen means is much greater than what you've described above. Causteau (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't find the review a COI, reviews are preferred over primary literature in many regards and this review is loaded with useful information. I would advise AL in the future, when you draft critics give us a better heads up. I finally found your review, the reference was not attached to the text that it was referring from, so I finally did a search for you name in the lengthy citation list. This is another instance were standard wiki-referencing (i.e. footnotes at the end of passages) is helpful.

Everyone please make an effort to wikify this article before inserting controversies that make the article more difficult to understand.PB666 yap 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yom, if I understand correctly, Causteau has now accepted, based on HXseek's summary, that the implication of present tense can be adjusted. What I had also very recently got him to accept was including the words "in the sense of" which I think helps the meaning a lot, because Ell Coffman-Levy certainly only intended to make her remark in a very specific sense and context. The bigger question of whether the paragraph is too periphery and should just be removed is one I also have doubts about, but I guess I am 50:50. One thing I have certainly learnt is that E1b1b is a haplogroup that gets debated a lot, and very poorly, in public contexts where haplogroups are not normally discussed. This is of course because of the whole emotional issue which the word Africa seems to raise (on two sides) and therefore to the extent that the paragraph is giving a neutral indication to readers about this unusual characteristic of this haplogroup, I guess it is worthwhile information. She writes in the context of Jewish ethnicity, but the same goes for example for internet comments one sees amongst Arabic genetic genealogists and people in the Balkans. On the other hand see below where the whole article is being criticized for being too detailed. Your thoughts on what I have just written would be very welcome to me!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

........

I have been asked to comment on this discussion and edit-war. All I can say is that:


 * 1) Lancaster's paper is an excellent review inclusive of all significative viewpoints and, without knowing him from anything at all (I'm glad to discover he's actively collaborating in Wikipedia), I had already made a favorable review of his paper at my blog when it was published. So I clearly think the paper is worth a reference, that's beyond doubt.
 * 2) That E1b1b and its main subclade E1b1b1 are of NE African origin (somewhere in the Nile basin from Egypt to Ethiopia), and possibly related to the expansion of Afroasiatic languages, is absolutely mainstream today and therefore, according to WP:NPOV, this position should recieve preferential treatment over alternative hypothesis.
 * 3) That, in my not-so-humble opinion, the rejection of an African origin for this lineage is always subjective and favored by a fear of anti-African racism or even at times by such racism itself. I cannot document this claim but it's painfully self-evident.

Regards, --Sugaar (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Source
My source is I do not mind saying east africa other then the fact that east africa contains areas as far south as Mozambique and Zimbabwe places where no one says E3B began. Sincerely De The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out, and I just checked again, Semino et al. (2004) does not mention the Horn of Africa. Also, none of the potential sources make any sort of definition which excludes Tanzania and Mozambique, so who says that these authors did not think these were possible places of origin? Please double check and confirm. None of us want edit wars. Let's work together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is another example, because of the rate of displacement of Y chromosome as a consequence of migrations, it is not possible by genetic methods to place. Even if one cannot find examples to the south or west, this does not mean it did not originate in those places and later displaced. Consider the confidence of the conclusion. One could say east of the White Nile.PB666 yap


 * All we can do is cite the literature. East of the White Nile would not define the same area as is consistently defined in the literature. It implies a different area.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ALthough true their appears to be a contradiction between East Africa and Horn of Africa, since East Africa is less likely to be incorrect then you should use East Africa.PB666 yap 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been moving, or allowing the move, to "East Africa". Causteau seems to be doing the same. SOPHIAN has some sort of issue with it but he is explaining it in the language of reverts so far. It seems to be a simple sourcing issue. The sources are relatively clear and although we might guess about the meaning, that's not what Wikipedia is about. A review might be a good source for educated interpretations of a bundle of articles, but I'm avoiding citing my own review.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The studies indicate E1b1b originated in East Africa, but they really mean the Horn of Africa. We know this because of the criteria they lay out. For instance, Cruciani et al. (2004) write that:


 * "'Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup.''"


 * With the discovery of the M293 mutation in southern African chromosomes formerly labeled E3b*, it would appear that E-M215* has only really so far been found in Ethiopia and Yemen. And if we look at the sheer diversity and frequency of the E1b1b sub-clades in the Horn, it is obvious that that is the region Cruciani was referring to above, not to Kenya, Tanzania, etc. -- areas where E1b1b's presence exists at a much lower frequency & diversity, and is attributed to individuals or groups that migrated down from the Horn (which is indeed consistent with both historical & linguistic records). Causteau (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments are not unreasonable, but Cruciani does not seem to say this. You need a different source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. I'm not proposing we put the Horn of Africa as the place of origin for E1b1b. All I'm saying is that this is what Cruciani, Semino and all of the other researchers that refer to "Eastern Africa" or "East Africa" in their studies as the clade's place of origin really mean. Semino, for instance, indicates that Ethiopia has the highest frequency of E-P2*, while several linguists have proposed a link between the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum and E1b1b. The forgoing obviously also rules out the areas of eastern Africa south of the Horn. My comment was just trying to clarify this one point, especially since you seemed serious when you proposed that researchers could've actually been referring to Mozambique of all places (I sincerely doubt that). Causteau (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have doubts about that too, but it would not be a shock if they might have Kenya in mind. Anyway, your comments are reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. However, you're forgetting one thing about Kenya, and that is that the Borana are, in fact, not originally from the area. They migrated down from Ethiopia in the sixteenth century or thereabouts. The Borana are actually just a very large sub-group of the Oromo Cushitic speakers. Many Borana in the Kenya area also aren't actually ethnically Oromo, but simply former subjects that have adopted the Oromo language (Oromos have very intricate clan systems, with certain clans having descended from foreign groups). Actually, just about all of northern Kenya is inhabited by Cushitic speakers (some ethnic, some not), not unlike neighboring Ethiopia. And this is the part of Kenya where E1b1b exists in high frequencies, not below it. By the way, I don't know if you've noticed or anything, but the Borana sample that Cruciani et al. (2004) used which reported a very high frequency of over 80% actually only numbers seven individuals. That makes for very doubtful extrapolation. It also runs counter to other studies, which report a significantly lower frequency of the clade in this particular population. Causteau (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but see Sanchez et al. Anyway, I think your remarks are fine but it is common for language groups to expand over related families. You probably know more than me about this but I think Somali and Borana represent a relatively new expansion in the greater scheme of things in these region, and after the expansion of E-M35. Concerning what languages were in and around this area before, I think it is "clear that it is unclear"? Of course there does seem to be a sharp "cline" in genotypic populations in Northern Kenya, Uganda, Southern Sudan, to the South of Lake Chad etc, but could this all be post-Bantu expansion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, seeing as how you wrote a decent review article on the subject, I think you already know plenty as it is. I'm looking at the Sanchez et al. study you're presumably referring to, but I don't see any frequencies for the Borana cited there. Was this the study you were referring to or another one? Causteau (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I could be wrong about Sanchez having more data. I just have it in my mind that there was more data somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * wow, OK, guys let me reiterate the point, its not about arguing ad-nauseum a point where there is relatively good agreement, it is about cleaning up synthesis and original research on the main-page. I would do it myself but I think you 2 (or 3) need to sit down, go over the rules of wikipedia and decide what is clearly referencable and clearly parsimonious, and what is speculative. I understand that PMRCAs and TMRCAs are not factoids but derivations of facts, given that stick to what is least likely to be wrong. While the horn of africa may be more probable than the western Sahel or the southern part of east Africa, certainly one does not need perfect overlay of probabilities, after all this is an encyclopedia. The time for the debate here is over, its time to clean up the main. BTW, if I start cutting, just remember, I think the literature itself is highly speculative, I'm of the Bandelt camp of molecular anthropologists myself so . . . . .PB666 yap 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW good job on moving some of the material to the notes section.  Underhill (2002) believes that the structure and regional pattern of E-M35 sub-clades potentially give "reagents with which to infer specific episodes of population histories associated with the Neolithic agricultural expansion". Concerning European E-M35 within this scheme, Underhill and Kivisild (2007) have remarked that E1b1b seems to represent a late-Pleistocene migration from North Africa to Europe over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. OK, so the oldest known cultivars (not domesticants but cultivars) were from Anatolia c.12,000 years ago, while there is no solid Mesolithic/Neolithic boundary it would appear that the Neolithic occurs sometime after this before 9,600 years ago. The problem is that the date mentioned is 22,500 years ago, that is some 12,000 years before the neolithic begins. The second issue is that the african Neolithic, particularly in the Sahel region is characterized by dotted wavy line and wavy line pottery, and cattle industries to about 10,000 years ago, climate change of the period was severe and communities were not stable, such as those seen in the Levant and Anatolia. Core aspects of neolithization is increasing sedentary lifestyles pastoral or agrarian existence, primarily agrarian lifestyles with hunting wild game during the earliest neolithic. There is nothing even closely neolithic in 'the horn of africa' that would explain its spread 22,000 years ago and there is nothing convincingly neolithic from 22,000 years ago. The plants that were domesticated triggering the middle eastern neolithic 1st Rye, 2nd Quadraploid wheat - Sanduri wheat to the south and Emmers (Poulard wheat) to the north are both indigeonous to the levant, the only cultivar of the early neolithic that was used in Africa (Egypt) was barley. IOW how can this statement be credible? In addition people of the same age in the Levant were already using Triticeae extensively. The Neolithic spreads many genes from east to west in Europe, this is no secret, what brings E1b1b1 out of africa "22600" to "Neolithic" timeframe into the middle east whereby it can spread. What other evidence is there for a second migration from Africa?PB666 yap 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the timeline is
 * 23,000-17,000 E-M215/M35 emerges in East Africa
 * 17,000-12000 E-M215/M35 migrates to Egypt
 * 12,000 and afterwards E-M215/M35 migrates to the Near East.
 * E1b1b may be associated with the Proto-Neolithic peoples of the Natufian culture. This is supported by Brace et al, who state in The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
 * Interesting since you mention a second migration, there is a recent study by Reich et al 2009 which states,
 * Interesting since you mention a second migration, there is a recent study by Reich et al 2009 which states,


 * Couple of points here, CL Brace, believes(d) that Neanderthals were specifically human and has even proposed that aspects migrated to the New World. Brace has said (multiple times) in response of a comment I made that the he did not believe in a recent African origin for humans (c.1998). Having said that I do have evidence from the HLA for at least two recent migrations from Africa (unpublished however) one that occured between 25 and 40 kya that appeared to have reached Japan by 16 kya. The alleles and haplotypes brought are not found in many areas either to the northwest or southeast. Another wave more recent was probably from the Neolithic appears to have traveled from the Sudan region into the lower Indus directly and appeared to have originated in Western Africa (It is pre-bantu in origin however and represents a sahel culture more-so than Bantu). It carried the A33-B58-DR3-DQ2.5 and a number of similar recombinants. Since we can rule out the later, the former (25 to 40 kya), and again if one is using cultural landmarks, the first had to have been in the transbiakal by 18,300 years. The technological migration appears contemporary to pottery invention, the appears of soluterean/clovis like stone blades and knives, and precedes the mesolithic (microblades and composite blades).PB666 yap
 * In addition, there was trans-Mediterranean geneflow before the Neolithic begins, there is marked evidence in the eastern Mediterranean of material flows as sea levels were rising. The situation in Italy is more complex because of post neolithic factors have made archaeology in most regions difficult. However even in Italy there is evidence of regional trade. In Sardinian, about 35% of HLA are inferred as of more recent African origin, and Iberia has a large compliment of African alleles. The HLA from peoples living along the Black and Aegean seas indicates the arrival of rare alleles that are found at very low frequencies elsewhere in Eurasia but are found at high frequencies in sub-Saharan Africa (this stirred up a rather great controversy). The most notable type of recent African origins in Europe is the A1-B8-DR3-DQ2.5 AH8.1 haplotype, which is nodal in the western Irish. This haplotype is made of components that have been only identified in West Africa, it may have come about because of a reverse wave from Iberia, however, the DR3-DQ2 component is modal in West Africa where A1-B8 is also found and recombination of DR3-DQ2 is more evident there than elsewhere. The A29-Cw16-B44-DR7-DQ2 is clearly from west Africa and is nodal along the 0th meridian. The problem here is references and timing. For example the Cw16 is at very low frequency in the middle east and tends to be *1602 (indicating an origin elsewhere in Africa). Here is the point, lots of evidence of migration from Africa more recent than the first wave (65 to 130 kya), but actually good genetic studies to support this (other than Y) are not so good. If for instance AH8.1 recombined from African parts, it had to be at least 20kya. If A29-B44 came from west africa, probably >8000 years ago.PB666 yap 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)




 * Agreed, HLA supports this, the problem is that certain haplotypes that are found in west Africa are all but absent in the Levant, the small level that exist can be explained by back migrations of Turkic peoples. I spent a great deal of effort trying to trace these Haplotypes and the closest migratory point that could be assigned in Asia is the western flank of the Indus river in Pakistan.
 * From Indus river northward into the Turkic republics and then eastward into Mongolia and China and finally reaching Korea after 2000 ybp. (None of these haplotypes are found in Japan, Yayoi extended from 3000 BC to 400 AD), How does one separate this from the more East African influences that occurred well before this migration? That is the problems. The bantu expansion began 3000 years ago, not >9600 years ago, BTW PB666 yap
 * With regard to the techno-genetic migration that reaches the Far East before 12 kya, this particular migration carried specific alleles and haplotypes all the way to the new world that are nodal exactly where some of the E1b1b1a2, this haplotype Cw4-B35 is found almost a magnitude higher in the Balkans than in Ireland, and most of the Cw4-B35 haplotypes in the Irish can be traced back recently to other parts of Europe. Cw4-B35 is closely related to Cw4-B53 which is abundant in super-Equitorial Africa. Cw4-B35 is very common in the middle east, the Mediterranean and North Africa have a large number of B35 variants that are found from India to Iberia but diversity and abundance drops markedly SE of India. It is interesting that some years ago I found a link between haplotypes found in SE to Central Europe and this I think explained the rise of Jomon culture, however as more genetic evidence came in a trail that was clouded (no evidence in Middle East) it became clear that the some of these haplotypes likely originated from africa by separate migrations out of Africa. This appears to be the case for certain turko-mongolian haplotypes. In other instances it appears that there were migrations across Asia involving protoTibetians and Yakuts that eventually reached Europe. This is a clean example where the original genetic evidence points one direction, but with better data we see that two peoples can be linked by complex history where direct genetic exchange may only be a minor factor.
 * There is also the A26 alleles in Japan, Japan has a high frequency of HLA-A26 and great diversity, but this appears to be due to a founder affect, whereas A26 is not found along the west pacific rim in frequencies great enough, and it would appear that Eurasian origin is from the SE Black Sea area, A25 appears to be a derivative of A26 and is notable across Europe and few other places. The most likely local origin of A26 given abundance and diversity is North Africa. There are other alleles and haplotypes. The other allele is A69, HLA-A68 and A69 are variants of A28 serotype. A69 is a major variant of A68, and likely originated in North Africa, however currently the node is in the Levant. This A68 haplotype has spread into Europe from the east and from NW africa, but isolated populations frequently have low A68 and its presence in SE Asia is all but absent. Its presense in Ireland is low. It is surprising that HLA-A69 would have such a high frequency in the middle east but Cw*1601 would have such a low presence, this and a number of other indicators suggest muliple complex waves from African into different areas of Europe and Eurasia at different times. To be fair, I would assert that the 'NE Africa' to Levant migration could have occurred anywhere between 18.5 kya to 60 kya and still explain the observations with HLA. The archaeology is problematic because it now begins to try to arrange its facts to be parsimonious with wide chronological framework. The archaeological interpretations (from a science history perspective) have often been wrong to being the almost exact opposite of current understanding. What I would find credible given an improved clock of genomic mtDNAs is an eventual separation of certain migrations from the base migration >65 kya. This means that second migrations may be very old, and residual evidence may tend to be local in Eurasia and confused with more recent migration. Secondarily, the X-linked DNA seriously needs to be re-examined as a migration tracker, because it is slightly less bias than mtDNA and much less biased than Y in factoring in migrations or settlement tendencies.PB666 yap


 * It is not yet clear whether the E1b1b who entered Europe were hunter gatherers or farmers, However there proliferation in the Near East and subsequently in Europe could mean they possessed some technology of some sort. Harvey Gustav (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From the HLA point of view, you got bigger problems than that. From my point of view the population history of Africa is great, and the social evolution was a major driver of technological evolution prior to post-iceage period. The technological innovations likely drove african Y chromosome from Africa on numerous occasions, and at least by the Neolithic these start becoming difficult to track because of sea-faring activity in the Mediteranean and Indian oceans. Y chromosome evidence will tend to dominate the migration evidence, but mtDNA, for instance as a marker of slave trade, may appear to dominate later. The picture is very complex.

PB666 yap 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, HLA genes are involved in the immune system and are thus under strong selection. Whenever human population migrate to a new habitat, HLA related genes will be among the fastest to evolve. Specifically since, prior to the advent of modern medicine, humans were almost exclusively at the mercy of their immune system when it came to fighting disease. Thus selection forces would need to be considered when tracking historical migrations based on HLA. The case often cited is that of Native Americans who have recent common ancestry with Eurasians (13kya). When Europeans brought smallpox and other Eurasian diseases to the New World, the Native American populations were drastically reduced due disease epidemics because they had no resistance to Eurasian diseases. Harvey Gustav (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That explains why AH8.1 which is negatively selective in wheat eating cultures is still the most abundant haplotype in Europe. HLA tends to preserve diversity as opposed to Y chromosome which tends to fix more rapidly than any other neutral DNA. For example. Read Parham and Ohta, Science 1996. In africa positive selection is almost a non-issue, africa has the greatest HLA diversity of any continent, and as a matter of fact, in the exit regions we are talking about long-distance haplotypes (A-B, B-DR) tend to exist at frequencies a magnitude lower than Europe. HLA is under selection, Y chromosome is under greater patri-linear cultural selection. If selection is an argument to be used here, all the discussion under origins is effectively useless. Aside from that there is no corrobating evidence for a cultural wave that carried Y out of africa in any given time frame.
 * The section on Origins is biased, it brings in the issue of Jewish ancestry which a tangential aspects, but it does not discuss models of spread from Africa into Middle East or Europe, or the fact that other loci present complex models of migration from Africa into Europe, in effect one is presenting one side of the story _and_ then shifting the discussion to a topic that has no business being in origins. In addition the section does not discuss at all (other than the figure I provided) evolution from haplogroup E to E1b1b, which really is the most important item that should be discussed.PB666 yap 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Coffman quote is not specifically about Jewish ancestry, but about E1b1b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger clade. Its pertinence has also already been discussed to death and agreed upon. In addition, the models of the spread of E1b1b sub-clades from Africa into the Middle East and Europe have already been very well presented in the article; the Origins section just focuses on E-M215 & E-M35 for obvious reasons. Unlike what the sockpuppet (Harvey Gustav) of the blocked user Wapondaponda has attempted to present above, it is specifically E-M78 that spread from North Africa to the Near East, not other sub-clades of E1b1b. The evolution of haplogroup E to E1b1b is also more appropriate for the haplogroup E article, where it is indeed already discussed. It's the evolution from PN2 to E-M215 that is perhaps more relevant, and that too is already covered in the notes section. Causteau (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a paper that reinforces what I have been saying. What is said above is about right and makes sense. From the HLA perspective specific haplotypes can be traced to points in the East, in Anatolia, in Greece, in the middle east, but there is also contribution from North Africa in Italy, NW africa in Iberia and western Europe, in Sardinia from N or NE Africa. The basic argument that all instances of a haplotype must have come from a Levantine or Semitic population is wishful thinking, IMHO all references to Jewish studies in the origins section should be removed and also from the lead.PB666 yap 01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see both sides here. Just focusing on this paragraph we can split up several concerns:
 * Is this paragraph about the "science" of E1b1b? No. The author herself is clear about her agreement with mainstream science that E1b1b originated in Eastern Africa. Her concern is about how the public gets confused by a particular word. But Wikipedia does not have to be only about dry facts, if there is something else "newsworthy" to be said. What might be newsworthy, so to speak, is that E1b1b does get discussed a lot by non scientists. Although this discussion might be ignorant, it exists.
 * Then it does not belong in the origins section, it belongs in a section called ==E1b1b in popular culture==PB666 yap 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should discussion about such potential confusion be in the section labeled "Origins"? To me this has always been a concern, because it seems to imply doubts about the Eastern African origins theory which do not exist. Ellen's concerns are about the confusions created by misunderstandings. This is the reason for previous discussions which finally led to the acceptance of the "in the sense of" wording, that hopefully helps.
 * Should such discussion be in an article on one haplogroup, or is it more appropriate to link to some other Wikipedia article about DNA and identity or some such thing?
 * Is this comment really a good one to explain the confusion problem? As PB666 points out it seems to imply that this is all about Jewish DNA, whereas ideally it should be a more general comment. The problem might be that to give this quote its proper context and discussion you probably need a specialized article.
 * THe quote on the Jewish paper does is a proper section on E1b1b in popular culture, in a section concerning origins it is somewhat leading, and the reader wonders why it is placed there and not in a section concerning daughter clads that have increased frequency in the middle east. That's the problem.

Shortened Origins section
WP:BOLD - I removed mention of Jewish haplogroups, cleaned up the sentence which mentioned other haplogroups since these are adequately mentioned in the notes. If anyone wants to create a section on E1b1b1 in popular culture and go into more detail about myths and authors responses to those myths that would be a fine start to moving other statements out of science descriptions.PB666 yap 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 7 was created
Threads ending before March 31 were archived.PB666 yap 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Asian origins again
In this edit, I removed the claim that there is a theory that E1b1b originated in the Near East. I noted the edit as follows...

User:SOPHIAN then added it back in here. I know this has been discussed before, but it is clearly still a point of disagreement.

Presumably SOPHIAN must be able to make his own case about this and is not just blindly following Causteau, so I'd like him to explain why my explanation was wrong. I noted that the national genographic has "fossilized" information on its webpage which goes back to a time when E-M35 was not even a known clade. There was just DE which was found in Japan and Africa. Was I wrong? Surely you don't just delete stuff unless you've got some kind of case to make?

The webpages being cited were made when the National Genographic project started so they are by definition both old and also not based on any new research done within that project. So if this is a reliable source it must be information from published research somewhere. So which research is it? If no one can name any, then I think I am right, and this claim has to be removed as unsourced. Let me tell you that amongst normal non-fringe researchers I've looked hard and found no evidence at all that anyone is even thinking about this idea. This is pure internet fringe theory and it gets slipped in every time there is an edit war. So let's remove it again please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, DE was found in 5 Nigerians, 1 person from Guinea Bissau, and 2 Tibetans -- not Japan & "Africa", I'm afraid (note the spurious and telling juxtaposition of a little country by an entire continent). Here's a challenge, Andrew: Try and go two steps without mentioning my name. I know it's catchy, but it's also bordering on the creepy at this point. Causteau (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau, read before you post aggressive nonsense please.
 * You were being mentioned as the author of an edit being defended for you by the newbie SOPHIAN, who is defending all your old edits for you. That is a clear fact.
 * Your mention of the latest data on DE* has nothing to do with the 10 year old research I am referring to. There was no such concept as DE* then.
 * I look forward to SOPHIAN's explanation about his edit, given his sources. That's all that is being requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you did refer to DE rather than DE*; my bad. Nevertheless, the page you mention above quite clearly refers to the clade as "E3b(M35)", thereby undermining the relevancy for this particular source of your claim that "the national genographic has "fossilized" information on its webpage which goes back to a time when E-M35 was not even a known clade." Further, SOPHIAN didn't revert "for me" any more than you reverted for that blocked user (very mature, btw). Causteau (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN has continued to revert all attempts to remove this Asian origins info from the article, so attempts have been made to communicate on his talkpage. Because he deleted that last night, I now add that discussion, or attempted discussion, here. SOPHIAN has been told to discuss edit disagreements on talk pages more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please justify these reverts you keep doing in a sensible way. How can you claim that this is "the worlds top genetic site"? This is just a fossilized webpage helping to promote a specific project. The website responds to no questions concerning source and the information has been there long before the project started publishing anything. Websites are not normally WP:reliable sources for Wikipedia, unless they are clearly authoritative. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your attempts to insert this are becoming ridiculous. You keep changing your explanation. In your latest edit you claim "The link is reliable and peer reviewed and who says that a site has to be from a university to be reliable." The answer is that no one has mentioned anything about Universities at all. But the website you are quoting is NOT peer reviewed, and I can see no other reason to call it a reliable source. It is also not "scientific research". Even the editor who originally inserted this source, User:Causteau has now disowned it noting "perhaps it's best if we just stick to peer-reviewed studies". Please teach yourself what peer review means, and try to understand those who try to communicate with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, provide reliable peer reviewed referenced text published by University edition quote from jingiby oh so The answer is that no one has mentioned anything about Universities at all.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are changing the subject, but anyway, if you want to claim that someone said something, please post the link. In the meantime, please explain what your point is in making up all these new excuses all the time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain a little more? The truth is a strangely difficult word to use on Wikipedia, because it all too often means "my opinion". See WP:TRUTH. In the end you need to be able to convince other Wikipedians that you are not just trying to push your personal opinions. By the way, talk pages are often a good way to do this, but you never seem to use them, despite the controversial nature of your edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Editors?
I do think that this discussion is a reflection of a bigger problem. A lot of Wikipedia editors on genetics articles like this are themselves confused by some of these issues, but urgently wanting their ideas expressed. There are many confusions in the field which are partly created by the word usage of the published authors themselves. How to use adjectives like "African" is one problem (there are really no agreed rules on this at all); whether "admixture" always implies a model of migrations is another (it normally does not, it is just a mathematical description so to speak); the use of the words "old" and "young" for clades also creates confusions (all clades have the same age); I also sometimes see comments about which clades are bigger or smaller, even though the clades could be grouped in multiple ways to give any ranking you like. Perhaps PD666 could have a look at the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (and its talk page) to see a more chaotic example of an article virtually driven by such confusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a large number of changes in the Origin section and in the E1b1b1 section, this is all the changes I intend to make, I reduced the exposure to daughter clads to a brief synopsis, describing their pseudonyms, current accepted names, and a brief synopsis of the importance of the daughter clads. I also removed the 'formally ###' from section titles and placed them in their sections as bolded text. One could actually insert infoboxes in these sections. This is all the work I am going to do on this page, as to get the reader through the introductory stuff without dropping them into quicksand. I converted a few harvard tags to references which redirect to harvard references as is being done. The name dropping in the subsections I find less troublesome than in the introductory stuff. I also read Coffman-Levy and it reiterates may basic opinion that people draw too much from these early studies. One thing she did not say that I have repeatedly said, anyone in DNA-anthro knows, Sample, sample, sample. To many papers have drawn conclusions without sampling adequately and in particular, without sampling where diversity is greatest. While I appluad her rework of Jewish ancestry, the proper time to frame ancestry is well after the great sampling effort is complete. Somewhere along the way someone would find out why Y chromosomal TMRCA is so disconcordant with everything else, and you might have a decent molecular clock.

Archeological evidence
Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population MovementsKompolompo (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will get back to you on this one.PB666 yap 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC) As I suspected referring to African in terms of Neolithic and Mesolithic is increasingly out of fashion. The small blade technology reached N Africa well after a time frame for migration of Y, and evidence for earlier migrations is relatively scarce. I cast my warning that many of these migrations may be invisible, a few males that leave and take over ruling structures of eurasian tribes that end up taking politically dominant positions that allow further spread of Y chromosome.PB666 yap 15:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article "Discrete traits . ." cited above comes from the journal Human Biology. Aside from the fact that HB articles are difficult to access, the article itself had numerous problems. They could not define the sex and some parameters of many of the skeleta and consequently they decided not to intepret the sex. The analysis found the closest match with Scandinavian (which has a minimal genetic link with Sudanese or NE african or somali other than the most ancient links) and the somali. My opinion is that the link is most probably due to a poor preservation of skeletal features fuzzied up by the fact that they could not ascertain the sex. The second problem is this article is not about classic Greek by about the early Christian period, from the new testiment we know that many of these communities were founded by Jews of Middle Eastern descent, and frequent members of the early Christians were travelers from other regions (Syria, coastal Anatolia, the Balkans, Italy, and some may have been born as far away as Iberia). IOW a possible broad mixture of traits.PB666 yap 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)