Talk:Haplogroup R1b/Archive 1

Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History
I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:


 * Description: A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.


 * Rationale
 * My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.
 * There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus.  On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New phylogenetic tree
After April 2nd, a new phylogenetic tree of human Y-Chromosome haplogroups has been published, and along with the insertion of new polymorphisms into the tree, some major changes compared to the previous trees have taken place, especially when it comes to TMRCA of the haplogroups ancestor to R1b. While our article estimates R1b originated some 30,000 ago, according to the new data Haplogroup R1 originated only 18,500 BP. That means R1b cannot be linked to the Cro-Magnon or to European Upper Paleolithic anymore, since R1b probably originated not much longer than 10,000 ago. This article is going to need some serious rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.132.63 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop re-adding the section about the Paleolithic origins of R1b. It is not supported by current data anymore. The section reports R1b originated 30,000 years ago even though the latest study on the phylogenetic tree of human paternal lineages indicates R1* originated only 18,500 years BP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.122.96 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Someone should alert National geographic and IBM. Brecause their web site still states R1B is Paleolithic. Plus it makes sense it is oldest and most prevalent haplotype in Europe. What is your theory? A recent mass invasion how stupid. All the bog bodies in northern europe are exclusivly R1B and nothing else. Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.245.242 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"R" Y-DNA more fertile with mtDNA "H" haplogroup...?
In a recent posting in the Y-haplogroup "I" discussion group Ken Nordtvedt says a Dienekes paper has suggested that haplogroup R1b might be so widespread in Europe because it is more fertile with mtHaplogroup H than other kinds of Y-DNA:


 * "Now there's a mechanism to explain how S28 and S21 ydna, having such a recent MRCA as I found in initial examination, could so quickly sweep western Europe as some say it has done. Dienekes has a paper saying R ydna combined with H CRS female mtdna is more fertile than I ydna combined with H CRS female mtdna. At least that's how I read his abstract.


 * This could explain the relative decline of all that early S23+/M223- I in north west Europe as suggested by the Lichtenstein cave data.


 * I hope someone will read the paper and give the list a down-to-earth summary of its conclusions on this."

Very interesting, we'll have to keep up on this. 67.5.156.78 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mtdna is meaningless as most women were traded as slaves as in the case in iceland. Most countries in europe and amongst akenazis the women are identical basically a mish mosh of differnt haplotypes. The difference is the men and that has always been. Jews have highest european levels of their women more so than the british isles and scandanavia with ireland having very high female middle eastern dna. European Jewish women having no middle eastern dna.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.245.242 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems like a very uninformed statement, if mtDNA is meaningless, it wouldn't code for anything, which it does, if it were meaningless, it would be 100% evenly spread, it is not, H predominates in Europe, there has to be something behind this, saying a universality between cultures and sexual selection or not has little bearing on this. 67.5.156.165 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Attractiveness is male based women can only have 20 kids a year while a man can have a thousand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.241.144 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC) There is a false emphasis on women for good looks I think with a gut instinctt that good looks is more male based. The best looking people are from countries with good looking men as they are more prolific and and able to mate. a good looking women can have 20 kids a man 1000 kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.241.144 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are the best looking people? and in which country do they live? Sorry but that is a highly subjective point. But if good looking means better reproduction, then it is the Chinese. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.111.16 (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Proto indo-europeans are persons of J haplotype linked via the Nostratic languages family!??
We know that:

First of all forgive your brother for my bad english and thank you for this article

-R1 haplogroup are "paleolithic"haplotypes(0)

-The originel language of persons of R1 haplogroup is linked with Basque and dont has any link with indo-european languages(1)

-Semitic and indo-european languages are linked via the nostratic(2)languages theory and are all languages of neolithic timed origin(3)

-The haplogroup J is very present among Indians,Persians,Greeks,Indians(4)

-The linguistic aryanisation of india for example is only a linguistic process,in fact we have aryanic speaking populations as much racially different as Sindhis and Danish(5)

-Carleton Coon says: Linguistically, Indo-European is probably a relatively recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cultivated. The latest researches find it to be a derivative of an initially mixed language, whose principal elements were Uralic, called element A, and some undesignated element B which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages.5 The plants and animals on which the economy of the early Indo-European speakers was based were referred to in words derived mainly from element B. Copper and gold were known, and the words for these commodities come from Mesopotamia.(6)

The sources are below

(0) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8432/europemaptreeta1.jpg

(1) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/full/5201482a.html (2) Please note that these words are not borrowings but commun nostratic roots Semitic/Indo-european

men/manne

hala/hola,hello

kassara/casser

ardh/earth

sahar/soir

ente/tu

me/mai

barr/bur

omm/madar

ab/badar

seb3a/septa

sitta/sesta

al/le

qata3/cut

batr/obturer

maridh/malade

haql/agro

thawr/taureau

qarn/corne

sarab/sarabas

keme/comme

silah/sird

yaafukh/fuukhir

wetr/water

lugha/lingua

qalb/lobos,cor

mawt/mort

rajol/ragazzo

lobb/lobos

bard/freddo

ward/rodos

wajh/visage

anf/nez

dawra/tour

dwaran/tourner

Greek/Arabic

Emena/Minni

Alla/Illa

Odhi/Hedhe

Arabic/English

Ma3na/Mean

Jorm/Crime

3eyn/Eye

Hu/His

Ha/Her

Dhak/That

Hedhi/This

Fatasha/Fetch

Qit/Cat

Arabic/French

Nahnu/Nous

Masha/Marche

Turab/Terre

Sama/Ciel

Jam3=>Gam

Somme=>Gam

Sound change o=>a et j=>g

Eardh=>ardh

Eye=>3ayn

Taureau=>thawr

Corne=>qarn

Ble=>Burr

Agro=>Haql

g=>q et l=>r

Agro=>Haql (g<=>q)(r<=Burr (r<=>l)

(3) http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/lingwen/afil.html

The scheme on The Tower of Babel shows yet another approach to both genetic relations and dating of particular language families and protolanguages. According to its author, Proto-Indo-European was in use ca. 5000 BC, Eurasiatic ca. 9000 BC, and Proto-Afro-Asiatic ca. 10000 BC. The Nostratic language, which existed ca. 13000 BC, is said to have given birth to Eurasiatic and Afro-Asiatic.

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)

(5) http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101980&page=4

(6) http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/06-01.htm (also please take a look at the great J haplogroup concentration in the caucasian Daghestan)

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A General Mess
This article is a mess and is in desperate need of revision by someone who knows what he or she is doing. There is a lot of unsubstantiated and unsupported info here and what looks like private theory or possibly some form of original research (despite Wikipedia's "NOR" policy).

The subclades portion of the article also reads like an advert for Ethnoancestry, a dna testing company. Stevo343 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What part? Could you be specific?
 * I have a serious problem with R1b1c10, that is still a "private" haplogroup by all standards (i.e. it has not been located in enough people to make up a solid haplogroup worth mentioning. The same can be the case with the subclades of R1b1c9, that have been located in very few unrelated individuals.
 * With all these I'd rather delete all mention of put them in a single prargraph together with the other private haplogroups: R1b1c1, R1b1c2, R1b1c3, R1b1c5 and R1b1c8.
 * I'd also like to expand the section on R1b1b and R1b1a, but the information available, at least to the public, is limited.
 * Now, R1b1c7 and R1b1c9 are well attested haplogroups. But they have been attested solely by commercial testing companies (Ethnoancestry?) and not by peer reviewed studies, like R1b1c6 and R1b1c4. This actually causes a great ascertaining bias because it seems most people having their DNA tested are British, Irish or otherwise of Northern European ancestry, while R1b and R1b1c is widely distributed in all Western Europe and as far East as Turkey in significative apportion.
 * How to deal with this problem. The only solution I can see is mentioning it.
 * Obviously the fact that you have inaugurated this talk page says a lot of the way this article has been created and modified. --Sugaar (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem(s) I see is that so far investigations did not really bother or were unaware of making any subdivision to R1b or R1b1c. The available publications of subclades are too specialistic to be generally accessible and even the naming convention varies considerably. This does not mean that available assessments are wrong by definition. It would be wise to leave speculation out as much as possible, albeit without removing information on distribution patterns that could be valuable, and in the meanwhile await forthcoming publications. Rokus01 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sugaar - I agree with what you wrote. The subclades section needs serious revision and really probably should just be deleted and replaced with a single paragraph. I think we would be best served in an encyclopedia article on a y-haplogroup such as R1b by sticking with peer-reviewed scientific studies and dispensing with speculation and/or what amounts to original (and questionable) research. One of the problems with this article now is that of "too many cooks". Another is "dueling edits," where one person deletes something and its original author just comes back and reinstalls it. Some of the subclades stuff reads like self-promotion, that is, it was put there by a member of that subclade to push a claim about his own ancestors (i.e., as "vikings", etc.).Stevo343 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ISOGG, that is a really accepted reference, lists all the mentioned subclades plus some others. I have no question wether R1b1c9 and R1b1c7 exist, while I do have doubts about the real extent of their distribution because commercial genetic testing is heavily biased in their samples towards the British Islands (and in general people of northern European ancestry).
 * I strongly agree that claimin "Viking ancestry" is silly, specially on such feeble grounds. And that such claims by commercial testing companies should clearly be ignored here in Wikipedia.
 * I think that R1b1c4 and specially R1b1c6 are well documented by peer-reviewed studies.
 * I think that "private" haplogroups should be skipped or just briefly listed to explain the lack of reference for those numbers. A warning should be added to R1b1c9a,b and R1b1c10 in the sense that they are defined by very very few cases and hence (even if ISOGG disagrees) they are nearly "private" (i.e. not really a serious haplogroup).
 * I agree with intensely reducing the span of text dedicated to such dubious clades and to clarify for the reader which subclades are product of peer-reviewed research (R1b1c4,6)and which are part of commercial testing "research" (R1b1c7,9,10) explaining its sample bias.
 * See my proposal below. --Sugaar (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 - What standard of documentation should be used for a distribution pattern? This is an encyclopedia article, after all, and encyclopedia articles are not really supposed to be "cutting edge." What sort of source, other than a peer-reviewed, scientific study, would be sufficiently reliable for establishing R1b distribution patterns? I definitely agree that speculative stuff has no place in this article.Stevo343 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this whole subject is cutting edge and should be presented as such. Agreed, the samples and publications are still few and even less studies based on the database are peer reviewed. Distribution patterns are very interesting, still rarely prone to definite conclusions yet. However, I can see another serious risk here, that the increased rate of investigation render current conclusions obsolete very rapidly, peer reviewed or not. Wikipedia should not turn either into a garbagepot of obsolete results, probably supporting obsolete theories. Still, the samples are there and though we have to be careful of the interpretation, I think numbers don't lie. Baseless claims can be recognized and removed easily. Rokus01 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some users, especially one, is introducing marginal opinions about R1b as mainstream. He is the type of people that is most destructive of Wiki. If someone else here knows about the subject just see it yourselves. I have already had it. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for subclades
First of all, give due relevance to R1b1b. While it has not been as much studied as R1b1c, it is a clearly important subclade. (Additionally list R1b1a as "private" and apparently limited to Sardinia).

For R1b1c:
 * 1) Explain well that it has (like mtDNA H) a starlike structure. What means a fast expansion from a single origin, followed by relative stability (I hink I can find a source for this but refers to mtDNA H, not R1b1c - do you have one for Y-DNA?). Here we could mention the mainstream theory of post-Glacial Magdalenian origin (as it's the one we can provide sources for).
 * 2) Give due relevance to peer-reviewed clades R1b1c4,6.
 * 3) Make a subsection for commercially found clades (R1b1c7,9,10). Reduce the extension, supress popular/commercial "Viking-like" claims, clarify the sample bias and emphasize that this sample bias may affect the real distribution of the clades, mention the reduce number (quasi-private) of R1b1c10 and R1b1c9a,b (little more can be said of these but that they are rare). But do not supress them in any case: just clean up.

What do you think? --Sugaar (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Specify "Viking-like claims". To my knowledge, the gene known to have spread by Vikings to the coasts of England, is R1a1. Moreover, this claim is sourced. Rokus01 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's doubtful the Vikings represented any one haplogroup or haplotype of haplogroups. I'd say the Nordic countries in Viking times were composed of the three main types we see today there; R1b1c9, R1a1 & I1a. Additionally, more and more researchers are beginning to make the claim that all three of these haplogroups (or which ever were "Scandinavian") could also be found in the British Isles in some amount prior to any "Viking" settlements. Nagelfar (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the Vikings were a mixture of different haplogroups and R1a1 was only one. This haplogroup is not even restricted to the Vikings (some investigations even suggest it might have reached the Americas through the Bering corridor), although some characteristics of this group seem to point at either a very long local development or a more recent founder effect in Scandinavia (as explained in various publications). However, this kind of characteristics to a certain populations certainly contribute to the reconstruction of migration patterns. Even though I agree the concept of a typical "viking haplogroup" is not current, the viking pattern has been detected along the British coastal areas. Funny by the way, since this kind of investigation also invalidate earlier assumptions of the alleged Scandinavian "germanization" of Northwestern Europe during the Great Migrations. Indigenous pre-Viking R1a1 is considered virtually absent in Britain. The same applies to many areas west of the Vistula, generally considered a genetic barrier, at least from east to west and to this particular gene. Thus, to me the "viking claim" for this gene is not completely void to people of English descend. That's why I am still puzzled by the argument against "viking-like claims". Rokus01 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been away and now I'm not sure anymore what I meant exactly with the phrase "Viking-like claims". Surely I did not just mean Viking origin claims but also Chingis-Khan-like ones (like that U'Neill issue that seems not very clear to my critical eye. But well.
 * The case with popular (or rather commercial) "Viking claims" is that it's not possible to take apart what is Viking (Dane) from what is Anglo-Saxon (NW German): they have virtually the same haplotype distribution now and surely in the past.
 * Additionally, haplogroups can well have arrived to a specific localtion in several waves. If, R1a1 has a marked correlation with Indo-European expansion, you cannot say "it's Viking" - why not Celtic? Celts are as Indo-European as Vikings and they arrived from Central Europe, where that marker is as frequent or more than in Denmark.
 * We should be careful to abide to the facts and leave the populist commercial neo-myths aside. You can't really know from your haplogroup the exact origins of some unknown great-great-...-grandfather, as comercial testing companies claim. But we can get a decent idea of the ancestry of a population based in the collective "cake" of haplogroup frequencies and its correlations with neighbour and even distant peoples.
 * Just that: avoid as much as possible the hype and myths of commercial testing. Try to abide to peer-reviewed studies. --Sugaar (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ht35
I removed the material concerning ht15 and ht35 from the "modals" section. It was unattributed (except one reference to a self-published source), and was anyway largely unnecessary in this section. A discussion of the ht15 and ht35 is probably warranted from a historical point-of-view, but it will need to be accurately written and sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineviz (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Genie (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On R1b's age
No one can pretend it is possible to link R1b to any known ancient culture or people simply because we don't know as of now when did it originate. And you can't say that R1b is safely linked to the Paleolithic European cultures because (1) 18,500 BP is R1's, not R1b's, age and as far as we can say, it is not at all unlikely anymore that R1b is 9,000 years old or less (since there are 18 mutations separating R1b from R1, I would say that is is actually the most probable hypothesis); the question on when did the population from which descends a heavy part of the western European migrate from an unknown lost homeland to Europe in now unknown, since the link o the Cro-Magnon and the Aurignacian and the Gravettian cultures (both older than 20,000 years ago) has been destroyed; (2) if we consider that R1b originated somewhere outside of Europe, say Central Asia, as it is assumed nowadays, and its parent haplogroup R1 is in fact 18.5k old, it can't be linked to cultures which originated around the same time in Europe, since some thousands of years would have passed since R1bs would feel compelled to leave its place of origin and reach its current main "homeland", western Europe.
 * 18,500 ago: the R1 mutation takes place God knows where, and becomes predominant amongst a given population (God knows which);
 * x<18,500 years ago: Some thousands of years go by as slowly, one by one, the 18 mutations which distinguish R1 from R1b originated and give rise to this new haplogroup in a Central Asian population.
 * y<x<18,500 years ago: Some unknown amount of time later, for whatever reasons, a part of such Central Asian population starts to move west and, God knows when, and which or how many paths were chosen, they finally reach the current main homeland of R1b, western Europe.

Behold that we don't know when R1 gave rise to R1b, and then when did R1b leave Central Asia for Europe and became predominant amongst western Europeans. For such reasons the "link" between R1b and Paleolithic Europe should now be considered weak and hypothetical at best. To say that R1's current estimated age somehow "still confirms" such "link" is to give evidence of poor grasp of the not actually complicated few evidence we have on this respect thus far.189.70.208.92 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18.500 BP is about the date R1b originated from R1. What references do you have to claim otherwise? Read this (publication accepted 21 November 2006): "Previous studies of Y-chromosome polymorphisms in Eurasian populations have suggested a Paleolithic origin for the Y-haplogroup R1. The origin of the haplogroup R1-M173 is believed to predate the Last Glacial Maximum. This haplogroup dispersed from east to west, possibly 30 kya, along with the spread of the Aurignacian culture. Different demographic processes have been proposed to account for the current distributions of subclades R1a and R1b in European populations." Rokus01 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is very funny you quote a pay-publication of Karafet et al that does not focus on the R1 group at all. Nobody quotes this paper to contradict a Paleolithic origin of R1b and I suspect some WP:OR creeping in here on this subject. M173 is still clearly paleolithic to me, thus R1b derives from a paleolithic population. Please come up with a clear reference that R1b is younger than 10.000 BP (Paleolithic) before you reinstate this new theory. Rokus01 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Only funny thing here is that you remove material from article because the sources are in what you call "paysites". Those sources point to peer reviewed studies. Maximum age for R1b is less than 18.5K years, R1 ("father" of R1b did not originate in Europe. R1 emerged 18.5K years ago somewhere in central Asia. Here's quote from link you removed from the article and labeled it as "paysite" link, Genetic Landscape of the Central Asia and Volga–Ural Region by Khusnutdinova et al
 * These findings are very important because they suggest subdivision of R1b3 lineage into yet undefined lineages, one of which (ht15) is mainly confined to Europe. In this regard decreasing frequency cline of haplogroup R1b3 from western Europe towards eastern Europe and unexpectedly high frequency of this lineage in the eastern most fringe, i.e. southern Urals (>82%) and in Central Asian highlands among Tajiks, Kyrgyz and Altai (>50%) (Kivisild et al., 2003) imply that R1b3 Y-chromosomes in these two eastern regions cannot be associated with the west east population expansion from Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.137.2 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "funny" thing is that you referred to a paysite you obviously did not read, as if you did not expect others would try to check. None of your claims, except for the date, are supported by the article. The other article of Kivisild is mainly on mtDNA and does not make any difference between R1b of Western Europe or Asia. I wonder were you got your data from, having both articles here in front of me. You just yell something and wave with papers to give yourself some false authority. Rokus01 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The dating has now been consistently revised throughout in line with the latest scholarly studies. Please do not remove links to scholarly studies on the ground that they are "paysites". References to print publications are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia, as long as they are reputable, which refereed journals naturally are. There is no demand by Wikipedia that the material should be also available online, either as an abstract or full text, but it is a courtesy to readers to supply a link to an abstract if one is available online. --Genie (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Bog bodies for more accurate dating. La Tene Culture starts about 450 BC, not 10,000 years ago. I agree that aDNA studies are helpful. --Genie (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

M167 (SRY2627)
Please update with new Lopez-Parra study. It places a higher concentration (48%) never seen before of SRY2627 North of the Pyrenees in Val D'Aran. Places the Central Pyrennes as the possible birthplace of the subclade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.170.49 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of R1b distribution is wrong in Spain
Look at this recent study. R1b is as big in the south as in the north and in some cases bigger. In fact Eastern Andalusia shows one on the highest concentrations. Overall the biggest concentrations are in the East to the country, being lower in the West. On the other hand the informaton regarding Portugal as having more than 90% of Rb1 is some places is completely wrong. Somebody should correct those values. Note that Rb is analysed in different subclades.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/ST5ONRBvNdI/AAAAAAAAAcE/pbcSablyx50/s1600-h/0.jpg

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.111.16 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That map presented is nonesense. It derives from a very dubious study with little, non representative samples. For instance, in Castilla La Mancha you get for hundreds of thousands of square Kilometers only 63 samples of people disperesed throughout the territory. That study sucks. Usually, the North and Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula have more R1b than the rest, due to a greater than average Middle Eastern and North African haplogroups in the South and in the East of Spain. The South and the East of the Peninsula has not been in such a great isolation as the rest, as anyone who has an elementar knowledge of the History of the Peninsula will know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.202.77 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion is not true and you don't even display an "elementar" knowledge of Spanish history. The intermarriage between Spaniards and the conquering muslims has been greatly exaggerated by British historians that generally have a bone to pick with Spain due to the many conflicts the two nations had during their colonial rivalries for the Americas. I suggest you brush up on your Spanish history! Most of the remaining muslim peoples were expelled from Spain when King Philip III finally issued an edict in 1609 expelling all muslims from Spain and Portugal in 1609.--Charles A 03:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

hahaha oh boy, now I have no doubt that wikipedia is full of newbies. The gradient of R1b in Iberia is from East to West not from North to South. Even the original source where you get the red map from has correct this (Eupedia: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b.gif). The christian prosecution against muslims in Portugal wasn't as brutal as in Spain. You need to learn more about the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Monarchs and the King Philip III, j*rk. This article is a joke.

Portugal
Someone retire Northern Portugal´s data in Right Sub-Title:

People of Atlantic Europe (Welsh 89%, Basque 88%, Irish 81%, Northern Portuguese 81% Catalan 79%, Scottish 77%, Dutch 70%, etc.)

This part was target of banditism

Also below:

"Recognizable instances of a modal haplotype have been noted within the R1b haplogroup.

One of the best-characterized of these haplotypes is the Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH). This haplotype reaches the highest frequencies in the Iberian Peninsula and in the British Isles. In the Iberian Peninsula it reaches 33% in Portugal (in some areas of northern Portugal it is greater than 96%). This has additionally been referenced in literature as Haplotype 15."

"(in some areas of northern Portugal it is greater than 96%)". This part was a target of banditism. I know because I research for genetic data few days ago in this article.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.235.32 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ossetian "43% R1b"
Ossetians do not have 43% R1b. Rosser et al. 2000 found in a sample of 47 Ossetians 43% of Hg 1, but their Hg 1 do not equal to R1b! Hg 1 = P(x R1a1). More recent studies on Ossetians do not confirm their high frequency of R1b —Preceding unsigned comment added by XHorsx (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks as though Nasidze et al (2004) did not test for R1b, but they show that S. Ossetians do not have 43% R1. --Genie (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Africa
The thing with the R1b in the Fulani is wrong. In the report it states that the most common haplogroup in the Fulani is M-173, which is R1 not R1b. Can someone change this and the one about the Hausa. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.66.112 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone removed the Fulani. What is wrong with the figure for the Hausa? Hassan et al give 13 out a group of 32 Hausa as R1b. --Genie (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cameroon R
I have removed this section of the page until the actual position on the R tree is clarified. Several studies have found what they label R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage in Cameroon and various other places. If it actually R1* then this does not belong on the R1b page. However one reviser clearly though that it was now discovered to be R1b1c (M335). We need a reference for this.

R1*-M173 is found among the Ouldeme of Northern Cameroon in west central Africa, at a frequency of c. 40%, where it is considered to represent an early back-migration from Asia. R1*-M173 is also observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 (R1a1) and M269 (R1b1b2), are confined to Egypt and Oman. It is plausible that the African and Omani R1*-M173 chromosomes may be relics of an ancient back migration from Asia to Africa. The antiquity of the M173 backflow is implied by the total lack in sub-Saharan Africa of downstream mutations. R1*-M173 frequency reaches 40% in the Dead Sea region in Jordan

--Genie (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I now see that Wood et al 2005 (among citations above) refers to R-P25* found at remarkably high frequencies in northern Cameroon (60.7–94.7%), which must surely be the same as the R1*-M173 reported by Cruciani et al 2002. --Genie (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cameroon material has been returned to the article. --Genie (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And the other African study has been returned. That leaves the Flores study. Suggest that it should go into the R page unless there is clarification that it fits R1b. --Genie (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Subclade R1b1b2a1a1
Actually, there is some information on the frequency of the subclade R1b1b2a1a1 in different regions of Spain at http://www.iberianroots.com/statistics/spain.html.

190.161.121.57 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 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) 04:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page of R1a article contains comments by an editor who has been working there, saying what shoud happen on R1b.
Please go check before the edit war comes here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A month where's the edit war? How bout some lyrics to go with this thread.

Cause there's a red under my bed. And there's a little yellow man in my head. ....there's really something wrong with you. One day you're going to self-destruct. You are blowing it all with paranoia, your so insecure you self-destoyer. . . Paranoia the destroyerPB666 yap 22:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let's present the frequencies with more care
Right now, in order to improve the article, one of the biggest difficulties faced is that the article is filled with many different formats of frequency data, cited in many different ways, and repeating each other in every section. If someone would remove every bit of data which was repetitive, then many sections of the article would be empty. AND YET hardly any of these frequencies ever names the SNPs which were tested. This article obviously needs the frequency data to be collected into tables. The columns of the tables should include DIFFERENT columns for all the various different SNPs that have been used over time to represent "R1b". Please if you have previously inserted frequency data, or if you are planning to, can you think about this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ashkenazim-Norman"
R1b1b2a1a1d has a subclade R1b1b2a1a1d1 (defined by the marker L47), which in turn, seems to be including subclades R1b1b2a1a1d1* (defined by the marker L47 and not by markers L44, L45, L46) "[26]) and R1b1b2a1a1d1a defined by the marker L44. As of July 8, 2009, based on FTDNA tests of samples from 60 members of the R1b-U106 project who are U106+, 15 (or 25%) were found L47+, so far showing a possible "Anglo-Saxon" (or Anglo-Norman, Scottish-Norman, "Ashkenazim-Norman"[27]) cluster, probably connected with Flemish participants of the Normann Conquest of Britain, strictly based on the surnames and ancestral origins (England, Scotland, Wales, Picardy and Belarus Ashkenazim (probably descent of Sephardim)) of those tested positive.

This statement seems very biased and false. There were no Normans of an Ashkenazi origin. No people of a Jewish background took part in the conquest of England. They arrived later as part of expanding the English economy. They were also expelled a little over two hundred years later and their genetic influence in Great Britain is non-existent. The Jews that did live in England were expelled back to Europe and settled in Germany mainly. They were not descendants of Sephardic Jews and their descendants would not be found among Sephardic Jews. This statement and inclusion seem very strange to me. This DNA is clearly of a European origin and has nothing to do with "Jewish" Anglo-Saxons or Normans. The very thought is absurd.

''Among other versions of the L47* cluster origin is the version connected with Cohors Primae Frisiavonum — The First Cohort of Frisiavones who served in Britain during 103-249 AD and whose descendants could be assimilated between Brythons; one of them could be sold as slave to Radhanites passed through western slave trade route and converted to Judaism in Muslim Spain or Portugal in 9th century. As well, due to the genetic distances among the members so far L47+, the age of this cluster is probably quite old, perhaps 2,700-2,900 years. It is possible that L47 emerged not too long after the L48 "parent" cluster. Preliminary data would strongly suggest that the L48 SNP occurred only a short period of time after the U106 SNP occurred, likely 200 years or less.''

Well someone is desperate to prove he is a Jew. This is like a where is waldo cartoon. Out of all the R1b1 DNA haplotypes this one has by far the most nonsense associated with it I have ever seen. Why it has been everywhere....except the Middle East. I am sure when this version is proven to be false they will think of another version that shows them being Jewish .... 76.92.210.222 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I found some absolutely crazy blog a while back associating each of the R1b SNP subclades with various Hebrew patriarchs; the arguments were quite a sight to behold. It would not surprise me to learn this edit was by the same individual. --Saforrest (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently came across similar outlandish claims about certain subclades of R!A1 being 'Jewish traders in Ireland,' and being propounded by so-called 'experts' in an R1a1 internet group. It's extraordinary how many misguided amateurs are out there. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

R1b has been assessed
See: Talk:Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)/Comments
 * Class = Start
 * Importance = Mid
 * Article needs attention.

Uí Néill
I'd like to hear thoughts on what we should do here in this article about the now widespread belief that M222 is associated with the Uí Néill dynasties. As many specialists may now know, the early papers little reflected Uí Néill studies in Irish scholarship, and of course now the R-M222 Haplogroup Project express reservations.

The greatest problem are the O'Neill dynasty themselves, descendants of the ancient Cenél nEógain branch of the Uí Néill. Not only are they the leading dynasty of the entire kindred, but their pedigree is the best documented by far of all the Uí Néill. And yet they have been foolishly assumed to not really belong to the Uí Néill because of the relatively low occurence of M222 among them, when it is found in higher frequencies for families and surnames of less well documented or even undocumented background. There are many families in Ireland who believe themselves to be Uí Néill but who probably are not.

The second of the surviving leading families are the O'Donnell dynasty, of the Cenél Conaill, a 'sister' branch to the Cenél nEógain. I am unaware of where O'Donnell testing is at this point but it doesn't seem to be far. In any case they are considerably less well documented than the O'Neills before the 13th century.

An important work for our understanding of the Uí Néill is Francis John Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings, 2001 (2nd edition). For the early period, another is Thomas Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, 2000. DinDraithou (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Din, unfortunately we can't publish our thoughts into the article. Your doubts are reasonable, but I have nothing to cite except internet forums and self-published webpages. Before the Moore et al article was published the amateurs on the internet, especially David Wilson, were more careful about not calling this an Ui Niell signature. David always refers to it as the Northwest Irish modal. So the doubts you mention have not developed recently, but were in fact there from day one. Unfortunately academics, who count higher as reliable sources, are often very interested in making "interesting" claims. And of course newspapers loved it as did the testing companies. No doubt M222 is important in NW Ireland and therefore can be associated with the Ui Niell, but we can at least make sure that the claims in this article about exact pedigrees and families are careful and not over-stated. I think this is justified because we are always relying on primary sources in this field, and therefore any primary source which makes very specific and questioned proposals needs to be treated with WP:due weight. Wikipedia should avoid making any controversial speculations, although Wikipedia can mention them if notable, as I think it should in this case. Does that all make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken about the problem and throwing out cautions because you don't understand it yet. There is no speculation in what I posted above and these are not my personal doubts, although you read them that way. It would have helped to be inquisitive instead. Yes I know about Wilson, as I linked to his and Lochlan's project. I'll let you look around and then we can get back to it. No big hurry. DinDraithou (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Add: their concerns, so far as I can recall, were and still are based on M222's geographic distribution. DinDraithou (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Din, apparently you did not get the message I intended. I did not say they were your personal doubts only, nor that you are wrong. In fact I said they were not only your personal doubts. But this is Wikipedia, not a discussion forum, and so you, me, David and John and 100 clever people all agreeing (or disagreeing) is not important. We need a source for whatever undefined mystery it is you want, and there is none published that we can use as far as I am aware. That's the problem. So if you have a source just come out and say so. If you have any other suggestion or want to correct me about something just say it. Say what you want to say. But for better or worse, neither web pages made by individuals, nor discussion forums, are considered reliable sources. Wikipedia is just a place where people collect what has been written in certain types of publications. It is not the place for arguments about those publications, except concerning how to present them in a balanced way. Just to make sure it is clear I am not going to be going out to "look around" and try to guess what you mean. You are an editor here like me. Making your point is up to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're familiar with this amateur paper:


 * O'Neill and McLaughlin. Insights Into the O'Neills of Ireland from DNA Testing. Journal of Genetic Genealogy. 2006.

They not only confess to lacking Fews and Clanaboy samples, but their so-called "Tyrone" O'Neills are not quite "The" Tyrone O'Neills, the majority of whom are to be found on the Continent. See Count of Tyrone. Of course a NPE is still a possibility, but not the only one, so they really should have waited. For all we know the "O'Neill Variety" may not be common among all O'Neill dynasts even within the Tyrone septs.

In any case, their reference to the questionable accuracy of the O'Neill pedigree is unacademic, as they attempt to compare it to the "established" Uí Néill ancestry of the far less well documented McLaughlins and O'Cathains. It just doesn't work that way. Their approach is like saying the unpedigreed 10th century Dál gCais should have more claim to be Eóganachta because the present Eóganachta pedigrees were in disorder. No speculation involved. Especially in the case of the McLaughlins it is well known that their claims were suspect. See Domnall Ua Lochlainn.

So in fact O'Neill and McLaughlin's paper, basically arguing for an even broader Connachta Variety, is more the offender than Moore et al. But what I want to know and lack the expertise to understand from the data on my own are the origins and associations of their "O'Neill Variety". Do we give it its own section here at Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)? DinDraithou (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Din, this seems like an entirely new subject. But once again I do not see a clear proposal about how this effects the Wikipedia article. Let me try to propose one: we could cite this paper as a paper that raises doubts about whether M222's match with Ui Neill lines is convincing? For your interest I'll look at the O'Neill non M222 haplotype and try to work out what the latest is, but I do not see the relevance?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well we can list it as a modal haplotype. For the article, the O'Neill and McLaughlin paper can also be cited as suggesting that M222 is also present among the Connachta, from whom the Uí Néill are said to be offshoots, their legendary MRCA being Eochaid Mugmedon. Once the Connachta are mentioned it will be necessary to cite Byrne or another simply to explicitly state their genealogical relationship as understood by Irish scholarship. This will not be OR or SYNTH, as it is understood but simply unstated in the paper. The Uí Néill are believed by most scholars to have originated in northeastern Connacht and from there radiated out to Ulster and the Midlands. DinDraithou (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not totally clear what you are proposing. It seems simple, but then I am wondering how it fits with your previous posts. Why note try writing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying two or three separate things all involving the same dynasty, so it is hard to follow. One is 4th-5th century (Connachta), the others 10th-11th century, etc. Certainly it difficult to cover a dynasty of this age and with so many offshoots and continuations. At some point today I'll add a line or two about M222 among the Connachta (Uí Briúin, Uí Fiachrach), and talk briefly about the relationship of the Uí Néill to them.


 * I look forward to more information on the so-called O'Neill Variety and hope we can then find a place for it somewhere too, once we have a better idea of where it should go. Thanks ahead. R1b is truly the ultimate nightmare haplogroup. DinDraithou (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Din, according to a Ysearch for an O'Neill modal (not the NW Irish one) it is "R1b1b2a1a4*" but at which date was this clade description written? It appears to be out of date. This used to be the name for R-L48, and still appearing all over the internet, but the projects involved do not seem to big on SNP testing. L48 would be handily distinctive. The FT DNA public site for the O'Neills shows R1b1b2a1b, which is currently P-312 for them. The U106 project shows nothing particularly O'Neilly. Maybe you can write to one of the authors, but it sounds like a long stretch to make much out of that particular lineage. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into that Andrew, from me personally also. It is not my haplogroup, but is a problem I expect will attract and generate more and more controversy, especially if someone finds it to be 'Norman' and wants it to be 'Germanic'. If it does turn up in the genes of any important living O'Neill dynasts, you can be sure they will be in trouble politically with the other Uí Néill and with the other dynasties. There are still three or four, maybe five people in the world of Irish descent who are regarded as King Material (a translation of an actual Gaelic term), and two of those are O'Neill dynasts currently living on the Continent, namely the heads of Fews and Clanaboy. The Tyrones proper still exist but they are semi-defunct from an aristocratic standpoint.


 * Anyway I have finally mentioned the Connachta with the addition of the Lowland Scots under M222. DinDraithou (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additions to the Phylogenetic Tree
I added Polynesia to the Haplogroup M branch of the phylogenetic Tree in the "Origins" section. The main article (and its sources) of haplogroup M states that that cultural region has peoples carrying the haplotype. -Ano-User (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A new source, and note, it reviews other sources
This article needs better sourcing, so here is some good news. See http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209020697.pdf?intermediate=true I am not saying it demands any major changes, but according to Wikipedia guidelines, we should look at this carefully to make sure we are no inconsistent with it (note double negative deliberate) because this is secondary literature and not raw data. The authors and journal are also very prominent. Concerning the subject here:

Note, this review mentions only one major theory for R1b. The references used by this review can be found following:- Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 62. Marjanovic, D., Fornarino, S., Montagna, S., Primorac, D., Hadziselimovic, R., Vidovic, S., Pojskic, N., Battaglia, V., Achilli, A., Drobnic, K., et al. (2005). The peopling of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome haplogroups in the three main ethnic groups. Ann. Hum. Genet. 69, 757–763.
 * 63. Klein Hofmeijer, G., and Soprintendenza ai beni archeologici per le province di Sassari e Nuoro. (1997). Late Pleistocene Deer Fossils from Corbeddu Cave: Implications for Human Colonization of the Island of Sardinia (Oxford, England: British Archaeological Reports/J. and E. Hedges).
 * 64. Kivisild, T., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Mastana, S., Kaldma, K., Parik, J., Metspalu, E., Adojaan, M., Tolk, H.-V., Stepanov, V., et al. (2003). The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 313–332.
 * 65. Wells, R.S., Yuldasheva, N., Ruzibakiev, R., Underhill, P.A., Evseeva, I., Blue-Smith, J., Jin, L., Su, B., Pitchappan, R., Shanmugalakshmi, S., et al. (2001). The Eurasian heartland: a continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10244–10249.
 * 66. Semino, O., Passarino, G., Oefner, P.J., Lin, A.A., Arbuzova, S., Beckman, L.E., De Benedictis, G., Francalacci, P., Kouvatsi, A., Limborska, S., et al. (2000). The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective. Science 290, 1155–1159.
 * 67. Wilson, J.F., Weiss, D.A., Richards, M., Thomas, M.G., Bradman, N., and Goldstein, D.B. (2001). Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during cultural transitions in the British Isles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5078–5083.
 * 68. Hill, E.W., Jobling, M.A., and Bradley, D.G. (2000). Y-chromosome variation and Irish origins. Nature 404, 351–352.
 * 69. Cinniog˘ lu, C., King, R., Kivisild, T., Kalfoglu, E., Atasoy, S., Cavalleri, G.L., Lillie, A.S., Roseman, C.C., Lin, A.A., Prince, K., et al. (2004). Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia. Hum. Genet. 114, 127–148.
 * 70. Peri�cic´, M., Lauc, L.B., Klaric´ , I.M., Rootsi, S., Janic´ ijevic´ , B., Rudan, I., Terzic´ , R., �Colak, I., Kvesic´ , A., Popovic´ , D., et al. (2005). High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of southeastern Europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among Slavic populations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 1964–1975.
 * 71. Balanovsky, O., Rootsi, S., Pshenichnov, A., Kivisild, T., Churnosov, M., Evseeva, I., Pocheshkhova, E., Boldyreva, M., Yankovsky, N., Balanovska, E., et al. (2008). Two sources of the Russian patrilineal heritage in their Eurasian context. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82, 236–250.
 * 72. Underhill, P.A., Myres, N.M., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Zhivotovsky, L.A., King, R.J., Lin, A.A., Chow, C.E., Semino O., Battaglia V., et al. Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.194.


 * I notice the 'eastern refuge' suggested for R1a is the Ukraine, and not the Balkans. "R1a might then represent an expansion from an eastern refuge, perhaps in the Ukraine," according to the paper. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi MP. Think you are posting on the wrong article? :) Actually the Ukraine was the main refuge theory in published literature until now. You can find it in Semino et al 2002.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, you're right. But I did realize that the Ukraine was the main refuge theory for R1a. (I know you've mentioned the Balkans before.) In any case, an interesting piece, thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New source is not for R1b
This new source is pretty useless, so I don't know why you've made a big deal out of it, Andrew. It offers nothing new and is really a pretty lame effort. The language they use is too unsure for us to regard it as you suggest. There is nothing in that passage or in the whole paper about R1b to mention. "It has been suggested" is soonest followed by 66-68, the latest of which dates from 2001. The last thing they say about R1b dates from 2004 [69]. The passage is plainly not contradicting anything new (unmentioned) nor supporting the once popular view. It is not a source but a throwaway, as it might have counted as secondary literature for R1b in 2005 but not now. DinDraithou (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No big deal. I just posted it on several talk pages because others might find something in it. Review articles in this field are few and far between, and I have done this before. After reading through it more closely I don't see anything for this article, which is too bad. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I woke up feeling not the best today and am sorry if I sound a little nasty above. Anyway the paper is disappointing, but I read through it last night and should have given you the time to do so, which I realize you must not have had yet. DinDraithou (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It offers nothing new, but is a satisfactory overview for the casual reader Hxseek (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Quite reasonable compared to what we see more often in this field, and I get the feeling we are seeing better reviews frequently now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fula, Fulani, Fulbe, Fulani-Hausa
This is a bit confusing. I've seen mentions for years that they are relatively high in R1b, but didn't investigate and so lack some background. We have them at over 50% in Sudan in Hassan et al 2008. Plus in Niger they (Fulbe) are so far 14.3% and in Cameroon (Foulbe) 11.1% R1b1a, but with sadly very few tested. In any case they have political ties with the Chadic Hausa people and the two commonly identify themselves as Hausa-Fulani. Note that being so focused on Western Europe I have failed to find myself a copy of Cruciani et al 2010. I have a new mailing address in the system now. DinDraithou (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow do I feel stupid, and should stay out of Africa until I've had a good sleep. Hassan et al say M173. Duh. In any case I still think we might have Hausa-Fulani issues. DinDraithou (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A Comparison of Y-Chromosome Variation in Sardinia and Anatolia Is More Consistent with Cultural Rather than Demic Diffusion of Agriculture
A Comparison of Y-Chromosome Variation in Sardinia and Anatolia Is More Consistent with Cultural Rather than Demic Diffusion of Agriculture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardinianr1b (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Too many things are not properly sourced according to Wikipedia norms
There are numerous long standing tags in this article showing places where better sourcing is required. In some cases the information is perhaps correct but eventually it will have to be removed anyway if it is not something we can cite from a verifiable and reliable source. This means published articles or books for the most part. We can't cite people's personal webpages, nor internet forums, as tempting as this might be. Things on internet forums can be true of course, but if something has only ever been on internet forums it is not yet ready for Wikipedia, which has simple aims and does not aim to have the latest ideas on everything. The L21 and U106 sections are going to have to be particularly hard pruned so if anyone out there has better sourcing, please go get it soon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please label or list those sources you consider dubious in the L21 and U106 sectionsand I will look into it, though it is Wikipedia policy to search for them yourself first if you notice them. I guess you have done your best on this score already, but "two eyes are better than one" so they say.Jembana (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe most of the citations that Andrew has correctly flagged as unsupportable are currently tagged with the notations 'self-published source?' or 'unreliable source?' I haven't looked at all of those, but the ones I have looked at are not sources accepted as reliable by wikipedia. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me have a look at them as well, then, before you prune them. Andrew, thanks for your notification :) Jembana (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find only one tag in the whole P-312 section (including L21) - can you be more specific as to what sourcing is inadequate in your opinion ?Jembana (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you have put the tags in the references themselves rather than have them viewed in the text - many people won't look there, I think.Jembana (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have readily verified many of the sources you questioned against peer-reviewed journal articles. According to Wikipedia policy the initiator of the questioning should have done so. If the peer-reviewed article citation was not there, I added it as well - no need to delete leading reliable sources which pass verification. I will continue. I appreciate WP:BOLD but please do not delete ("prune" as you call it) until I have finished the verification process which may take a few more days. Thank you. Jembana (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jembana, these tags have been there a long time and I think no one is working too quickly or aggressively, not even boldly. But anyway, the Wikipedia policy is apparently different than how you understand it: the onus is on anyone who wants to put something in Wikipedia to defend it by showing it can be verified by reliable sources. If you can do so, please do. That would be the best solution. That's why I posted here asking if anyone could help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, there are big tags covering whole sections. The problems are so obvious that being discrete seemed OK. However, if you want to get down to details those sections are absolutely full of un-sourced and non-obvious assertions. Do we really need to put tags on each sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Glad to help out - wrote very little of this, but I will see what I can do. Jembana (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Would be great. I have worked on several sections where the sourcing possibilities were clear, but not the P312 and U106 sections which seem to attract people adding a lot of "latest news". I fear at least some of it unsourceable, but have been reluctant to delete in case there is a source out there somewhere. I guess what we have here is that these two sections are of a great deal of personal interest to people of western European decent, and there is a lot of enthusiasm to get things in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of any better sourcing, I see more edits inserting more unsourced information especially concerning the L series SNPs from FT DNA's lab. FT DNA does not publish interpretations of its results but rather lets people work on it independently. But there is a big range of quality in the interpretations people make online, and this is precisely the reason Wikipedia does not allow information which can only be sourced from online discussions. As a minimum that if no one has published sources, the SNPs should at least have been accepted by ISOGG for their online tree. (Krahn's online draft for example is a draft and not suitable for our purposes here. Also SNPs which are only citable by referring to online forums or blogs should be removed from this article entirely.) Deleting will have to start soon. Final call for people to find real verifiable sources for their favorite SNPs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to continue explaining my approach. If people agree or disagree please mention it. While phylogenies are comparatively easy and uncontroversial in the available sources, and academic papers are themselves happy to cite ISOGG, with age estimates I think anyone who looks at the sources in this field will see that the field has very little consensus. So these need very good sourcing and very careful wording. In practice them, I am pruning these out or tagging them more aggressively than I am SNP names.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Quit trying to imply that R-L21 originated in the British Isles
It is not necessary to say that L21 is "common where immigrants from the British Isles settled". In fact, it comes off as a partisan attempt to marginalize R-L21 as an entirely British haplogroup, which it is clearly not. Personally, I think Wikipedia articles on y haplogroups are a disastrous idea, since the science is moving and changing rapidly, and, what's worse, so many people have emotional investments in the nature and origin of their own subclades relative to the others. Stevo343 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I don't even know my own haplogroup and don't want to - it is irrelevant to me, but what interests people is the population-wide evidence it is giving about our human story and how the Earth was populated by Homo sapiens. I did not imply that "R-L21 originated in the British Isles". It was just the only evidenced distribution from peer-reviewed papers that I could find. Your citation is not from such a sources is it ? Jembana (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My citation is the R-L21 Plus Project itself, which is the only source currently available for L21, since no peer reviewed studies have been done on L21. The Campbell paper, as I mentioned below, can have nothing to do with L21, since that paper appeared in 2007 and L21 was not discovered until 2008. Now apparently you have added a citation from an even older paper, McEvoy et al, from 2006. It may address M222, which is a subclade of L21, but it is too old to deal with L21 itself. Thanks for leaving my edit pretty much as is, however. I appreciate that. Stevo343 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I didn't disagree with the original here (that had France evidence but from a source rejected by another editor), I just couldn't find a peer-reviewed paper that backed it up - but your sources make for interesting reading - particularly M222, that distibution rings a lot of bells for me - have you read much about the peaceful population interchange between Ireland and Scotland in the wake of St Ninian in Galloway and further in southern Scotland ? Jembana (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Campbell's 2007 paper, "Geographic Patterns of Haplogroup R1b in the British Isles", cannot legitimately be used as a reference for any part of the section on R-L21 (R1b1b2a1a2f or R1b1b2a1b5). For all practical purposes, L21 was not discovered until October of 2008. Later that same month, commercial testing for it began. Campbell's paper predates the discovery of and commencement of testing for L21, yet it was cited to show that L21 is "common where immigrants from the British Isles settled". One has to wonder why such a comment was included in the section on R-L21 in the first place, since, undoubtedly, all the R1b1b2 subclades that are common in the British Isles are also common where immigrants from the British Isles settled. Why single out R-L21 for that distinction unless there is some agenda at work? Stevo343 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In Campbell's paper it says:

Some of the observations and conclusions of this

analysis are as follows.

1. The methodology clearly identified and quantified

what has been previous called the Irish subclade.

Whether called the Irish Modal Haplotype or the

“Ui Neill haplotype” as in the Trinity College

paper9, the North-West Irish Haplotype by David

9 http://vetinari.sitesled.com/gael.pdf

Wilson and fellow researchers10, or R1bSTR19Irish

as defined by McEwan (2007),11 this corresponds to

OGAP8 in the Oxford data. In addition, this

analysis also identifies the strong migration of

OGAP8 to the Argyll area. This migration may be

explained by the Dal Riada migration12 or as Sykes

notes “Ar-gael was coined by the kings of Dal Riada

for their three colonies – Mull, Islay, and Kintyre

peninsula.” On page 217 he continues, “There has certainly been a substantial settlement at some time

from Ireland in the recent past and the Irish

infiltration into the west of Scotland is almost

certainly the signal of the relocation of the Dal

Riada from Ulster to Argyll in the first millennium.”

No doesn't that reference refer to not only what became labelled the M222 subcliade of L21 but therefore also L21 itself ? Jembana (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say it refers to M222 and not to L21 in the British Isles as a whole. How can one take old papers and cite them as support for statements about subclades that were unknown when the paper was researched and published and which are not even referred to in the paper nor were an aspect of its testing? There are currently no peer reviewed studies of L21. While one can go back and look at old studies and read into them what we know now, the studies themselves cannot be cited as evidence for things they could not have addressed. That is an anachronism. Personally, I think you should remove the McEvoy et al reference, as well, since it is even older. It is incorrect to equate all of L21 with one of its subclades, namely, M222. Citing the McEvoy et al (2006 - two years before L21 was even discovered) paper to buttress the statement that L21 is common in the British Isle is another anachronism and another case of equating M222 with L21 when the two are not equivalent. M222 is a much smaller and more geographically circumscribed subset of L21. McEvoy et al were talking about M222 and not L21 in general, which they could not have known about in 2006. Stevo343 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the lack of peer-reviewed articles again in this very recent and fast developing field: knowing now that mutation M222 is always on top of L21 means we can go back and say that L21 at the very least is found in those people with M222 - so we can at least say something definite. Jembana (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we unfortunately only have one Wikipedia standard reliable source for anything about R-L21 and that is the ISOGG R page, which at least mentions it's position in the R1b family tree. No one else seems to have even summarized what is clearly known in any published source with a reputation for fact checking. So it seems that the rest has to wait before it can be put into this article. I know there are efforts out there to create wikis for people who want more cutting edge material summarized somewhere on the internet. (I am admin of one such Wiki, the E-M35 "haplowiki" one.) So maybe that gives a place to work on these things while we all wait for L21 to enter mainstream published knowledge.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sections which need a new approach
I believe the Haplotypes and Distribution sections will need to be deleted unless we can find (a) real sources and/or (b) a better presentation.

Concerning the haplotypes section, I am not sure if there is any reliable source we can use to save this. Perhaps not.

Concerning the distribution section, I note that a tag was removed and so perhaps the problems it has are not well understood...

1. The numbers given do not even define which type of R1b was sampled for. There are many DIFFERENT R1b SNPs that have been used over the years. This problem has an obvious solution, which is that for example M269 sampling get reported in tables in the R-M269 section, P25 in the R-P25 section and so on.

2. The data is not an organized table reporting all data. It is clearly a selection of snippets of data summarized, and frequently tweaked, in a way which is clearly reflecting points Wikipedians want to make about things which interest them. To get a proper idea of distribution, such a biased sampling is wrong because not neutral.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to give more examples of the problem, I have been working through the data section and found that all the Semino 2002 references (referring to an article mainly about Africa) must actually be from the other earlier 2000 article, which only tested for M173 and M17, making it effectively useless for a good up-to-date summary about R1b. M173 defines R1, and therefore includes R1a. M17 is of course an SNP which covers MOST of R1a, but not all, and making assumptions about that would force Wikipedians to commit WP:Synthesis in a fairly clear way. There are newer sources, many already used in the main parts of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar problem with an old article is Rosser 2000. It did not test for any R1b markers except one, M167. This article is therefore properly (already) discussed in the M167 section. As a general survey of what we now call R1b, something which this article did not yet know or test for, it is useless.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not finished going through that data section, but my strong impression so far is that everything worth keeping will fit better as data in relevant sub-clade sections. Actually most of it is already in the correct section, and now just doubled up. The big exception is M269, and I think what will eventually happen to the stripped down Eurasian data, is that it should become a table within the R1b1b2 (R-M269) section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

M73 Sengupta errors
I removed the following statement:

High levels were also spotted in very small samples from particular ethnic groups in China in the study by Sengupta et al in 2006. This included the Naxi (4/8) and Uygur (3/8), but R-M73 individuals were also found in the small samples for Japan, and the Chinese Mongola, Tu, and Han.

These Chinese and Japanese samples were reported by Sengupta et al. as R-M73 but were later identified in private correspondence with one of the publishing authors as being some other undisclosed haplogroups. Because this correspondence is not verifiable, I am not including this discussion in the article. However, omitting errors appears to be allowable under Wikipedia policy. So this error is now omitted. Vineviz (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We can not use your correspondence as a justification for an edit, but instead I think what you are saying that is that you are only deleting surprising information. Deleting a single source is usually problematic because it can lead to claims of non neutrality or cherry picking, but there is a WP policy which says surprising information needs stronger sourcing. See WP:REDFLAG. This was used to justify deleting reference to Sharma et al data on the R1a article. I argued in that case that this was not justified, because R1a in India was not surprising, but the material was deleted there, and in any case this case is a bit more clearly surprising. However VV, to strengthen this, didn't Sengupta et al's samples get re-tested in any later paper?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish to clarify that I did not remove any sources. The edit merely removes a statement which depends on a specific error in that source publication, an error which was confirmed by an author of that source publication.  I also wish to clarify that the information was not removed because it is "surprising" but rather because it is untrue.  This removal does not violate the  Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, and is the only way to handle the problem that does not violate Wikipedia policy.Vineviz (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Andrew, the Myres et al. 2010 paper included the Sengupta et al. samples and reported only the Pakistani R-M73 and not the Japanese or Chinese R-M73. Myres et al. state by inference that no Chinese or Japanese R-M73 were found in their combined sample (which included Sengupta et al.), but they did not specifically acknowledge the original error.  This is another piece of evidence that editors can use to support the edit I made, but it is not a strong enough source to support a direct claim of error in the original paper.  Vineviz (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is helpful in making sure that the reasoning for the removal is solid. You are right BTW that indeed you did not remove a whole source, just some data. Thanks for this reply.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This M73 is not a rough equivalent to the so-caled "Anatolian modal type", is it ? Hxseek (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hxseek: better to ask that on one of the various forums which try to keep tabs on those things. I am actually not sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensible paragraph
I can't make sense of this:

"(Before the discovery of these SNPs what had been recognized was that the modal STR Y DNA signature for Western Europe, the so-called Atlantic Modal Haplotype or "Haplotype 15" was distinct from "Haplotype 35", which has long been noted as more common towards the southeast of Europe. For example, in the Balkans, Georgia and Turkey "Haplotype 35" is prevalent.[4][2]  As mentioned above, it had also been recognized on the basis of STR haplotypes that some parts of Europe such as Sardinia showed signs of having very distinct types of R-M269 compared to Western Europe.)"

It talks about haplotypes 15/35 which aren't mentioned anywhere else, and the last sentence says "as mentioned above", (but it doesn't appear to be). --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can improve it, but the HG15/35 distinction is difficult to write about now because the R1b world has changed so much. Can anyone else help?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a go. Careful readers will be left wondering, as Hxseek above, which branch of R1b really is HT 35. I currently have no source for it, so I just have to leave it open. WP can't always be on the cutting edge if there are no sources. We can just follow. If anyone has a source which explains how HT 35 would fit in the new SNP schemes, please say so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It still says "as mentioned above...some parts of Europe such as Sardinia show signs of having very distinct types of R-M269 ", however I can't see where this is mentioned above. The two references to Sardinia above just say that one sub-clade is found in very low frequencies in Sardinia, and another just talks about the age of R1b. Also, how come the "sub-clades of R1b1b2" sections are all higher up in precedence (not sure if that's the correct word) than the R1b1b2 section itself? --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning Sardinia: You have a good eye! Thank you so much for putting time in on this!! This is again a point where I think we've tried to paste together primary sources and also keep whatever people want in this article, but then had to leave gaps in the explanation. If we say nothing we ignore the Morelli article totally despite it being recent. This is a typical example of the type of article which causes problems when we have to deal with primary literature on WP because seems to disagree with other recent articles but makes no good attempt to explain why itself, ignoring information that has been published, and also other recent articles pretty much ignore it and don't explain the difference either. That's unfortunately how academics work. I can explain the difference myself, but I can not cite myself. Removing it entirely does not work because people keep putting it back in. Hopefully if at least put a footnote to the ref in the position you mention things will be a bit more clear. See what you think. Once again thanks for the feedback. With your extra eyes we'll make this more acceptable.


 * Perhaps it just needs rewritten a bit to remove the 'as mentioned above', and perhaps expand it so that it actually discusses the issue a bit more clearly. I don't really know very much about this subject - I just had a read through the article for the first time yesterday and that was the only bit that didn't make sense to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How does it look now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning your last sentence I do not quite follow. I think the sub-clades come after their parent clades?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering why the sub-clades aren't sub-sections of the parent clades. If you look at the article, R1b1b2 is section 5.2, and then its children are in sections 6 and 7! It just seemed a bit unusual to me (and it was very confusing looking at the contents). Perhaps there is a reason for it being laid on in this way - if so, that's fine - but it just seemed odd to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Other ideas might work better, but the reason for what you mention is that some of the "children" clades have more to be said about them than others. To strictly stick to an article structure which had as much sub-dividing as the R1b tree would make a very large number of sub-sections which would effectively be empty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This section is indeed a mess, and includes a few errors. For one thing, ht15 and ht35 are not STR haplotypes at all but rather RFLP haplotypes. But there is a larger problem, which is that discussing the evolution of knowledge about three kinds of haplotypes (RFLP, STR, and SNP) in one article is challenging.  I propose (and may attempt, if I have the time and concentration) to split out a section that is kind a meta-history:  the history of the STUDY of R1b, different than the genetic history of R1b itself.  A history of the scholarship would be helpful, and would be a natural place to treat these archaic concepts (ht15, ht35, AMH, etc.).  Thoughts?  Vineviz (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I may move some of this to "Nomenclature" also/instead. Vineviz (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Nomenclature needs to be sourced for the AMH and RFLP claims, and edited for clarity a bit, but I think this will be a good basic structure.  Morelli et al. was a casualty in this particular edit, and may need to be re-added elsewhere. Vineviz (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be great VV. I think it has been inserted in various ways already but often not well. People get nervous on these articles whenever they think something has been cut out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The cladogram template
I have tried to update the cladogram but I must say I find that this template Template:Y-DNA R just won't ever give a nice presentation now that R1b is so complex. I would like to propose a more written out tree, which would look a bit like the ISOGG tree, which by the way is now here http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html or for a Wiki equivalent, here is one, with small comments, for E-M35: http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M35. Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, Thanks for bringing your suggestion to my attention. However, I support the continued use of the cladogram for the following reasons: 1) The "written out" tree has numerous others like it on the web, whereas the cladogram represents a unique and more graphical look at the philogenic structure. 2)  The cladogram is harder to edit, requiring more thoughtful changes. This I find to actually be a benefit, because with many editors the tree becomes full of junk explanations, etc. which better belong in the article's text.

That's my opinion. Please let me know what you think.

Tartessos75 (talk) 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem either way as long as the result works in practice. I think the present format is not easy for people to get a good feeling for the facts being presented and obviously that makes it need work of some kind. And this leads to me disagreeing with you on point 2. Making changes hard means it is also hard to make the format work. No one is fixing it. That means it is not good in practice. I personally find this cladogram very hard to get into a nice format. But of course if someone can make it easier for the eye to take in, then my concerns are answered, but no one is doing this, and maybe it is just not possible. Concerning your point 1, I really do not see any big difference coming from being a more graphical look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With great difficulty I have apparently succeeded in updating the cladogram, but I still question whether this is a good way of working. What do others think? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem now that I've updated it, and that is that it is enormous. I am wondering if we should split this into several trees. Indeed, the article needs a structure sooner or later, and these trees could be the basis of that structure? Comments please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with abandoning the cladogram method. It's absurdly illegible for something that should be rather simple. Take the Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) page for example. Very easy to read. This has my vote. — Victar (talk 05:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Victar, you are answering quite an old post. In the meantime the compromise we came to was to split up discussion of different parts of the R1b cladogram, and while I was not entirely with that compromise to begin with I have started to like it! :) It would be good to hear what others think because I have gotten used to this approach. I would warn about the comparison to the J1 case because the R1b tree is a lot more complex.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've split the big tree and as I proposed, I've started trying to give this article structure, based around these sub-trees. Still a lot of work to do in order to remove redundancies, out of date material, and to clean up the presentation of data and sources. I hope others will also help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Splitting R1b (Y-DNA) into sub-articles
What are people's thoughts on splitting this article into sub-articles? Right now, it's very hard to read and navigate which I think has much to do with its size and varying subject matter. - Victar (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Victar, it will happen one day. It is a question of doing it at the right time and doing it well. Such splitting is not that controversial as long as you remember some things which often go wrong:-
 * Every edit should improve all the article affected. Do not leave articles in a "half-half" form. So do not do this unless you have time. Perhaps play with ideas in a "sandbox" for example. See Help:Userspace draft.
 * Try to avoid making redundant articles which are 100% covered by another article which already exists.
 * Try to avoid making articles which have almost nothing to say.
 * You might want to look at WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE for some good basic guidelines. If you keep those in mind then I think that (perhaps slightly in conflict with the approach you took so far) the natural splits to expect from R1b in the future would be the "big" clades of R-P312, R-V88 and R-U106? (I mean big in terms of having lots to say from published articles.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew, thanks for the advice. I'm already working on a draft for a R1b1b2a1a1 page. Next, R1b1b2a1a2d. - Victar (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would advocate splitting out the frequency lists into distinct entries, in a manner similar to the way |R1a has been handled. That'd be an easy start. 68.50.72.61 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As the person who made that R1a data list article I'd have to say I would not see it as an ideal solution. I know people like the idea of such data articles but in a way they are misleading. I would prefer if we can just focus ourselves in articles about the haplogroups, and have data tables with the articles, not separate. R1a was a kind of emergency because so many editors were arguing over what to include. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)