Talk:Haplogroup R1a1

New source? Haber et al
I am not sure if this information is incorporated yet http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India.


 * Maybe some researchers should stick to collecting data and leave the 'conclusions' to others. M-458 is a marker of east central Europeans, not ancient Russian steppe dwellers. So why would one even expect it to have spread into CA or India ? The logic is flawed here Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor clean-up of grammar in introduction
Grammar and readability improvement made to the Introduction: (1) split 2nd paragraph (different subject, different paragraph) (2) cleaned-up the new 3rd paragraph ("Several recent studies have found ....") to make it more readable.--70.81.66.126 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

tag
There is one (or more) in the article which needs to be correctly formatted. Not mine. John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 22:56, wikitime=  14:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only see one. I guess what you are referring to might be that someone has removed all the others and then put a note on the article to demand that no one change it back? Not sure how much we need to accept that demand. The formatting in the article now is not exactly following any normal standard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well there's a big hatnote and I don't know anything about using inline citations, so I'm doing what the hatnote says. John of Cromer in  Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 00:05, wikitime=  16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Info on Subclades
Shouldn't we add the new papers eg by Pamjav and Klyosov which discuss the multiple new subclades ? By extension, or as a further point, the half a page on Origin discussion is perhaps a moot point and overly-excess, given the current perception that the uncertainty of STR ages and utility in finding geographic origins has receded dramatically (ie w.r.t. busby's paper). Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, the entire discussion of origins now, esp South Asian origin, is now almost impossible to maintain, given that almost 100% of Indian R1a falls neatly within the "daughter" clade if Z-93; whilst outside India, esp eastern Europe and central Asia, there is not only greater diversity, but also groups which are clearly ancestral to Z-93. This is the nail in the coffin, surely ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not really been following this subject, but of course what you need is a published source for the existence and distribution of Z93. I suppose that exists now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SV, I hardly dare raise it but a few things put me off editing this article and if you are about to start, I suggest reconsidering the change which was made to the referencing style.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * i havent done much editing on genetics articles, either, of late, and I can imagine that this topic would draw considerable debate. Aside from 'partisan' sentiments, it is indeed a murky topic from a purely academic perspective, also. However, two recent, peer-reviewed papers by Pamjav and his team (2012, 2013) have certainly clarified the issue as to the relation between Indian and European clades - ie they are collateral, daughetr branches, and not derivative of one another. Moreover, it merely affirms that discussion on "STR diversity" diversity is next to meaningless unless done properly, ie for fine-grained analysis of sub-clads and not for 'overall' haplogroup origins Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A lazy proposal: you could run a search on the Dienekes blog to see what has been published. He follows this clade.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ha ha. Blogs have their uses Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Where are we at?
I have stripped back some accretions of quite opinionative and apparently unsourced material last night. I apologize of course to editors who I know work hard on this, but either the material I removed has become distorted since it was inserted, or maybe work was left unfinished. It strikes me the article still needs fresh work. This made me think again about the old question of whether it should be re-merged with R-M420. By merging them perhaps the combined article can get more loving care from editors who watch this subject?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Important new source - Haak et al (2015)
This is big news for this subject: Haak et al. (2015), Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Haak et al (2015) g=have very little to say on R1a1:
 * "Overall, our detection of haplogroup R1a1 in a northwest Russian hunter-gatherer establishes the early presence of this lineage in eastern Europe, and is consistent with a later migration from eastern Europe into central Europe which contributed such haplogroups to the Corded Ware population." (p.42).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup R-M17 → Haplogroup R1a1 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Haplogroup R-M17" is used rarely. Google Books search gets about 147 results for "Haplogroup R1a1", but only about 26 results for "Haplogroup R-M17". Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY of "Haplogroup R1a1" due to its common usage. Per WP:CONCISE. Per WP:CONSISTENCY. "Haplogroup R1a1" is more consistent with the title pattern used for the closely associated article "Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)". --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Khestwol (talk)
 * Against, the so called long designations (like R1a1) are subject to being moved around in the phylotree. R-M17 is the proper designation that defines a subclade. Since the move to using only SNPs to define subclades (and not designations like R1a1) is a fairly recent one, most (if not all) of the (if not all) of the currently published material includes R1a1 designation in addition to R-M17 designation, while the older publications would only include R1a1 designation = vote by Google should be avoided. The same argument for keeping Haplogroup R-M207 and Haplogroup R-M420. R1b article should be renamed instead. Absolwent (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONCISE, R-M17 is the established commonly used concise scientific notation. It is the long form that is deprecated. Per WP:CONSISTENCY, Wikipedia haplogroup articles use SNP notations, and the remaining couple of exceptions should be moved and not the other way around. Absolwent (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, no, "R-M17" has extremely low recognizability. It is used rarely. The article won't be searchable under that title. On Wikipedia it is preferable to use a WP:COMMONNAME like "R1a1", not a rare name with extremely low recognizability like "R-M17". As for your proposal about renaming Haplogroup R1b, that proposal has been already rejected by a consensus on Haplogroup R1b's talk page here.


 * Support Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Johnzsmith (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom. The objection that this could be (in the real world) reclassified at some point is irrelevant to the WP:COMMONNAME analysis. If this haplogroup is renamed by "being moved around" in the phylotree, our article will be too renamed, when a preponderance of reliable sources tell us the name has changed. It's a fact of life for Wikipedia as a tertiary source that it will not be on the bleeding edge of nomenclature. I'm sympathetic to, and understand, the view that a more precise, but more technical and infrequently used, name is available; but it doesn't get past COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy.  WP:PRECISION is policy, too, but it doesn't trump all other concerns, and we generally give COMMONNAME the most weight because this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized work. See also WP:NOT: We don't have to mirror every preference of particular journals, and I don't see any evidence presented here that journals in genetics and physical anthropology prefer the SNPs, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom and per SMcCandlish. Jbeans (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note about move discussions

 * Similar move discussions are open at Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)'s talk page, Haplogroup R-M420's talk page, and Haplogroup R-M207's talk page. Khestwol (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Nature study
A new study published in Nature ( Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (4 March 2015) Genetic study revives debate on origin and expansion of Indo-European languages in Europe Science Daily, Retrieved 19 April 2015) strongly links R1a1 to the Kurgan hypothesis. As far as I can tell, it's the greatest breakthrough on the issue since the link was first conjectured in 1999, and I think the article should reflect that. AFAIK, the Pontic-Steppes hypothesis thanks to R1a1 now stands on scientifically firmer ground than it ever has since it began to take shape some 150 years ago, and already 25 years ago, it became the standard model for the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse. --2003:71:4E07:3E20:45EF:1899:3963:E09C (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These companies predatory publisher like Macmillan Publishers/nature journal are in the news in Australia for posting misleading material. Read this links . Please look here and listen to our ABC radio program if you do not believe me . Note all Underhill and Macmillan Publishers of these "Nature" Journals lead back to an Indian company called OMICS allegedly    . They are just made up rubbish. Also not in Australian news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.193.199 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. Nature is a major source of hoaxes, and Reich doesn't exist.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

When you fabricate evidence about R1a do a better job. Read my links as there are many racist people making up things here!.

 * A large, 2014 study by Underhill . An American psychiatrist . this Peter A Underhill who calls his self a false and misleading European agency is no DNA expert,.


 * Note this company is in the news in Australia for posting misleading material. Read this link :   . Note all Underhill and Macmillan Publishers of these Journals lead back to an   Indian company called Imex allegedly   ..

Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a
 * There  using  phylogeographic resolution to screen an invisible alleged 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia. Where are the facts and figures?? but where is the evidence maybe did he used a teleporter from star trek, concluded there was compelling evidence, that R1a-M420 originated in Iran. The facts are clear is that Iranian.com is an Iranian website and  its own DNA project that is very clear and precise and they name and number every Haplogroup and they have M-417 not m-420 so once again fabricated information. Also they claim they have carbon/phylogenetic dated a person DNA and this person is still alive what a load of dishonest Shit!. Also the facts show  Iran has an equal amount of R1a and R1b DNA haplogrouping's so this forged  thesis is wrong. And in places like Tehran Iran's captial they have more R1b 29.2% than average 8% of R1a, see link below. If all people where dum enough to think a few lone words from farsi iran languages that are simlar to Slavic languages. mean that if you speak a language then you are that race of people. So if you speak English then you must be English, Americians are English is that what your telling the world. What about your really intelligent and speak 5 languages. What are you then you racist piece who needs to go and change there DNA..
 * Use your favorite search engine for "malta boys siberia dna haplogroup R" as this was found in the permafrost and they Russia have the oldest known host  in the world for the Haplogroup R= R1a= R1b!.
 * 
 * Iranian DNA Project as above
 * R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians 29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a
 * Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b
 * German/Czech/Iranian [1]
 * 
 * This is taken from Iran's own website for DNA. Notice the small amounts of R1a and equal amount of R1b. Your history is wrong. Language has no effect on DNA.
 * German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. Germans in this DNA haplogroup test had R1a1 M-17 and showed 38.9% out of 1215 people. Please tell me because from what I know Germany does not have a DNA project. Would you be trying to change history?. So many British people do claim Germanic ancestry but most have no evidence, maybe when you say Saxon you mean the little town called Saxon north of the opening of the river Elbe and the ocean taken from Ptolemaeus map 2nd century AD. See Manga Germania, Germania Slavica.
 * . Your mass migration theory is far exaggerated as people of the British Isles average 85% and have R1b ( See stephen oppenheimer dna). Quote me but don't the 95% of the Spanish Basque people have R1b. I do also know that all people have many different types of Haplogroups and not just one.
 * German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios.
 * Swedish R1a  Hapolgroup
 * Hold Swedish have more R1a than Haplogroup I why is that who is telling the truth???.
 * Swedish history from there own goverment website. What the Vikings went east towards Russia, Ukraine, Turkey. Where is this mas migration to the UK???. Sami  Read and learn
 * Erasmus University medicial Centre Rotterdam
 * R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the
 * 
 * R1a in Europe
 * R1b in Europe
 * Germany R1a1 (M17) Average 38.9%
 * Gugarat Bhils Brahmins India R1a1.png
 * http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html
 * Iranian DNA Project as above
 * Iran has more R1b than R1a "History is wrong?.
 * Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b.
 * R1a 27% R1b11.1% Uzbeks, Afghanistan. Chuvash Russia R1a 27.9% R1b 2.3%
 * Kazakhstan R1a 15% R1b 7%
 * Tuymazinsky Tatars Russia Note R1b 16%, R1a 14%. Kazan Tatars Tatarstan Russia R1a 20.%, R1b 1.9%
 * Lithuanian Tatars R1a 54%. Hazara Afghanistan R1a 6.6%
 * Mongolians have highest C-M217 not R1a
 * Haplogroup C3 Mongolian
 * Prior to as in before R1a/r1b just maybe there was the Ma-1 an ancestral haplogroup of the R. Malta boy in Russia carbon dated 24,000 years
 * Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present). This haplogroup has been identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the so-called "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013)
 * Note Dolni Vestonice Carbon datings in artical. Also at least one piece of irovy that was hand carved was also dated in America 1988 at 26,0000+years same as Czech number and note they found two isotopes carbon C-14 and local uranium was also found and this very hard to fake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.192.164 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not very helpful for anyone actually trying to improve Wikipedia? You are right that articles like this attract strange edits, and by all means point to any problems CLEARLY, if you spot some. But please keep it simple and clear. Give the text or numbers in the article you think are wrong, and then refer to expert published sources (not blogs etc).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

These companies predatory publisher like Macmillan Publishers/nature journal are in the news in Australia for posting misleading material. Read this links :

They are just made up rubbish. Also not in Australian news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.193.199 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.193.199 (talk)
 * Please look here and listen to our ABC radio program if you do not believe me.
 * . Note all Underhill and Macmillan Publishers of these "Nature" Journals lead back to an Indian company called OMICS allegedly * * https://www.google.com.au/#q=European+Journal+of+Human+Genetics+predatory+publisher+scam+misleading+OMICS


 * I'm very aware of OMICS but hadn't seen the ABC article - thanks for that. But I have never heard of Macmillan or Nature being called predatory, and this article on predatory publishers is in Macmillan journal. Nothing to do with OMCS. Neither Macmillan or Underhill is on the 2016 list.[scholarlyoa.com/publishers/  Doug Weller  talk 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)]
 * Oops, Underhill is a person, should have read your first post. I see that one of the links in the search is to an article in the Macmillan journal Nature admitting to failures of peer review. They seem to be dealing with that.  Doug Weller  talk 17:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And just being practical if the problem is so big that we need to suddenly question every article published in that media group, then I think we need a very major directive at community level. On this talk page, we should be asking if there are specific concerns about specific sources, not a whole publishing group of this importance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note I have taken a screen shot as I will need this information to report you.

Note: The former Spanish, Dutch, English, French and so on colony. "USA" Your Underhill said I qoute" R1a-M420 originated in Iran" but the world know's Iran hates a nameless country. How did you get there DNA results use magic. note:R1a*-M420 - 2.2% (1/46) Bakhtiari of SW Iran. Look only one person in 259 had the haplogroup you claim from Iran. You can not stop the lies. http://www.dnaarab.com/imgcache/2/350alsh3er.png So people know where to look on Map of Iran. I repeat again. R haplogroup was prior to R1a and R1b and the oldest known carbon dated proof is in Siberia around 24,000 years old malta boy. . Americians know everything and I am saving the best for last. Americians know nothing about Iranian DNA. And either do I, but you really need to look at the facts. Iranians do that have the claimed R1a -420 haplogroup so how can it come from that area ask Underhill he is a claimed Americian expert.. Forgive my bad grammer. Look up Slavic archeology in many individual countries, include Danish, Germania, Skane ( Sweden island. Many cultures and artifacts exist in so many countries than you know relating to this claimed Slavic R1a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.168.217 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Origins of R1a1
the article says that untill 2012 the origins of R1a1 were extensively debated. Why not anymore? Which publication stopped the debate? And is there concensus now on the origins of R1a1, and the supposed link with the Indo-Europeans?
 * There was this edit-warring on Haplogroup R1a on the inclusion of Haber (2012) on the distribution of R1a1a7 M-458; shouldn't it be included here? Or does it need qualification, noting that it ismainly a Slavic (European) subclade (is that the correct term?)?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this the publication which is meant with "2012": Horolma Pamjav et al., Brief communication: New Y-chromosome binary markers improve phylogenetic resolution within haplogroup R1a1. AJPA 2012? See .  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I cancelled the speculations about an alleged "Satem" group of IE languages. According to ALL recent phylogenetic work, such a "group" does not exist. Moreover, the phonological results are far too different between the Balto-Slavic on the one hand and the Indo-Iranian languages on the other, and must be looked at as secondary.HJJHolm (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Geographic origin
The references for this subsection are incomplete (Sharma 2012), and unclear: which study proposed Eastern European origins? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

sfn citation style
May I propese to use the Template:Sfn citation style? It's a lot easier, without a long list of (authorxxxx) when multiple citations are being used. See the "Geographic origin" as an example. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   21:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Underhill (2010) R1a1a distribution - file is deleted
The file was due to a request by a blocked user, with an appeal to a breach of fair use. Looks like an attempt at WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

R1a1 and R1a1a
why does R1a1a duplicate R1a1 - or vice versa? Shouldn't R1a1 be cleaned? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I hadn't realised that they were dups until you pointed it out. I have a feeling that the R1a1a may have been intended as a spin-off to cater for the R1a1a subclades, but I can't vouch for it. There's certainly plenty of room for subclades in the higher level TITLE.


 * I do think that there needs to be an overhaul of articles on genetic studies, full stop. We have so many articles on modern ethnic group genetics (such as Genetic studies on Bulgarians) replicating the same content already available main space articles that it's getting loopy... and I keep stumbling into more. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned it up; I hope I did the right thing.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think you did do the right thing. I've just gone through the comparison between the two articles before you separated the R1a1 and R1a1a content... and it looks right. If not, not doubt other editors familiar with respected scientific researchers and sources will suggest tweaks as needed. Ultimately, we did not need duplicate content for R1a1a under R1a1. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm reading Underhill et al. (2014/2015) now; if we're really exact, we should move the content even further, to R1a1a1. But that may be too much; a clear specification, and family-tree, should be enough.
 * Fascinating stuff, by the way, even more when combined with Lazaridis et al. (2016). I'll bet Reich and his colleagues already have got an 'informal' 'Zagros migration theory', combining Indo-European migrations and Iranian farmer migrations towards south Asia. Lazaridis et al. (2016) more or less said so explicitly. When are they going to publish such a hypothesis in an even more explicit form?
 * PS: it looks like the draft tree could be clearer, and the various sections on the distribution might be combined.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)