Talk:Haplogroup J-M267/Archive 1

Semites!
Ancient Egyptian (copts 40% of J1) and Ethiopian Amhara (33%) are not a Semitic-speaking peoples, Thus Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians (and Nubians before their conversion to Islam) were traditionally referred to as Copts--Dukkani (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned
And your point Dukkani? Ancient Egyptian have E Y-DNA, and the greek copts do NOT have 40% of J1. Plus if the Nubians (whom are the true descendants of Ancient Egyptian) have a medium to high % share of J1 admixture is only because of the extensive interbreeding with Arabs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.203.38 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sudanese DNA
Hi Ebizur,

Hassan had a map with populations showing:

South (Dinka, Shilluk, Nuer, Borgu, Nuba) all had 0% M267, but you are right though I should reword it without changing it to Northern Sudanese. Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! I should have explained my reason for that reversion more clearly, but I ran out of space in the "edit summary" field.


 * I don't have any problem with pointing out the fact that most of the haplogroup J(xJ2) Y-DNA in the Sudanese samples of Hassan et al. (2008) has been found in the samples of "Northern Sudanese" (Arabs, Nubians, etc.), but it is crucial that you not make any edits to the text that would cause it to be factually incorrect. If you want to change "Sudanese" to "Northern Sudanese," then you must also change the haplogroup J(xJ2) percentage accordingly. Changing "21% J(xJ2) in the Sudanese" to "21% J(xJ2) in the Northern Sudanese" is simply inaccurate.


 * For example, if you would group the Nubians, Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese," then the frequency of haplogroup J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7%, and not 94/445 = 21.1%. Ebizur (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dukkani & Ancient Egyptians
Copts in Sudan, come from the Christian Egyptians as far as we know, these Christians could have got their J1  Whats clear is that E1b1b is the primary haplogroup of modern & ancient Egyptians. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You can not also say that the Nubians(41%) have got their J1 from the Syriac missionaries or other Levantine groups that had recorded presence in Nrothern Egypt before Islam. Syriac J1 defined by YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 Dagestan J1 by YCAIIa20 but Ethiopian, Copts and Nubians J1 defined by YCAIIa19 --Dukkani (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Place of origin: Arabian Plate !
Median BATWING expansion times based on Y-STR data for the Omani (2.3 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–29.2) J1-M267 chromosomes4 indicate a more recent arrival to the South Arabian populations as compared to the older expansion times obtained for the Egyptian (6.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–278.5)4 and Turkish (15.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.4–604.8)12 representatives of this haplogroup. Cadenas et al. (2007)--Dukkani (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups
The above article has been listed for deletion. The discussion is at Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin Date Not the date given in article cited
See references given:

1.^ Semino et al. 2004 Not adequately cited, but: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf "The shaded area in J-M267* indicates the branch characterized by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif. For the areas of the circles and the sectors, see ﬁgure 3. The expansion time of this branch was calculated using TD (Zhivotovsky 2001), which gives 8.7 and 4.3 ky, respectively, for the earliest and the latest bounds of the expansion time."

2.^ Arburto et al. 2008 Not adequately cited. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations I will give a reasonable time to update the times and then I will be addressing the issue myself. This needs to be addressed in days, not months. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information on 'Cohen Modal Haplotype'

 * It is now known that the 'Cohen Modal Haploype' is associated both with J2 and J1, not simply J1, and that J2 is far more common among Jews in general than J1.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"It is now known" is not a very good source for references. I spent some time attempting to find the distribution of yDNA in modern populations for Jews and have not found one that specific. Most of what exists seems to be from before the discovery of M267. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you can have the CMH in either J1 or J2, it is the genetic signature in J1 that is considered the Jewish priestly signature". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.170.188 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190§ 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and nonAshkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 § 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages."


 * "Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood," M. F. Hammer and D. M. Behar et al,HUMAN GENETICS Volume 126, Number 5, 707-717, http://bernshtam.name/dna/books/Hammer_2009_Y-DNA%20Jewish%20Priesthood_HG.pdf JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SEE ALSO:

"A Mosaic Of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence," Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33, 2005, http://jewsandjoes.com/dnajewshapq.pdf

It is not a peer reviewed journal of molecular biology or population genetics, but it is an article explaining in simple terms the implications of the work of Hammer and Behar. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Arabian Plate Section: Not Relevant or outdated regarding Zalloua et al and Wells et al references.
Haplogroup J1, defined by the 267 marker is most frequent in Yemen(76%), Saudi (64%) Qatar (58%). J1 is generally frequent amongst Negev Bedouins (62% ). It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian (38.4%), Iraq (33%), Syria (30%), Lebanon (25%),  In Jewish populations, J1 constitutes 30% of the Yemenite Jews 20.0% of the Ashkenazim results and 12% of the Sephardic results.

These are the references in question:


 * "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity", Wells et al., http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244.full.pdf


 * Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Lebanon Is Structured by Recent Historical Events, Zalloua et al, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427286/

It is/was the citation for this sentence, "It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian (38.4%),[11] Iraq (33%), Syria (30%), Lebanon (25%),[12]." Both papers are dated and use the term, "J(xJ2," which means, essentially, not J2, but is J. You can be J without being J1 or J2. There is no J1 or J-M267 mentioned in those documents. Therefore, the sentence will be changed to, "It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian (38.4%).[11]" JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed Behar et al reference for the same reason. "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations",Hum Genet (2004) 114 : 354–365, http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

J1 Haplogroup Phylogenetic Tree
I a proposing a name change for the "Tree" section and some ongoing revision of the information with peer reviewed and cited journals rather than the ISOGG blog information.

Unless otherwise advised, for J1c3/J-P58 (formerly J1e) I will soon begin by adding, "The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking population," European Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 18, 348–353; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.166; published online 14 October 2009, Chiaroni et al, http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/pdf/ejhg2009166a.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ALSO TO BE REFERENCED:

J1c3 was first identified by Karafet et al. in 2008.

'New Binary Polymorphisms Reshape and Increase Resolution of the Human Y Chromosomal Haplogroup Tree', Genome Res. 2008 18: 830-838, http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Genome2008.pdf, Supplementary Data (Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree)http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/new_binary_polymorphism/supplementary_data/Y-Chromosome%20Phylogenetic%20Tree.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Semino reference?
Where is it? Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area,Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May; 74(5): 1023–1034. Published online 2004 April 6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/

Table 2 Population Frequencies of Hg J and Its Subclades

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/table/TB3/

I will put it on my agenda for revisions. Believe me, I understand your concern. 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This was my comment. I forgot to timestamp it or use enough tildes. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.
 Abstract The present day distribution of Y chromosomes bearing the haplogroup 'J1 M267(*)G variant' has been associated with different episodes of human demographic history, the main one being the diffusion of Islam since the Early Middle Ages.

....

Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ∼2.0Kybp).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986692/?tool=pubmed

From the start, this map is a copyrighted picture from an article that refers, not to J1 in general, but a specific variant.

Obviously,this paper has some other serious issues regarding credibility by claiming the David Kingdom was present at a time when it was under the domination of the Roman Empire. Kybp means 1000 years before present. 2000 years before the present, the Roman Empire had been in control for over 64 years.


 * 1.1 Early Israelites (1200–950 BCE)
 * 1.2 Israel and Judah (c.1200–576 BCE)
 * 1.3 Babylonian, Persian and Greek rule (586 BCE – 2nd century BCE)
 * 1.4 Hasmonean kingdom (2nd century BCE – 64 BCE)
 * 1.5 Roman Rule
 * 1.5.1 Pre-Christian Rome (64 BCE – 324 CE)
 * 1.5.2 Christian Roman and Byzantine rule (324–636)


 * When it comes to David, Edwin Thiele dates his life to c. 1040–970 BC, his reign over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC, and his reign over the united Kingdom of Israel c. 1003–970 BC.


 * However, the Kingdom of Israel was eventually destroyed by Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III around 750 BCE. The Philistine kingdom was also destroyed.  The Assyrians sent most of the northern Israelite kingdom into exile, thus creating the 'Lost Tribes of Israel'.

So, the whole paper is based on the wrong assumption. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 REMOVED MAP JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)  REMOVED MAP JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dude,

Sorry but your point is more like a Straw man argument than a real constructive critical debate. There is NO mentioning of ( David Kingdom, Roman Invasion, Early Israelites (1200–950 BCE) Israel and Judah (c.1200–576 BCE) Babylonian, Persian and Greek rule (586 BCE – 2nd century BCE) Hasmonean kingdom (2nd century BCE – 64 BCE),..etc ) in this article! So why are you looking for something( which NOT even being mentioned in the article) to argue about in the first place ? ! ! !

^^^^^^^^^ Unsigned again and contradicts posted quote of paper. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

J1versusJ(xJ2)Distinction
Y chromosomal haplogroup J as a signature of the post-neolithic colonization of Europe,Giacomo et al

-Received: 2 February 2004 / Accepted: 21 June 2004 / Published online: 21 August 2004 Springer-Verlag 2004 Hum Genet (2004) 115: 357–371

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HaploJ.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Note on Page 359, Table 1.:

6 were p12f2 without a Sub-haplogroup(J*(xJ1,J2)

88 were M267. 31 were p12f2, M172,M12 or J2 without a subclade(J2*(xDYS413≤18,J2e)

152 were p12f2, M172,DYS413 (J2*(xDYS413≤18,J2e)

2 were p12f2, M172,DYS413, M47(J2e)

2 were p12f2, M172,DYS413(J2a)

58 were p12f2, M172, DYS413, M67-J2f*(xJ2f1)or J2f without a subclade.

27 were p12f2, M172, DYS413, M67, M92, or J2f1

____________________________________________________________

Given that there were 6+88=94 that were not J2 or, as they have called them in papers where the M267 SNP was not tested, J* or J(xJ2), that shows 6/94 or over 6.3% were not J1. THEREFORE, any test without the SNP M267, cannot be assumed to all be J1.

I think, no matter what we think of the practice, reliable published sources in the WP sense of that term do sometimes make this assumption? (From what I understand J(xJ1,J2) is quite rare?) Anyway, we need to work out a way to report what published sources report, so please consider how we should do that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the comments based on what they reported had to be dumped. I actually hate to get into this. What I need to learn is how to put a reference in without using long bits of code. I need them to all to refer to one note that makes this particular distinction and set off this kind of work from others without getting into a Crusade or Jihad.

The no subclade sub-haplogroup J(xJ1,J2) is rare, in comparison to the general population, but they are still about one in 20, which is an important distinction. Some people have been told no further testing was useful because they are J* or J1*, when, in fact, it may mean they have just not had the SNP test. There is a distinction that needs to be made so the reader understands the level of SNP testing is not set in stone.

This needs to both maintain neutrality and make sure people get the best information. In research, the practice of not using the M267 SNP is acceptable as long as you report it. Unfortunately, that distinction gets lost in the footnotes in papers that act as a compendium of previous work. I think I have an idea on how to make that distinction on the page with an asterisk.

It is hard to know without access to the latest report, Balanovsky et al. (2011), that shows such high percentages of J1 in the distribution in Dagistan connected to their languages what practice was used. They seem to be in the triangle on the flatlands next to the Caspian Sea. The problem is whether or not the M267 SNP was used.

A Discovery report is based on the Abstract and showed maps indicating J(xJ1,J2) nomenclature. There is an old report from before 2004 in the same area, so I do not know if Discovery just used the old maps or if the 2011 paper involves this practice of depending on haplotypes rather than SNPs. I wonder if the R1s have this issue, but that is not my headache. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * JLS, firstly, if you say which refs you want in, I was actually happy to help until someone started to revert me today. :) Anyway, it is maybe not as hard as you realize. Most or all of the articles you want to reference are already being used in some of the more "finished" Y haplogroup articles such as R1a, R1b, and E1b1b.
 * Secondly, concerning the assumption of J1=J*(xJ2) let's agree that we'll aim not to make it, but we'll need to work out how to report articles that do make this assumption, if those articles are important ones. I guess we can always put in words such "the authors assumed..."?
 * Thirdly, do I understand right that you are looking for Balanovsky 2011? Mail me if you are looking for information like that and I'll see what I can find.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Please keep on topic and put this in the section on the map. Had you commented in that section on the problems with the map being reverted, that issue would not have been created. Due to previous issues we have, and perhaps my misunderstanding of the revision history, expect some others to be giving this issue some close observation. Please comment there on this issue so YOUR POSITION is documented. At this point, the IPS for the one who is doing this should be be locked out indefinitely.


 * 1) The reason I noticed the map issue is I was working on cleanup on this issue. The originator of the article made the assumption the M267 SNP was done after 2004, which is not the case and is actually the exception, so far. Therefore, I am only referencing the ones with the M267 SNP using the asterisk (*) as the modifier. I am going through the list alphabetically. I will skip those who I cannot find the full text online. Unless there is proof the M267 SNP was used, they did not. You cannot predict a SNP with a haplotype with even 90% accuracy with 25 or less markers. They are using 17 or less, so far. I do not believe you can predict a subcladeless J Haplogroup individual at all from a haplotype. I would say, "See my work so far," but it may have been reverted.


 * 1) Yes. Please. I need a copy of the full text of Balanovski et al, 2011 so I can personally make the determination, or someone who has it must quote what it says with regard to the SNP in the references. I am johnlloydscharf@yahoo.com. The is the email address I use all over the Net. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * John my point one is not about the map. It is about citation templates etc. Once more, please take your time before writing complaints?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ? You need to be more clear. You said,"until someone started to revert me today." Were/are you accusing me of reverting you JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well no. With all due respect you can not have actually read the above post I wrote to you when you said it was about the map. It is clearly about "refs".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you are certain I am due no respect and are certain your statement was not ambiguous. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have at least seven more major edits on the unlisted/unreferenced parts of the distribution matrix section at the bottom, but I think I am going to stop for the day. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should not have said I was resting as it encouraged vandalism by an unsigned user. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is frustrating that people are apparently trying to impede attempts to improve an article that definitely needs it. I suppose at least some of these people might fear it getting even worse. If the high level of reverting continues (please let's save the word vandalism for real vandalism which is more random) then I suggest we write section by section on this talk page. With such careful consensus building and demonstration of good faith we have the best chance of both convincing the good faith editors and making sure that the bad faith editors are shown for what they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Who knows whether this is random or not. There is no Silver Lock for us to know whether it is someone in the Qatar government or someone at the hotel downtown. Whoever they are, they dare not log in as they do not have the support of their own government in this. They are not representative of any unbiased rational perspective. I use my own name for a reason. Regarding this complete reversion, it is vandalism with no intent to gain consensus and highly biased. There is no reason to compromise on the map or the refernces.

The claim of bias on the reversions is certainly nonsense. My father was adopted and my mother's side of the family are all from the US with a variety of cultural roots for over 11 generations. My DNA looks like it has influences from North Africa. The objective fact is an origin may be on the Western side of the Caspian Sea, but Turkey has the oldest population of J1 and Saudi Arabia is near 4,000 years younger, but at this point, I am no longer going to argue those issues until there is a Silver Lock. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Distribution Comment Meaningless And Contradictory
Comment in question:The frequency of Haplogroup J1 collapses suddenly at the borders of Arabic speaking countries[citation needed] and Daghestan with other countries, such as Iran (10.5%)[3] and Turkey (9%).[4] The distribution of J1 outside of the Middle East may be associated with the Semites who traded and conquered in Sicily, southern Italy, Spain ([citation needed]where is associated with Hg T-M70) and Pakistan.[citation needed]Daghestani J1 tend to be different from Arabic J1.

Daghestan, Iran, and Turkey do not speak Arabic. The term "collapse" implies it fails suddenly and completely. It is an absolutist term that is inappropriate in this context. I have never been further west than Karachi, Pakistan, but I do not know of any walls 5,000 meters high and 50 meters thick or some leviathan sized salt water crocodiles separating Arabic speaking nations from other nations. It is dishonorable to make such an assumption, or as Wikipedia says, it is not "neutral." JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this wording needs neutralizing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

From my "Western Perspective" I believe,"Even a cat may look at a king." Once Prince Al Sabah of Kuwaite had some issues in an interview with a foreign [US?] journalist on TV during the Persian Gulf War. He was the Ambassador to the US. I gave him some advise about how to reframe the perspective by pointing out how Kuwaite is a Constitutional Monarchy, just like the United Kingdom. I had read about how to address him and did it with the utmost honorable wording in a snail mail letter.

He used my advice. Then, not to be outdone by my honor, he returned it magnified. I got a return letter thanking me for my advice with special paper and gold leaf lettering and his personal signature. The response was well written and worded, which you would expect of a man highly educated in both worlds. Whoever is doing these reversions and revisions is not as skilled as Prince Al Sabah or believes we are beneath a civil response. I am not diplomatic, as you know, but I expect more from a Royal. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start again please, and please slowly this time
We have had another round of edit warring. So far, I am thinking this is all good-intentioned, and being fired up by the fact that every one is in a rush to improve this very poor article, and everyone fears that other editors are going to make it even worse. So I have resisted the urge to revert anyone myself. I have made a kind of weak compromise edit and I hope we can build now SLOWLY upon that. Can I please ask all editors to keep edits as uncontroversial and focused as possible. Do not do knee jerk reverts at all. If you see something you really do not like, use this talk page, but use it neatly and in a focused and constructive way.

Also, a particular problem I keep seeing on this article: please do not rush to insert material which is messy and not yet ready for being put into the real article, and also please avoid using the talk page for any disorganized notes. This is just inflaming the situation, making the article worse, and the talk page hard to work with. If necessary please make yourself a "sand box" for playing around with ideas. A good idea for every edit in a situation like this is to ask yourself before pressing "Save Page" whether the edit is definitely an uncontroversial IMPROVEMENT of the article. Obviously material which is still in a draft form is not an uncontroversial improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, the logical arguments made here are ignored. I am willing to do that as well. I have looked at the IPS being used for the reversions and they are on pages full of bigoted remarks. QED.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC) The copyrighted map not made for J1 in general is inappropriate and a violation of copyright law.

Excuse me mr JohnLloydScharf,

Please provide us irrefutable testable evidence that the copyrighted map is not made for J1 and it is inappropriate and a violation of copyright law, rather than removing. In general try always to substantiate your claims with irrefutable testable evidence rather than giving us biased gobbledygook based on shenanigan bug bugs. Cheers mate

I did long ago.Read before commenting and sign in. Shau Mat. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

S ee the section entitled "Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general." JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to compromise on its removal. The Distribution section are as neutral as it can be and reverting it was pure vandalism. Your assumption of good will cannot be interpreted from the IPS origins used. They have a track record of misuse and abuse. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC) This is an inappropriate addition: (cur | prev) 07:44, 6 August 2011 Dinamik-bot (talk | contribs) m (31,229 bytes) (r2.6.5) (robot Adding: ar:هابلوغروب جي 1 (واي-دي إن إيه), ru:Гаплогруппа J1 (Y-ДНК)) (undo)JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is a good approach. You have put back in material which basically just turns the article into a bunch of notes. If you are going to insert stuff in about references, can't you put it in a proper way? Someone is just going to delete this, and they'll be justified. By the way amongst all the tagging you do I see you now have a COI tag. You should not just do that. You should explain here on the talk page what it is for?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The content is sourced. I reduced 85 entries to 27 references. The total is 37, instead of ~67 like one of the R1 pages.I explained the COI tag in my request in the appropriate place for that. Obviously, the Discussions are irrelevant since they are ignored by the IPS in Qatar. If the "talk page" has a legitimate purpose, it is tangential at best. The Administrators who revert the Article to the original and call it "good faith" have made it so. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You put in this,"The following gives a summary of most of the studies which specifically tested for M267, showing where its distribution is greater than 1%." It is not true. Few of the studies did that before 2010, most did not before 2008 and none of them before 2003. Of the 85 populations claimed, most are tertiary sources and, therefore not allowed by Wikipedia. I did not delete those, but if you want, I can add that to my argument that this article is biased. If you are going to claim they are not compendiums of information from elsewhere, hold your breath. I read them. I go into these details and then you ignore me completely; yet again proving the Discussion section is irrelevant. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Slow down please, and please learn to make accusations very carefully and reluctantly. At least read the edit histories first. The test you quote is not mine. It is something left over from the most recent edit war, and the aim is to stop edit wars. I make no claim myself about which studies tested which things, and it is as clear as clear can be that this whole article needs review for pretty much everything. You are not really helping us get there though by inserting large amounts of note form material into the article and onto this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another false statement in the Caucasus section: The frequency of Haplogroup J1 is particularly high in Semitic-speaking populations (often much higher in those populations than in neighbouring ones) and in the Caucasus, it is particularly common in Daghestan. For comparison with neighbouring areas, Iran has approximately 10.5%[2] and Turkey 9%.[3]. All the languages of Daghestan are Northwest Caucasian rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semetic_Languages. They are not Semetic in any sense of the word. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has claimed otherwise. It is a waste of time to argue against points others are not defending.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the section where they did, I edited out, and it was reversed. Your response has no merit. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"...conquered in Sicily, southern Italy...," is another factually challenged statement. It was first populated by the Phoenicians and then two thirds of it were "conquered" by the Greeks. Carthage was what the Phoenicians had as their capital, but in no sense did they conquer Sicily or Italy. The Sicilians went to war with Carthage twice before the Romans stepped in. It is absurd to claim a Phoenician population was conquered by the Phoenician city-state and say "Semetics" had "conquered." They spoke the same language and had the same genetic background, before the ports of Greek organized into city-states.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Phonenicians were not natives of Sicily, obviously, and when they came there, there were others already there, including the people who gave the island its name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the history of of this nation. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Possible place of origin" of Western Asia excludes the Northern Caucus in general and Dagestan in particular as an origin. Dagestan. It also excludes Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Since Turkey has the oldest age for J1 KNOWN, that might make sense, assuming it did not come out of Africa/Egypt/Sudan or Russian Europe/Dagestan. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please examine the definition of Western Asia. Dagestan is indeed on the boundary, but then again has any source claimed it is the point of origin?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not one of the nations listed in the article on Western Asia. Please see the article on this before you respond again. Please stop assuming I am ignorant and not researching this issue, just because you do not. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Elephant in the room : Alicia M Cadenas1, Lev A Zhivotovsky2, Luca L Cavalli-Sforza3, Peter A Underhill3 and Rene J Herrera1, European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 374–386; doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934; published online 10 October 2007, NOTE: Median BATWING expansion times based on Y-STR data for the Omani (2.3 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–29.2) J1-M267 chromosomes4 indicate a more recent arrival to the South Arabian populations as compared to the older expansion times obtained for the Egyptian (6.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–278.5)4 and Turkish (15.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.4–604.8)12 representatives of this haplogroup. Conversely, in the present study, Y-STR age estimates based on the method described by Zhivotovsky et al46 generated much older values for the J1-M267 haplogroup in Yemen, Qatar and UAE (9.7±2.4, 7.4±2.3 and 6.4±1.4 ky, respectively) than seen in the Omani,4 consistent with an earlier arrival to the region during the Neolithic. The data suggest expansion from the north during the Neolithic (or perhaps more recently), which is also reflected in the lower STR variances in southern Arabia (0.14 for Qatar, 0.15 for UAE, 0.20 for Yemen and 0.27 for Oman4 versus 0.31 in Egypt4 and 0.51 in Turkey12). Subsequently, a series of recent demographic events may account for the high haplogroup frequency of J1-M267 in the populations from the present study. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/full/5201934a.html Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of OmanJohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is fine by me but what concrete recommendations does it give us about the article. Please let's slow down and get things lined up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help me understand what you mean by recommendations. It is implicit of the origin that it has to be the oldest. It is explicit Turkey is the oldest documented. Your response is not neutral nor does it reflect content that is verifiable. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To Mr. JohnLloydScharf,

AGAIN...Three points point to clear that Elephant

1.	Regarding the dating issue. The so called Median BATWING expansion times studies are all based on assumptions and speculation rather than scientific experimental methods. All coalescences and time expansion are based on a disputed concept of "mutation rate". No Y-str mutation rate was observed in from cell.It is all based on speculative estimation upon which there is no general agreement.Therefore all things being said about Y-STR expansion times "could be a false myth " not facts.So you have left with J1 "Frequency of the Distribution" as the only observable testable fact.

2.	Problem with the Zagros being the place of Origin j1 These studies(Chiaroni and Tofanelli's) hastily assume that high YSTR diversity must be equated with the HG and its clade's place of origin.If that is true,would you then be ready to consider NYC as the origin of humanity (for it must be the most highly diverse YSTR pool on earth)? Diversity could also be due to convergent rather than divergent of movements. The Zagros area was favourized for several population resettlements resulting from massive deportations since the Akkadians were in charge so high YSTR diversity is obvious Plus East Africa Negev and Yemeni samples are not even mentioned in these studies (for they have a certain amount of high STR diversity).Thus making the location of these studies look dull.

3.	Last but not least, In order to substantiate your claims I suggest to bring a more rational irrefutable testable evidence rather than biased gobbledygook  out dated studies that based on shenanigan bug bugs, and please revert from using this MAD BOLD typing. It won’t make your points scientifically correct. It will not clear of the Elephant.

Cheers and Regards .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.34.219 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I will not respond to unsigned garbage with no references to back it up. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

JLS, can you please stop using all the emotional formatting, and try to familiarize yourself with the norms of Wikipedia formatting and so on. At the very least, if you do not have the time or energy, edit with a bit more caution and civility?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in personal attacks based on minor formatting meant for setting issues apart. The "emotions" are all in your mind. Stick with the issues themselves. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Whose wording is this?
Highest frequencies	Semitic populations generally, plus their neighbours, and also the Caucasus (especially Dagestan)

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mine. But it is only an attempt to write something which covers the two apparent positions which were being edit warred. If it can be improved please explain how.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not only garbled, it is untrue, ungrammatical, self contradictory, and not a complete thought. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an info box, so I do not know what grammar you can be referring to. Can you explain what is self contradictory please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to explain things to you has been a Sisyphean task. If you do not get it, then you never will. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible time of origin	15,400[1] to 24,000 BP not supported by citation given
Possible time of origin	15,400[1] to 24,000 BP

This is the citation given:

^ Cinnioğlu, Cengiz; King, Roy; Kivisild, Toomas; Kalfoglu, Ersi; Atasoy, Sevil; Cavalleri, Gianpiero L.; Lillie, Anita S.; Roseman, Charles C. et al. (2004), "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia" (PDF), Hum Genet 114 (2): 127, doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4, I read the source here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37192835/03b-Excavating-Y-chromosome-haplotype-strata-in-Anatolia-Cinniog%CB%98lu-2004

There is no possible time of origin and the dates of 15,400 to 24,000 BP are not mentioned.

It says 18.2 kyr on table 2.

In the discussion it says:

Haplogroup J and the transition to agriculture

Although the entire J-M304 clade demonstrates a large microsatellite variance that under a continuous growth model dates to around 20kyr, consistent with the LGM, the BATWING exponential growth model reveals a more recent post-LGM expansion (13.9kyr). This secondary expansion originates from a low effective population size (n=184) and may indicate that the J clade in Turkey began to participate in demographic expansions during the onset of sedentism in Anatolia and the Levant; e.g., the Natufi- ans (Bar-Yosef 1998). JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you must surely know edit warring has not worked for you and as I explained, I have made a compromise version between the two versions which were alternating. Once a deletion has been disputed it should be discussed. Simply repeating the same edits over and over is pointless. The 24,000 needs a source but do not delete it too quickly please. Consider Wp:brd.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible time of origin	10,000-36,000 years before present[1]

I have pointed out the citation you have given is bad before. I went through the list of papers that paper cites and cannot find one that pushes the date to 36,000 years before present and it is not calculated by the writer of that page. It is a tertiary source/compendium that conflicts with the data given by the papers cited. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a verifiable reliable source. It might be wrong (I see no reason to say that it is wrong just because you are not aware of it though) but we can not do anything about that on Wikipedia. In any case it covers all opinions and I think that is preferable to trying to cherry pick opinions which Wikipedia editors like personally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is cherry picked and it is wrong. It cites the work of others to justify its claim of 36,000 when those sources cited do not have 36,000 in their range of times. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually what you want to do is cherry pick from favoured individual papers. This would imply consensus when there is none. This citation gives the broadest possible range, and is the only one which reports on the fact that different researchers have a wide range of estimates. So I believe it is the best source to use according to WP norms and priorities.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are making an inappropriate personal attack. If you want to get into that, your personal choice of this paper is for your own agenda of proving all dates must be "taken with a grain of salt." The reader does not know that. The article did not prove that. I am did not make the choice of the papers cited by your choice for a reference. The paper's own cited references do not have a range that extends to 36,000. The greatest time range cited is less than 34,000. That paper should be an embarrassment to the scientific community, but it has greater problems, I suspect, sense they have been caught publishing fake papers. The WP policy is not to just accept every published source, but what is posted must have at least a published reference. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who has been caught publishing fake papers? What are you talking about? Concerning "my agenda" of being very careful not to treat individual papers as a consensus for a whole field, this is Wikipedia policy, not just my agenda. The burden of strong proof is on anyone who wants to make strong statements implying a consensus in a field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

break: putting together with the other thread about the same subject
Tertiary sources are not acceptable. If it is from an encyclopedic work or a compendium, it is better to cited the best evidence where the information has been peer reviewed. The peer review process, however, does not and should not end with acceptance by a journal. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow. If you think WP:IRS or anything other policy page says this, then I disagree. Concerning tertiary sources see WP:TERTIARY: "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." But what tertiary source are you talking about here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

This does not cite a reliable secondary source. The claim of 36 Kybp is not backed by the secondary sources it claims. If you can find one that claims 36,000 years is within the range, then quote that as the source of the top end. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have used a perfectly good source for the 36,000, by all normal WP standards. You are criticizing that source on the basis that you personally do not know where the authors got the information. Such a concern is not relevant to any WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, personally I think the number is crazy too. But so what? I am at least happy that this source emphasizes that there is a wide range of estimates. That fact on its own tells the readers the most important thing about such age estimates, which is that they need to be taken with a grain of salt. One thing we always have to be careful about on WP is giving an over simplisitic impression of a consensus amongst eperts when there is none.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the policy to you from the page. : Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. It is not a good source by WP standards because its cited sources do not support what it claims. None of the times given have a range that extends to 36,000 years bp. The article itself is over simplistic and exaggerates. This is not about truth. It is about whether the information is verifiable. The article cannot verify that 36,000 years bp is in the citations it gives. It certainly cannot verify the Kingdom of David existed ~2,000 years bp. That was the time of the Roman occupation.

Regardless of whether they are an "expert" in molecular biology, they obviously have a deficit with proven history and are out of their field. It is not reliable. Regardless of whether they are an expert, the fact that they make a claim they do not compute and their sources do not back up means the article is wrong in its claim. It is not verifiable'. If you take this 36,000 ybp, to prove the point that "they need to be taken with a grain of salt," then you are cherry picking to make a personal point. Certainly, the reader of the article does not know this was from an "expert," wanting to make a point. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Would you accept this article?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/363007 JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are now asking me whether I would accept an article about "Reversible severe congestive cardiomyopathy in three cases of hypophosphatemia"? This is nonsensical. On Wikipedia it is not our job to criticize publications which experts consider reliable. But in any case, I imagine what this author has done concerning the age estimates is that he has deliberately given a very wide range that covers every opinion he has ever heard. That approach suits what we also need for the info box. Please do remember that the in the past, when the infobox age estimation range used cherry picked individual articles as sources, it has had a lot of edit warring, with you being one of the parties. An infobox range should be "simplistic".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of Lack of Neutrality, Accuracy, External or Internal Validity in J1 Dating from "J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements"
J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements "However, a wide range of times since the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) has been proposed for J1 and its subclades (between 36 and 10 KyBP), and different conflicting scenarios have been depicted to explain their current distribution.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9", http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/full/ejhg200958a.html


 * 3 Semino O, Magri C, Benuzzi G et al: Origin, diffusion and differentiation of Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 74: 1023–1034.
 * Figure 2. Phylogeny and frequency distributions of Hg J and its main subclades (panels A–F). The numbering of mutations is according to the YCC (YCC 2002; Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2003). To the left of the phylogeny, the ages (in 1,000 years) of the boxed mutations are reported, with their SEs (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). With the exception of the age relative to the 12f2 mutation, which has been estimated as TD (with V0=0) between the combined data of the two sister clades Hg J-M267 and Hg J-M172, the other values have been determined as ASD, as described in figure 1. (Figure 1 depicts a phylogenetic tree indicating: J-12f2=31.7+/-12.8 ky; 267=24.1+/-9.4 ky; 172=18.5+/-3.5; et cetera) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707643663#fig1


 * 5 Di Giacomo F, Luca F, Popa LO et al: Y chromosomal haplogroup J as a signature of the post-neolithic colonization of Europe. Hum Genet 2004; 115: 357–371.
 * Table 3 Estimates of age of haplogroup J, J sub-haplogroups, and mutation rate at five STR loci, obtained with three independent methods(st. dev. standard deviation, NA not applicable),Estimation method,p12f2, M267:1.YMRCAa=8,400, 2.st. dev.b=12,600,  3.BATWINGa(subhaplogroups treated separately)=18,000,  4.5th–95th centileb= 7,590–33,990,  5.BATWINGa(subhaplogroups and UEPs)=8,300–11,300, 5th–95th centileb=4,260–23,070,a Age in years rounded to the nearest hundred, assuming 30 years/generation (Zerjal et al. 2002, 2003) ,b Age as above, rounded to the nearest tenth http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HaploJ.pdf


 * 6 Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S et al: A predominantly Neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 75: 342.
 * (Semino et al. 2004 and references therein); the TMRCA of the J-M267 branch, found in both the Middle East and North Africa (and including our J* chromosomes), was estimated at 24.1+/-9.4 KY and must predate its spread. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/pdf/AJHGv75p338.pdf


 * 7 Cadenas AM, Zhivotovsky LA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA, Herrera RJ: Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman. Eur J Hum Genet 2008; 16:
 * Table 3 Y-Haplogroup variance, expansion and coalescence times based on Y-microsatellite loci,Divergence timea(ky)b, Qatar-J1-M267=7.4+/-2.3, UAE-J1-M267=6.4+/-1.4, Yemen-J1-M267=9.7+/-2.4, aDivergence time based on SNP-STR coalescence method (Zhivotovsky46,51).,bBased on 15 Y-STR loci http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/pdf/5201934a.pdf


 * 8 Zalloua PA, Xue Y, Khalife J et al: Y-chromosomal diversity in Lebanon is structured by recent historical events. Am J Hum Genet 2008; 82: 873–882.**http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427286/pdf/main.pdf Article regards distribution rather than ages.


 * 9 Chiaroni J, King RJ, Underhill P: Correlation of annual precipitation with human Y chromosome diversity and the emergence of Neolithic agriculture and pastoral economies in the fertile crescent. Antiquity 2008; 82: 281–289.


 * It would not matter if the authors deliberately set the range a bit bigger than previous publications in order to express a simplistic RANGE. But according to the summary you have given the Di Giacomo paper estimates ranges from 4000 to 34000?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As it gives a similar big range, I have put the Di Giacomo ref in instead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The greatest range is 7,590–33,990 and the other method is 4,260–23,070 by Di Giacom. You cannot shake and bake the two different methods by taking the lowest one of one method and the highest one of the other. Now you have the bottom end over 3500 years too soon and you do not give the median age of 18,000 years. Semino claims 24.1+/-9.4 KY, which is a range of 14,700 to 33,500. Some say it could be early Natufian, but that puts it in the late Kebaran culture. Keep in mind that there is a population bottleneck that reduced population 70,000 years ago (between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding couples), became modern man about 40,000 years ago, had no civilizations until 10,000 years ago, and no written language until about 4,000 years ago. There were a total of about 5 million people in the world and the highest density was in the Levant during the late Kebaran culture. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the whole idea of reporting a range of different calculations means we do actually have to "shake and bake". Once again, we are reporting a range, not our favorite specific estimates. And to do be careful about avoiding giving an impression of consensus when there is none is WP policy, not just one person's preference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not reporting a range from those who calculated it. I do not think you or I should be the deciding factor for. Those who did the calculations each had a different measuring stick for this. Claiming that your times came from Di Giacomo though, is just not what you did. I have not looked at who has the most citations regarding their calculations, but that certainly should be a factor in consideration. You should also report the method chosen in the introduction or list it with a note in the reference.Update:


 * Semino et al, 177
 * Di Giacom et al, 61
 * Arridi et al, 92
 * Cardenas et al, 34
 * Zalloua et al,29
 * Chiaroni et al, 6

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All those articles are reputable, the citation count just reflects their age. Estimation method discussion would be for another article, not this one, obviously. This discussion is getting ridiculous. What is your point? Where are you going with this? Are you trying to select the "best" article? I believe if we have the possibility not to try to pick articles ourselves we should. So we should use Di Giacomo, because it gives a range of calculation methods which covers all estimates, or Tofanelli, which cites a wide range which covers all estimates. Either way we end up with similar results!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, they are all within months of each other:


 * Di Giacomo Feb 2004 61 Cites
 * Semino    May 2004 177 Cites
 * Arredi    Aug 2004  92 Cites

It has been seven years since they were done, they were within months of each other, Semino was not the oldest, and the citations are significantly higher. Therefore, your argument their citation rate just reflects their age has no merit.

Second, if you do not compare the results and come to that conclusion, then the origin of being "ridiculous" is not me and that remark is another personal attack. That is an appeal to emotions rather than a logical argument. Stick to the topic and comply with the policy.

Third:


 * Di Giacomo has a date of 18,000 with a range of 7,590–33,990.
 * Semino has a date of 24.1+/-9.4 ky with a range of 14,700 to 33,500.

Those two are the only ones who calculate the date and range of all those articles. They used the 30 year/generation calculating from different populations. They are not significantly different on the top end, but they are both over 2,000 years earlier than Tofanelli's 36,000 ybp, which he claimed was and is not the references he cited, QED. Further, the low end of 4,000 years has no justification from anyone. While Semino and Giacomo differ significantly on the bottom end, the lowest of them is 7,590.

At this point, you must have an agenda other than one withing the policy or intent of Wikipedia, because those dates you have been using are not justified or verifiable. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well of course you'd say that. And I note everyone you disagree with gets accused of similar or worse. You've accused other editors who disagree with you of "vandalism", "terrorism", and "conflict of interest", so by comparison you see me as angelic. And indeed I can hardly even understand what exactly you are feeling so strongly about concerning this subject which, as I have mentioned, is one you have edit warred extensively about before I even looked at this article.
 * Concerning number of cites, it is indeed not just a question of age, but also concerning the subject matter. Di Giacomo et al is about a narrow subject, and does not contain any new survey, but it just happens to be the subject we are discussing. Anyway, for goodness sake, we do not just count cites. All the articles being cited are RS by Wikipedia norms. You are not going to find anyone to declare otherwise based on counting cites.
 * Please just explain how you get 7,590-33,990 as the range for Di Giacomo et al.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary- The following gives a summary of most of the studies which specifically tested for M267, showing where its distribution is greater than 1%.
There are 85 populations, and 17 sources, but only two have citations.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then these need to be added, in a proper format.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then put them in proper format. All of them. I got them referenced with a title, authors, and a place to read them. There ws plenty of information so you could have done it, if you are such a stickler for style. You had no problem when they were all deleted, though. That is all gone because you are better at complaining than fixing. You need to live up to the same standards you expect of others. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to do this too often. You start editing, and then when people complain about the way you work, even concerning things it would be easy for you to fix, you tell other people to leave your work in and fix your work. That is not how Wikipedia works. If I have time, I'll help rebuild the distribution section, as I started to do last night, but your efforts to put a separate references section in to a sub-section of an article seems almost like it is aimed at making it hard to improve this article further, unless I first delete your work. Your edits are not just a bit un-orthodox, they are one step forward and two steps back in the sense that it takes more effort to build upon them, reversing all the problems you introduce, than to delete and start again. I do not see you as being a more correct and exemplary editor than your opponents in the edit war. I am sure you all have good intentions, but you need to all realize that edit warring will mean a loose-loose result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who has an issue with the style of the reference, but the policy of being verifiable is not met by your theory of editing and mine is. You reintroduce the problem by reverting to not having references. Without naming the title and author, the article is not verifiable. I made a good faith effort to make the article verifiable, it has been reverted, and you are part of that problem. Again, nothing said here is relevant to editing and I am not editing. If you had paid attention, you'd have realized that. You are just contributing to the drama with personal attacks rather than being part of the solution. Therefore, you are condoning, if not participating in, the violation of Wikipedia policy. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done more than enough fixing and improving of your refs not to be accused of working against them. I am not one of the people responsible for the deletions, reversions, and edit warring. You are partly responsible, because of your own edit warring and various uncompromising or aggressive positions (such as putting in a COI tag just because an editor of this article is from Qatar, and the strange point about the Tofanelli article's King David wording) and the quicker you can start to see that, the better for the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is held a gun to your head to do that. The Tofanelli article was not my reference. It was part of my argument for rejecting the stolen non-free map, but I do not want to get off topic. At this point, it is your interpretation of a legitimate resource for Wikipedia. Would this work? : http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/59/4/619.full.pdf JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Work for what? The article you mention is not about genetics. And why are you posting in every sub-section of this talk page about the same subject? Please respect the community's norms concerning these talk pages and stop that and please also stop creating new sub-sections all about the same subject. Please consider how many boxes you editing ticks in WP:TEND.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This type of Y DNA is generally defined by the presence of the SNP mutation referred to as M267.
SNP is a colloquialism used by consumer test companies. Binary polymorphisms is the term used by researchers. Perhaps that detail should be mentioned to make it clear to all parties.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not correct at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You just gave away the fact that you are not reading the papers being cited. Thanks. It is part of a preponderance of evidence. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. SNP and polymorphism are both terms used in the literature. And they do not actually mean the same thing (although they overlap). You are looking for something to argue about? Anyway, I have until now tried to avoid working on this subject as someone reading the papers anyway. I am trying to help get an edit war ended if possible. Is that a good aim?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

SNP means single nucleotide polymorphism. It is an acronym. It is not the term they use in many of the pages I have seen assigning a haplogroup in general or M267 in particular. When they talk about the number of tests done, they refer to each one as a "binary polymorphism." JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"...Seventy-six binary genetic markers were genotyped..."http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/full/5201934a.html

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"A total of 3139 samples were analyzed, including 647 Lebanese and Iranian samples newly genotyped for 28 binary markers and 19 short tandem repeats on the non-recombinant segment of the Y chromosome." https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/genographic/StaticFiles/ProjectUpdates/EJHG2010.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"We typed 68 binary polymorphisms mainly by PCR-RFLP..." http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010128a.html

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Samples were genotyped with a set of 58 Y-chromosomal binary markers by standard methods..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427286/pdf/main.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree...In 2002, the Y Chromosome Consortium published a single parsimony tree showing the relationships among 153 haplogroups based on 243 binary markers and devised a standardized nomenclature system to name lineages nested within this tree. "New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree. Tatiana M. Karafet1, Fernando L. Mendez1,2, Monica B. Meilerman1, Peter A. Underhill3, Stephen L. Zegura4, and Michael F. Hammer1,2,4,5-Genome Research.Genome Res. published online April 2, 2008.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what I recommend for the into:

The J1 haplogroup is distinctly defined by the presence of the single nucleotide polymorphism or SNP mutation M267. New binary polymorphisms were reshaped and the resolution of the J1 haplogroup tree was increased in 2002. The Y Chromosome Consortium published a single parsimony tree showing M267 among 153 haplogroups based on 243 binary markers (SNPs) and devised a standardized nomenclature system to name lineages nested within this tree. "

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I find it very hard to understand why you post a lot of argumentative words about how wrong the abbreviation SNP is, which it is not, but you apparently (looking at the text you just posted) do not really want it removed. Honestly, for your own editing satisfaction you need to focus your comments better so that you do not look like someone just looking for arguments. Right now, concerning this whole sub-section, I have no idea, honestly, what you are suggesting should be done. But, trying to get some constructive discussion, looking at the material you proposed, I think the basic idea of a discussion about the history of the nomenclature is something that will eventually be needed in this article as in other haplogroup articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a logical argument for a clear and concise opening statement. Your personal attack is inappropriate. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It also makes working with you very difficult if you simply accuse everyone who responds to you of "personal attack". Isn't that a bit too easy? If you wish to go to get a neutral comment about whether my talkpage posts to you are personal attacks, please do. Otherwise, please stop making such accusations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What have you said to me that was not a criticism of me rather than a constructive addition to the Discussion. You are not the topic here and you are making personal references about me rather than the topic of using the colloquialism of "SNP." That is behavior of a Net Troll, not the responsible behavior of an administrator. I made an observation and suggested in a solution. You again, are engaging in personal attacks rather than addressing that topic.

The reality is doing the yeoman work of putting gathering together the names and titles of the references for eight hours was not nearly as easy as you criticizing my work. I did my work. It was abused. I am not doing it over for you and it is gone. Live with it. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You said nothing about your "General Listings" here. I think it is a good job of reducing to the proper format the information I had intended to add to the references. I have not yet looked to see if you were able to retrieve the two additional populations I had documented before my work was trashed. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just invented the term General Listings now, but I did tell you that I was able to work on the references for you many times, and in fact this is not the first time I have started working on this myself, as you surely know. In fact I was trying to move your 8 hours work out of the sub-section where they being wrongly crammed, and into footnotes, when the edit warring, involving you as usual, started again. I do think, honestly, that it is everyone's interests to encourage the edit warring to stop, and I shall keep recommending that as a priority. Edits or other actions which are designed to provoke will result in this article never improving.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, your proposal above is not correct, because J1 was not yet known to the YCC 2002 phylogeny. Cinnioglu 2004 announced it. I have already adjusted the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I said the YCC 2002 devised the standardized nomenclature system. If they did not, then take it up with the corresponding author of the article I cited that it came from: mfh[at]u.arizona.edu
 * No. Read what you wrote just above. The wording above clearly indicates that the YCC showed J1 in their 2002 tree. That wording was incorrect. Please stop flogging dead horses.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Daghestani J1 tends to be different from Arabic J1.[citation needed]
This should be easy to find a citation without the weasel wording. If the space information I have from the blogs is true, this area is J1-267(xP58) rather than J1 M267,P58. It may be a J1a or a J1b rather than J1c. As it, though, it is vague, ambiguous, and non-neutral. However, whenever I try to modify this, someone reverts it back.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To JSL,

" Daghestani J1 tends to be different from Arabic". Agree but this article is about the HG J1 in general,and not about HG J1 subglades(J1a,J1b,J1c).


 * Maybe I do not understand, but just taking your own words literally, if you think it can be easily sourced then please explain why your priority is changing it rather sourcing it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay attention. I modified this to reflect clear, unambiguous, and neutral wording. I have been over ruled and over written. You have an answer for everything. You complained about my sourcing everything and now we are back to square one n the references. Remember your remark to me that you were not my slave. I am not yours. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the unsourced paragraph. I think the sourced material now added already says a lot.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the proposed place of origin
J1c3 (P58)'s is found in its highest diversity around the Zagros according to Chiaroni and Tofanelli's studies.... But there a certain amount of bias in these studies for at least 3 reasons:

1. Yemen,Negev, North and Horn of Africa samples are not even mentionned in these studies (for they have a certain amount of STR diversity).

2.These studies hastely assume that high YSTR diversity must be equated with the clade's place of origin... Would they be ready to consider NYC as the origin of humanity (for it must be the most highly diverse YSTR pool on earth)?

3.The Zagros area was favourized for several population resettlements resulting from massive deportations since the Akkadians were in charge so high YSTR diversity is obvious thus making the location of these studies look dull.


 * Hello 178.152.103.252. Here is what I think are the answers.
 * 1. No, in fact they are mentioned in those articles. And I've tried to make sure that specifically those mentions are put into Wikipedia also, for balance.
 * 2. YSTR diversity is indeed normally used as a basic proxy for the age of a haplogroup in publications in this area. We can not change that. Wikipedia just reports what is published.
 * 3. You could say something similar about every part of the Middle East, and indeed Chiaroni has to come up with such explanations to explain why Ethiopia and Yemen are so old looking.
 * I think the most important thing to say is that this is very uncertain stuff and so the Wikipedia article should not come across as more certain than the experts are. What does seem to be the consensus is that a young type of J1e has spread around the middle of the Middle East, leaving older looking J1 to the north and south. It also seems that most experts agree that the J1 in the Maghreb, is an offshoot of the main (young) Arabian type. Going beyond these conclusions should be very tentative because I believe the published experts themselves are very tentative. Does that approach sound right to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andrew,

Please do not take my comments as being too blunt, but rather a clarification of facts.

'YSTR diversity is indeed normally used as a basic proxy for the age of a haplogroup in publications in this area. We can not change that. .'.How?..based on what?! irrefutable testable proves/facts? or just speculations ? If so would you say that NYC is the origin of humanity (for it must be the most highly diverse YSTR pool on earth)?!!!!

You could say something similar about every part of the Middle East, and indeed Chiaroni has to come up with such explanations to explain why Ethiopia and Yemen are so old looking. 100% Agree with you,but what I do not agree with, is this phrase "J1e, Chiaroni et al. (2010) propose that the most likely point of original expansion is the north of the fertile crescent in the Taurus and Zagros mountains, during the Neolithic "'.Why north of the fertile crescent in the Taurus and Zagros mountains area, Not for example Yemen,Negev, North and Horn of Africa are the most likely  birth places of J1c3? ! ! !'

I also have a problem with the Y-STR Mutation rate. How is it being determined. No Y-str mutation rate was observed in from cell.It is all based on speculative estimation upon which there is no general agreement.Therefore all things being said about Y-STR expansion times "could be a false myth " not facts.

Once again.I really hope that you would not find my comments as being too blunt, and instead take them for what they truly are. That is a clarification of “the Facts”.Without serious scientific and sincere introspection to establish the actual validity/veracity of one’s claims in relation to all the testable facts at hand (rather than their vain sensations/feelings),we will face the real danger of fatally wasting our energy and time in to “falsehood”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.131 (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________

If you fail to sign in and refuse to read the verifiable research the article is based on, then do not expect anyone to consider responding to you seriously. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

JLS

 "If you fail to sign in and refuse to read the verifiable research..etc ". Perhaps you should give us your definition  of the what you mean by " verifiable research ", and what standard/s  you use for measuring what you believe to be a "verifiable research" ? ?


 * Hello again 89.211.50.131. I have no problem with your remark. I think anyone who has ever edited Wikipedia should be able to understand the frustration you are expressing. It is how we all start. You would like us to be agreeing upon "actually irrefutable testable proves/facts" (your words) even if no one has published them outside Wikipedia. But long ago on Wikipedia, this community discovered that because we are a bunch of people who do not know each other, many of whom are even anonymous, finding agreement about the truth is close to impossible. So instead we give ourselves the practical aim of summarizing what has been published, not what is truth. This is often summed up in Wikipedia jargon by saying that the standard for inclusion of anything contestable is "verifiability not truth". So in answer to your question to John the standard being referred to is Wikipedia's own standard. But don't just take my word for it; see WP:VERIFY, WP:TRUTH and WP:RS. There have been attempts to make online encyclopedia written by experts but they achieve nothing like the same results. (So it seems Wikipedia making is in a category with sausage making and law making. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Godfrey_Saxe.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andrew,

Are these so called Wikipedia's own standard valid? if so why then the use of Wikipedia is not acceptable in most of the "Academic Communities" as a reliable source?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.131 (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia is a community and sets its own standards. Why not? But on the other hand, you seem to be claiming that the academic community agrees with you. Well, that is interesting if you can prove it. It is not that Wikipedia aims to disagree with academia or even that we do not aim to write something approximating the truth. Indeed it is the opposite. But we need the clearest possible evidence and the clearest evidence is a publication. It would be very good if you could name any academic publication which gives the same arguments as you. What we are forced to do otherwise is just to make sure we include the comments of other authors which mention any reasons for doubt, which I have tried to do. (And some of your comments seem to indicate that you have not noticed that or read it carefully?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the quote you objected to above is only saying that certain authors have argued something. Do you seriously think we should not report what academics really have argued? That would violate one of Wikipedia's most important policies which is WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone over the text again today, trying hard to avoid giving too much emphasis to the opinions of one source. I hope it helps with some of these concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andrew,

But on the other hand, you seem to be claiming that the academic community agrees with you I have not assert such a claim. what make you say that?

It would be very good if you could name any academic publication which gives the same arguments as you. which is what? Do you want to say that most academic publishers do not rely on irrefutable testable evidences/facts, but rather on speculative theories?!!!! If so then what is the definition of the word TRUTH, What is science, and what standard/s they use for measuring what they believe to be scientific fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.131 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not here to argue about the meaning of the word truth, or to criticize publications. We just summarize them, even if they are wrong. There are other forums on the internet where you can debate these things. People searching on the internet for cutting edge argument will not come to Wikipedia. People coming to Wikipedia want to just know what the latest publications by experts say, not what clever arguments people on the internet can come up with. Please consider WP:NOT and WP:TRUTH. Maybe Wikipedia is too boring for many people, but so what? It serves a role. I can definitely come up with a few criticisms of what the published articles say about J1, but we are not going to be putting personal opinions into Wikipedia. So on this talk page please just say if you have a published source for a statement or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew,

"I have gone over the text again today, trying hard to avoid giving too much emphasis to the opinions of one source." Thank you very much mate.Good luck.
 * Cheers! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Subclades and proposed origins
Good work on what is a complex and technical issue with historic progression as well as clear and concise language. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. More to do of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

InfoBox Modifications for Geography
--Andrew Lancaster made some small changes to include the Horn of African, which I modified to "Near East" for the overall area and added "Western Asia." Also, I provided some maps to show what "Near East" means to different people. It seems the Ottoman Empire is most indicative of even barely negligible percentages of modern populations in the area indicated. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Does Western Asia overlap a lot with the other terms? I suppose the aim is to pick a set of geographical terms which do not overlap un-necessarily, because this is just a summary box? I've tried to play with this further though, with your thinking in mind. I hope I've made something less controversial for most people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not check the Article listing the nations for Western Asia or Dagestan. Dagestan is in Russian Europe. You have made the term origin meaningless with your answer, much like saying the origin of the English Language is on the third planet from the Sun. What has lead you to the conclusion the origin is not in Africa or Dagestan? If you exclude Dagestan, with the highest documented concentration of J1 and it is not J1c3 or P58. It is J1*(xP58)The oldest documented is, again, Turkey at 15,400 years before present, even through it is only 9% concentration. Your exclusion of Egypt and Dagestan is not neutrality. If you make your priority being non-controversial then you are making the article meaningless and inaccurate. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your responses are just about adequate and/or appropriate and approximately as applicable as circumstances dictate or as much as possible as needed. As required by your solipsistic perspective, you will basically, at your earliest convenience, depending on frequently good excuses as indicated in general, in most cases, if required, in our opinion, in most instances, to our understanding, may expect you to make an effort to be neutral, normally, more or less, primarily, sometimes. Often, roughly, perhaps, there is normally, more or less, some weasel words, maybe, that make content irrelevant in tentatively striving for "suitable" wording. I might almost get back to this later, I suspect. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2011)

This notification was deleted and is now replaced. A map s/he insists on posting is copyrighted by Nature in 2009 and the work claims:

Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2 Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp).

Given that was during the Roman occupation, David was long dead and this article has no credibility. The person refuses to sign in properly and has an IPS of Qatar is using a biased paper to justify this perspective.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To mr. JohnLloydScharf I agree further works and clean up are needed to amend this article. However, and let me get back to you. You have stated ''“ Given that was during the Roman occupation, David was long dead and this article has no credibility”. '' ...Given by whom ? ! ! ! Where you get that from ? ! ! !  There is no mentioning of  David and Romans  in this Article. Why do you keep saying and assuming things not being mentioned in the article? ! ! !

Please avert from engaging in to a straw man defeat argument.

Cheers and regrads


 * JLS please give areason for the COI tag or else remove it. also more generally please stop peppering the article and the talk page with non standard formatting. Please work according to the norms of the Wikipedia project and community if you wish to be involved--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You cite the paper mentioned above as the source for your information. It says: Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2 Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp).

This misinformation in the paper calls into question the bias of the authors for this paper.

NOTE: 2.0 Kybp or 2,000 years ago would be during the Roman occupation of Israel, long after the rein of David.Grabbe 2008, pp. 225–6. puts Judah into 8th-7th century BC. The Cohen lineage, however, begins with Aaron, the brother of Moses.The Jewish calendar's epoch (reference date), 1 Tishrei 1 AM, is equivalent to Monday, 7 October 3761 BCE (or 5.771 Kybp) in the proleptic Julian calendar, the equivalent tabular date (same daylight period) and is about one year before the traditional Jewish date of Creation on 25 Elul AM 1, based upon the Seder Olam Rabbah of Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta, a 2nd century CE sage.The Jewish year 5771 AM began on 9 September 2010 (1 Tishrei or Rosh Hashanah) and, since it is a 13-month year, will end on 28 September 2011 (29 Elul).The Book of Kings relates how a "law of Moses" was discovered in the Temple during the reign of king Josiah (r. 641–609 BC)William Dever agrees with the Canaanite origin of the Israelites but allows for the possibility of some immigrants from Egypt among the early hilltop settlers, leaving open the possibility of a Moses-like figure in Transjordan ca 1250-1200 BCE or 3250 to 3200 or 3.250 Kybp. New papers on molecular biology add the J-P58 or J1c3 subclade requirement to the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which may make it younger. Ultimately, it is unlikely Aaron was the founder of his haplotype. That might be pushed back further to Abraham.

The fact that it also claims the dates are up to 36,000 years is not true. It is an unreliable source. The highest date given is "24.1±9.4 Kyr" That means the J1 age range of 14,700 to 33,500 overlaps both of the parent ranges of J and IJ and still does not reach the claimed 36,000. The statement about the Cohen haplotype shows ignorance as well as bias. The claim of 36,000 is just not true. The page has been through a whole range of changes, but it still has serious issues regarding origin dates and geography. Please stick with the policies and norms of what is verifiable content. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clearly a reliable source according to all Wikipedia norms, and you are tilting at windmills if you are thinking of arguing against that. It might be wrong, but that is not our problem on Wikipedia. We are reporting what peer reviewed experts have managed to get published. This is not a forum for trying to criticize published experts. I enjoy such debate as much as anyone, but there are other forums all over the internet for that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No. You are reporting on a paper that may or may not have had a peer review in this case. It claims things about the papers of others that are in error.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was "Received 1 December 2008; Revised 6 February 2009; Accepted 6 March 2009; Published online 15 April 2009." It has had fact checking by a reputable specialist fact checking entity, was written by professionals who are widely cited, and the articles itself also already been cited in other papers. By the way, I find it odd that you refuse to be civil to another editor who sometimes does not sign, but you do not sign all your posts either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was still editing and I DO sign what I post, unless someone's editing stops me. All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV). This one does not. It is not neutral and it is not accurate. Since I do not have access to letters that point out flaws in the research, I do not know if this one was criticized or not. Whoever let it pass without checking the claimed citations or the glaring historical errors obviously failed in this case. SO, that it is a peer reviewed article is not the only requirement. That this issue is disagreed on is a factor that nees to be reported, but for you to make a cite based on this fallacy and clear misrepresentation of the facts is not a Wikipedia norm. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just admit you are appeasing the mystery writer from Qatar. You are avoiding conflict at all costs, including accuracy. This citation is not agreed to and the dates given are way out of whack from the rest of the papers.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Admit? I would have no problem "admitting" that I "appeasing" other editors. It is how you need to work on Wikipedia. But actually concerning this source you are mistaken. This is a classic WP standard source, and I have been involved in a lot of debates about such things in this community. It also is also not an article which is unusual in its conclusions. NPOV is exactly about not allowing people to do what you want to do here, which is where an individual Wikipedian decides that sources with a reputation for fact checking is not accurate because it disagrees with their personal opinions. You are obsessing over one sentence in the article which is not being cited in Wikipedia, and is neither important to anything to do with  the subject, nor is it even easy to interpret anyway. Please do not expend too much time and energy on this. Concerning talk page postings, other people do not know when you have finished editing. The normal advice is not to upload talk page posts in incomplete stages. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot depend just on the fact that the journal published this and I gave the reasons why. I emailed the author on the issues I presented here to confront the issue head on. I cannot believe that ignorant of a claim could be published. Perhaps Sergio Tofanelli will respond. If not, I will be asking this question of others as well. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually on Wikipedia we do indeed depend on things like this. That is the policy and the community consensus. We are however not only looking at the fact that it was published by the way, but also at the fact that it is widely cited, as are other articles by the same authors. Also the publication is obviously a reputable one, not just any publication. That's all we can do normally. So because your demands are way beyond normal WP requirements I think if you really believe there is a problem there you need to take it up somewhere like WP:RSN. But honestly I advise you that this is very unlikely to go anywhere. In the meantime, what is it about the genetics information in this article which you find so strikingly unusual? I mean honestly it looks like you are worried about a side sentence which you consider a history mistake, but which is not about the genetics. We are really only using the article for its genetics, and that is very orthodox??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You missed my point that the article did not do the computation itself and the citations it refers to are not in agreement with the claims it has. If you think what the article claims is verifiable then cite the original article that puts the upper limit to 36,000 years. I prefer not to be characterized as making demands. The article itself lacks verifiability using the articles it claims as its source. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to criticize published journal articles by experts, it is a discussion which is not for Wikipedia. We do not have to be able to see and agree with all the background thinking of any claim in a good source like this. Honestly I have not even tried. Have you look at all 6 cited sources? But anyway look at the title of this section of the talk page. What does this have to do with a COI? Do you think someone editing this article is Tofanelli?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When I emailed the publisher and Tofanelli, my question was whether the copy online was real and if they actually included the comments I am calling into question. I asked another researcher why they went (in 2009) with that articles Out-of-Africa assumption when it was already known (in 2008) the variability/age of J1 was 15+kyp in Turkey and the ages of the J1 source in the Arabian Plate are all significantly lower. If that is true, they are claiming J1 skipped over the Arabian Plate and went to Turkey/Anatolia first. If you accept this article with your stated criteria, then you would have to accept this one:

Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged Mu heavy chain gene,David Weavera, b, Moema H. Reisb, c, Christopher Albaneseb, c, Frank Costantinid, David Baltimore a, b and Thereza Imanishi-Karib, c, CELL, Volume 45, Issue 2, 25 April 1986, Pages 247-259 doi:10.1016/0092-8674(86)90389-2 |

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0092867486903892

Before you continue to justify Tofanelli, tell me if you would accept that article based on just what it says on the page itself? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to assume that the accusations of conflicts of interests have stopped and that this talk page section is no longer active. Please keep posts about the same subject in one section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No one can stop you from making assumptions and you have strange ideas about what is or is not on topic. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

North Africa, Horn Of Africa, Canary islands, and Comoros islands
''Arabic and Berber speaking populations in Africa seem to have received migrations of men from the Middle East, speaking semitic languages, possibly Arabic. (However the Canary islands is not known to have had any semitic language.) Their J1 is dominated by J-P58, and noticeably more common amongst Arabic speakers. But in the Horn of Africa there are signs of older movements of J1 into Africa across the Red Sea, not only in the J-P58 form. This also appears to be associated with Semitic languages.''

The Middle East is not the Near East. Chiaroni et al. (2010) says Near East. El-Sibai is more specific in refering to the Levant. You have no reference for Kujanová et al. (Černy). Does Ottoni et al. (2011) say anything about Semitic speaking Berbers using Arabic? He refers to the Garamantes, who lived over a thousand years before the Arab expansion and were centered in Libya. Show how Arabic or Berber speaking populations equates to a Middle East origin. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Levant and the Near East are terms which are generally used, whether we like it or not, in a way makes them parts of the Middle East. Please see Middle East.
 * The text you cite is a quick summary at the table heading, but the more sourced discussion is above. I'll make that more clear, but eventually there does probably need to be more sourcing and discussion about the Maghreb. Many of the earlier sources concerning J haplotypes in the Maghreb did not test for J1, but we could cite them concerning J in the Maghreb. Arredi et al for example do propose it came from the "Middle East". Later authors who do test for J1 tend to refer to the old studies. Semino et al (2004) mentions that the Maghreb J1 (which they did test for) was probably spread by "Arab people" and indeed this is already discussed in our article. Their comments suggest that the Arabs they mean were from the southern part of the "Middle East". And here is the last sentence of the article: "Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more-recent diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa."
 * Thanks for the heads up on the Kujanova cite. It is a template problem which I did not notice. (Too many arguments.) Should be ok now. Please let me know if you see any other problems in the table.
 * I agree concerning Ottoni and do not think our article claims otherwise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about deleting every comment on every suggestion I make that you reject. It is useless to discuss issues with you as you form a consensus of one. The Levant is only part of the Middle East at best. It is not the whole. It is not the Arabian Peninsula. It is not Anatolia or the Caucasus. It is Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. When they refer J1 coming from the north to Saudi Arabia and to Egypt from the East, in the papers, it is clear they are referring to the Levant. However, you will have it your own way and you are more than willing to cling to the religious perspective from Qatar.

I said to stay off my comments page and restrict your comments to the page discussion as I consider it abusive and bullying. Deletion is part of the editing process. I have had my editing deleted over and over without any discussion. Your attempts at manipulation will be ignored. Once you started editing, you stopped being an arbitrator or administrator while engaging in personal attacks. I have this futile hope that what is said here will make a difference, but you have disabused me of that notion. SO, do what you want. What you do is as meaningless to me as what I say to you is to you. You are putting in many inaccuracies based on bias and personal opinion. Again, I want you to keep your remarks here, but I am sure you will not respect that. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Levant is within the Middle East, then it is clearly not wrong to use the term Middle East in order to refer to what the literature says, which is generally the "Middle East" and in only one case the "Levant". What a load of nonsense . And no, you should NOT delete old talk page discussions that have been replied to! See WP:Talk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your "load of nonsense" is a personal attack. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy with your comments directed at me. I have not deleted old any comments of mine on this page that have been responded to. In fact, you have neither responded to them nor used them in editing. This is your personal page with a consensus of one. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The words "load of nonsense" refer to content, not contributor, but I will strike them because they are not needed. You will notice that it does not change the issue. Concerning content your original point in this sub-section was simply wrong, and so your continuation of this discussion seems pointless. If you have any real points about the following, just make them:-
 * Ottoni et al did not show Berbers having any J1.
 * Most articles we can cite say the "Middle East" is the origin of J1 in the Maghreb.
 * The Levant, mentioned by one article, is a part of the Middle East.
 * On the other hand, your posts are almost entirely about other editors, who you accuse of having "an agenda", or a "conflict of interest", "vandalism", "terrorism", clinging "to the religious perspective from Qatar". You seem to believe that the rules you insist upon for others do not apply to yourself? Please try to avoid that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Any opinion but yours is pointless, obviously. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Neutrality is non-existent where an administrator is also an editor

 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts[JOGG and ISOGG are one entity and not commonly accepted references for the scientific community or its journals in genetics, population genetics, or molecular biology];
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the above have anything to do with this Wikipedia article? Please consider WP:SOAP. By the way, I am not an administrator, and it seems clear that in any case you do not understand what an administrator is on Wikipedia. Please by all mean take your opinions about Wikipedia in general to another forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, when you start declaring your interpretation of the WP, you have no more authority to make those distinctions than a 5th grader claiming they know what the principle means by written policy. Thanks for finally admitting you really have no authority to judge the interpretation of the meaning or scope of Wikipedia Policy. If that is so, then you have been extremely pretentious and self-absorbed. I shall treat you accordingly, hence forth. Stat. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins do not have higher authority than other experienced Wikipedians to judge the meaning and scope of policy. Policy is set by the whole community. You are also free to go and try to convince people to change it, but otherwise you should follow it. If you are seriously claiming I am wrong in my advice on WP, you are also of course always free to go get advice from other Wikipedians, whether admins, or from a forum for such advice. I have suggested this a few times already whenever you have implied that you believe you are following policy and I am wrong about it. But I think we all know that you are in violation of Wikipedia policy on an almost constant basis, and that you have already had some discussions with admins in the past. So now claiming that my advice is simply wrong only because I am not an admin, and something you can ignore, is not a good idea. More generally, I do not think it is a good idea to threaten to treat another editor poorly because they have tried to explain Wikipedia policy to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Frequency does not establish age or origin.
Frequency does not establish age or origin. [Haplogroup F (Y-DNA)] is from central Asia and the parent of I, J, and K. Note that the F Haplogroup map claims the origin is in India with an age of 48,000 years BP (38,700-55,700).

However, see Am J Hum Genet. 2006 February; 78(2): 202–221.Published online 2005 December 16. Copyright © 2005 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists, Sengupta et al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/table/TB11

This states the F Haplogroup in India is 28.9±4.4 kya. If the 2002 age of 48,000 years BP is correct, then India is not the origin of Haplogroup F. If the origin is in India, then the age of F Haplogroup is lower than the one than cited in this article for J1. 6,000 years is typical of the

Haplogroup F is the parent haplogroup of G (M201), H (M69), and IJK (L15/S137, L16/S138, L69.1(=G)/S163.1) along with IJK's descendant haplogroups (IJ, and K) and so on, which is about 90% of those who have non-African origins while being rare or non-existent in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula. There is no rational argument to be made for an origin in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula for J, J1, or J2. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Has this perhaps been posted on the wrong talkpage? What does it have to do with the content of this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not at all. I know this is a complex subject for you,, but all these ages and origins are connected, which I have been trying to help you understand for two weeks now. It is a "house of cards" with a foundation based on a priori assumptions. The estimates have no epidemiological basis consistent with archaeology or even microbiology. Perhaps I can simplify the concept for you metaphorically. You are creating maps of genetics using rubber bands as a measuring stick. How about this. If the map doesn't fit, get rid of it. This is without even getting into how far it is from being consistent with the anthropological chronology. Add to that your arbitrary and ambiguous editing with a consensus of a minority and this article is more fiction than fact. You can cherry pick a map of Laputa and be as close to a reality of the date and place of origin. The best thing you can do is to at least get the body of the intro to match the map and the claim of origin. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But there is no map in this article, so how can we get rid of any map from it? What are you talking about? Please stop filling this talk page with random nonsense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The nonsense is coming from you and it has become a joke to me, as I pointed out. I am merely answering your absurdity with my own, since you refuse to address the issues, ignore the research, and edit the article with bias. That is why I do not attempt to edit it. You are gaming me and the system. Your "most commonly" used tactic is to come back with some non-responsive comment that ignores even your own "most commonly" cited papers. Until you act responsibly rather than doing that, expect me to point out your long struggle to put a maps on the page, which were inappropriate and misinformation. Like the academics of Laputa, your are living on an island in the sky busy making up a priori notions of how things work that have no connection with reality. I am just being a "flapper," in all this. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What is this about? I have had no "long struggle to put maps on this page". And your remark that "until you...expect me to keep..." sounds very much like a threat to be disruptive until you get something, but what you want is not even clearly defined. Concerning this sub-section of the talk page you started, as with all the other ones you started, what is it about? Please name the bit of the article you think should be improved, and explain how and why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE, stop engaging denial and minimizing about the map issue. You were the last one to put a map up and took it down because you caught so much flack. Yo must have CRS. If you want to improve the article, stop injecting your bias into it. Put up the name given in the paperwork for the Albanian speakers and stop avoiding the use of Israel. Use accepted definitions of regions based on the nations in them. Name Israel. Stop inflating claims about the distribution, age, and origins of J1. The most important part of writing is editing - starting with deletions. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When you claim that another person's recollection of their editing is wrong, I suggest you give diffs. That is what is normally done on Wikipedia. Anyway, concerning the name Israel, the obvious problems this gives are (a) it means we have to name the Levant sub-section with a whole list of countries, which is simply becoming too long, and (b) it would mean we have to deal with most Jews in another section, because they do not live in Israel.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)