Talk:Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA)

Early Remarks from 2009
Question for the author of this article: I doubt that the available data support your assertions about the entrance of J1e into Ethiopia and all the other specific locations you've mentioned. What published papers have even tested for P58? I agree that the haplotypes with YCAII=22-22 can be assumed to be J1e=P58+, but few papers have included YCAII data. Semino specifically stated that the YCAII=22-22 group was not found in Ethiopia and Europe at the kinds of levels seen in the Middle East. I think this article will need to be edited to remove such unsupported statements. It should stick to what is definitely known about this subclade. Iris-J2 (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I checked ysearch on J1c3. 23% tested had YCAIIa/b=19-22. Some who are J2 tested are 22-22.

Ultimately, only the SNP test can justify haplogroup assignment. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, this sentence does not clearly relate to anything in the article, including the last section: According to Yunusbayev et al. 2006: "Overall, our results corroborate the initially suggested genetic contribution of Middle Eastern populations to Caucasus populations"[14]. What are these results? How do they relate to the existence of P58+ or P58- populations in the Caucasus? Iris-J2 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nearly three years later, I am addressing this very same issue in the section of talk I labeled, "Haplogroup Date and Place of Origin Lack Verifiable and/or Reliable Resources" regarding deletion. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Europe Omitted
Cadenas2008 created this article by splitting info from the J1 page. In the process all reference to J1 in Europe was omitted. If the European J1 are also J1e then they should be here, if it is not known or if they are not then please replace the info omitted on Europe from the J1 article. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.115.62 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That distribution is dealt with in the section on the subclade.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New Name
It's J1c3 now !!! http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpJ.html 87.101.224.234 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The title should be changed to J1c3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMPOSSIBLEMAN (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ISOGG is not a peer reviewed source, but that issue is resolved in another section now with an acceptable reference. Good call. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup Date and Place of Origin Lack Verifiable and/or Reliable Resources
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources


 * ^ a b c Semino et al. 2004


 * ^ a b Shen et al. 2004

Not naming the title and the source prevents anyone from looking at the claimed source to see if the interpretation is correct and the source is reliable. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. I do not expect every article to have a scientific paper to back every single point, but a reasonable person expects haplogroup information to meet that level of of proof and the stance the article on what is verifiable reiterates that issue several times. No personal research. That is a nice way of saying "I believe.." and "I think.." are not a basis for a claim, particularly without a justifiable logical argument.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If the sources are ones which (I presume) you know to be good ones, and you are just attacking them because they are incompletely edited, that would be un-constructive behavior? That is not how we work on Wikipedia. All edits aim to improve, but perfection is not a requirement of any edit. When you find something incomplete, but easy to fix, you fix it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I am un-constructivive is a personal attack and without merit. The sources, other than the first one cited, do not apply. They do not mention and, in some cases, do not even apply to J1, much less J1c3 or J1e or P58. It is not just that they fail to be cited, even now. These are the specifics:

1.This citation is the most informative as well as worst interpreted. Some cleanup has been done since this point was made as 1 and2 are now different.. Saying the origin is the "Middle East" above it is like saying the Origin of English is the planet Earth. It's origin is "the Zagros/Taurus mountain region," according to the article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/

2.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/?tool=pmcentrez

3.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58.

http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/publications/Shen2004.pdf

4.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58.

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p000-0130.pdf

5.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/?tool=pmcentrez

6.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=93774&ProduktNr=224250&filename=93774.pdf

7.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58 in the abstract and references J2 with respect to the topic. To claim otherwise needs a quote including J1c3, J1e, or P58

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14586639

8.No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58. It needs a quote to show it was even read.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497309000829

9.This is a good citation for this section establishing the history of the J-58, J1e, J1c3 discovery and establishment.

http://bernshtam.name/dna/books/Hammer_2009_Y-DNA%20Jewish%20Priesthood_HG.pdf

10. No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58. It needs a quote to show it was even read with reference to this subclade. The quote given does not reference J1c3, J1c3e, or P58

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1353/hub.2006.0059

11.Refer to 7.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14586639

'All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable'' to a reliable published source. If the material is not in that source, then it is not All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source or verifiable.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The sections with the remark "No mention of J1c3, J1e, or P58," as a basis should be deleted.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, that means all of the "Distribution" section and the part of Subclade starting with "According to Yunusbayev et al. 2006:......"

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that Iris-J2 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) makes the same point nearly three years ago.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Metatalk not relevant to Haplogroup Date and Place of Origin Lack Verifiable and/or Reliable Resources
Segmented out.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I should not have had to bring this to your attention and go over every detail about why this is poorly written and resourced, much less be subjected to a personal attack JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then you do not understand Wikipedia. No one should do anything for you. Other editors have no responsibility to serve you. If you are a serious Wikipedian, then you improve Wikipedia. You do not simply complain about it and tell other Wikipedians to serve you. Also, when someone comments negatively about content, or an edit, this is by definition NOT what we mean on Wikipedia by a personal or ad hominem "attack". And this is also consistent with the usage of this term in debating, logic etc. Please, concerning all the comments above, can you please get this discussion more constructive by simply stating which passages in the present article here which you want changed, and proposals for what would be better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please read my comments before attacking me? Denying they address the issues is not constructive.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also please note that it is bad practice to edit your posts on talk pages after they have been replied to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There you do again, focusing on me with a personal attack by accusing me of not being serious and telling others to serve me. I did not ask anyone to serve me. I do not see the sections they come from as salvageable or relevant to this subclade. How many times are you going to attack me rather than addressing the issue?

The statements made about J1c3 in the sections are not supported by the references given. They should be deleted as they are personal opinion about J1c3, not proven with respect to it specifically. My mentioning it rather than deleting it is an offer for them to offer something that is verifiable That is simple ettiquette.
 * Which statements? If you have noticed something wrong, explain it. Please also sign your talk page posts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't respond to them before I finish editing them. If I have not signed them and the bot has not intervened, perhaps I am in the middle of an edit and using symbols I am not familiar with. There you go again, attacking me rather than resolving the issue.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Place of Origin
Place of Origin for J1c3 and J1c3d between the Caucasus Mountains in the north, the Black Sea in the west, the Caspian Sea/Zagros Mountains in the east, and the Anatolian high plain/Taurus Mountains in the South and its subclades are in Arabic Peninsula.

'''Much of the assumptions here are based on the Arab Peninsula, where J1c3d2 and J1c3d2a are most indicated. This is one of the sources of information:''' The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/abs/ejhg2009166a.html

ABSTRACT:

Haplogroup J1 is a prevalent Y-chromosome lineage within the Near East. We report the frequency and YSTR diversity data for its major sub-clade (J1e). The overall expansion time estimated from 453 chromosomes is 10 000 years. Moreover, the previously described J1 (DYS388=13) chromosomes, frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian populations, were ancestral to J1e and displayed an expansion time of 9000 years. For J1e, the Zagros/Taurus mountain region displays the highest haplotype diversity, although the J1e frequency increases toward the peripheral Arabian Peninsula. The southerly pattern of decreasing expansion time estimates is consistent with the serial drift and founder effect processes. The first such migration is predicted to have occurred at the onset of the Neolithic, and accordingly J1e parallels the establishment of rain-fed agriculture and semi-nomadic herders throughout the Fertile Crescent. Subsequently, J1e lineages might have been involved in episodes of the expansion of pastoralists into arid habitats coinciding with the spread of Arabic and other Semitic-speaking populations.

That area between the Baltic and Caspian Sea is an ancient trading center with significant transitions in population. This is why haplotype diversity, not frequency, establishes an origin. Those tested in the Arabian Peninsula have a high percentage who are J1e, but they seem to come from a narrow range of haplotypes. The abstract clearly states the J1e from the Caucusus and eastern Anatolian in the Zagros/Taurus Mountain region to the peripheral Arabian Peninsula. The Arab Peninsula is not the origin of J1e, AKA: J1c3.

What you think you know about J1c3d seems just to not be so.


 * 1) 1.If you start making claims about J1c3d, you have to either stick with J-P58 or have a paper that demonstrates otherwise.


 * 1) 2.If we start looking at the listing of J1c3d (tested) of ysearch.org, then you see the European and Arab surnames are about evenly matched.


 * 1) 3.If you look at ysearch and FTDNA groups, you will see that J1c3d2 and J1c3d2a are nearly complete in their dominance by Arabs, most of which are from the Arab Peninsula.


 * It looks like J1c3d is likely to have its origin between the Caucasus Mountains in the north, the Black Sea in the west, the Caspian Sea/Zagros Mountains in the east, and the Anatolian high plain/Taurus Mountains in the South.


 * It looks like J1c3d2 and J1c3d2 are likely to have their origin between Jordan to Yemen on the West, Saudi Arabia on the South, and the UAE to Kuwaite toward the north. Many Kurds are J1, but I have not seen the SNPs/haplotypes from them or Iraq. What we are seeing so far is J1c3d2/a from the highlands at the center of Saudi Arabia. There is a lot them who have come from the largest tribe there interested in genetic genealogy, helping define them genetically/geographically.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SO, in regard to J1c3d, we cannot claim any origin that is verifiable, except that its parent clade is from south of Russia and north of Iraq between the Black and Caspian Seas


 * This is a confusing post. It seems to contain comments you've written at another article talk page about your own opinions. Can you please help by simply stating which passage in the present article here which you want changed, and proposals for what would be better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been dealt with in detail on this page prior to you posting this. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are off topic for this section.


 * JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How can it be off topic to ask someone to clarify what edits a post implies? Please consider what this talk page is for. Concerning the subject of the likely point of dispersal according to the Chiaroni article please note that I changed this article yesterday so that it now quotes the article exactly. So what is wrong with it now? As an answer, it would not seem practical or appropriate to me to just continually copy your old posts onto this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response was off topic and a personal attack. It remains so. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What sources do we have for J-P58
I suppose the same question has to be posted on this talk page as on the talk page for J1c3d: should this subject be merged into the article for Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA)? It seems like most of the sources being quoted on this article are actually writing about the parent clade? And what sources there are which really discuss J-P58 could be summarized pretty quickly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of journals that specifically discuss J-P58:
 * The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations
 * Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood
 * A comment on the paper: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes :resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood
 * Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora
 * Haplogroups E1b1b1c1 (M34) and E1b1b1c1a (M84) among Jews. Could Abraham be E1b1b1c1 or E1b1b1c1a?
 * Origin of the Jews and the Arabs: Date of their Most Recent Common Ancestor is Written in their Y-Chromosomes – However, There Were Two of Them
 * --Victar (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good argument against merging this into Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) and making one good article about J1?
Yes, the question in the title...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Short answer, yes. Long answer, let me get back to you. It's been a busy week. --Victar (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the list for journals above, I'd say there's a good deal of information on J1c3. --Victar (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly correct, but not everything in a journal article is notable enough to go in a Wikipedia article. Right now the J1 article is a total mess anyway, so I think the obvious practical way forward is to try to make a J1c3 article, like you propose. And this would include J1c3d?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Short update. My current feeling while working on the J1 article is that it will end up being short and very dry except for discussion of J-P58, which is effectively the most discussed part of it, and possibly the majority. Nevertheless, whether we eventually come to a decision to merge or not, independently working on cleaning up both articles first seems a priority.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've managed to get J1 into some kind of basic form and now is the time to look at it and consider what about J-P58 can not be discussed in that article. It is to a large extent about the same subject, and it is hard to see how we avoid the two articles becoming almost completely over-lapping?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Distribution
We need to clarify that distribution rates from 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 are those of J1 YCAII 22-22 which is only a highly probable indication of J1c3. --Victar (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not just say that then? In fact I see it mentioned already at one point. By the way, concerning sections which are basically just collections of numbers it strikes me that tables of numbers would be easier on the eye and would also resolve other issues such as how the clades were identified in the various studies (you can simply have different columns for different SNPs, or in this case the STR motif).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take on a frequency chart. I think a lot of those number are actually of J1 and not J1c3 (or even YCAII=22-22). --Victar (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the frequencies are taken from the journal by Semino et al in which he names the motif YCAII=22-22 as M267*. He however includes the results from the research of Cruciani et al, Nebel et al, and Bosch et al in this group "because of not belonging to J-M172" which were in those journals labeled as J*. Am I following that logic correctly? --Victar (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is "she" not "he" (or maybe "they") :) . Anyway, having worked on this for a day or two now, I see no reason to stick to using old papers which did not test for the right SNPs? There are newer articles which in some cases (like the Chiaroni article) even include old samples, including some of the Semino team's, with new tests done on them. It continues to be interesting to see that we are working in parallel. I think it will be very hard to make this article cover anything significantly different from the J1 article, if we stick to normal WP standards concerning sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't disregard them off-hand. Even with SNP testing available, some researchers opt for cheaper STR marker tests. --Victar (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and STR-defined clusters have been associated with J-P58 by published studies, but NOT equated. See how I've tried to handle it on the J1 page. Discussing J1 together with its sub-clades is definitely possible I think, because J1, J-P58 and the J1 STR clusters are over-lapping subjects which can be explained. But having a truly separate article about J-P58 only would be difficult. You would need to discuss J1 and its STR clusters - just exactly like the J1 article already has to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is how I've been dealing with it in the frequency table. User:Victar/Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA) --Victar (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Have now done tables for the J1 article which include P58. Maybe they can save you some work. Comments on the J1 article would be welcome. Is it neutral and is it covering all notable things we can get from published sources with a reputation for fact checking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the J1c3's 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:

•Negev and Yemeni samples are not even mentionned in these studies (for they have a certain amount of STR diversity.

•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)?

•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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.34.219 (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For those who do not know this same comment was also posted at the J1 article and answered there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Very good points. The argument of equating HG birth place with   Y-STR diversity  is very weak.The actual HG  mutation rate for human is not being determined,to count for HG age. It is just a hypothetical estimation. Therefore Chiaroni and Tofanelli's (including other methods of  HG age estimations)is speculation based on hypothetical assumption.I believe this comment raised up two important issues ( HG's birth place and age) to look at which are not being fully answered in the J1 article 217.137.120.107 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * These points are not really relevant to Wikipedia. We report what gets published. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate and criticism. STR diversity combined with looking at the relationship between geography and phyogenies, is how the published experts in this field all make their estimations, and that is what we have to report. If you have any source we can use for adding counter theories etc, please do mention it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Alshamaly
The Alshamaly source is available on line and appears to use no SNP testing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. They don't even say what modal they use. Local Population Structure in Arabian Peninsula Revealed by Y-STR Diversity. --Victar (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose that editors of this article move over to J1, and we make this article a redirect
I believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to write a good J1 article without it covering ALL of what can be written about Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA), given the sources available. I believe that also it is not possible to write an article about Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA) which does not overlap ENTIRELY with Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). The overlap, if we stick to strong reliable sources, is more or less perfect.

Can anyone think of any counter argument for merging these two articles at all? I am proposing changing this article into a redirect to Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). I will do it soon if no good counter argument is forthcoming. (It can always be reversed, and of course when new studies are published, maybe one day it will be more justifiable.) I think if that article does not yet cover everything in this article it surely can do so with minor tweaks.

The J1 article has its own problems and can do with having the attention of all editors interested in this subject. The last thing any of us want, hopefully, is to have two article covering effectively the same subject but written by opposing teams of Wikipedians. See WP:POVFORK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Have been bold and gone ahead. Hopefully everyone understands the reasoning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree and object. My thoughts are written above. Please do not discount them. --Victar (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Victar. I did not mean to discount anything. Where are your thoughts on this? Where have you responded to any of my various calls for comment over the last month? The basic question is what can be sourced about this topic specifically, which is not also going to have to be covered in the J1 article? The overlap in the subject matter seems to be perfect. Most papers discussing J1 are actually discussing J1c. It is not possible to disentangle the two subjects, because many papers do not even define which one they are talking about, and the ones that do say very little at all about J1 which is not J1c. If I am wrong, please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that you look at the new version of the J1 article, and examine what you would say is missing from it in order to cover J1c3?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)