Talk:Mitochondrial Eve/Archive 3

a bold proposal
Here is a bold proposal. Section 3.1 can be moved to section 4, and the rest of sections 3 and 4 can be deleted. Maybe there are a couple of sentences worth saving. What do others think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that, but I would suggest going further and deleting much of section 2 as well. The material in section 2 is already covered in human mitochondrial molecular clock. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Delete all of sections 2, 3 & 4 except 3.1. --Michael C. Price talk 06:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that about section 2 also. Is there anything else in these sections needing saving in summarized form? Perhaps links need to at least be carefully placed in order to make sure people can get to more specialized articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
Much of the current article is PB's individual work that was done without much input from other editors. Many editors have expressed concern. Rather than get distracted with specifics, I would suggest a major rewrite of the article using information from this version and prior versions as well. A few things to consider Wapondaponda (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead
 * An outline of sub-headings
 * The level of detail and complexity of the article, should it be at the popular science level or PHD level.
 * Consider moving much of current content into an article such as Human mitochondrial DNA molecular clock.


 * Yes, let's move forward.
 * The lead we can finish last, after defining the the headings and subheadings.
 * I don't mind detail, in the appropriate subsections, but general accessiblility is most important. No reason why we can't have both, but the leads of each section and subsection must be written in general non-techie English.  And we must remove material that is not directly relevant to mitochondrial Eve, as well as removing obfuscating jargon.  The article is not a brain dump for every bit of associated material.
 * Human mitochondrial DNA molecular clock looks a good idea. Possibly remove "DNA", since that is already implied?  Or even split it between Human mitochondrial molecular clock and mitochondrial molecular clock?
 * --Michael C. Price talk 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that, because of the nature of the topic I avoided introducing material on rate variability. The majority of the rate variability material pertains to evolution after the exo-african migration. The material in this page is primarily focused on the pre-migration period.PB666 yap 11:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is that a problem? What has this to do moving inappropriate material to more appropriate articles? --Michael C. Price talk 12:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK to rephrase, there is a problem with that; however, having considered the idea, and the fact that 80% of the references are already in place; so it sounds like a good idea. Lacking on entry the tables are already completed for the TMRCA material, except on small table, so that I can move the larger section of material off the page.PB666 yap 14:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This answer makes no sense whatsoever. --Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! The lede for section:"Estimating time to MRCA" was not transfered to the new article, and the material in the article below "Calibrating the single nucleotide polymorphism rate" to "Estimated times of major mtDNA branchpoints".PB666 yap 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This answer makes no sense whatsoever. --Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New article, though no changes here. Possible subsections, if these are okay, we can get to work
 * Intro, lead
 * Mitochondria DNA
 * Mitochondria-brief discussion of evolution and common descent of
 * Maternal inheritance-brief discussion of mechanisms
 * Molecular clock- brief summary of molecular clock

I believe this would essentially cover what mitochondrial eve is about. Any suggestions, comments? Wapondaponda (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Genealogy of Eve- L0-L6, M and N, coalescence theory
 * Dates-Human mitochondrial molecular clock
 * Eve and human origins-Speciation of AMH, OOA vs MREH
 * Misconceptions
 * Y-chromosomal Adam-Brief discussion of
 * Popular science/culture


 * Not a bad start. Are the last 4 sections perhaps actually one big section with sub-sections?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Although completely lacking in the discussion of population size.PB666 yap 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What would be an appropriate name for the four sub-sections. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes population size is important. Current mtDNA diversity patterns have been used to infer prehistoric population size. My impression is that even when it is done, such estimates are still dependent on other assumptions. Prehistoric population sizes can still be determined, using non-genetic measures, typically archeological or computer simulations. In short, a lengthy discussion of population size in this article isn't necessary. However it is relevant to misconceptions, such as Eve was the only woman at the time. It is also connected to the speciation of AMH, since speciation events are sometimes marked by bottlenecks and there are some who suggest that existence of Eve coincides with the earliest fossils of AMH, implying a speciation bottleneck. I can see there is an article Pleistocene human population bottleneck in Africa that was recently created. Not a big fan of the title. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary sources
This is related to the policy at WP:PSTS which states, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Peer reviewed publications don't fit neatly into categories of primary or secondary sources. But for the purpose of this article I would consider them as primary sources, whereas books and news articles are secondary. Mitochondrial Eve is very much a popular science term, and her discovery played a major role in popularizing personal genetic genealogy. So I would suggest the use of some secondary sources. In fact many of the peer reviewed publications don't even use the term "mitochondrial eve" but simply refer to her as the MRCA (Gonder et al., Mishmar et al. and Behar et al.). Below are a two examples of how mitochondrial Eve would typically be covered in secondary sources. Of course none of these is perfect, some may say dumbed down, but the information is given in an accessible manner and is reasonably accurate. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that the BBC source contains the statement "There is no reason to suppose that she had more than one female child." Is that correct?  I should have thought that we know that she had at least two daughters. (If she'd only had one daughter then that daughter would be a better candidate for being the mtEve.) --Michael C. Price talk 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well even the word candidate seems odd in this context. Isn't Eve defined in such a way that she MUST have at least 2 daughters? Or are there people out there using a different definition, such as the first person to have all the MRCA mutations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it follows from definition: she must have had at least two daughters with their own matrilineal descendants alive today. The article should say this. --Michael C. Price talk 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly, within a very small window that single mitochondria would have needed to produce its first defining mutation (within the L0-node to L1-node), within effectively 16 generations there would need to have been at least 2 females, probably many more.
 * For simplicities sake lets say yes.PB666 yap 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this unusual situation, still 2 daughters are needed to form 2 lineages, it does stretch Eve across several generations. No biblical analogies for the daughters of Eve, only Cain and Abel for sons. The BBC got that one wrong, but their point was that just because she is the MRCA doesn't mean that she had plenty of children, but she must have had daughters. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * .PB666, it is not a matter of simplicity, it is a matter of definitions. Your response makes no sense to me.  Eve would still have to have had two or more daughters.  How does that study you cited change anything? --Michael C. Price talk 08:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, A new mutation that appears in a population of mtDNA can be passed as follows. First it can be in a family with two female offspring, one with the mutation and one without and this would explain the result. Second, it could appear in the sole female offspring, however the sister, aunt, great aunt, great aunt of the MtMRCA type may sustain the Nodal type (without mutation). As with everything in molecular evolution the argument is statistical. In practicality you are right, if a line does not duplicate quickly it dies out. The random risk of a single occurance mtDNA type is ~37% per generation. Therefore if the line does not duplicate itself rapidly then it dies (Markov chain is ~ 0.36, 0.23, 0.15, 0.09, 0.06, 0.04, 0.02, 0.02, 0.01, 0.01, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002 for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8....13th generation). The probability of an allele fixing is equal to 1 over population size. The rate of exclusion is highest in the first few generations (I have a graph for that but I never added it to the page, but see chain) for alleles that go onto fixation the probability of fixation for each successive generation without two female decreases. While Eve hereself did not need to have two daughters, statistically speaking if she, or her daughter or at least a granddaughter did not have multiple female progeny then the probability that Eves mtDNA would fix drops markedly.
 * The MRCA is defined by sequence, MRCA is the first female with that sequence.
 * 1 Eve-(d1Eve, d2Eve*) * = first mutation d=daughter = g=grand
 * 2 Eve-dEve-(gd1Eve, gd2Eve*)
 * 3 Eve-dEve-gdEve-(gd1Eve, gd2Eve*) * = first mutation
 * 4 Eve-dEve-gdEve-ggdEve-gggdEve-(gggggd1Eve, ggggd2Eve*) * = first mutation
 * 5 Eve-(d1Eve, d2Eve)-d(d1Eve),d(d2Eve*) and so on. You get the point.
 * Micheal I don't necessarily advocate changing the page, because given uncertainty about the rapidly mutating sites and the risk of exclusion, for all intents and purposes the risk the Eve did not have two daughter or two maternal lines granddaughter is relatively low, two problems (risk of not having a recurrent mutation, risk of being excluded) squeeze the MRCA within a small number of generations of the first defining mutation.
 * For the sake of not being tentitious lets avoid this issue for now.PB666 yap 17:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eve is defined as the most recent common mt ancestor, i.e. whether everybody has inherited their mtDNA from her. It has nothing to do with how much the mtDNA has mutated since then. My father is still my father, even if my Y-chromosome has picked up a mutation en route.--Michael C. Price talk 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not get sidetrack but I agree with Michael. If an aunt of grandmother of Eve is an independent ancestor of surviving lines, then Eve would not be Eve by definition, if the definition is MRCA. The only question is whether that is the only definition and I have certainly never heard of any other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Think Heisenberg uncertainty principle.PB666 yap 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another non-sensical reply by PB666; ancestory is not subject to Heisenberg. I take it that this means that he is unable to simply agree about something, even when he is undisputedly wrong? --Michael C. Price talk 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is what you want to believe, remember I rewrote the section on Eve having 2 daughters which essentially contains the argument that you are making. Uncertainty principle applies to quanta that have statistically definable behaviors. The mutations propagate forward on matter but can also be thought of as waves. The important point is this, it does not matter, given a constant mutation rate, definition of branch times declines as one converges in the direction of the MRCA, however the basal-most branches have a rather large statistical variance. Then we add in uncertainty concerning anchors, rate variation in different parts of the tree. There is no importance to arguing what where within a 200 year bracket the MRCA existed when the 200 year bracket is anywhere within a 100,000 year bracket. In fact we can consider that statement trivia. If you insist I can prove the point.PB666 yap 14:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As one can see at least one woman in that population before the last MRCA defining mutation occurred and the first branch mutation occurred, at least one female between those two points, had 2 daughters, there is no doubt about that, but the way it is described on the Main is not correct. Mutations either preceding or following in terms of single generations maybe independent. Uncertainty principle applies here because according to theory and the Markov chain patterns the 2N rules has a flip side, haplotypes that go onto to fix tend to expand at the average rate of 1/2 of a female per generation. As a consequence the highest probabilities for MRCA are within a very few generations of the MRCA haplotype. However when we attempt to define the TMRCA we do so by looking at branch mutations and using these we tend to equate the MRCA with the female as the point in generations when the MRCA is more probable than L0 and/or L1.PB666 yap 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the way that the BBC states this "She didn't live alone – she would have lived within a community. She didn't just pump babies out, either. There is no reason to suppose that she had more than one female child. But there is reason to suppose that whatever female children she had, they contained specific advantages for survival over the rest of the population." This statement is incorrect, since they did not mention mutations or haplotypes, simply the female.PB666 yap 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) AFAICS PB666 has taken on board not a single word of my earlier reply. Where is the evidence for the statement However when we attempt to define the TMRCA we do so by looking at branch mutations and using these we tend to equate the MRCA with the female as the point in generations when the MRCA is more probable than L0 and/or L1. This is just pure obfuscation to the point of lunacy. Digest this: There was single individual who was mtEve, and she had at least two daughters, by definition. Estimating when she lived is an entirely different and unrelated issue.--Michael C. Price talk 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that you were focused on a BBC article that had nothing to do with the page, I was focused, as we are supposed to be about what was written on the main page and improve it. "Mitochondrial Eve's sequence is typically represented as the top root node of the human mitochondrial phylogenetic tree. The first split in the tree is found between macrohaplogroup L0 and macrohaplogroup L1. From this it can be inferred that Mitochondrial Eve had at least two daughters who survived to have their own children[5]." as it was originally written and I had rewritten it was not-necessarily true. That was what I am referring, and I am pointing out that within the two basal lineages and from the origin of the haplotype there are going to be females that only have one female offspring. Based on statistics alone we can infer there was a woman with two daughters but we cannot infer whether her mother or her children had multiple children. All that we can argue is that from the first defining mutation (L0 or L1) the average rate of MRCA bearers is on average +0.5/generation. From a molecular point of view the MRCA is the female that had the MRCA haplotype and a child that had a mutation, but that is immaterial because of uncertainty. Case in point, Klyosov 2009s (for Y chromosome) gives an excellent example the MRCA of two individuals with a single defining mutation separating them is 0 to 1200 years for certain mutations. What that means is that we don't know whether that first mutation occurred last year or 4000 years ago. In addition there is the remote possibility that a male passed ever so rarely the mtDNA to his/her offspring, in addition females and their germlines are not neccesarily clonal.
 * This is not a place to focus these argument, the place to focus the argument is writing the overwhelming agreement here in a way that can be understood, that's really the only point. What else can I tell, the version you gave is the version that belongs on the page, do I have to repeat this again?PB666 yap 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? Buried that mass of pseudoscience is a half truth.
 * Based on statistics alone we can infer there was a woman with two daughters but we cannot infer whether her mother or her children had multiple children.

It is not based on statistics, but follows from the simple definition of mtEve as the mtMRCA. Since you have nowhere responded to the points I've raised I can't take this dialogue any further. This article will not improve until you are topic banned. --Michael C. Price talk 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Grandstanding.PB666 yap 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Micheal, I have a question for you? This article was in disrepair for 6 months, stated exactly why it was removed from GA status, and you have been tending that page for an appreciable time. I pointed out to you multiple misfactual statement, you could have very well said, yes, I will inspect the literature and I would have checked back in 6 months or so, instead you blew it off. Now you make comments like the above, wqhen I wrote "OK to rephrase, there is a problem with that; however, having considered the idea, and the fact that 80% of the references are already in place; so it sounds like a good idea. Lacking on entry the tables are already completed for the TMRCA material, except on small table, so that I can move the larger section of material off the page.PB666 yap 14:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)"; "This answer makes no sense whatsoever. --Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)"Done! The lede for section:"Estimating time to MRCA" was not transfered to the new article, and the material in the article below "Calibrating the single nucleotide polymorphism rate" to "Estimated times of major mtDNA branchpoints".PB666 yap 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC). " This answer makes no sense whatsoever. --Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 9 December 20. And then you talk on your talk page about going Nuclear. You were here on this page on the day the article was demoted, you where here in the weeks before when it underwent review when it could have been correct to maintain GA status, over that six months did you lift a finger to fix the problem with the article? As you state on your talk page, let me ask you a question, why should I actually take anything you say seriously? At least there is considerable referenced material on the page and the popular science now plays a diminutive position. As some point we need a critical mass of people, a mass of people within the realm of molecular anthropology who want to actually improve, not just gripe and whine.PB666 yap 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself this question, for someone who has read all of this literature, why should I care what you think? Give me a sign or reason to believe that you want at some point to actually improve the article according to the recommendations.PB666 yap 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PB666 this is a nonsense and ad hominem reply, nothing to do with the points at hand. Mt Eve, or indeed the Eve at any particular point in time, is DEFINED ONLY by her relationship to her descendants. There is simply no way to argue that she might have had a different number of daughters than her DEFINITION requires. You are once again arguing with a tautology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And her definition requires 2 or more daughters. --Michael C. Price talk 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if you mean >99% of the time. Andrew, go back an look and DNA Anthro, there is a paper I presented 2 years ago that basically states that paternal passage cannot be discriminated by current tests, some studies suggested it could other suggested it could not. In addition there is a recent paper for December that claims that mtDNA are not passed clonally, and new mutations may not fix within the first individual that possesses them. Again this is all immaterial, since what is on the page is not addressing either of these issues. I repeat the uncertainty principles apply here, at least until it can be defined how often anomolous passage occurs. Tautology is not important here either, and after dealing with the Zhirovosky/UNderhill issue and relevant timeframes you should be more than aware that DNA based estimates are more of estimates than calculation. There may be (most probably) a female defined as mtDNA eve who however theoretically she exists cannot be defined. For example look at the MRCA sequence from Kivilsild, Soares, etc. These are all different, L0 and L1 branches have different mutations in different studies, Gonder stated correctly that it is impossible to resolve which are L0 or L1, however Soares, who used Neanderthal outgroup maybe the closest. Within the 20 or so mutations between L0 and L1 is 'Heisenberg' cloud of probabilities (times, sequences, and population sizes) that result in L0 and L1. So the individual does not really matter, because everything converges into this 'cloud' and everything we know about the cloud is an estimate.
 * So what I did was ignoring all of this in that paragraph and painting an encyclopedic pretty picture that may are may not be true, and immaterial either way. IOW we don't care about WP:TRUTH we only care about what is encyclopedic. That which is not encyclopedic should not be placed, that includes speculation about the male mtDNA inclusion rate, clonality, or other uncertainties. PB666 yap 06:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean that the probability that Eve had 2 or more daughters is more like somewhere between >99.999% and 100% (inclusive), since we don't know that paternal inheritance leads to viable offerspring (the only known example of human paternal inheritance was in a sterile male with other "evidence" being false positives ). See also the archives. --Michael C. Price talk 07:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The L0 and L1 haplogroups evolved from one of these possible haplotypes. Therefore, based on this convergence of lineages and matrilineality one female had at least two female children. This female would be the mitochondrial MRCA, 'Eve'." as the article states if anyone has any objection to this otherwise the conversation is over.PB666 yap 06:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you are still trying to cloud the issue by talking about mutatons and waffling on about Heisenberg clouds and such crap. This is completely irrelevant to the question of how many daughters mtEve had, as has been repeatedly pointed out to, and ignored by, you. --Michael C. Price talk 07:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to everyone
This article was demoted because of the following Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve/GA1, so instead of trying to draft new, potentially popular media factoids into the article, lets stick to secondary literature (preferred) or primary literature. What the Beeb said on "Date: 28 	 	February 	  	2002" is not of any value here, arguing over it is of less value.PB666 yap 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I know there is one individual who is trying to promote a popular science revamp of the page, I can only say that this will be frowned upon. While we can introduce some popular science and media to the article, if the backbone of the article is popular science driven the this page will have future problems. At the same time I should mention that the maps that have appeared in the top box of this page and many other mtDNA pages has many errors on it and in some cases not appropriate for those pages, I removed the map from this page. PB666 yap 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Proper science is fine, but can someone manage to couch it in proper English? At present there are odd editing artifacts, such as "Whereas since", odd capitalisations and plurals, long sentences whose clauses have no clear cohesion, excessive use of parentheses... Janko (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Every improvement is an improvement. Incremental improvements are good. If aiming too high means we do not get incremental improvements, it would not be a good aim. Just improve, and do not make things more complicated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the the kind of incremental improvements you wanted merging 7 haplogroups into 1, that kind of incremental improvement? The basic problem here is by and large no-one has any idea what an improvement is, if they did, during the 6 mos after february they would have improved, from what I can tell the article got worse. The reason they have stuck with the popular literature is, from what I can tell, that is the reading level here. The way to turn this process around is for folks to start reading the primary literature, instead of trying to guess which editor has or has not read that literature.PB666 yap 12:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual your response has nothing to do with what it is responding to. My point stands as a simple statement of fact.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its hard for me to believe, after the R1a page and E1b1b page that you understand what improvement is. If you did, Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) to Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) would have improved, and in case you have looked recently R1b is getting worse not better. This is very simple, these pages need to become encyclopedic, I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.PB666 yap 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And once again, your response ad hominem and not responding to anything of relevance about this article. I am not working on R1b. My biggest efforts on E1b1b and R1a have always corresponded with the publication of new articles, giving better sources. My main is to give a basic readable and neutral summary of what has been published. If we get better sourcing for R1b then this would allow better editing on that article. You have yourself many times recognized my efforts on E1b1b and R1a as major improvements, and so your insinuations above make you look a little dishonest. Sourcing is a key issue on Wikipedia, and a particular challenge on Y haplogroup articles, at least for those of us who follow the neutrality and NOR policies. Much of what is in the R1b article right now could be argued about in circles forever, between deleting all mention of newer findings, making the article extremely wrong, and being strict about Wikipedia sourcing norms. Therefore for the time being it is my choice not to waste too much time on it. You have no right to assign jobs to others, and I would ask you to cease doing it. Anyway, coming back to my point, improvements are improvements and improvements are good. When someone disagrees with you about are particular proposal for improvement, then this can be discussed case by case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Any wiki page can be improved with the information at hand, and R1b can be improved, E1b1b can be improved. There is more information on R1b than just about any other Y-DNA, therefore your excuse is not legitimate. The critical problem is there is no will among the various editors to make the page encyclopedic. The clear reason is they misunderstand the goals of Wikipedia. If there is a will, no matter what, the page would become encyclopedic. Simply stated the goal as it currently appears regarding several editors within the project is to make articles less accessible and more technical rather than increased their interest and readability. It is not dishonest to recommend making things more encyclopedic, but giving good advice. Nor is it an ad-hominim attack.PB666 yap 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is indeed a problem, what did I tell you, for these types of articles is may take hours to come up with one or two good sentences. However R1b page has alot of sources, it is a matter of will, not sources that determines whether the page becomes encyclopedic. If you want a good example of how not to write a page see: Y-chromosomal Adam, where sources are thrown willy-nilly on the page.PB666 yap 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes of course all problems in Wikipedia are caused by everyone else, and you are a lonesome knight on a crusade, trying to bring people back to the true path. This is the normal speech of many disruptive editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

new source
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008260 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The dates for mtEve from this study is 186kya. The dating is quite consistent, around 200kya for most studies. To avoid information overload, I suggest including information from only the most recent studies in this article. I have chosen 2007 as a cutoff date for the studies. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure a strict cut off is what is called for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - no cut off is required. --Michael C. Price talk 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great to have all the information, but since there is quite a lot of information, just as a practical matter to make editing and reading easier, it might be a good idea to not use all the information. For example we had Kivisild et al. 2006 publishing a date of 160kya, and then Kivislid is a co-author in the above study(Loogvali et al. 2009), which is said to be more accurate, publishing a date of 186kya. Would it therefore be necessary to include an older study by the same author. Another problem, is the excessive amount of formatting in the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does an author putting his name to 2 different estimations necessarily mean that he favors which ever is newest? I think in an uncertain field like this it does not necessarily mean so?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newest is not always best, but I think some of the recent studies are quite comprehensive. Furthermore the newest studies have used the most updated phylogenetic trees which includes newly discovered lineages and previously undiscovered mutations. The study Loogvali et al. 2009 cites Kivisild 2006 extensively, so they have taken into account many of the previous studies. There are a studies throughout the 1990s and now the last decade, that all have published dates for the TMRCA. Whats great about this field is that published dates for TMRCA over the last 30 years have not varied much, such that quoting a just few studies doesn't result in the loss of a lot of information . Much of the controversy isn't so much about Mitochondrial Eve, but about lineages that arose after mtEve, and more specifically lineages that arose during and after the OOA migration. I believe the controversial subjects that could really benefit from an accurate molecular clock are

In short all these studies may have some useful information, but I don't see much value from citing Ingman et al. 2001, or Tamura and Nei 1993, we are in 2010 now and we have numerous studies from 2007-2010. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dating the OOA migration by determing the coalescence of haplogroups L3, M and N.
 * Dating the settlement of Australasia, which should correspond with the OOA
 * Dating the settlement of the Americas

Most of this article needs removal
The way this article has developed, it clearly is not sticking to the subject Mitochondrial Eve. Effectively it has become an essay about the problems associated with estimating time back to common ancestor. (Maybe there should be an article for that. But even then the style of writing currently being used would not be appropriate even for an article on quantum physics. So many acronyms. It is more the style you might see on a black board while someone is giving accompanying verbal explanation.) Anyway, this Wikipedia article only needs references to whatever the mainstream debates say. In the meantime, clear explanations about what Mitochondrial Eve really mean have actually become harder to find. From what I understand, most editors agree with what I am writing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article needs to be rewritten. Pdeitiker has gotten the wrong impression that some editors are "out to get him". In fact there is some useful information in Pdeitiker's wall of words version, but it is not directly relevant to the subject of mitochondrial eve and is better placed in other articles. Pdeitiker may have found himself in the unusual position where he has useful information, but at the same time he is harming the project with his somewhat idiosyncratic approach. He may turn out to be a net negative to the project if he doesn't alter his approach. It would be great to proceed reworking the article, but I am concerned about the walls of text that will follow. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm glad we seem to have a critical mass of concerned editors.  Ultimately most of the material can find its way into new articles.  But the style is awful -- far too idiosyncratic, hypothetical and jargony. --Michael C. Price talk 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have re-written the opening paragraphs in order to correct basic logic, wording and flow problems. I come to this section, and it is the first section I see where I can not see anything that is really about Mitochondrial Eve. It does not fit in any visible flow of discussion about her either? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The passage as it stands is as follows:-
 * Paragraph 1. Humans are sexually reproducing organisms composed of two dimorphic sexes. Individuals within mammalian species cannot create exact duplicates of themselves. Instead, each individual passes ~1/2 of her or his genetic makeup to offspring with her or his mate contributing the other half. Through offspring production, individuals increase their genetic representation in the next generation, increasing the probability that more of their genes will be passed.

I see nothing here which is relevant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. :-) --Michael C. Price talk 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2. Mitochondria are overwhelmingly inherited from the female parent. Since female or male offspring are produced randomly at a ~1:1 ratios, when a mother passes a new mitochondrial mutation to her offspring, there is random risk that the new mutation will be lost in the first generation. Alternatively the mutation may be passed to one or more female offspring and survive. If a mutation survives in a population long enough, it may fix in that population (see figure:Most likely time in generations to fixation) as part of a forward-looking process. [note 1][4]
 * Paragraph 3. Estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA), however, requires the interpretation of a past process. The accumulation of genetic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms; new mutations) lengthens and may creates new lineages. This process creates diversity and the larger the population, the more diversity can be accumulated. Alternatively, genetic drift prunes lineages from the mitochondrial family tree. As scientist measure diversity, they can estimate when lineages might have formed.
 * Paragraph 4. Mitochondria within the cell have identical DNA sequences. On rare occasion – about once every 4,000 years – a stable mutation occurs in a female and is passed to a female offspring and thus can be passed to subsequent generations.[5][note 2] The mutations that occurred in the lineages of Eve's descendants prevented her mitogenome from fixing. However, the markers that accumulated on each lineage allow scientists to estimate the time in which she lived. When scientists piece together the human mtDNA tree in order to describe the ancient population, the process is known as Coalescence analysis. This analysis involves complex computational formulas that determine the impact of the density of branches as time precedes from the MRCA to the present. The result is a glimpse of the ancient structure of the human population.

Most of what is relevant is being repeated. There are bits and pieces which might be able to be compressed into a simple extension of the opening paragraphs which immediately precede this section. But in any case I see no reason to keep a whole section for this? Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I may suggest reverting back to the version before Pdeitiker's edits. It was not perfect version, but it was not obfuscated. We can then incorporate whatever useful information is in this version and merge the two. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a bit nuclear. PB666 was certainly trying to fill in things he found missing. If we can keep any of that, then the article will be improved. I propose we go through section by section. You can certainly keep old versions in mind to keep asking yourself whether the new version of a section is better than the old one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muntuwandi that we should revert back to a pre-Pdeitiker version. Whereas previously I was prepared to accept that Pdeitiker knew what he was talking about and merely had poor editing skills, a series of non-sensical replies indicate I was being too generous.  Given that we can't trust any of his statements total reversion seems prudent, before we start reincorporating his material.  If he can't accept this then an RfC is in order requesting an article or topic ban. --Michael C. Price talk 03:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note this section says that mutations effectively appear and get passed on every 4000 years. The opening sections say every 3000 years. Which is right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I replaced this with Soares actual statement, its based on a complex calculation. He excludes mutations from consideration that occur at 16182, 16183, 16194 because they occur to rapidly to clock, he also excludes site 16519 since it was detected over 200 times in his 2000 mitogenome analysis.PB666 yap 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly the aim of this section is to go from explaining how mtDNA can show us a family tree to the next step which is that we can also try to estimate how old the tree and its branchings are. Is there anything else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have merged the second third sub-sections, and I think it keeps everything important and now flows more easily. Then we hit a much bigger problem area: the middle of the article is dominated by two enormous sections: Mitochondrial Eve and Mitochondrial Eve. These really appear to be articles in themselves? They divert all discussion into a tangent about problems in the TMRCA field, and divert all discussion away from many of the things which are most interesting about Mitochondrial Eve. They apparently replace a once small version called |Mitochondrial Clock. Going back to the old version is very tempting. Is there any way of compressing these to some reasonable level?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran into a problem in the lead. Even the estimate of when Eve lived is unncessarily verbose and illustrates some of the style problems here. We don't need to say, in the lead, "according to Gonder et al X" but "according to blah blah Y". Just say X-Y and cite the two refs inline. The footnotes and refs should be merged onto one coherent section, instead of the two level structure we have at the moment, which makes it very hard to verify anything, and is really just a lazy way to write. --Michael C. Price talk 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds correct to me. BTW the Harvtxt templates actually do not work in this article. I suspect, having worked with PB666 on other articles, that this is because he has an issue with "et al." referencing when there is a big list of authors. Citing with a full list of authors every time is something that will always go wrong eventually, and putting human error aside there seem to be errors in the way the cite templates have been used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify which sounds correct? My suggestion or the current method used in the article?  (I have some sympathy with PB666's "et al" aversion you mention, but not sure why this leads to the present structure.) --Michael C. Price talk 12:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a list of some of what could form the core of the article in no particular order. ::Much of this is from the old version
 * Mitochondrial DNA in relation to Maternal inheritance and matrilineal descent
 * The Common descent of Mitochondrial DNA
 * Mitochondrial DNA and the molecular clock
 * Genealogy of Eve( or of all humans back to Eve)
 * Eve and theories of Human origins, ie possible speciation of Anatomically modern humans
 * Eve in relation to Out of Africa vs Multiregional evolution
 * Dating
 * Misconceptions
 * Controversies, uncertainties.
 * This is by no means exhaustive, there is a lot of other information such as the history of study, popular culture/science, but I think it would be ideal to deal with the core issues first. The trouble with the current version is an emphasis only on dating mtEve. This is important, but it is not the only relevant aspect of the controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, I also understand the problem with et al. It is purely a practical problem. I found by experience (as I have explained before to PD, that if you try to be too perfectionist with referencing, then your system will not survive when other editors come along. If the Harvard templates are used properly, then when you click on them they will take you to the references, meaning the end notes become more redundant. OTOH, I am not taking any strong position here. Any system that works is good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to work on the referencing, for odd reason some citations were converted to cite journal, I have repaired these back to citation, however the ultimate goal is to have them all citation style. Cite Journal will not work with the harvard referencing system only a properly constructed Citation will work. The Harvtext tag has to be packed ie. Harvtxt |Author1|Author2|Author3|Author4|YEAR. PB666 yap 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the citation formats so that you go straight to the reference when you click on a citation. Couldn't see any reason why we should have a more complicated system. Changed the names of the containing sections (e.g. footnotes => references) to reflect this. --Michael C. Price talk 12:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

misconceptions need more discussion
I believe in earlier versions of this article several common misconceptions were discussed in a whole section. To me it seems a good idea. Apart form the one already specifically mentioned, I can think of several potential confusions, some of which are touched upon in a passing way... Do others agree with me on this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That Mitochondrial Eve must be contemporary with Y DNA Adam
 * That Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA of all humans (along all lines of descent)
 * That Mitchondrial Eve is somehow a fixed concept signifying something to do with the start of humanity (as opposed to just a formal concept which can be embodied by different people depending upon what happens in modern populations)
 * I agree, we can simply restore the old information and clean it up. The misconceptions arise because of the biblical analogy of "Eve". It should be clarified that the biblical analogy is not strict. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think all the misconceptions arise from Biblical confusion -- but I agree we should put them all in one section. --Michael C. Price talk 21:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded and (hopefully) clarified the misconceptions section. See what you think. Haven't added the "fixed concept" misconception yet. --Michael C. Price talk 12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BGS spoilers
Could we PLEASE get some spoiler alerts for the BSG spoiler on this page (about Hera and mitochondrial eve). It would totally ruin the show for someone if they were just reading along ended up seeing this terribly and unmarked and important spoiler about the show. It is in the "in popular culture" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.133.15 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Class-B rating removed
This article is now a C to start class article -Way to go guysPB666 yap 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the change of class you just did yourself and once again referring to yourself in third person like you once tried to do on the R1a article? Is there any particular reason you think anyone should not simply ignore this type of behavior? You should not be passing judgements on articles where you are working, let alone ones where you are busy with content disputes against consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made no improvements in this article as it stands, all of that has been deleted, therefore I can objectively rank it.PB666 yap 16:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given major aspects of the literature have been removed, that it is poorly referenced, it deserves to be demoted. I never demoted the R1a page, BTW. This page however has been demoted 4 levels by 2 different people, and given you are in support of the two people who are responsible for its previous demotion..... "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." I would say removing 3/4 of the pertinent references is removing important content.PB666 yap 03:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a work in progress. Yes we have stripped the article down to a bear minimum so that it can built up again. What we need now is a good secondary source that can form the foundation of the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Endicott, Ho, Metspalu and Stringer was your good secondary source, which you eliminated. As was said in the notification board, we don't have an abundance of secondary sources, consequently we have to rely and represent the primary literature adequately since you removed 75% of the pertinent references and literature from the page, the article no longer represents that literature adequately, since you removed the review that is also a failing, since after seeking the guidance of the NOR board they made a recommendation based on references and you removed that, what we have here is a movement away from improvement of the article. I could easily revert this, however, I want this example to you that you folks generally lack the ability to follow guidelines, that is the reason the project has fallen apart, page by page with disaster after disaster. You can start with the genetic history of Europe as one example.


 * PB666, it is very simple. You did "change the rank" of the R1a article, and you did then try to talk about your own rank giving as if done by a third person, as a way of pressuring and hounding people you disagreed with. You are clearly trying the same thing again. It is a type of system gaming, very obviously. You should not be giving rankings to articles where you are involved in content disputes, and you certainly should not then be pretending this was done by a third person and mentioning this on the talk page in order to hound other Wikipedians. There are so many policy violations in your current behavior that we are not far from seeing you blocked I think. Your edits are now almost purely disruptive ones. You are just one more edit warrior who think that his cause justifies the means.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am simply following the rules. Judging by the fact that the two editors in major support for shortening the article, one of whom has been banned on several occasions for POV editing and other activities have conspired to edit a page, the otehr who sat around while the page was demoted twice, apparently raising the class of an article is not an objective here on this talk page. You of course with you edits on R1a that clearly are misrepresenting content of papers and instead using reputable sources have chosed to rely on discredited sources. I think we can cluster all three of you folks within the fringe bin (Muntawandi clearly Afrocentrist). Notice in the lead he completely ignored the recommendation of the WP:NOR board. You clearly could not follow their advice either and were told on numerous occasions WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * But since you think carving pertinent research from pages is a good thing I thing I am going to apply Muntawandis editing style more to the R1a page. I am going to let you guys work on this page for a while and see what new editing styles you can come up as I might also use them on other pages. E1b1b, E1b1b1a, R1a there are other ways other than skillful editing to cleanup jargon. Then of course I will revert it, as Dbachmann said above, Muntawandis style is not appreciated.PB666 yap 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. I see that you've started this threatened behavior over on R1a where you are now deleting all mention of Anatole Klyosov, because you don't like one of his most orthodox statements, and after many attempts no one has accepted your proposals. The important this to note is that Muntawandi, Michael C Price, and myself have tried to build consensus, and we have not excluded you from discussion. The same thing on R1a where you blame me for "pandering" to the opinions of other Wikipedians, and of the literature, and not being willing to allow the article to be written to reflect some personal theories of yours which you consider better than anything published. You are in disagreement with the consensus, so eventually this type of edit war will go nowhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An editor, who as far as I know, has no prior involvement in any of these controversies stated this on Talk:Human mitochondrial molecular clock regarding an article created and primarily edited by PB666, the content of which was once part of this article. It seems that other editors have independently come to the conclusion that some of the material in question is unnecessarily complicated. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article further digresses, bullet lists are not considered parts of good articles. The number of references in text has diminished, the justification for a full revert increases with just about every edit. Its representation of the literature is fractional, the historic understanding has been removed, it discussed topics that stray into areas not part of the article.PB666 yap 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously others disagree with you PB666. There were and are a lot of complaints about what you put into this article. Over a long period people tried to get rational discussion with you about it, and then before making major changes there was discussion here on the talk page. Consensus is clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it good to delete this table?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitochondrial_Eve&diff=335475250&oldid=334914540 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Borderline, but on balance, yes. --Michael C. Price talk 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The date when mtEve should be an important part of the article. How dates are handled, whether in a table or in the text depends on the preference of the editors involved. Usually when there is a lot of repetitive data, a table is usually the most efficient form of presentation. An earlier issue was that if we were to use a table, should we list every publication that has published a date for mtEve or will a few studies, mostly recent ones, be just as effective. IOW does listing every study add any value to our understanding of when mtEve lived or will just a few studies do the job. Another problem was that some of the earlier tables were filled with too much data and an unnecessary amount of formatting. Its great that some editors use almost every formatting feature available on wikipedia, but sometimes it becomes an editing nightmare just to find and modify text that is surrounded by mountains of formatting.
 * Finally, though the date when mtEve is important, we should not dwell on it too much so as to obfuscate the whole concept of mtEve. If they are any dating controversies, they can be discussed in full at human mitochondrial molecular clock. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What this is muntawandi is a campaign of information suppression because you want to present a facade of a precise and clear molecular clock when in fact that is not clear. You have 15 days to make this article fairly represented the literature at least some approximation or abbreviated for there-of with appropriate in-line references or this article will be reverted.PB666 yap 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PB666, edit warring is an actionable offense -- editors have punished previously for merely threatening it, as you have done. It is also rather silly since you are in a minority of one; your reverts will be reverted by multiple editors, you alone will violate 3RR and be banned.  Comprehend? --Michael C. Price talk 12:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael C. Price. See also WP:DEADLINE. I have no intention of suppressing any information. This article should not be mainly about the problems of the molecular clock, human mitochondrial molecular clock is the appropriate place for them. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting edits that cause a gross underrepresentation of the literature is not edit warring, pointing out weakness of the article. I am giving this 'consensus' adequate time to reverse the disimprovements before I improve the article. As Dbachman pointed out dumbing down articles not justified in this case. I think 2 weeks is more than adequat to show he is going to improve the article, or otherwise he cannot. A large number of citations are unmarked in text, probably because he does not know where they go. I am more than willing to see what alternative he comes up with, but as for now this is nothing more than a C-class article and at least my version was well cited in text. More than enough justification for a reversion right now, but I will allow him a couple of weeks to try to improve the situtation, and we shall see what becomes of it. Micheal I am not threatening edit warring, I am offering an opertunity to mesh material from the pre Dec 25 version of the article with new version. So far as yet the article is very uninformative, very dumbed down, and does not discuss variability or the cause of variability. The basic problem is that neither of you two seem to realize why the article was kicked down, ergo while there is an consensus it is an uninformed consensus. Information suppression from more than 90% of the literature is more then justified in this case for a full reversion.PB666 yap 03:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a typical extremist: you think when you break rules, make threats, and act in an aggressive way it is different than when others do it because you are doing it for a cause. The consensus you are going against is now being described as "uninformed".
 * As usual, you mention names of other editors willy nilly. Did Dbachmann say this article needed all the removed material? You've gone to his talkpage and notified him about the removal right? Quite some time ago right? Where is he? The material which was removed was not a broader or more advanced representation of the literature, it was irrelevant garble about other subjects. No one has ever supported you, in any article you have ever worked on, concerning keeping this style of material. You have the same arguments every time.
 * You say you are not making a threat but you clearly are: you say you are giving us a chance and then you'll start action against the "uninformed" consensus. This is something you have done before on other articles. It sure sounds like edit warring to me. If you want to contact an admin and get yet another opinion to disagree with you please do. You will you not ignore like you ignore every opinion that disagrees with you though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pdeitiker states "while there is an consensus it is an uninformed consensus". So PB666 seems to agree that there is a consensus, but disagrees with the consensus. According to WP:NOR "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. Once your discovery has been published in a reliable source, it may be referenced." Wapondaponda (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence
An edit war seems to be starting, regarding the opening sentance. whether it should reaid "who is" or "who some believe is". Rather then continue reverting lets discuss. My opinion is the same as GoEThe it should read "Mitochondrial Eve is defined as the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor for all living humans." Because it says "is defined as" its not a statement of fact, its just saying that the following is the definition of the term. whereas this version - "Mitochondrial Eve is defined as the woman who some believe is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor for all living humans. " favored by Preator1 contains weasel words in the middle of a definition of the term. Discuss! Smitty1337 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Michael C. Price talk 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I do not agree with you is that many do not beleive what this sentence says. This article deals with evolution, which is an unproven theory. Many people have taken to beleiving that it is a proven fact, when nothing has ever proven it, and many still beleive in the original Eve of the Bible. It is important in these articles to be as detailed as possible, and make sure readers know that mitochondrial eve is a theory and that many do not accept it as fact. --Preator1 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that sentence says "Mitochondrial Eve is defined as" it is a term being defined, belief in it is not required for a definition. Mitochondrial eve if you read the sentence as it is written, is just a term used for the Most recent common ancestor that is female versus just plain any common ancestor (gender neutral) or a specific male version (Y-chromosomal Adam). Your or anyone else's belief in it is irrelevent to the definition of the term. You can of course argue that people dont believe in "Most recent common ancestor" or anything from the catagory Recent single origin hypothesis, which is valid, but for the sake of this sentence its not. Now since consensus is nice for stuff as simple as this, and in order to make the sentence accurate as well as specific to the field of genetic science i propose we rip-off the opening to Y-chromosomal Adam and re-write it like this "'In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living humans are descended'" this way it specifically says "In human genetics" but it does not use any weasal words such as "some believe" which is the root of my complaint. Smitty1337 (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also please note that even creationists believe in mitochondrial Eve as defined - they just believe that she coincides with Biblical Eve. So there is no need for any weasely qualifier.--Michael C. Price talk 06:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that presumes there is only 2 things, evolutionist or christian creationist, he could still make the same arguement based on an aethist saying its not true, but what i wrote above still stands. I think the wording in the above blockquote sufficiently states a definition of the term without stating it as fact, i'd even go so far as to do it this way "in human genetics, mitochondrial eve is the term" anything to avoid wp: weasel violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1337 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael and Smitty are definitely right, and Preator's proposal is simply ignorant. I will refrain from arguing against the silly "evolution is not proven" because it is not even relevant. You can DEFINE a mythical creature that does not exist, and such a definition can be placed in Wikipedia even though the creature does not exist. (For example we can have articles about events in the Bible.) The place to debate the existence of the creature would be the article on that creature, but deleting all references to say dragons from Wikipedia would be completely unjustified. The concept of a dragon, the definition of a dragon, exists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the above (except Preator1, of course). A definition must not contain weasel words, and beliefs have nothing to do with it. I can also agree with the rewrite suggested, as per WP:LEAD, establishing the context. GoEThe (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I never meant to put in "weasel words" as you put it. I was simply wishing the article to be complete enough so that readers understand that wikipedia does not take a stand on the correctness of evolution or creationism. It simply is an informative website on all subjects. That is why I wished to change the openning sentence. As for articles on Biblical subjects, they all have opennings stating that they are beleifs, so that readers know that it is unproven, yet still beleivable. I simply wished the articles on mitochondrial eve and other such subjects to follow the same pattern. --Preator1 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MtEve is not a faith issue, she's a scientific concept. We don't say that "some believe" that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.  Same with mtEve. --Michael C. Price talk 00:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jupiter is actually a bad example for you. Jupiter is easily proven as the largest planet. Mitochondrial Eve is an scientific idea, not a provable fact. It's something that a scientist came up with for a evolutionary ancestor. As you said, Mitochondrial Eve is a scientific concept, however, Jupiter's size is a scientific fact. --Preator1 (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * lets try not to go to far with the abstract analogizing. To try to bring this discussion back on track, I propose we rewrite the sentence as i wrote above. This is not a statement of belief or an assertion of truth. It is merely a statement of definition for a term, and it is more precise then the current form. "'In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living humans are descended'"Smitty1337 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Preator, the existence of this definition has nothing to do with belief in the theory of evolution. The definition exists. Common matrilineal ancestors exist. Mitochondrial DNA exists. Believing in a common matrilineal ancestor does not require a belief in the theory of evolution, and is indeed asserted to be the case in the Bible! Concerning your misunderstandings about the existence of evolution in science please at least go argue about that at a relevant place, not here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I will agree to the suggested sentence form suggested by Smitty1337. As for the insults in the last comment, I have never understood why little people have to turn fair conversations about things like this into insult slinging competitions. Saying I have misunderstandings about evolution would be very inacurate, and was only meant as a petty insult. --Preator1 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i will adjust it now. I believe we are all on the same page. Hopefully Smitty1337 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute
I'm sure there are some counter-arguments to this article that should be listed. Not everyone accepts this as factual. --Suplemental (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you are right. I do not know. It would help us if you indicated, preferably in the article but, if not, then here, what these arguments might be. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. State your case if you want to be taken seriously. This article is absolutely orthodox.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to remove POV tags unless the debate has been resolved. There are many who do not believe the Mitochondrial Eve story.  You may dismiss them as quacks, but another point of view should be added.  --Suplemental (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the dispute? Who are these non-believers? What reliable sources can you present regarding any dispute? Until you can clarify your concerns with specific citations, there is no grounds for the tag to remain. Bring the details here please for other editors to review - as simple vague statements don't tell us much of anything. Vsmith (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, what debate is there? The only argument I can think anyone might propose would be based on some kind of extreme creationism, and even then it would be a misunderstanding of the subject matter of this particular article and how Wikipedia works. Mitochondrial Eve has a logical definition which could exist whatever you think of its correspondence to reality. Even mythical creatures can have a Wikipedia article. So then the aim of the article has to be to summarize what reliable sources say about it, which this article does. If it is not doing that then just placing a vague tag is not the right way to improve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

kya unit
Needs linking to something as it is not explained 78.86.116.106 (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Kiloyear -- Vsmith (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal
Can someone explain please, was this text moved somewhere or just deleted? Biophys (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of it may have gone to human mitochondrial molecular clock. See also this for a further discussion of associated problems. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert here. This tells that all modern humans came from the same ancestral population exiting only ~5,000 years ago. Is that something commonly accepted? Biophys (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be a better explanation at Identical ancestors point. The common ancestry is the result of gene flow and an artifact of human demographic history. The current population of the world is close to 7 billion. The world population was about 5 million around 5000 BCE. This means that all 7 billion people are descended from those 5 million people. Theoretically, the number of descendants a person can have increases exponentially with each generation, something like 2N where N is the number of generations, assuming each descendant has two children. Likewise the number of ancestors we have follows the same formula, we have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, .... etc. This exponential growth in the number of ancestors soon becomes impractically high, within 30 generations one can have over 1 billion ancestors. But 30 generations is only about 600 years, assuming a generation is 20 years. And we know that the world population was less than 1 billion 600 years ago. This phenomena is referred to as pedigree collapse, and is due to inbreeding within populations such as marrying cousins. This inbreeding makes populations share more recent ancestors than if there was no inbreeding.
 * If there was a chance encounter between an African and a European say 5000 years ago which resulted in lots of children and these children have descendants alive today, then all Europeans and Africans would be descended from that couple. If some of these descendants had chance encounters with Asians, then Asians, Africans and Europeans would share recent common ancestry through this particular lineage. The same goes for the rest of the continents. A better explanation is found in Dawkins' book The Ancestors Tale. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So, the answer is "no", that was a fallacy (which is not obvious from the text). Of course one could trace every living individual organism back to LUCA, but the time when LUCA lived can not be concluded from such genealogical models. In fact, the operational units of biological evolution are groups (populations), but not the individuals.Biophys (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Without any prejustice on the subject... He was indeed an expert and made a serious effort to comply with criticisms: (339 intermediate versions!). But you and others did this, and he is gone. Yes, I can see the point of making this article more understandable. But some parts of his text could be used with proper links, e.g. to maximum parsimony... Biophys (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he claimed he was an expert, although at times I had my doubts. But he certainly was incapable of writing accessible, relevant material and not, IMO, very receptive of feedback about this. --Michael C. Price talk 04:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a study done, and it is referenced in Dawkins' book. The simulation suggested that the human MRCA and the identical ancestors point are fairly recent, within the last 10,000 years. The logic behind is that due to human migrations and chance matings, genes travel slowly. Over a an extended period of time genes can travel long distances and can possible cover the entire globe. This would have the effect of bringing the time of the human MRCA to a more recent date. Theoretically, the human MRCA would have lived in the ancestral population before the out of Africa migration. But gene flow between populations after this migration, would bring this date closer to today. Yes Pdeitiker was knowledgeable about human genetics, but his somewhat unorthodox editing presented a challenge, such that the articles were not getting the best from his knowledge. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Common Ancestors of all Living Humans is the study that did the simulation. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are coming close to Biblical 6,000 years when Adam and Eve have been created. Should be mentioned somewhere? I am very suspicious about the simulations, but once again, I am not an expert in this area.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not seem relevant in any way to this article. Mitochondrial Eve was much earlier. I am not sure it is relevant to any article on Wikipedia, but maybe you can find one and discuss it there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Biophys, we cite what others have written. According to WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". My guess about the 6000 years coincidence with the creation is simply an artifact of our demographic history. The warming of the climate during the holocene about 11,000 years ago precipitated the transition to agriculture during the Neolithic revolution. The unprecedented exponential growth in the global population that we see today started in the neolithic, which is probably why the simulation places the most recent common ancestor a few thousand years after the transition. Incidently, organized religion also first emerged after the transition to Agriculture as a response to "crowded cities". That is probably why the creation stories date to the same period.
 * @Andrew, the subject of the human MRCA is indeed tangential, but it may be necessary to distinguish mtEve from the HMRCA. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi, isn't there already a discussion of the distinction in the article? I agree that making the distinction clear could be relevant to this article, but side issues such as whether the HMRCA agrees with the Bible are way out of line here right? I am not at all sure that such a discussion is non Fringe and able to be properly sourced for any Wikipedia article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You people do not understand the irony. I mentioned the Bible only to tell how skeptical I am about the computer simulations described in this paper. The real problem here is removal of material that could be partially recycled. Thank you for explaining.Biophys (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I missed the irony and I have to say I do not really get it still. I love irony, but communication tends to be difficult on Wikipedia even without it. There are valid criticisms made of the age estimates, and we can mention them if we can find sources for them of the appropriate type. Wikipedia just aims to summarize what has been published in verifiable, notable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, no one is stopping you from recycling the material back into the article(s). Go for it, but it will be need a considerable rewrite to make it accessible and OR free. --Michael C. Price talk 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will do it later.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the records, Michael's comment sounds right. The removal was done during a general pruning. That does not mean things can be carefully rebuilt sometimes. Shall wait to see proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

new article
I noticed this: I am not intending to do anything with it myself but maybe someone else will want to. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of Africa 45 000 years BP?
Indigenous Australians wikipedia page - "Most scholars date the arrival of humans in Australia at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, with a possible range of up to 125,000 years ago", and it's referenced. So how do they get from Africa to Australia in only 5000 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.51.145 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Exodus from Africa of early human migrations was probably 60.000-70.000 years ago. (Roostalu 2006) --Maulucioni (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dating the Out of Africa exodus is a big issue in paleoanthropology. Many studies also use the range 50,000 - 70,000 years ago. The most widely accepted dates for the presence of anatomically modern humans outside africa are based on the Upper Paleolithic sites in Europe. The earliest UP sites date to 40-45000 years ago. It would have taken humans a few thousand years to migrate from East Africa to Europe. The Mungo Man remains have also been controversially dated to 42,000 years ago. If a human population were to migrate at say 1 km a year then they could get from Africa to Australia in less than 5000 years. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Species?
"Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa, when Homo sapiens sapiens were developing as a species separate from other human species."

Homo sapiens sapiens are a subspecies, not a species. H.s. sapiens aren't a different species than H.s. Idaltu. Should it read as

"Homo sapiens were developing as a species separate from other human species."

or

"Homo sapiens sapiens were developing as a subspecies separate from other humans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.148 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps such a wording would make sense. I am not sure Homo sapiens idaltu would spring to the mind of most readers, but it is indeed not really another species. It is a chrono species, an early form of homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore to introduce it into discussion would require a lot of off topic discussion. I'll try something. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"click-speaking pygmies"

 * 1) There is no eveidence whatsover that clicks were present in human language at the period in question (if anything their current geographical restriction suggests, on the contrary, that they are a recent development) - see Click consonant
 * 2) In any case, any claim to know anything about the consonant systems of specific languages and specific groups of speakers more than, say, 6000 years ago is simply not tenable - see linguistic reconstruction

At best, what is meant in the source for this statement is "the ancestors of groups who currently speak click languages". At worst, this is ill-informed speculation by scholars working outside their area of expertise - it's always suspicious that papers on this sort of topic never seem to include linguists as co-authors, or even as peer-reviewers, who would spot these obvious fallacies.

Since it is so problematic and contributes in fact little if anything to the argument of the article, the phrase "click-speaking" is best omitted.

If is to stay, it is so seriously contentious that it needs a specific source, ideally one which is not just something written by biologists or anthropologists with no linguistic expertise. --Pfold (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have a point. I've toned it down anyway, as it was not sourced to begin with, and it strikes me as maybe something someone has remembered wrongly from a real source. I do think that the general idea of a southern origin can be sourced, and I think there is a serious academic proposal that click languages represent a very old sub-stratum. Academics are indeed often wrong, but on Wikipedia we are basically just summarizing reliable sources and not normally trying to be better than them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this were the refs use-->here.. see also this. You are correct a misinterpretation of the data at hand.Moxy (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent pop culture section
Not sure what others think about starting a pop culture section - i personal object to this kind on trivial info in this types of articles. Plus recent adding were unsourced.Moxy (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that pop culture trivia should not be allowed in this article. Pop trivia may be appropriate in articles on famous people or popular movies or TV shows, but the general public has never heard of Mitochondrial Eve or mitochondria.  This is a technical article and should remain so. Greensburger (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. On so many levels. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has been raised before. See the archived discussion and Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same topic Wapondaponda, as that was apparently a merge discussion and therefore in a sense the opposite of thism discussion. Anyway, I'm not going to vote for or against. I have two concerns about agreeing with my normal collaborators here: first, I do not really follow the idea that some articles must only be about science while others can be about pop culture. Such assumptions always seem to amount to "discipline" ownership, and this can lead to deleting material which has nothing wrong with it except that it is "intruding" and no one can agree what article it may go into. It also seems to imply that Wikipedia should have technical articles which are not allowed to be fun. And secondly, normally if material is poorly written the first question I would normally ask is whether someone can fix it, rather than delete it, and in this case that was not really being considered. OTOH, the main reason I also don't see a big problem deleting this particular trivia is that it appears not to be very notable, which MIGHT be what everyone else means, but then I'll just say it more clearly for you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange statement
I removed the following sentence, "Although it is possible that there were multiple MRCAs, all born on the same day, month, and year, they can collectively be referred to as one individual MRCA." This just doesn't make sense. If there were contemporaries sharing the same mtDNA (none of which was the mother of all the others) that have currently living descendants, then none of them is the MRCA. They would all be descendants of the MRCA. -- Donald Albury 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant twins or triplets, "all born on the same day". Their mother would not be "most recent".  If both twins have currently living descendants, then both of them would be more recent than their mother. Greensburger (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But most is a superlative. Two people can not be "most". The concept of the MRCA is defined by trying to get back to one person, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the flaw in my reasoning. Each twin would not be a MRCA unless all people now living were descended from both twins, which is unlikely.  If one twin were the partial MRCA of two thirds of people now living, and the other twin were the partial MRCA of the other third, the twin's mother would be the MRCA.  Greensburger (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible that everyone could be descended from both of a pair of sisters (twin or otherwise), assuming a population bottle neck after their time, but it would be impossible for anyone to be descended from both sisters in the matrilineal line. -- Donald Albury 19:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts when I revisit this article after 4 years
I last edited/monitored this article in 2007. I kept it in my watch list but largely ignored what was happening here. I remember seeing large quantity of technical details added which I complained about once. These appear to be gone. I've recently written the MRCA article for a third time, and came back here to check on its much more popular sister article on mtEve. I will post some of my first re-impressions here. Fred Hsu (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is up with the Further reading section? I've never seen an article with so many bullets in the Further reading section. Are these remnant of the extremely verbose and technical paragraphs we purged? Fred Hsu (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone actually think we need to list "Climate shaped the worldwide distribution of human mitochondrial DNA sequence variation" as a "further reading" item?
 * What about Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale? That's already reference inline and appears in the References section. I am one of the biggest Dawkins fans you can find in Wikidom, and have created articles related to his books and ideas that some would actually like to see removed ;) But even I think listing this book again in the Further reading section is too much.
 * I say be bold - Moxy (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These are minor defects (if they are) compared to the mess that was removed! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. But I think instead of purging them, we should try our best to find new homes for these references in appropriate articles. Fred Hsu (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Common fallacies" - "Not the only woman". This paragraph can probably be slightly reworded to make it read more easily.

Wow. I think this article is in good state. It is clear and concise, yet it covers all grounds, with pointers to relevant articles for people who wish to follow up. Fred Hsu (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
and have been edit warring. I have issued 3RR warnings to both. -- Donald Albury 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm new to editing wikipedia. Michael I've asked you before but since this is the official place to resolve the dispute I'm going to ask you here again. What is the relationship between the quote: "Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected because otherwise the evolutionary theory would be wrong and that would be inconvenient to scientists and atheist." and the cited article http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/2.long --SomeAndrian (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent findings on Neanderthal and Denisovan contribution to genome of modern humans
I put a question relevant to Mitochondrial Eve at the Science RefDesk. It is important because it raises the possibility that Mitochondrial Eve could have lived one million ybp. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a possibility, but no evidence yet. If they do discover some extremely divergent Y-chromosomes or MtDNA then it would change the dating of Y-Adam or Mt-Eve, but until such a discovery these exclusively maternal or paternal lines must be presumed extinct.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

removal of pop culture statement
I have removed this. Firstly its not a part of "popular science" in fact there no science behind it at all. We simply cant have ever pop culture reference listed here. In no way is a TV show that mentions Mitochondrial Eve is some abstract way relevant here. I can list hundreds of TV shows and movies that refer to Mitochondrial Eve,  but not one is based on science, they are all fictional works. Lets keep the "pop culture" out of this scientific article.Moxy (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Find me the policy that says that pop culture sections are banned from "science" articles. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of keeping "pop culture" out of an article like this, but then, I'm not a fan of "pop culture" in any article. Science related "pop culture" items are often editors' misinterpretations of the public media's misinterpretations (or misrepresentations) of more or less ambiguous scientific findings. -- Donald Albury 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pop culture sections are not my favorite thing but I do not really see the big problem with properly sourced and notable references to pop culture. In fact, this encyclopedia has clear guidelines about this type of question of when to include things and when not, I would think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to includes references to how a theory or scientific meme has played a major part in a movie, play, well-known novel, etc. I remain opposed to trivia, such as a brief mention in some song, or someone's recollection of some wild claim made in an info-tainment program. -- Donald Albury 14:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so according to our policies, what you are talking about are differences in notability, so that gives a policy-based way of discussing whether something should be in or not. Notable non-scientific information should not normally be deleted automatically from WP on any simple point of principle. WP is not a specialist technical encylopedia. True trivia is of course not notable, but just because something is not "scientific" does not automatically make it trivia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Trivia sections "Trivia sections should be avoided" in popular culture. I vote to remove the child like reference to a An American TV show, Pls lets not encourage the kids to add more of this crap. I see only one person thus far likes the kid stuff. I will remove it tomorrow if noone else likes it.Moxy (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is reliably sourced, hence not trivia. As per Andrew. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everything reliably sourced is notable. It depends how popular the TV show was, and how discussed the mitochondrial Eve bit of that show was, in publications apart from the show.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". How many articles does this need to be in??. No one will care about this topic in the article. Moxy (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section as there is no bases to keep it in multiple articles let alone this one aswell. It's clearly not notable for this scientific article.  The "I like" position does not hold any weight  vs the 3 policies that have been quoted for its exclusion.Moxy (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem worth including. --John (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree would be nice if Michael C. Price at some point came back to the talk over just reverting. I tried to get his attention with my edit summaries but I see hes does not care to talk. Ownership problems i guess Moxy (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)