Talk:Haplogroup O-M175

haplogroup o*
does haplogroup O* means the people are related with eachother?? I mean Tajiks chinese usbeks kyrgyz or is that just a mutation cause of the climate and region?--88.68.220.194 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean the Asterisk, See * (haplogroup). It means someone has the mutation which makes them HG "O" but is of an undiscovered or private subclade. Whether one O* is related to another O* can only be inferred by STR haplotyping via alleles until an SNP is discovered to connect them or not. Nagelfar (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If however you mean does having "haplogroup O" mean they are related to each other, then yes. They all have the same direct paternal ancestor many thousands of years ago, in an unbroken chain from father to son, to son, to son … etc. it has nothing to do with climate or any such thing. See the haplogroup article. Nagelfar (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More information?
This may very well be the most populous downstream human Y chromosomal haplogroup in the world, and yet other Y-HG so much smaller have articles with so much more detail. This should be remedied. 4.255.51.231 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mutation names redundant?
We don't need it written as thus: "O-MSY2.2 (MSY2.2)" or "O-M122 (M122)", that is highly redundant. The alpha-numeric delineation in current use as it stands regardless of its tentative nature is perfectly suitable for this page as it is in many other haplogroup articles, much as it was on this very page in this revision. Why is "O2b" still the alpha-numeric name in this revision by the way? This is a wiki, so regardless of how often they change, they can be just as quickly cited and edited. These are the classifications still widely used, it isn't cited well that each is known by this or that mutational name by many sources, unlike how it would be easy to do so for the whole delineation of alpha-numeric identifications. I think it should be reverted to the revision as given above. 4.255.50.203 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 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) 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup O-M175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010154434/http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_98/page_08.html to http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_98/page_08.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.explore-qatar.com/imglib/spencer_4.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup O-M175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116235802/https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my042 to https://www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my042
 * Added tag to http://www.dnahaplogroups.org/phylogeneticTree.php?view=y&hap=O

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tripura is not that well known
Why are you keen on removing India before the mention of Tripura? Not everybody in the world knows what Tripura is. Especially when it is mentioned in the source as "India (Tripura)". In part O-F14422* Tripura (Riang), Myanmar (Yangon)[1], the position of Tripura here is ambiguous, when next to Myanmar which is a country. Try maintaining NPOV. And kindly link where the Riangs were mentioned. "Anybody can check" is not a valid argument. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It simply wastes space and looks silly. Please do not clutter a long list of this sort with redundant information. Frankly, if you do not know what Tripura is or where it is located, you should look it up. It is not difficult; you can find it on Wikipedia, after all. Furthermore, "anyone can check it" is the essence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Ebizur (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking you to maintain parity and whatever is mentioned in the source. Putting Myanmar (a country ) and Tripura (a state) in the same footing is incorrect. Secondly, can you provide the exact link for the Riang. I can't see in here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Go and have a look at the Samples subsection of the Methods section of "Genomic analysis of Andamanese provides insights into ancient human migration into Asia and adaptation" by Mondal M, Casals F, Xu T, et al., Nat Genet. 2016 Sep;48(9):1066-70. doi: 10.1038/ng.3621. "In total, 70 samples were collected from 10 Indian populations from different geographical regions, linguistic affiliations and social categories (Supplementary Table 1). The 10 populations were: Punjabi (PUN), Uttar Pradesh Upper caste Brahmins (UBR), Rajput (RAJ), Bengali (BEN), Vellalar (VLR), Irula (ILA), Birhor (BIR), Jarawa (JAR), Onge (ONG) and Riang (RIA)." As you can see on the page at https://www.yfull.com/samples-from-paper/9/, the cited samples all are labeled with the prefix RIA-, which stands for "Riang" according to the source study. Ebizur (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What's with "go have a look". Why should I do the research? The WP:BURDEN is with you since you are the one providing incorrect sources. And maintain WP:CIVILITY, your edit summaries are quite harassing in nature and displays WP:OWN. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please quit being ridiculous. It is your responsibility to actually look at the sources that I have indicated in order to confirm whether the information I have provided in the Wikipedia article is accurate. Otherwise, you are simply being contrarian for the sake of it (i.e. a troll), or you are an Indian nationalist and ethnic chauvinist. By the way, please note that Chinese provinces are all indicated individually in this list without explicitly mentioning that they are provinces of "China" because mentioning the country name in every single instance would be redundant: i.e. a waste of space, as you must know well. A combination of precision and concision is optimal: "Tripura (Riang)" is more precise than "India" or "Northeast India," and it is more concise than "India (Tripura (Riang))." Ebizur (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Too bad, you shouldn't have been reverting when we are having this discussion. Can't you be more civil? And as I said, it is always the duty of the one who makes the change to provide sources as per WP:BURDEN. I thought you knew this stuff since you are here for quite sometime. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and Chinese provinces have nothing to do with it. Tripura is not well known outside of India. It is not something like Punjab or Tamil Nadu or Mumbai. See the google hits. Besides, what I was trying to ad was sourced. India is mentioned, why do you have problem with India? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Tripura is precisely "something like" Punjab or Tamil Nadu -- all three are constituent states of India. I have no "problem" with mentioning India in the article: cf. the current version. I do have a problem with idiotic redundancy (like writing "India (Tripura)" just for the sake of being an ugly troll). Grow up. Ebizur (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you could agree, "India (Tripura Riang)" can be used, in conformity with terms like Punjabi Brahmins, Tamil Brahmins, etc that are used in research papers. Also because, Reangs are not restricted to Tripura. That term will give the WP:Readers an idea that these specific samples are from Reangs of Tripura. And stop being uncivil and read Wikipedia policies on WP:OR. Calling me "ugly troll". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The only "original research" that potentially may be involved in this case is that of the administrators of the YFull database: it is not clear where they have obtained the information that the Riang samples of Mayukh Mondal et al. (2016) are precisely from the state of Tripura rather than from the "North-east" (of India) in general. Mondal et al. have indicated the samples prefixed with RIA- are from "Riang" of the "North-east," but they have not explicitly mentioned Tripura anywhere in the body of their paper or in their supplementary materials. Therefore, writing "Northeast India (Riang)" as in the current version of this Wikipedia article is in fact the nearest to the description of the relevant samples as given in the original source. Ebizur (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Was it really that difficult to provide that source before and abide by WP:OR? But no, some people need to hurl abuses and act as if he/she/it owns the article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup O-M175
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup O-M175's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Macholdt2020": From Vietnamese people: Enrico Macholdt, Leonardo Arias, Nguyen Thuy Duong, et al., "The paternal and maternal genetic history of Vietnamese populations." European Journal of Human Genetics (2020) 28:636–645. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0557-4 From Tai peoples: Enrico Macholdt, Leonardo Arias, Nguyen Thuy Duong, et al. (2020), "The paternal and maternal genetic history of Vietnamese populations." European Journal of Human Genetics (2020) 28:636–645. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0557-4 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup O-M175
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup O-M175's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "He2012": From Vietnamese people: He, Jun-dong et al. (2012). Patrilineal Perspective on the Austronesian Diffusion in Mainland Southeast Asia. In PLoS 7(5), Page 7. Retrieved December 14, 2017, from link.   From Chams:  From Haplogroup Q-M242:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)