User:JohnLloydScharf/J1draftTALK

Semites!
Ancient Egyptian (copts 40% of J1) and Ethiopian Amhara (33%) are not a Semitic-speaking peoples, Thus Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians (and Nubians before their conversion to Islam) were traditionally referred to as Copts--Dukkani (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Amhara are the Semitic speaking population in Ethiopia 33% of them have J1, comapred to ~2% amongst the Horn of Africa native non-Semitic speakers! That only proves J1 is a Semitic marker. Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(45.8%) of Amhara have E1b1b1--Dukkani (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Semitic is not a haplogroup. Whatever the percentages, age and geographic origins are not determined by percentages. They are determined by variability in the haplotypes, not by how many of a haplogroup survive in an area dominated by tribal conflicts in modern times and the spread of empires in ancient times. From one article on the connection between language and haplogroup, it essentially claims the original Semitic languages of the south were erased by the spread of empires from the north, even before the Ottoman Empire.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned
And your point Dukkani? Ancient Egyptian have E Y-DNA, and the greek copts do NOT have 40% of J1. Plus if the Nubians (whom are the true descendants of Ancient Egyptian) have a medium to high % share of J1 admixture is only because of the extensive interbreeding with Arabs.

True descendents? Interbreeding? That sounds a great deal like racism to me. J1's variability shows it has a 6.4ky history in Egypt. Dynastic Egypt did not begin until 3100 B.C., or 5.1ky in Egypt. It seems, whatever the "true descendants" of the Ancient Egyptians are, they did not have the huge development of monuments, art, and writing until after the arrival of the J1 haplogroup.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sudanese DNA
Hi Ebizur,

Hassan had a map with populations showing:

South (Dinka, Shilluk, Nuer, Borgu, Nuba) all had 0% M267, but you are right though I should reword it without changing it to Northern Sudanese. Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! I should have explained my reason for that reversion more clearly, but I ran out of space in the "edit summary" field.


 * I don't have any problem with pointing out the fact that most of the haplogroup J(xJ2) Y-DNA in the Sudanese samples of Hassan et al. (2008) has been found in the samples of "Northern Sudanese" (Arabs, Nubians, etc.), but it is crucial that you not make any edits to the text that would cause it to be factually incorrect. If you want to change "Sudanese" to "Northern Sudanese," then you must also change the haplogroup J(xJ2) percentage accordingly. Changing "21% J(xJ2) in the Sudanese" to "21% J(xJ2) in the Northern Sudanese" is simply inaccurate.


 * For example, if you would group the Nubians, Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese," then the frequency of haplogroup J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7%, and not 94/445 = 21.1%. Ebizur (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dukkani & Ancient Egyptians
Copts in Sudan, come from the Christian Egyptians as far as we know, these Christians could have got their J1  Whats clear is that E1b1b is the primary haplogroup of modern & ancient Egyptians. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You can not also say that the Nubians(41%) have got their J1 from the Syriac missionaries or other Levantine groups that had recorded presence in Nrothern Egypt before Islam. Syriac J1 defined by YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 Dagestan J1 by YCAIIa20 but Ethiopian, Copts and Nubians J1 defined by YCAIIa19 --Dukkani (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Place of origin: Arabian Plate !
Median BATWING expansion times based on Y-STR data for the Omani (2.3 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–29.2) J1-M267 chromosomes4 indicate a more recent arrival to the South Arabian populations as compared to the older expansion times obtained for the Egyptian (6.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–278.5)4 and Turkish (15.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.4–604.8)12 representatives of this haplogroup. Cadenas et al. (2007)--Dukkani (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) You need to learn to read the English language. It says the opposite of what you are claiming. It says J1 arrived among the South Arabian populations later than the Egyptians. The timeline is:


 * Turkish, 15,400 years


 * Egyptian, 6,400 years

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/full/5201934a.html Arabia has served as a strategic crossroads for human disseminations, providing a natural connection between the distant populations of China and India in the east to the western civilizations along the Mediterranean. To explore this region's critical role in the migratory episodes leaving Africa to Eurasia and back, high-resolution Y-chromosome analysis of males from the United Arab Emirates (164), Qatar (72) and Yemen (62) was performed. The role of the Levant in the Neolithic dispersal of the E3b1-M35 sublineages is supported by the data, and the distribution and STR-based analyses of J1-M267 representatives points to their spread from the north, most likely during the Neolithic. With the exception of Yemen, southern Arabia, South Iran and South Pakistan display high diversity in their Y-haplogroup substructure possibly a result of gene flow along the coastal crescent-shaped corridor of the Gulf of Oman facilitating human dispersals. Elevated rates of consanguinity may have had an impact in Yemen and Qatar, which experience significant heterozygote deficiencies at various hypervariable autosomal STR loci.
 * Oman,    2,300 years

'''Thanks for the quotation from the "citation." Next time, do a proper citation. There are three Cardenas who wrote that year. The Wikipedia requirement is, among other things, the title of the work and journal it come from.''' JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Semino reference?
Where is it? Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area,Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May; 74(5): 1023–1034. Published online 2004 April 6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/

Table 2 Population Frequencies of Hg J and Its Subclades

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/table/TB3/

I will put it on my agenda for revisions. Believe me, I understand your concern. 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This was my comment. I forgot to timestamp it or use enough tildes. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information on 'Cohen Modal Haplotype'

 * It is now known that the 'Cohen Modal Haploype' is associated both with J2 and J1, not simply J1, and that J2 is far more common among Jews in general than J1.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"It is now known" is not a very good source for references. I spent some time attempting to find the distribution of yDNA in modern populations for Jews and have not found one that specific. Most of what exists seems to be from before the discovery of M267. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you can have the CMH in either J1 or J2, it is the genetic signature in J1 that is considered the Jewish priestly signature". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.170.188 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is ''3,190§ 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and nonAshkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 § 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages."


 * "Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood," M. F. Hammer and D. M. Behar et al,HUMAN GENETICS Volume 126, Number 5, 707-717, http://bernshtam.name/dna/books/Hammer_2009_Y-DNA%20Jewish%20Priesthood_HG.pdf JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SEE ALSO:

"A Mosaic Of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence," Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33, 2005, http://jewsandjoes.com/dnajewshapq.pdf

It is not a peer reviewed journal of molecular biology or population genetics, but it is an article explaining in simple terms the implications of the work of Hammer and Behar. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups
The above article has been listed for deletion. The discussion is at Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin Date Not the date given in article cited
See references given:

1.^ Semino et al. 2004 Not adequately cited, but: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf "The shaded area in J-M267* indicates the branch characterized by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif. For the areas of the circles and the sectors, see ﬁgure 3. The expansion time of this branch was calculated using TD (Zhivotovsky 2001), which gives 8.7 and 4.3 ky, respectively, for the earliest and the latest bounds of the expansion time."

2.^ Arburto et al. 2008 Not adequately cited. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations I will give a reasonable time to update the times and then I will be addressing the issue myself. This needs to be addressed in days, not months. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Subclades
You cite an article from 2006 that is contradicted in Alicia M Cadenas1, Lev A Zhivotovsky2, Luca L Cavalli-Sforza3, Peter A Underhill3 and Rene J Herrera1, European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 374–386; doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934; published online 10 October 2007, Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman, where Turkey is established to be the oldest origin at 15.4 ky BP. Assuming an origin in the Arabic Peninsula was a mistake.

However, there are two mistakes in this from the start. First,you admit,"The P58 marker which defines subgroup J1c3 was first identified by Karafet et al. in 2008 and then go on to claim the southern origin based on a 2006 article. You fail to give in your references that Karafet et al. Without a proper citation, there is no way to determine what article you refer to.

Perhaps you mean to refer to "New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of thehuman Y chromosomal haplogroup tree," Tatiana M. Karafet, Fernando L. Mendez, Monica B. Meilerman, Peter A. Underhill, Stephen L. Zegura and Michael Hammer, http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet-et-all-GR508.pdf

QUOTE:

Clade J

''Three mutations (12f2a, M304, and P209) define clade J (Supplemental Fig. 9). A total of 39 mutations (compared with 13 in 2002) mark 34 lineages nested within this clade. Along with the A, E, O, and R haplogroups, J is one of five clades with >40 mutations. In addition to the paragroup (J*), there are two major subclades (J1 and J2), which are defined by mutations M267 and M172, respectively. Haplogroup J lineages are found at high frequencies in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, Central Asia, Pakistan, and India (Hammer et al. 2000, 2001; Underhill et al. 2001; Semino et al. 2002; Behar et al. 2004; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Sengupta et al. 2006), with haplogroup J-M172 being the most common J haplogroup in Europe, while haplogroup J-M267 predominates in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ethiopia (Semino et al. 2004)''

'''That says "Middle East." If Egypt,Syria,and Iran fit that, then so does Turkey. There is only one place where P58 is mentioned and I quote:'''

''Caveats The M419 mutation was not tested on P81 and P279 chromosomes because of the absence of positive control DNAs. The topology of P58, M365, and M390 markers has not been completely resolved. The branches defined by mutations M365 and M390 might descend from P58+ chromosomes.'' That is not a justification for the claim made with:Yunusbayev et al. 2006: "Overall, our results corroborate the initially suggested genetic contribution of Middle Eastern populations to Caucasus populations" still applies in 2011 or to p58. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
After having looked over it, it appears there are a series of sub-clade articles related to this one, which are all in a messy state, and all using the same sources to say (or not say) the same things. Please consider WP:MERGE which says that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." Comments welcome, but I think these articles should be rolled into one and then at least people's efforts will also be focussed on one place. These articles need improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am dancing as fast as I can. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.
'' Abstract The present day distribution of Y chromosomes bearing the haplogroup 'J1 M267(*)G variant' has been associated with different episodes of human demographic history, the main one being the diffusion of Islam since the Early Middle Ages.''

....

Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ∼2.0Kybp).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986692/?tool=pubmed

From the start, this map is a copyrighted picture from an article that refers, not to J1 in general, but a specific variant.

Obviously,this paper has some other serious issues regarding credibility by claiming the David Kingdom was present at a time when it was under the domination of the Roman Empire. Kybp means 1000 years before present. 2000 years before the present, the Roman Empire had been in control for over 64 years.


 * 1.1 Early Israelites (1200–950 BCE)
 * 1.2 Israel and Judah (c.1200–576 BCE)
 * 1.3 Babylonian, Persian and Greek rule (586 BCE – 2nd century BCE)
 * 1.4 Hasmonean kingdom (2nd century BCE – 64 BCE)
 * 1.5 Roman Rule
 * 1.5.1 Pre-Christian Rome (64 BCE – 324 CE)
 * 1.5.2 Christian Roman and Byzantine rule (324–636)


 * When it comes to David, Edwin Thiele dates his life to c. 1040–970 BC, his reign over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC, and his reign over the united Kingdom of Israel c. 1003–970 BC.


 * However, the Kingdom of Israel was eventually destroyed by Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III around 750 BCE. The Philistine kingdom was also destroyed.  The Assyrians sent most of the northern Israelite kingdom into exile, thus creating the 'Lost Tribes of Israel'.

So, the whole paper is based on the wrong assumption. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 REMOVED MAP JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)  REMOVED MAP JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

E-Sibai et al. (2009) did not cite the name of the article, where it was published. Included Net address.
Geographical Structure of the Y-chromosomal Genetic Landscape of the Levant: A coastal-inland contrast,Annals of Human Genetics (2009) 73,568–581,El-Sibai et al.(2009) (reported results from several studies : Di Giacomo et al. 2003, Al-Zahery et al. 2003, Flores et al.2004, Cinnioglu et al. 2004, Capelli et al. 2005, Goncalves et al. 2005, Zalloua et al. 2008, Cadenas et al. 2008),http://www.lbem.icb.ufmg.br/pdf/elsibai09ahg-levantegenografico.pdf

Above with changes made.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Arabian Plate Section: Not Relevant or outdated regarding Zalloua et al and Wells et al references.
Haplogroup J1, defined by the 267 marker is most frequent in Yemen(76%), Saudi (64%) Qatar (58%). J1 is generally frequent amongst Negev Bedouins (62% ). It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian (38.4%), Iraq (33%), Syria (30%), Lebanon (25%),  In Jewish populations, J1 constitutes 30% of the Yemenite Jews 20.0% of the Ashkenazim results and 12% of the Sephardic results. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

These are the references in question:


 * "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity", Wells et al., http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244.full.pdf


 * Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Lebanon Is Structured by Recent Historical Events, Zalloua et al, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427286/

It is/was the citation for this sentence, "It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian (38.4%),[11] Iraq (33%), Syria (30%), Lebanon (25%),[12]." Both papers are dated and use the term, "J(xJ2," which means, essentially, not J2, but is J. You can be J without being J1 or J2. There is no J1 or J-M267 mentioned in those documents. Therefore, the sentence will be changed to, "It is also very common among other Arabs such as those of the Levant, i.e. Palestinian (38.4%).[11]" JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed Behar et al reference for the same reason. "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations",Hum Genet (2004) 114 : 354–365, http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

J1 Haplogroup Phylogenetic Tree
I a proposing a name change for the "Tree" section and some ongoing revision of the information with peer reviewed and cited journals rather than the ISOGG blog information.

Unless otherwise advised, for J1c3/J-P58 (formerly J1e) I will soon begin by adding, "The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking population," European Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 18, 348–353; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.166; published online 14 October 2009, Chiaroni et al, http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/pdf/ejhg2009166a.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ALSO TO BE REFERENCED:

J1c3 was first identified by Karafet et al. in 2008.

'New Binary Polymorphisms Reshape and Increase Resolution of the Human Y Chromosomal Haplogroup Tree'', Genome Res. 2008 18: 830-838, http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Genome2008.pdf, Supplementary Data (Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree)http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/new_binary_polymorphism/supplementary_data/Y-Chromosome%20Phylogenetic%20Tree.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

J1versusJ(xJ2)Distinction
Y chromosomal haplogroup J as a signature of the post-neolithic colonization of Europe,Giacomo et al

-Received: 2 February 2004 / Accepted: 21 June 2004 / Published online: 21 August 2004 Springer-Verlag 2004 Hum Genet (2004) 115: 357–371

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HaploJ.pdf

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Note on Page 359, Table 1.:

6 were p12f2 without a Sub-haplogroup(J*(xJ1,J2)

88 were M267. 31 were p12f2, M172,M12 or J2 without a subclade(J2*(xDYS413≤18,J2e)

152 were p12f2, M172,DYS413 (J2*(xDYS413≤18,J2e)

2 were p12f2, M172,DYS413, M47(J2e)

2 were p12f2, M172,DYS413(J2a)

58 were p12f2, M172, DYS413, M67-J2f*(xJ2f1)or J2f without a subclade.

27 were p12f2, M172, DYS413, M67, M92, or J2f1

____________________________________________________________

Given that there were 6+88=94 that were not J2 or, as they have called them in papers where the M267 SNP was not tested, J* or J(xJ2), that shows 6/94 or over 6.3% were not J1. THEREFORE, any test without the SNP M267, cannot be assumed to all be J1.

I think, no matter what we think of the practice, reliable published sources in the WP sense of that term do sometimes make this assumption? (From what I understand J(xJ1,J2) is quite rare?) Anyway, we need to work out a way to report what published sources report, so please consider how we should do that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the comments based on what they reported had to be dumped. I actually hate to get into this. What I need to learn is how to put a reference in without using long bits of code. I need them to all to refer to one note that makes this particular distinction and set off this kind of work from others without getting into a Crusade or Jihad.

The no subclade sub-haplogroup J(xJ1,J2) is rare, in comparison to the general population, but they are still about one in 20, which is an important distinction. Some people have been told no further testing was useful because they are J* or J1*, when, in fact, it may mean they have just not had the SNP test. There is a distinction that needs to be made so the reader understands the level of SNP testing is not set in stone.

This needs to both maintain neutrality and make sure people get the best information. In research, the practice of not using the M267 SNP is acceptable as long as you report it. Unfortunately, that distinction gets lost in the footnotes in papers that act as a compendium of previous work. I think I have an idea on how to make that distinction on the page with an asterisk.

It is hard to know without access to the latest report, Balanovsky et al. (2011), that shows such high percentages of J1 in the distribution in Dagistan connected to their languages what practice was used. They seem to be in the triangle on the flatlands next to the Caspian Sea. The problem is whether or not the M267 SNP was used.

A Discovery report is based on the Abstract and showed maps indicating J(xJ1,J2) nomenclature. There is an old report from before 2004 in the same area, so I do not know if Discovery just used the old maps or if the 2011 paper involves this practice of depending on haplotypes rather than SNPs. I wonder if the R1s have this issue, but that is not my headache. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * JLS, firstly, if you say which refs you want in, I was actually happy to help until someone started to revert me today. :) Anyway, it is maybe not as hard as you realize. Most or all of the articles you want to reference are already being used in some of the more "finished" Y haplogroup articles such as R1a, R1b, and E1b1b.
 * Secondly, concerning the assumption of J1=J*(xJ2) let's agree that we'll aim not to make it, but we'll need to work out how to report articles that do make this assumption, if those articles are important ones. I guess we can always put in words such "the authors assumed..."?
 * Thirdly, do I understand right that you are looking for Balanovsky 2011? Mail me if you are looking for information like that and I'll see what I can find.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Please keep on topic and put this in the section on the map. Had you commented in that section on the problems with the map being reverted, that issue would not have been created. Due to previous issues we have, and perhaps my misunderstanding of the revision history, expect some others to be giving this issue some close observation. Please comment there on this issue so YOUR POSITION is documented. At this point, the IPS for the one who is doing this should be be locked out indefinitely.


 * 1) The reason I noticed the map issue is I was working on cleanup on this issue. The originator of the article made the assumption the M267 SNP was done after 2004, which is not the case and is actually the exception, so far. Therefore, I am only referencing the ones with the M267 SNP using the asterisk (*) as the modifier. I am going through the list alphabetically. I will skip those who I cannot find the full text online. Unless there is proof the M267 SNP was used, they did not. You cannot predict a SNP with a haplotype with even 90% accuracy with 25 or less markers. They are using 17 or less, so far. I do not believe you can predict a subcladeless J Haplogroup individual at all from a haplotype. I would say, "See my work so far," but it may have been reverted.


 * 1) Yes. Please. I need a copy of the full text of Balanovski et al, 2011 so I can personally make the determination, or someone who has it must quote what it says with regard to the SNP in the references. I am johnlloydscharf@yahoo.com. The is the email address I use all over the Net. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * John my point one is not about the map. It is about citation templates etc. Once more, please take your time before writing complaints?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ?You need to be more clear. You said,"until someone started to revert me today." Were/are you accusing me of reverting you JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well no. With all due respect you can not have actually read the above post I wrote to you when you said it was about the map. It is clearly about "refs".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you are certain I am due no respect and are certain your statement was not ambiguous. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have at least seven more major edits on the unlisted/unreferenced parts of the distribution matrix section at the bottom, but I think I am going to stop for the day. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should not have said I was resting as it encouraged vandalism by an unsigned user. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is frustrating that people are apparently trying to impede attempts to improve an article that definitely needs it. I suppose at least some of these people might fear it getting even worse. If the high level of reverting continues (please let's save the word vandalism for real vandalism which is more random) then I suggest we write section by section on this talk page. With such careful consensus building and demonstration of good faith we have the best chance of both convincing the good faith editors and making sure that the bad faith editors are shown for what they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Who knows whether this is random or not. There is no Silver Lock for us to know whether it is someone in the Qatar government or someone at the hotel downtown. Whoever they are, they dare not log in as they do not have the support of their own government in this. They are not representative of any unbiased rational perspective. I use my own name for a reason. Regarding this complete reversion, it is vandalism with no intent to gain consensus and highly biased. There is no reason to compromise on the map or the refernces.

The claim of bias on the reversions is certainly nonsense. My father was adopted and my mother's side of the family are all from the US with a variety of cultural roots for over 11 generations. My DNA looks like it has influences from North Africa. The objective fact is an origin may be on the Western side of the Caspian Sea, but Turkey has the oldest population of J1 and Saudi Arabia is near 4,000 years younger, but at this point, I am no longer going to argue those issues until there is a Silver Lock. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Distribution Comment Meaningless And Contradictory
Comment in question:The frequency of Haplogroup J1 collapses suddenly at the borders of Arabic speaking countries[citation needed] and Daghestan with other countries, such as Iran (10.5%)[3] and Turkey (9%).[4] The distribution of J1 outside of the Middle East may be associated with the Semites who traded and conquered in Sicily, southern Italy, Spain ([citation needed]where is associated with Hg T-M70) and Pakistan.[citation needed]Daghestani J1 tend to be different from Arabic J1.''

Daghestan, Iran, and Turkey do not speak Arabic. The term "collapse" implies it fails suddenly and completely. It is an absolutist term that is inappropriate in this context. I have never been further west than Karachi, Pakistan, but I do not know of any walls 5,000 meters high and 50 meters thick or some leviathan sized salt water crocodiles separating Arabic speaking nations from other nations. It is dishonorable to make such an assumption, or as Wikipedia says, it is not "neutral." JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this wording needs neutralizing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

From my "Western Perspective" I believe,"Even a cat may look at a king." Once Prince Al Sabah of Kuwaite had some issues in an interview with a foreign [US?] journalist on TV during the Persian Gulf War. He was the Ambassador to the US. I gave him some advise about how to reframe the perspective by pointing out how Kuwaite is a Constitutional Monarchy, just like the United Kingdom. I had read about how to address him and did it with the utmost honorable wording in a snail mail letter.

He used my advice. Then, not to be outdone by my honor, he returned it magnified. I got a return letter thanking me for my advice with special paper and gold leaf lettering and his personal signature. The response was well written and worded, which you would expect of a man highly educated in both worlds. Whoever is doing these reversions and revisions is not as skilled as Prince Al Sabah or believes we are beneath a civil response. I am not diplomatic, as you know, but I expect more from a Royal. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

InfoBox Modifications for Geography
--Andrew Lancaster made some small changes to include the Horn of African, which I modified to "Near East" for the overall area and added "Western Asia." Also, I provided some maps to show what "Near East" means to different people. It seems the Ottoman Empire is most indicative of even barely negligible percentages of modern populations in the area indicated. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Does Western Asia overlap a lot with the other terms? I suppose the aim is to pick a set of geographical terms which do not overlap un-necessarily, because this is just a summary box? I've tried to play with this further though, with your thinking in mind. I hope I've made something less controversial for most people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not check the Article listing the nations for Western Asia or Dagestan. Dagestan is in Russian Europe. You have made the term origin meaningless with your answer, much like saying the origin of the English Language is on the third planet from the Sun. What has lead you to the conclusion the origin is not in Africa or Dagestan? If you exclude Dagestan, with the highest documented concentration of J1 and it is not J1c3 or P58. It is J1*(xP58)The oldest documented is, again, Turkey at 15,400 years before present, even through it is only 9% concentration. Your exclusion of Egypt and Dagestan is not neutrality. If you make your priority being non-controversial then you are making the article meaningless and inaccurate. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start again please, and please slowly this time
We have had another round of edit warring. So far, I am thinking this is all good-intentioned, and being fired up by the fact that every one is in a rush to improve this very poor article, and everyone fears that other editors are going to make it even worse. So I have resisted the urge to revert anyone myself. I have made a kind of weak compromise edit and I hope we can build now SLOWLY upon that. Can I please ask all editors to keep edits as uncontroversial and focused as possible. Do not do knee jerk reverts at all. If you see something you really do not like, use this talk page, but use it neatly and in a focused and constructive way.

Also, a particular problem I keep seeing on this article: please do not rush to insert material which is messy and not yet ready for being put into the real article, and also please avoid using the talk page for any disorganized notes. This is just inflaming the situation, making the article worse, and the talk page hard to work with. If necessary please make yourself a "sand box" for playing around with ideas. A good idea for every edit in a situation like this is to ask yourself before pressing "Save Page" whether the edit is definitely an uncontroversial IMPROVEMENT of the article. Obviously material which is still in a draft form is not an uncontroversial improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, the logical arguments made here are ignored. I am willing to do that as well. I have looked at the IPS being used for the reversions and they are on pages full of bigoted remarks. QED.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC) The copyrighted map not made for J1 in general is inappropriate and a violation of copyright law.

Excuse me mr JohnLloydScharf,

Please provide us irrefutable testable evidence that the copyrighted map is not made for J1 and it is inappropriate and a violation of copyright law, rather than removing. In general try always to substantiate your claims with irrefutable testable evidence rather than giving us biased gobbledygook based on shenanigan bug bugs. Cheers mate

I did long ago.Read before commenting and sign in. Shau Mat. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

S ee the section entitled "Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general." JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to compromise on its removal. The Distribution section are as neutral as it can be and reverting it was pure vandalism. Your assumption of good will cannot be interpreted from the IPS origins used. They have a track record of misuse and abuse. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC) This is an inappropriate addition: (cur | prev) 07:44, 6 August 2011 Dinamik-bot (talk | contribs) m (31,229 bytes) (r2.6.5) (robot Adding: ar:هابلوغروب جي 1 (واي-دي إن إيه), ru:Гаплогруппа J1 (Y-ДНК)) (undo)JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is a good approach. You have put back in material which basically just turns the article into a bunch of notes. If you are going to insert stuff in about references, can't you put it in a proper way? Someone is just going to delete this, and they'll be justified. By the way amongst all the tagging you do I see you now have a COI tag. You should not just do that. You should explain here on the talk page what it is for?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The content is sourced. I reduced 85 entries to 27 references. The total is 37, instead of ~67 like one of the R1 pages.I explained the COI tag in my request in the appropriate place for that. Obviously, the Discussions are irrelevant since they are ignored by the IPS in Qatar. If the "talk page" has a legitimate purpose, it is tangential at best. The Administrators who revert the Article to the original and call it "good faith" have made it so. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You put in this,"The following gives a summary of most of the studies which specifically tested for M267, showing where its distribution is greater than 1%." It is not true. Few of the studies did that before 2010, most did not before 2008 and none of them before 2003. Of the 85 populations claimed, most are tertiary sources and, therefore not allowed by Wikipedia. I did not delete those, but if you want, I can add that to my argument that this article is biased. If you are going to claim they are not compendiums of information from elsewhere, hold your breath. I read them. I go into these details and then you ignore me completely; yet again proving the Discussion section is irrelevant. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Slow down please, and please learn to make accusations very carefully and reluctantly. At least read the edit histories first. The test you quote is not mine. It is something left over from the most recent edit war, and the aim is to stop edit wars. I make no claim myself about which studies tested which things, and it is as clear as clear can be that this whole article needs review for pretty much everything. You are not really helping us get there though by inserting large amounts of note form material into the article and onto this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another false statement in the Caucasus section: The frequency of Haplogroup J1 is particularly high in Semitic-speaking populations (often much higher in those populations than in neighbouring ones) and in the Caucasus, it is particularly common in Daghestan. For comparison with neighbouring areas, Iran has approximately 10.5%[2] and Turkey 9%.[3]. All the languages of Daghestan are Northwest Caucasian rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semetic_Languages. They are not Semetic in any sense of the word. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has claimed otherwise. It is a waste of time to argue against points others are not defending.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the section where they did, I edited out, and it was reversed. Your response has no merit. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"...conquered in Sicily, southern Italy...," is another factually challenged statement. It was first populated by the Phoenicians and then two thirds of it were "conquered" by the Greeks. Carthage was what the Phoenicians had as their capital, but in no sense did they conquer Sicily or Italy. The Sicilians went to war with Carthage twice before the Romans stepped in. It is absurd to claim a Phoenician population was conquered by the Phoenician city-state and say "Semetics" had "conquered." They spoke the same language and had the same genetic background, before the ports of Greek organized into city-states.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Phonenicians were not natives of Sicily, obviously, and when they came there, there were others already there, including the people who gave the island its name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the history of of this nation. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Possible place of origin" of Western Asia excludes the Northern Caucus in general and Dagestan in particular as an origin. Dagestan. It also excludes Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Since Turkey has the oldest age for J1 KNOWN, that might make sense, assuming it did not come out of Africa/Egypt/Sudan or Russian Europe/Dagestan. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please examine the definition of Western Asia. Dagestan is indeed on the boundary, but then again has any source claimed it is the point of origin?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not one of the nations listed in the article on Western Asia. Please see the article on this before you respond again. Please stop assuming I am ignorant and not researching this issue, just because you do not. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Elephant in the room : Alicia M Cadenas1, Lev A Zhivotovsky2, Luca L Cavalli-Sforza3, Peter A Underhill3 and Rene J Herrera1, European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 374–386; doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934; published online 10 October 2007, NOTE: Median BATWING expansion times based on Y-STR data for the Omani (2.3 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–29.2) J1-M267 chromosomes4 indicate a more recent arrival to the South Arabian populations as compared to the older expansion times obtained for the Egyptian (6.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–278.5)4 and Turkish (15.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.4–604.8)12 representatives of this haplogroup. Conversely, in the present study, Y-STR age estimates based on the method described by Zhivotovsky et al46 generated much older values for the J1-M267 haplogroup in Yemen, Qatar and UAE (9.7±2.4, 7.4±2.3 and 6.4±1.4 ky, respectively) than seen in the Omani,4 consistent with an earlier arrival to the region during the Neolithic. The data suggest expansion from the north during the Neolithic (or perhaps more recently), which is also reflected in the lower STR variances in southern Arabia (0.14 for Qatar, 0.15 for UAE, 0.20 for Yemen and 0.27 for Oman4 versus 0.31 in Egypt4 and 0.51 in Turkey12). Subsequently, a series of recent demographic events may account for the high haplogroup frequency of J1-M267 in the populations from the present study. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/full/5201934a.html Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of OmanJohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is fine by me but what concrete recommendations does it give us about the article. Please let's slow down and get things lined up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help me understand what you mean by recommendations. It is implicit of the origin that it has to be the oldest. It is explicit Turkey is the oldest documented. Your response is not neutral nor does it reflect content that is verifiable. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To Mr. JohnLloydScharf,

Three points point to clear that Elephant

1.	Regarding the dating issue. The so called Median BATWING expansion times studies are all based on assumptions and speculation rather than scientific experimental methods. All coalescences and time expansion are based on a disputed concept of "mutation rate". No Y-str mutation rate was observed in from cell.It is all based on speculative estimation upon which there is no general agreement.Therefore all things being said about Y-STR expansion times "could be a false myth " not facts.So you have left with J1 "Frequency of the Distribution" as the only observable testable fact.

2.	Problem with the Zagros being the place of Origin j1 These studies(Chiaroni and Tofanelli's) hastily assume that high YSTR diversity must be equated with the clade's place of origin.If that is true,would you then be ready to consider NYC as the origin of humanity (for it must be the most highly diverse YSTR pool on earth)? Diversity could also be due to convergent rather than divergent of movements. The Zagros area was favourized for several population resettlements resulting from massive deportations since the Akkadians were in charge so high YSTR diversity is obvious Plus East Africa Negev and Yemeni samples are not even mentioned in these studies (for they have a certain amount of high STR diversity).Thus making the location of these studies look dull.

3.	Last but not least, In order to substantiate your claims I suggest to bring a more rational irrefutable testable evidence rather than biased gobbledygook  out dated studies that based on shenanigan bug bugs, and please revert from using this MAD BOLD typing. It won’t make your points scientifically correct. It will not clear of the Elephant.

Cheers and Regards .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.34.219 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I will not respond to unsigned garbage with no references to back it up. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

JLS, can you please stop using all the emotional formatting, and try to familiarize yourself with the norms of Wikipedia formatting and so on. At the very least, if you do not have the time or energy, edit with a bit more caution and civility?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in personal attacks based on minor formatting meant for setting issues apart. The "emotions" are all in your mind. Stick with the issues themselves. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2011)

This notification was deleted and is now replaced. A map s/he insists on posting is copyrighted by Nature in 2009 and the work claims: ''Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2 Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp).''

Given that was during the Roman occupation, David was long dead and this article has no credibility. The person refuses to sign in properly and has an IPS of Qatar is using a biased paper to justify this perspective.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To mr. JohnLloydScharf I agree further works and clean up are needed to amend this article. However, and let me get back to you. You have stated ''“ Given that was during the Roman occupation, David was long dead and this article has no credibility”. '' ...Given by whom ? ! ! ! Where you get that from ? ! ! !  There is no mentioning of  David and Romans  in this Article. Why do you keep saying and assuming things not being mentioned in the article? ! ! !

Please avert from engaging in to a straw man defeat argument.

Cheers and regrads


 * JLS please give areason for the COI tag or else remove it. also more generally please stop peppering the article and the talk page with non standard formatting. Please work according to the norms of the Wikipedia project and community if you wish to be involved--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Whose wording is this?
Highest frequencies	Semitic populations generally, plus their neighbours, and also the Caucasus (especially Dagestan)

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mine. But it is only an attempt to write something which covers the two apparent positions which were being edit warred. If it can be improved please explain how.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not only garbled, it is untrue, ungrammatical, self contradictory, and not a complete thought. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an info box, so I do not know what grammar you can be referring to. Can you explain what is self contradictory please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible time of origin	15,400[1] to 24,000 BP not supported by citation given
Possible time of origin	15,400[1] to 24,000 BP

This is the citation given:

^ Cinnioğlu, Cengiz; King, Roy; Kivisild, Toomas; Kalfoglu, Ersi; Atasoy, Sevil; Cavalleri, Gianpiero L.; Lillie, Anita S.; Roseman, Charles C. et al. (2004), "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia" (PDF), Hum Genet 114 (2): 127, doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4, I read the source here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37192835/03b-Excavating-Y-chromosome-haplotype-strata-in-Anatolia-Cinniog%CB%98lu-2004

There is no possible time of origin and the dates of 15,400 to 24,000 BP are not mentioned.

It says 18.2 kyr on table 2.

In the discussion it says:

Haplogroup J and the transition to agriculture

Although the entire J-M304 clade demonstrates a large microsatellite variance that under a continuous growth model dates to around 20kyr, consistent with the LGM, the BATWING exponential growth model reveals a more recent post-LGM expansion (13.9kyr). This secondary expansion originates from a low effective population size (n=184) and may indicate that the J clade in Turkey began to participate in demographic expansions during the onset of sedentism in Anatolia and the Levant; e.g., the Natufi- ans (Bar-Yosef 1998). JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you must surely know edit warring has not worked for you and as I explained, I have made a compromise version between the two versions which were alternating. Once a deletion has been disputed it should be discussed. Simply repeating the same edits over and over is pointless. The 24,000 needs a source but do not delete it too quickly please. Consider Wp:brd.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary- The following gives a summary of most of the studies which specifically tested for M267, showing where its distribution is greater than 1%.
There are 85 populations, and 17 sources, but only two have citations.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then these need to be added, in a proper format.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then put them in proper format. All of them. I got them referenced with a title, authors, and a place to read them. There ws plenty of information so you could have done it, if you are such a stickler for style. You had no problem when they were all deleted, though. That is all gone because you are better at complaining than fixing. You need to live up to the same standards you expect of others. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to do this too often. You start editing, and then when people complain about the way you work, even concerning things it would be easy for you to fix, you tell other people to leave your work in and fix your work. That is not how Wikipedia works. If I have time, I'll help rebuild the distribution section, as I started to do last night, but your efforts to put a separate references section in to a sub-section of an article seems almost like it is aimed at making it hard to improve this article further, unless I first delete your work. Your edits are not just a bit un-orthodox, they are one step forward and two steps back in the sense that it takes more effort to build upon them, reversing all the problems you introduce, than to delete and start again. I do not see you as being a more correct and exemplary editor than your opponents in the edit war. I am sure you all have good intentions, but you need to all realize that edit warring will mean a loose-loose result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This type of Y DNA is generally defined by the presence of the SNP mutation referred to as M267.
SNP is a colloquialism used by consumer test companies. Binary polymorphisms is the term used by researchers. Perhaps that detail should be mentioned to make it clear to all parties.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not correct at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You just gave away the fact that you are not reading the papers being cited. Thanks. It is part of a preponderance of evidence. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. SNP and polymorphism are both terms used in the literature. And they do not actually mean the same thing (although they overlap). You are looking for something to argue about? Anyway, I have until now tried to avoid working on this subject as someone reading the papers anyway. I am trying to help get an edit war ended if possible. Is that a good aim?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Daghestani J1 tends to be different from Arabic J1.[citation needed]
This should be easy to find a citation without the weasel wording. If the space information I have from the blogs is true, this area is J1-267(xP58) rather than J1 M267,P58. It may be a J1a or a J1b rather than J1c. As it, though, it is vague, ambiguous, and non-neutral. However, whenever I try to modify this, someone reverts it back.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I do not understand, but just taking your own words literally, if you think it can be easily sourced then please explain why your priority is changing it rather sourcing it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay attention. I modified this to reflect clear, unambiguous, and neutral wording. I have been over ruled and over written. You have an answer for everything. You complained about my sourcing everything and now we are back to square one n the references. Remember your remark to me that you were not my slave. I am not yours. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)