Talk:Haplogroup R1b/Archive 3

Article structure
In May 2016 the toc hierarchy was removed. I can see it was getting a bit much, and I can also see that the article should be updated to conform with ISOGG, but clearly the toc cannot reproduce the full structore of the ISOGG tree (where to stop? it goes all the way in to level 31,  R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a3).

Not sure how to deal with this, but the current toc is completely arbitrary (e.g. why does R1b1a1a2a1a2 in particular get a h3 section?) --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Turns out that the vast majority of subclades listed are under R1b1a1a2a, so that the full tree becomes manageable if pruned to level 5: • R1b* • R1b1 • • R1b1a • • • R1b1a1 • • • • R1b1a1a • • • • • R1b1a1a1 • • • • • • R1b1a1a1a • • • • • • • R1b1a1a1a1 • • • • • • • R1b1a1a1a2 • • • • • • • • R1b1a1a1a2a • • • • • • • • • R1b1a1a1a2a1 • • • • • • • • R1a1a1b2a2b~ • • • • • • R1b1a1a1b • • • • • • R1b1a1a2a • • • • • • • lots of stuff, probably for a subpage • • • • • • R1b1a1a2b • • • • • • • R1b1a1a2b1 • • • • R1b1a1b • • • • • R1b1a1b1 • • • • • R1b1a1b2~ • • • R1b1a2 • • • • R1b1a2a • • • • R1b1a2b • • • • R1b1a2c • • R1b1b • • • R1b1b1 • • • R1b1b2 • • • • R1b1b2a --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Error on Villabruna 1
The article says: an individual known as Villabruna 1 (or 1,215,433), within an Epigravettian culture in the Cismon valley (modern Veneto, Italy), who lived circa 14,000 years BP and reportedly belonged to R1b1a* (R-L754*),[2] This is not supported by the reference, which just says R1b1. To see the data in the ref (The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe) you need to look at Extended Table 1. In the PDF version the right side of the table gets cut off, but you can see it in the ncbi/nih version here. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haplogroup R1b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100010/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Hassan-Sudan-2008-AJPA.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Hassan-Sudan-2008-AJPA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619105314/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816193639/http://ftp.anrb.ru/molgen/Lobov_AS.PDF to http://ftp.anrb.ru/molgen/Lobov_AS.PDF

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

V88 now known as R1b1a2?
Starting with an edit on 11:02 14 March 2017 (50-100 edits ago) user Dbachmann began making changes to reflect "V88 now known as R1b1a2" (previously R1b1c). However, I can't find any support for this. Does anyone more about this? Is it a novel hypothesis? Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a novel hypothesis, just a change of terminology. ISOGG is the defacto standard so we are following them. Megalophias (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got it. Thanks. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

R1b1b2a1a1 (U106) not listed
Promethease says that R1b1b2a1a1 is quite common for Western Europe. Shouldn't it be listed?&mdash; Wdfarmer (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup R1b
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup R1b's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hallast2014": From Haplogroup T-M184:  From Haplogroup R (Y-DNA):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup R1b
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup R1b's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "YFull": From Haplogroup K2a (Y-DNA): YFull Haplogroup YTree v5.06 at 25 September 2017 From Haplogroup Q-M25: YFull Haplogroup YTree v5.01 at 04 January 2017 From Haplogroup O-M175: YFull Haplogroup YTree v5.04 at 16 May 2017 

Reference named "Karmin2015": From Haplogroup K2a (Y-DNA): </li> <li>From Haplogroup O-M175: Monika Karmin, Lauri Saag, Mário Vicente, et al., "A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture." Genome Research (2015) 25: 459-466. doi: 10.1101/gr.186684.114</li> <li>From Haplogroup: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have removed this stuff because;


 * it looks like WP:OR


 * the map seems dubious


 * the linked theory is highly controversial and we are getting into WP:PROFRINGE here. 212.175.35.4 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Linguistics
Eupedia is not a source with any competence in linguistics justifying a citation in this field.HJJHolm (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA).PNG

In Jones 2017, there is only ONE Narva individual cited, here the copy: "Latvia_HG2 =ZVEJ25 "Latvia-HG" - "Narva" - 5841-5636 cal BC, Zvejnieki, Latvia". 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:146F:5805:5720:EC06 (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

R1b and Yamnaya
Well, the IP has been blocked but since I's already started to check the sources, let's see if they justify the change from

into


 * Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, Haak et al, 2015:


 * Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Allentoft et al, 2015 - no mention of R1a nor R1b; yet


 * Eight thousand years of natural selection in Europe, Mathieson et al, 2015:


 * - no mention of R1a; no attribution of R1a to Yamna:


 * - no mention of R1a; regarding R1b:

So, R1a is related to Yamna, R1b is related to Corded Ware; Corded ware is related to Yamna; yet, R1a was not spread by Yamna. One of the big questions: if CW was IE(-speaking), how come? People, or pots? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"A recent comment on the hypothetical Central European origin of PIE helped me remember that, when news appeared that R1b-L51 had been found in Khvalynsk ca. 4250-4000 BC, I began to think about alternative scenarios for the expansion of this haplogroup, with one of them including Central Europe. Because, if YFull‘s (Iain McDonald‘s) estimation of the split of R1b-L23 in L51 and Z2103 (ca. 4100 BC, TMRCA ca. 3700 BC) was wrong, by as much as the R1a-Z645 estimates proved wrong, and both subclades were older than expected, then maybe R1b-L51 was not part of the Yamna expansion, but rather part of an earlier expansion with Suvorovo-Novodanilovka into central Europe...The source of R1b-L51 and L151 expansion over Z2103 must lie therefore in the West Yamna period, and not in the Bell Beaker expansion." -Carlos Quiles, Anthropology, Archaeology, Demic diffusion, Genetics, History, Indo-Iranian, Linguistics, North-West Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European, August 6, 2018 https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-the-origin-of-haplogroup-r1b-l51-in-late-repin-early-yamna-settlers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.177.24 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Southern Baltic Region R1b-L51

R1b-M343 and West Hunter-Gatherers From Indo-European.info
 * A more recent, revised and updated version of this paper has been published (2019)

Villabruna I [Fu et al. 2016]..."Another old European sample classified as R1b-M343 comes from a western hunter-gatherer in Iboussieres... Hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates prove the regional continuity of haplogroup R1b1a-L754 (xR1b1a1a-P297, xR1b1a1a2-M269). These samples were probably from branches that have not survived in modern populations, and they cover an extensive period spanning from the first half of the 10th millennium to the first half of the 6th millennium BC, with the latest samples showing already Middle East farmer ancestry[Mathieson et al. 2017][González-Fortes et al. 2017]." https://indo-european.info/ie/R1b-M343_and_West_Hunter-Gatherers

How to cite this paper: Quiles, Carlos (2017). Indo-European demic diffusion model (3rd ed.). Badajoz, Spain: Universidad de Extremadura. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31997.67040 Most recent version of this paper. News and discussion of the model at Indo-European.eu. Updated maps of Indo-European migrations. North-West Indo-European, Late Proto-Indo-European, and Uralic. This project is part of Academia Prisca's Indo-European Network. Forum for discussion. Content under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License, unless otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.177.24 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Be sure that Carlos Quiles is not accepted as WP:RS, no matter how much I personally like his blog. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the haplogroups Excel sheets of Carlos Quiles are the most up-to-date ones available, not necessarily his conclusions. But the latter regrettably is the case with nearly all genetic studies, too.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:D513:BBC7:EBB8:B2D3 (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Map is OR
‎ Commons doesn't have a rule against OR, see Commons:Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view. The removal of the map has already been discussed on commons, commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA).PNG. Since there are no copyright issues, the file was kept. But Wikipedia does have a rule against OR. In that discussion on commons, even the keep-side admitted that it is OR. To me, it seems quite clear that a map based on multiple sources (among them one "source" called "etc.") falls under WP:SYNTH (and WP:OI cannot save the map). --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even after all these years editing here, I still get surprised periodically, although now I don't understand how any user created maps can survive in the project. There are thousands.  Anyway, thanks for the explanation.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 03:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrator insists on keeping outdated theses in an article on R-M269
In the article on this haplogroup, it appears that M269 arrived in Europe through the Neolithic farming revolution. I know this was a popular thesis until not too long ago, before articles on ancient DNA samples were published. But now that we have data truly extracted from such samples, and not merely speculative mathematical models, we know that the Y-DNA haplogroup of the Neolithic revolution is G-M201, not R-M269; the latter only arrived in Europe in the Bronze Age, through steppe expansions.

When I tried to edit the entry for M269 to insert this (not so new) fact, I was reverted and the administrator who reverted me, User:Doug Weller, left me a not very friendly message in my talk page. I therefore wanted other users to contribute to the discussion of these findings and carry the torch of the good news in my place, because I know that getting on an administrator's bad side so early in a discussion is a sign that I may be about to be suspended if I don't bend to their will. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for your content? Did you include that in your changes?  Is your source wp:Reliable?  It would be most helpful to have additional information or link(s) regarding your comments above.  I also do not see any recent edits to the article by you that have been reverted by any editor.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 15:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

R-V88
@JoshuaJonathan You reverted my edits on the origin of R-V88 in Africa. As I have explained,there are sources that agree with you but there are also sources that contradict your position. In fact the article itself makes it a point in the lead that the origin of R-V88 is unknown. The statement that "R-V88, which is now concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, following migration from Asia" is directly contradicted in the lead of the article as well as multiple places in the body and sources cited in the article. Stating this as an unqualified fact is untenable. The current scientific position is that the origin of the Haplogroup is unknown. You cannot just cite sources that agree with your position and pretend like it is a fact/ scientific consensus. I am reverting your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.62.176 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Attributed and sourced; stop your disruptive editing. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @JoshuaJonathan
 * Gonzalez et al 2013, which is cited in article take the position that V88 originated in Africa and migrated north towards asia"The present findings are also compatible with an origin of the V88-derived allele in the Central-West Africa, and its presence in North Africa may be better explained as the result of a migration from the south during the mid-Holocene." D’Atanasio et al 2018 acknowledge two probabilities "The presence of two nested R-V88 basal European clades can be related to the high frequencies of R-V88 internal lineages in the central Sahel assuming a movement from Europe toward the central Sahel across northern Africa. In turn, considering the trans-Saharan distribution and the “star-like” topology of the sub-clade R-V1589 (branch 233), it is likely that this lineage rapidly expanded in the lake Chad area between 5.73 and 5.25 kya and moved backward to northeastern Africa across the Saharan region". Both of these sources are more recent and directly address the claims of your source. What is more disturbing is that they are already cited in the article but you deliberately ignore them to push your own POV
 * Not sure what you mean by "disruptive editing", but, I intend to keep reverting until the article is accurate by current scientific consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.62.176 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Removing sourced info is WP:DISRUPTIVE. You don't simply remove remove sourced info, let alone the source, simply because other research says otherwise; what you can do is add additional info, and explaine eventual discrepancies. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you have very badly miscomprehended the passage that you quoted from D’Atanasio et al 2018. What it actually posits is that the V88 found in Europe is basal to the V88 found in Africa. V88 originated in Europe, moved into Africa, expanded around Lake Chad, and then moved backward to northeastern Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvantz (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "You" is the IP? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, "you" = 73.123.62.176. D’Atanasio et al 2018 very clearly does NOT suggest that V88 has an origin in central Africa. The D'Atanasio study actually shuts down the possibility of an African origin that was proposed in the older and now outdated Gonzalez et al 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvantz (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shvantz. I have cited verbatim! Please demonstrate where in the article that "very clearly does NOT" and also where it "shuts down the possibility of an African origin". You are arguing in contradiction to what is stated verbatim in the article. It would appear that you are the one who misunderstands.


 * your opinions? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @73.123.62.176 The D'Atanasio study explicitly states that European V88 is BASAL to the V88 found in Africa. Quoting from the study: "Indeed, our data suggest a European origin of R-V88 about 12.3 kya, considering both the presence of two Sardinian R-V88 basal clades (R-M18 and R-V35) and that the V88 marker arose in the R-M343 background, which in turn includes Near-Eastern/European lineages" Also, please see page 6 of the supplementary info to the Marcus study under the section titled "R1b haplogroups in ancient Sardinians." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvantz (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would agree with User:Shvantz. The study seems to be fairly explicit. Skllagyook (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the interpretations of Joshua Jonathan, Shvantz and Skllagyook. The study is indeed quite explicit. Krakkos (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The entire paragraph "Marcus et al. (2020) provide strong evidence for this proposed model of North to South trans-saharan movement: The earliest basal R1b-V88 haplogroups are found in several Eastern European Hunter Gatherers close to 10 000 years ago. The haplogroup then seemingly further spread with the Neolithic Cardial Ware expansion, which established agriculture in the Western Mediterranean around 7500 BP: R1b-V88 haplogroups were identified in ancient Neolithic individuals in central Italy, Iberia and, at a particularly high frequency, in Sardinia.[74] A part of the branch leading to present-day African haplogroups (V2197) is already derived in some of these ancient Neolithic European individuals, providing further support for a North to South trans-saharan movement." needs to be deleted for misrepresenting a source and original research. Nowhere in the article do the authors make the assertions claimed. Specifically at no point do they lend any support to a trans-saharan movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.72.225.209 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read page 6 of the supplementary info to the Marcus study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvantz (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"R1b1b (R-PH155)"
This is outdated! Did you "experts" eventually notice that ISOGG has changed P155 into R1b2 in 2019/2020??? 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:C9C0:78F4:69CD:618F (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No one needs to be an "expert" to edit this article. Instead of complaining, why don't you fix it?   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 13:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not fix it, because this is a sytematic error with probably widespread consequences (e.g., internal contradictions). It would be better to overdo the whole article by the original author, for what I do not have the time. Thank You.HJJHolm (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated
"R-M269, or R1b1a1a2 (as of 2017) amongst other names." is outdated, the "Main article" is correct, namely R1b 1a1 b.HJHolm (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Map of R-M269
The current map in the R-M269 section is in contradiction with recent studies that show that the haplogroup is present in the Balkans at higher percentages. A new map should be made on a provincial/municipal level for a better representation of the actual situation. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)