User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 0

Please justify your edits
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.  -- noosph e re 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
Welcome to the wikiverse. Glad to have another medieval expert. Your contributions to the Sheriff of Westmoreland are excellent. Hope you will add something to your user page to describe yourself a bit, and your areas of interest. Wjhonson 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified and unsourced edits
Wikipedia has distinct policies that ensures its proper functioning, and chief among those are that its editors justify and properly reference their edits (that means no original research). As clearly explained on the talk page, you have done neither and therefore leave your edits open to removal. Causteau (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Also what you do is open to removal, and should be explained. For better or worse we have equal "rights" in this respect. The basis of all your reverts seems to be that you think we do not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Understood. On the other hand, I was reverting reverts only, and the reverter was refusing any other form of discussion or editing until I took that action. Dispute resolution started and reverting stopped because of my "revert reverts". I can see why you would write as if all reverts are morally equal in your position, but obviously they are not. For example if you do as you say you could, and stop someone from editing that might be justifiable in some cases? BTW, for the record I did look around Wikipedia to see if there was someone else I could call in instead trying to take action myself, but the rule as I understood was that you shouldn't call in someone until I had a discussion going which was failing - or that is how I read it. So in summary my intentions were to stop the reverts, which is also yours, and I succeeded in the only way I could see how, not having your powers, even though it felt silly doing it. I basically just wanted to make some small improvements on the article though, and in that respect I am still not very satisfied. In effect Causteau jammed up normal editing work, and has diverted attention away from it. He/she still has not made any normal edits I think. Can I ask you to please keep an eye on the discussion page a little longer? A third person could certainly help on someone of the more time-wasting discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b
I'm also glad we were able to reach common ground. While I kinda miss that old timeline, sacrifice is the nature of compromise, isn't it? There is, however, one more area of concern, and that's parts of the Origins section. In place of the bits on where P2 originated, what E3 is currently called, and what mutations E3a shows (four lines in total), I think we should include bits of that famous Cruciani quote to establish the population of origin and therefore E1b1b's possible place of origin. It does also make sense to include at least a mention of the clade from which E3b split, which you've already seen to with your phrase "amongst populations who already had the mutations DYS391p, P2 (also referred to as PN2), P179, P180, and P181". Causteau (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

E3b
Hey, you there? I'm going to edit the page as discussed above. I also want to remove the tag at the top of the page to close this thing up once and for all. Send me a message if you want to talk. Causteau (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b #2
While I find it especially ironic that someone with so weak a handle on sourcing should deign to school another on what they, through that particular filter called their mind, believe is an "honesty" issue, I shall indulge you. Causteau (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I'm afraid that I must insist that you tone down your rhetoric. These kinds of comments are not acceptable. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and in the future, please keep your comments focused strictly on the article, and not on other editors. I realize that you feel that "the other guy started it," but as far as administrators are concerned, this is irrelevant. It is not acceptable to respond to incivility, with incivility. Please speak calmly, or your account access could end up blocked. The best way to work through this dispute, is for everyone to calmly and rationally discuss the article. Resorting to ad hominem attacks will do little except to escalate the battle. --Elonka 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b
You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks and civility only apply to me and not you. Cause what you just pulled today was quite possibly the most foolish thing you could have done. We were almost at the point of resolving this issue, but off you had to go and pull a stunt like this. What you wrote on my talk page is untrue, to put it mildly. Most of the current edit, just like most of the entire E1b1b article, was drawn from your earlier edits -- not mine. The Henn paper is cited in the article; the clade with the new polymorphism is now included in the text. What isn't and what really bugs you is the fact that the edit as a whole is not an exactly as you personally want it to be. You haven't even been upfront enough to admit that certain things (i.e. "sub-Saharan E-M35"; naming the E3b1f-M293 that Henn specified as E-M293) you inserted into the text -- and which you even at one point denied having inserted into the text -- are not sourced. You've accused me of using anonymous IPs when I haven't and you have. You've deliberately misinterpreted my plainly-stated recommendations on what specific changes we ought to implement as a green light to carry out a full revert of the entire article. You are relentlessly condescending and rude. And now you post not one, but two personal attacks -- one with it's heading named after me to boot. I'm frankly not interested in what you have to say at this point. I'll let Elonka decide what to do with you. Causteau (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Causteau, I've never hidden the fact that I am only worried about the quality of the article, not your feelings, which are pretty hard to help anyway. Naming your editing style as a concern is not a personal attack in any relevant sense. You seem to think that mentioning someone by name, or indeed annoying someone at all, is against some sort of rule, and that admins are out there to punish people for you like your own private SS. (I really love it how you include threats in every talk page post.) That's just not how Wikipedia works. Get over it, because there is nothing you can do to make Wikipedia work for you like that. You are clearly reading everything in a distorted way by now, and that makes it very hard to reason with you. It is up to you: get over it or just keep having the same frustrations when people keep editing without your permission. To go through what you write, though I guess you'll just get even hotter under the collar:


 * We were almost at the point of resolving this issue, but off you had to go and pull a stunt like this.
 * I think we are at the worst point we could possibly be in. I've seen no good will from your side. If every edit anyone wants to make requires this much dispute with you, then the article also has serious on-going problems. That's just telling it how I see it.
 * Most of the current edit, just like most of the entire E1b1b article, was drawn from your earlier edits -- not mine.
 * In a sense this is of course true. I have done the most work on this article. While you just revert and delete and so on. So what? You should be thanking me. My point was that concerning all the recent edits which are in discussion, the biggest single effect was coming from your revert, which was also the last edit.
 * You haven't even been upfront enough to admit that certain things (i.e. "sub-Saharan E-M35"; naming the E3b1f-M293 that Henn specified as E-M293) you inserted into the text -- and which you even at one point denied having inserted into the text -- are not sourced.
 * I think your wrong reading of that sentence is seriously weird. Show it to someone and ask them what the subject is: all of M-35 or a part of M-35. Let's say it is my writing which was weird though - well then there is no dispute that I was wrong if the sentence says what you say, and I have said this already.
 * You've accused me of using anonymous IPs when I haven't and you have.
 * I've said I don't think it is relevant and that I think you've made the same error. Who cares? I fix all the ones I see as you know. Just how much bad intentions do you think it is healthy to imagine in a person you don't know?
 * You've deliberately misinterpreted my plainly-stated recommendations on what specific changes we ought to implement as a green light to carry out a full revert of the entire article.
 * You can respond to the argument's logic by also writing in a rational way. I don't think I've ever pretended that you've given me a green light to revert though if that is what you are accusing me of. I know you want to keep fighting to keep all reverts you've made even if you never even looked at what you deleted. That is a problem. But you can't keep working that way.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:E1b1b
Hello Andrew. Yes, I had noticed that it had grown substantially longer and better from when I used to edit it. Can you clarify the dilemma for me? Is this all really over whether we should say E1b1b1 (and other haplogroups) is "defined by M35" or state that E-M35 is an alternative name for it? Couldn't we do both, given that they are both correct? E.g., "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly known as E3b, E-M215, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a subgroup of haplogroup E. It is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215[2]" and "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1, also known as E-M35 by its defining mutation (M35)."

As for the rest of your points (under "Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted"), I generally agree with you. We should be using names like E-M215 and E-M35 because they are unchanging and always referred to as such, while terms like E3b and E1b1b can change (as they already have) and get confusing when comparing articles from different years. That said, we should also use the E1b1b nomenclature given it's becoming/has become the standard. I'm not sure what Casteau's talking about on points 3 (in your edit wishlist) and 1 (in your RFC). Sub-Saharan modifies E-M35, defining the type of E-M35. It's true that it can be read to mean "the sub-Saharan E-M35," indicating that all lineages are sub-Saharan, but since it's late in the article where its origins have already been explained, there shouldn't be any problem. Besides, E-M35 did originate in sub-Saharan Africa (the Horn of Africa, to be exact). &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. In the future, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox. Thank you. Xeltran (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Re:E1b1b
Hi! Thanks for noticing. I'm a Recent Changes patroller. I'm also using Twinkle to help me in my edits in Wikipedia. As for the original notice that you see in the first paragraph, that wasn't written by me, although I was the one who put up the notice at the bottom. If you want to experiment though, the sandbox is always free for editors. Xeltran (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Email
Hi Andrew, I would like to discuss something with you – off-wiki to prevent unnecessary escalation. You don't seem to have email enabled, so you can probably not contact me by Wikipedia email. But if you are interested, it's trivial to find my email address. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b
Firstly, I didn't do 4 reverts, though I'm sure that is what you were hoping for. Secondly, if anyone should be reporting anyone else, it should be me reporting you for constant manipulation and removal of reliable sources. As for "discussion", the E1b1b talk page more than shows who is really impervious to and, in fact, completely disregards discussion. Causteau (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

E1etc
Sorry I haven't been active on that page, I've been quite busy with other things. I do have it watchlisted though and I'll be dropping by to edit and comment in the near future. Orpheus (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative E1b1b1 Photos
(We can use these photos) because we know they are E1b1b1

Another suggestion is asking Berbers, Somalians, North Afircan Arabs & Albanians who are confirmed E1b1b to post their own photos.

This is even more important with Jews or Albanians (More than 70% of Jews or Albanians are not E1b1b1 how do we know the photos you posted are E1b1b1?)

I have some photos of confirmed E1b1b1, but I have to ask them for permission to use their photos first, for now we can use these two confirmed ones.

Also a group photo of Somalians with a text description saying that more than 75% of Somlians are E1b1b1 will be much safer than listing one photo of an untested person.

Cadenas2008 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wright brothers
I found it in (community-haplozone) so you already know about this more than me, I just thought its better to have verified photos Or atleast group photos with the % of E1b1b1 in the ethnic group. Anyways I will not edit it anymore until I have verified photos. Thanks for the quick replyCadenas2008 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Somalians
That person was claiming that everybody is not a good Somalian (although they looked somalian! he said these guys are not Somalian!

I am not sure whats going on & why he is refusing to use Somalian photos instead of the exotic looking person (who could be a T or even a J!), but its very unfair especially that these Somalians are not represented by an honest photo that represents the majority. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Forum link in E1b1b
Forums are unreliable sources per WP:SPS because anyone can edit them: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Indeed, the forum you linked people to you yourself also happen to post at. Now that you are aware of this, perhaps you will do the right thing and undo your edit. Causteau (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The forum link is indeed a self-published source because it contains information that has only been published in that forum entry and presumably by Denis himself. Also, both the Savard brothers are still alive, and per WP:SPS:
 * "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."
 * That said, there is one conceivable way around this problem, and that is to request that Denis publish his material in the Savard Surname Project, which we could then link to in the E1b1b article. Causteau (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I've just looked over the forum post in question, and I notice that it's the genealogy tree that's the point of interest:
 * "Both their lineages have been published linking them to the common ancestor of the 3 Savard testees. I've draw up a tree a while back: (The 3 Savard testees come from three different sons of Joseph-Simon Savard : 2 turquoise boxes)."
 * Perhaps then we should be linking to the tree itself rather than to the forum entry (at least until Denis officially publishes the information). Causteau (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:E1b1bRoutes.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:E1b1bRoutes.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:E1b1bRoute.png
I was just looking at the E1b1b dispersal you made, and I noticed two glaring errors. The map suggests that V32 originated in northern Ethiopia and then dispersed from there when Cruciani et al. (2007) make it clear that it originated in Northeastern Africa (Egypt & Libya). Please adjust the map to reflect this. Also, please place V12 further North. Cruciani et al. (2007) here too state that this mutation originated in Egypt/Libya, and was later brought down to Sudan. The map currently makes it seem like V12 originated on the border between Egypt and Sudan, which isn't the case. Causteau (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Also, given that Henn et al. (2008) do not identify a specific place of origin for M293:
 * "Without information about M293 in the Maasai, Hema, and other populations in Kenya, Sudan, and Ethiopia, we cannot pinpoint the precise geographic source of M293 with greater confidence. However, the available evidence points to present-day Tanzania as an early and important geographic locus of M293 evolution."
 * ...I think that perhaps it's best (at least until a more comprehensive study identifies a specific point of origin for the mutation) if we place a question mark after M293 in the map (e.g. "M293?") to indicate Henn et al.'s uncertainty on the matter. Causteau (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the V32 info:
 * "In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa. The nested arrangement of haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, that is, 18.0 ky and 5.9 ky, respectively."
 * There's also no need to put question marks on the other sub-clades because their respective points of origin have all been clearly defined. From the Henn et al. (2008) quote above, however, it's clear that in the absence of data from Ethiopia and other areas of East Africa, it's a bit premature to definitively place M293's point of origin specifically in Tanzania. In the interim, a simple question mark here will do.
 * Also, if you are unable to place V12 or any other sub-clade in its designated place of origin, then the thing to do is to not include the map at all until you are able to do so rather than misidentifying its point of origin or omitting certain sub-clades while including others. I'll see what I pesonally can do about properly positioning the sub-clades. Causteau (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, V12 on the dispersal map above is nowhere near Libya. It's quite clearly straddling the border between eastern Egypt and Sudan, which is not where Cruciani et al. (2007) suggested it originated. And again, it's neither helpful nor informative to lump V12, V22, M78 or any other sub-clades into a collection. If you were to do that, you'd also have to lump V32 with them, BTW, which would leave the map pretty darn barren. It seems that you are unable to work on the map, so I think I'll give it a go. I'm confident I can position the sub-clades in the areas where the studies actually state they originated. Causteau (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I've already answered this question with a quote taken directly from Cruciani et al. (2007):
 * "In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa. The nested arrangement of haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, that is, 18.0 ky and 5.9 ky, respectively. These were probably not massive migrations, because the present high frequencies of EV12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions involving well differentiated molecular types (fig. 3A). Conversely, the absence of E-V12* chromosomes in eastern Africa is compatible with loss by drift."


 * In other words, a couple of V32 carrying Egyptians/Libyans introduced the V32 mutation into the Horn of Africa between 18,000 and 5,900 years ago, but no later than 5,900 years ago (i.e. the "lower bound for this episode") because Cruciani et al. also stipulate on Figure 1 that V32 is between 5,900-11,300 years old (~8,500 ybp). Causteau (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * New version?


 * The latest version above looks identical to the previous one. None of the necessary changes have been implemented: a) V12 still straddles the border between eastern Egypt and Sudan rather than Egypt/Libya, b) V32 is still positioned in northern Ethiopia rather than Egypt/Libya, and c) Tanzania is still authoritatively presented as the place of origin of M293 when Henn et al. (2008) make it clear that they don't have enough information on populations elsewhere in East Africa to confidently pinpoint its point of origin (where's the question mark we were just discussing?). Causteau (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)…


 * This is the third time I'm explaining to you that V-32 originated in Northeastern Africa (i.e. Egypt/Libya) per Cruciani et al. (2007). I've already quoted for you a passage from the study:
 * "In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa. The nested arrangement of haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, that is, 18.0 ky and 5.9 ky, respectively. These were probably not massive migrations, because the present high frequencies of EV12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions involving well differentiated molecular types (fig. 3A). Conversely, the absence of E-V12* chromosomes in eastern Africa is compatible with loss by drift."
 * I've explained that Cruciani et al. specified that 1) "the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa", 2) that this migration from Northeastern Africa to the Horn took place between 18,000 and 5,900 years ago, 3) that, per Figure 1, the V32 mutation occurred between 5,900-11,300 years ago (~8,500 ybp), 4) Cruciani et al. specify that 5,900 ybp "defines... the lower bound for this episode" -- the episode he is referring to is the migration of E-M78-carrying Egyptians/Libyans from Northeastern Africa to the Horn of Africa; 5,900 years ago marks this migration's cut-off point because had it occurred any more recently (for example, 2,500 years ago), the V32 mutation would've occurred in the Horn where the Egyptian/Libyan migrants would've already been stationed rather than its proposed Northeastern African point of origin. Now that you are aware of this, kindly adjust the map to place V32 in its place of origin in Northeastern Africa along with V12 and V22 or I will. Causteau (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cruciani et al. (2007) in the quote above also indicate that "these were probably not massive migrations, because the present high frequencies of EV12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions". In other words, the E-V32 chromosomes expanded again after their initial introduction into the Horn from their place of origin in Northeastern Africa (Egypt/Libya). Causteau (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, could you make the question mark after M293 a different color? From my computer, it looks like just another letter/number and not an indication of uncertainty. I think a nice, legible black question mark will work better. Causteau (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for correcting the map. That said, in discussing the origins of sub-clades of E-M78, Hassan et al. (2008) reference the Cruciani et al. (2007) paper that I've been quoting for you. The latter is of course the big paper almost exclusively on E-M78 which, among other things, pinpoints the origins of its sub-clades; so that's the study to refer to. Cruciani et al. (2007), for their part, make it clear that "the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa" i.e. in Egypt/Libya, not Sudan. Further, if we consider the fact that V32-carrying modern Somalis in the Horn of Africa, for example, craniofacially, mitochondrially, and linguistically cluster with both modern and ancient Egyptian populations (as well as Libyans) but not with Sudan's Nilotic majority, and that about 80% of Somalis are E1b1b carriers (which is almost entirely V32) while their fellow V32-carrying Horn African neighbors, in addition to carrying V32, also harbor sub-clades of E1b1b as well as considerable frequencies of other Y DNA haplogroups, this further supports the idea that modern Somalis are the descendants of a small, V32-carrying founding population that migrated down from Egypt/Libya around 8,500 or so years ago. These Egyptian/Libyan-descended Somalis are therefore the likely source of V32 in the Horn, and from them emerged the "subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions" Cruciani et al. (2007) speak of. The forgoing is why V32 is largely restricted to the Horn. Its presence in Sudan, moreover, wasn't brought there from the Horn as the map used to state, but from North Africa as the map now correctly asserts. All in all, good changes. Causteau (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, could you please put V32 in blue like the other clusters of E-M78? Thanks, Causteau (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already mentioned that there is other evidence that V32 might have originated in the north, but I do and did have to be careful to avoid "OR" or overly opaque "synthesis". I believe (as I said) that having Hassan as a reference is good enough. Anyway, the positioning now seems acceptable. (Certainly we can expect that new publications of data will change the consensus every year!) Now we have a small problem in that the map has less arrows showing migrations of M78 sub-clades. I'll keep thinking about how to do that, if possible. (I don't see it as make or break.) Concerning the coloring, I had thought to use black for sub-sub-sub clades, and blue for sub-sub clades (of M-35), but I have no big problem with your proposal. I have also been asked to return to shown curved arrows in the Arabian peninsula for M34, curving towards both the Horn of Africa and Oman. I believe that is acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I replied to you on my talk, just to keep the discussion together. Cheers. Alun (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Just left a response. Sorry for the delay; I'm on Ubuntu, and it cannot for the life of it handle wireless. Causteau (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RS/N
Hi, you'll want to comment Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers. Alun (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I deliberately tried to keep my post on the noticebord as neutral as possible. You have responded by making an attack on my motivation. Thaks. I'll remember that you cannot assume good faith in future. Alun (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alun, I don't think I assumed anything about your intentions. I note you've deleted my response to this accusation on your own Talkpage. If your motives are being misunderstood that is indeed not good and I honestly that I have not made the problem worse. However, you have to look at your own words, which is all I've done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No Andrew. I posted on the noticeboard because I wanted community input. My post was deliberately very neutral, and was only about the reliability of the sources. Your post was simply an attack upon my motivation. You deliberately and maliciously distorted and misrepresented what I have been saying over the last few weeks. I am very very angry about the way you have lied and distorted what I have been saying. It's clear that all you are interested is including this information in Wikipedia at whatever cost.
 * "The reason for this is that Alun's own approach on this is very broad in that he sees this as a general problem to be eradicated"
 * Not true. Why do you believe that you have the authority to speak on my behalf? Why do you believe that you have the right to state what my opinion is? In fact you have simply lied about how I see it in order to call into question my motivation and character. I do think we should "eradicate" unreliable sources, absolutely. But then any competent editor should believe that. Find reliable sources and there is no problem.
 * "more generally concerning the role and interest of "hair brained" genealogically oriented research"
 * Distortion of what I said. I didn't say genealogical research was hair brained, I said that any person with any hair brained theory can postulate it in a genealogy discussion board, and that you consider those boards to be reliable. You're deliberately taking what I said out of context in your character assassination of myself.
 * "the problem is that the information is "trivia""
 * No, one of the problems is that, in my opinion it is trivial with respect to the article about the haplogroup. I never said it was trivial generally, as you are claiming. Indeed I specifically pointed out on more than one occasion that the correct place for this information is in the article about the famous person in question. Another lie.
 * "not "population genetics" (which is an area he feels qualified in)"
 * Well it's not population genetics. You claimed it was, and I pointed out that your claim was fallacious. I didn't claim to be qualified in population genetics. All I said was that the utility of haplogroups is in population genetics and not genealogy. That's a fact. But this is a different question, the reliability of the sources is not related to the triviality of the section to the subject of the article, or to the utility of haplogroups in genealogical research. You are conflating several differnet concerns.
 * "disagrees with the relevant Wikiproject Guidelines"
 * Untrue. One could keep the famous people section and (a) have a list and (b) verify the members from reliable sources. Again a complete distortion of what I have been saying.
 * Frankly you've showed tremendous bad faith, turning what should have been a straightforward request for community input into an attack upon me and using it to further the disagreement. You have apparently deliberately done this in order to discourage people from commenting in this thread. Alun (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonder (emotion)
Hi. I answered on my talk page. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b
Thanks for the link to haplozone. There is a discussion on Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA) regarding Hammer and multiregionalism. This somewhat seems to have influenced his views on the origin of Yap and M-35. While Cruciani et al continue to propose Northeast Africa, I think there will still be many twists and turns. My personal view is the archeological record of paleolithic Egypt is not as rich as that of East Africa. At some stage, they are going to have to tie in their genetics study with the fossil record. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Andrew, once again there is dispute involving Causteau regarding Chandrasekar et al 2007. If you have any free time, a third-party opinion from you would be helpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Map
Thanks for your question. Although it is not an exact reproduction, it is rather accuratley based on the Pericic map. Pericic refers to it as E3b-M78, predominantly the "α-cluster" Cruciani described. He later further characterized it as the V-13 subhaplogroup. If it is more accurate, I can change the references on the image to this Hxseek (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about "false sourcing". If you are alleging that the copy is not an exact -enough reproduction, that's another story. To be precise, it is from map D, page 5 of the above article. Details about the technicalities of its creation have also been added. Hxseek (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "why remove BBC ref, and why insist on textual refs in a TV prog?"
Why devote a whole section to uncritically regurgitating the claims of an entirely unsourced, and academically illiterate, television program, in what aspires to be a serious encyclopedic article? I think we have, at the v least, to add some qualifiers here, if not delete the paragraph entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.129.189 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Vigilance
Hello Andrew Lancaster. You have described my talk contributions as 'silly and irrelevant'. I object to that, and here is why. Right at the top of the Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) is the section 'Example of group photos'. There, an editor wrote "Here; read this. It's an old (and still the most thorough yet) anthropological survey of the Somali people by a former president of the Anthropological Association of America."

Later, in the section 'Somali Man' the same editor again used that reference to justify sweeping P.O.V. statements about 'typical Africans' and retain their selected photo that (as you rightly pointed out) had already caused controversy. So I, acting in good faith, read those references and noted that a racial diatribe called 'The Mediterranean Race in East Africa' which began by claiming that Somalis were 'white racial stock' was being used as the basis for editing the images and text of an article about the dispersal and chronology of certain molecules. In fact the web source uses the word 'racial' 15 times - never once referring to Haplogroups. But, the editor in question did not openly name his source, instead, they referred to it as an anonymous 'former president of the Anthropological Association of America'. Furthermore, if one simply reads the quoted web source, there is no indication of the author, book title, publisher or publication date. Given that this information was clearly missing from the quoted source, why did the editor use this reference at least twice without making its origins clear?

After lots of investigation, I found the source: Carlton S. Coon's 1939 'The Races of Europe'. Given that this information was not made clear in the first place, I did more checks and discovered that, according to Prof. John P Jackson Jr, Coon, "actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity ". Clearly, the anonymous use of discredited racialised rantings from an active US segregationist of 1939 (a year notorious for astonishing worldwide racial violence and oppression) to justify edits on a 21st-century page about Haplogroups violates all the editing norms of Wikipedia. The fact that the same source is admiringly cited by current neo-nazis [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=554149&page=23] proves that my warnings about segregationism and Hitlerism were far from silly and irrelevant. I can only advocate continued vigilance about all references. Ackees (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, after Wapondawaponda's and your comment I deleted our 'race/ethnic group' discussion on talk:e1b1b. Please refrain from uncivil personal comments (silly, arrogant, ridiculous). You'll note that it's not something I generally indulge in. I was correctly challenging the incorrect POV use of images based on inappropriate and anonymous racial citations. I am sure you agree that the photos were always irrelevant and contentious. Plus, the article now conforms to the 'non-image' standard of the other Haplogroup articles. Save the 'east v north' controversy (which I am sure will be resolved correctly) and the maps issue (which is not exclusive), the article is fundamentally on the right track. So, well done to you and the other primary editors. Ackees (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

E-M81 Map
I think I saw a map in one of Cruciani's? or maybe it was V65, Do you have the map on the Oran study? Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup M
Hi Andrew. I'm involved in the most ridiculous edit conflict with User:Cadenas2008 over at the haplogroup M article. The situation is basically that the user disapproves that all the latest studies on the haplogroup indicate an Asian origin for the clade. So what he does is replace those up-to-date studies with obsolete ones, some from as far back as the year 2000. He has also cited a personal website as a reliable source, outright lied about figures that he claims one particular study puts forth when it does not (I invite you to check it for yourself when you visit the page, assuming you are interested), and just generally misrepresented almost everything. He has called me names, charged that the authors of the studies I've cited -- studies which were already in the article well before he came along to disrupt it -- are involved with something called "Hindutva" and are therefore biased. On this last point, I naturally called his bluff and asked him to prove his accusations, but he just keeps repeating them with no evidence whatsoever to back them up as WP:NPA instructs. When you visit the page, there's one thing you'll notice right away, and that's that I've done all the writing, the arguing, the linking... basically, all the thinking and rationalizing. All he has done to date is hunt and peck for any 'ol study which so much as glancingly mentions the M1 sub-clade of macrohaplogroup M (much less macrohaplogroup M itself -- the actual subject of the article) and then turn around and loudly proclaim that that "proves" that macrohaplogroup M itself therefore originated where he claims it did! There are just so many instances of the most rank dishonesty on his part -- a level of dishonesty I have yet to come across anywhere on Wikipedia -- that I can't even ennumerate them here (but rest assured, they're all listed on the article's talk page). The reason why I approach you now is because it's painfully clear that this matter can't be resolved with just he and I. The other editor has given me ample reason to doubt that I'm dealing with a normal person. He doesn't even bother formulating rational responses; just ad hominem, empty charges, and more studies that don't support a thing he claims (that is, when he's not busy citing obsolete ones!). When you find the time, could you please intervene? And by that I mean can you read the facts presented on the talk page and then give your opinion? Cheers, Causteau (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for getting back to me, Andrew. However, I must correct you and say that I have never cited the Ian Logan website or any other personal website for that matter. The most I have ever done is cite ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project, which, as we've already seen, are reliable sources (though perhaps not always up-to-date ones, at least as far as their discussion areas are concerned). That's one. Second, I am admittedly upset with this chap because from the very start of this present conflict, he was accusing me of "racism" with zero evidence to back that up. You see, this "Hindutva" thing is just the latest in a long series of personal attacks that he initiated. Viz. "Look at the talk page, I don't care what racists feel about it. M1 is upstream, find me M1 in India then come edit." Call me crazy, but I find that hugely offensive. And if that weren't bad enough, he kept right on calling me out-of-name on his own talk page, and even deleted many of my responses to his charges where I tried to defend myself -- he wouldn't even accord me that much! In fact, I had to practically twist his arm to get him to discuss things over with me in a rational manner: It was I who had to initiate the discussion, not him. That's the nonsense I'm talking about. Causteau (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kivisild 2008, Cerny 2007, Abu Amero 2007

 * The 3 above clearly don't agree with the theory of a big migration of M1 to East Africa (back migration took place but it carried the well known downstream lineages of M found in Eastern Arabia)
 * India has no L3 or M1 or any upstream lineage older than M2!
 * Also according to Mr. Causteau 2008 & 2007 "latest" studies are not late enough maybe he lives in 2013?!. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew: I've addressed all of the studies above point by point on the haplogroup M article's talk page. Please have a look at them and see for yourself what we are really dealing with here. Also, do not be impressed with that gaudy map to your right. Cadenas2008 made it himself (he's awesome at creating maps and other visuals), and it has no empirical backing other than his own imagination. Causteau (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Leo Strauss and the BBC
Hello. The text was removed for the same reason it was deleted on The Power of Nightmares article. As a different editor (Nick Cooper) then explained: "You need to find a reputable source that claims the documentary misrepresents Strauss. (diff) Without references from reliable sources - that mention both Leo Strauss and the documentary directly by name - the text is considered original research (WP:OR). Please note that the version I deleted (diff) had no sources whatsoever. Hope that helps. Dynablaster (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it did so indirectly, using words like "On the basis of the supposed fact..." and "...the documentary claims..." and "As it happens..." so on so forth. Supplying a link to the BBC homepage would only support a part of the text that says Leo Strauss was the subject of a BBC documentary. You will need another source for the rest, otherwise they remain personal observations. The reasoning is setout very well on the No original research guideline page. Dynablaster (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is unsourced (apart from the first sentence). Please be wary of WP:SYNTH when adding citations. Your source needs to support the text directly in reference to Power of Nightmares. The film does not say that Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol were students of Leo Strauss, by the way. It merely says they studied his work at various institutions. Dynablaster (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Age of E-M78
Hi Andrew. I just noticed you changed the age of E-M78 from an average 18,600 years ago to between 10,000 to 20,000 ybp. However, this isn't what Cruciani et al. (2007) indicates, so I thought I'd contact you about it first before reverting. Please have a look at the study's Figure 1. It indicates that E-M78 originated around 18,600 (17,300 - 20,000) years ago, not 10,000 - 20,000 years ago. Causteau (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In this other edit, you also write that:
 * "'The distribution and diversity of V13 are generally thought to be suggestive that it was brought to the Balkans along with early farming technologies, during the Neolithic expansion . However, believe it arrived in Europe in the Mesolithic and then only later integrated with Neolithic cultures in the Balkans.'"
 * However, in Battaglia's et al. (2008)'s abstract, they indicate that E-V13 originated in Europe; it wasn't brought there by migrants:
 * "'In particular, whereas the Balkan microsatellite variation associated to J-M241 correlates with the Neolithic period, those related to E-V13 and I-M423 Balkan Y chromosomes are consistent with a late Mesolithic time frame. In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades.'" Causteau (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your thinking. However, the authors appear to have a preference for the average square distance (ASD) method, which is why they exclusively use that in the text. Here, they explain their reasons for using it:
 * "'Each mutation increased or decreased allele length by one step (each with probability 0.5). ASD was then evaluated for the simulated data and the whole process repeated 1,000 times to quote the central 95% of values. This method represents a refinement of that by Thomas et al. (1998) and Scozzari et al. (2001), as it also takes into account heterogeneity of mutation rates across loci.'"
 * And here's why they used the p-statistical method:
 * "'An independent dating method (p statistics; Forster et al. 1996; Saillard et al. 2000) was also used to assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.'"
 * Given the above, I think we should follow Cruciani et al.'s lead and also cite their "refined" ASD estimates in the E1b1b article's own text. Also, if you look at Figure 1 on p.1304, you'll notice that Cruciani et al. give a 13,700 ybp age estimate for E-M78 using the p method, not 10,000-20,000 ybp. So either way, the age estimate needs to be changed. Causteau (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly spare me the lecture on "difficulty in collaborating" when you just quietly slipped in the p statistics-derived 13,700 TMRCA for haplogroup E-M78 although Cruciani et al. (2007) themselves do not cite it as the TMRCA in the study's text; they explicitly cite the average square distance (ASD)-based 17,300-20,000 ypb TMRCA:
 * "'Only values obtained from ASD are quoted in the text... A northeastern African origin for haplogroup E-M78 implies that E-M215 chromosomes were introduced in northeastern Africa from eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9 ky ago (the upper bound for E-M215 TMRCA in eastern Africa) and 17.3 ky ago (the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA here estimated, fig. 1).'"
 * As can quite clearly be seen above, 17,300 years ago is the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA, not 13,700 years ago as you have indicated in the E1b1b article. Furthermore, the p statistics dating method was only "used to assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method." In other words, it was only used to find out how robust the ASD (i.e. the "choice of method") derived coalescence age is -- it isn't itself the default choice of method for obtaining a coalescence age but a tester of the default choice of method for obtaining a coalescence age. And the ASD method, by contrast, was used because:
 * "'Each mutation increased or decreased allele length by one step (each with probability 0.5). ASD was then evaluated for the simulated data and the whole process repeated 1,000 times to quote the central 95% of values. This method represents a refinement of that by Thomas et al. (1998) and Scozzari et al. (2001), as it also takes into account heterogeneity of mutation rates across loci.'"
 * I believe we've already gone over this before, too. Causteau (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself Andrew: "Cruciani et al. did indeed say that they used the second aging method as a check". They did not say that that is the default coalescence age anywhere in either the body of the study or in the tables. You are also correct in pointing out that the check turned out to be significant for the age of the root i.e. M78:
 * "'Both dating procedures rely on the appropriate choice of a haplotype to be considered ancestral, which remains an uncontrolled source of uncertainty. We observe that the p-based ages are slightly younger than the ASD-based ones (fig. 1). The difference is significant only for the root of the entire haplogroup, this being attributable to the relevant departure from a star-like structure because of repeated founder effects (Saillard et al. 2000Go). Only values obtained from ASD are quoted in the text.'"
 * But you are mistakenly reading into the text something that simply isn't there. For starters, by the term "significant", the authors in the quote above are simply indicating that the p-based age for E-M78 is more than slightly younger than the ASD-based 17,300 - 20,000 TMRCA for E-M78, whereas it's only slightly younger for the other haplogroups. Again, nowhere do they state that the 13,700 ypb is the "new" lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA. Rather, they clearly indicate that the ASD-based 17,300 - 20,000 ybp is the TMRCA for E-M78, as already demonstrated in my previous post. Had Cruciani et al. (2007) meant for the p-based figures to be an alternative dating system on par with the ASD-based aging method rather than just a sort of check, their study's narrative would've been based at least in part on those figures, when of course they themselves have indicated that the entire text relies on the ASD-based figures. It's therefore OR to cite the 13,700 ypb coalescence age in the E1b1b article as though the p-statistics dating method it was based on is Cruciani et al.'s "choice of method" when of course it is not. However, this may be useful information to include in the article's footnotes, which I notice has already been seen to (viz. "And they use two calculation methods for estimating the age of E-M78 which give very different results, 17.3-20kya or else 13.7kya with a standard deviation of 2.3kya"). Causteau (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a reasonable compromise; kudos. By the way, you may be interested in this conversation. It seems some other editors have taken exception to your citing a study from Mathilda's blog, a site they feel is somehow perhaps "politically" motivated. I've already left a response. Causteau (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup N (mtDNA)
Hello Andrew, there is an ongoing dispute regarding the origins of haplogroup N. In case you have time, a third opinion is always helpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Andrew. Mr. Good Intentions above has once again shown his true colors. He is now not only refusing to talk and reverting at will, he is also deleting my talk page comments attempting to resolve this thing! This is a blatant violation of WP:TALK, which states that one shouldn't tamper with another user's talk page comments. It's also a form of WP:VANDALISM. Please intervene. I've contacted an administrator about this, but he seems to be away. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay Andrew. I know you're there. I saw your name on the history page. Why don't you say something? Don't you have an opinion on this? This chap is now insisting that studies from twelve years ago are as relevant and valid as modern studies! This is what it has come to and all because he is unable to find modern studies that support an African origin for haplogroup N. I've just proven that he is seriously misrepresenting Gonzalez et al. (2007) by citing them as a source supporting an African origin for haplogroup N when they most certainly do not. It would be great if you chimed in as a voice of reason. Do you not also see that he is utterly fabricating that latter claim, for instance? Please respond. Causteau (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had previously mentioned that some editors had gotten used to having their way POV pushing and that this was going to be a problem. I remember on a similar dispute regarding Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA), when Causteau made claims from an article written in Chinese about the origins of DE. When I asked him to provide an english translation, he did not do so. Unless he does so, I will take it that he was making stuff up. The evidence is all in the talk page of the DE article if anyone is interested. My point is someone is being very disingenuous here, and this editor is beginning to take advantage of the tolerance for his or her disingenuity. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I most certainly am NOT making the Chan Hai stuff up. They DO support an Asian origin for haplogroup DE, they DO cite BOTH Shi et al. (2008) and Chandrasekar et al. (2007). Copy and paste the bloody text into an online translator if you don't believe me. In the meantime, I will personally contact a Chinese-speaking Wikipedian and request that he translate the article just to prove who is the really disingenuous one of us two (though you've already taken the crown with your relentless misrepresentation of Gonzalez et al. (2007) -- they do NOT support an African origin for haplogroup N as you falsely claim). I didn't do so earlier because there is no WP:DEADLINE. And unlike certain other obsessive types, I actually have something called a life to go back to. By the way, Wapondaponda: How do you like this map? I found it on a Russian forum. Notice the Chinese characters. Interesting, no? Causteau (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As per discussions at the DE article, I tend to agree with Causteau on this also. There certainly is an Asian origins hypothesis that is alive and well in the recent literature. I tend to think personally that is the weaker hypothesis, but that does not count. This is not the same as the M and N debates about African origins though, because there the recent debate seems to be dimmed, and there is no equivalent to the E* found in India. I am in shock that I am agreeing with Causteau on several issues at once - not on all the reverts he does mind you, nor the extreme wording he sometimes chooses - but at least on his interpretation of the literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Andrew. Just stopped by to thank you for the helpful and honest comments you left on Wapondaponda's talk page. It's good to see that some still understand the value of up-to-date research. On another note, I thought you might be interested in this thread at the E-M35 Phylogeny Project. It's basically Kerry O'Dair and Victor Villarreal discussing the fact that they both ran preliminary TMRCA calculations comparing the Nigerian DE* haplotypes with the Tibetan ones. It would appear that, according to their results, the Tibetan ones so far appear older. In fact, O'Dair compared E* Asian haplotypes from one particular study with those same Nigerian DE* haplotypes, and found them to be the same age. Let me know what you make of all this. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me, but I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were on "my side" or that old studies are necessarily bad. What I was attempting to do was thank you for trying to inject some reason into the discussion. You see Andrew, the other editor in question isn't the most rational or honest person in the world. Take the events that led up to the revert war: I removed the rubbish he had added to the article and explained in painstaking detail and point by point the reasoning behind my edit on the article's talk page per WP:DISCUSSION. However, not more than 2 minutes later did the other editor revert my changes and without even having the common decency to explain his reason for doing so. Did he read and actually ponder my massive, very involved talk page post in that time? I don't think so. Also, please note that he still hasn't addressed any of the points I've raised despite having had over a week to do so during my absence. There's a good reason for this: It's because he can't answer them. Please have a look at the time stamps on the latest talk page discussions: it's me following up on my own comments -- I'm literally talking to myself! Now have a look at his personal page; it basically lays out his modus operandi. Here is one point that jumps out:


 * "'When engaged in a revert-war with this 'expert', bombard him with endless posts on the talk page. If he makes any arguments which are hard to refute, well, just skip over them in your response and they are as good as nullified (who else is reading, after all!). He then may do one of the following. 1) Get tired and go away ... good! 2) Ignore you and continue reverting ... in which case you can try to have him blocked for revert-warring without discussion. 3) Get frustrated and become 'uncivil' ... again, have some champagne, you can get him blocked.'"


 * Are you starting to see who we are really dealing with here? It's certainly not a neutral editor that actually respects Wikipedia's policies. Do you see why he knee-jerk reverts? It's all part of his plan, a strategy he doesn't even have the decency to conceal. That's one. With regard to haplogroup DE, personally, while I do indeed think the evidence at this point weighs in favor of an Asian origin for YAP, I did not link you to that E-M35 Phylogeny Project page as some sort of 'feeler' to see if it would be okay to later add that forum discussion to Wikipedia (if that's what you're thinking). Far from it, that sort of thing is a slippery slope that can only end badly; it's also against WP:RS. What I was doing was simply soliciting your opinion on the issue since I know that you're a member of that forum and perhaps even know some of the gentleman involved in the discussion. I thought that maybe you knew of some other similar findings (if I recall correctly, you were the one that added the discovery of DE* chromosomes in Tibet to the haplogroup DE article; you're also usually the first to find out about the latest E1b1b articles). Anyway, thanks for the feedback as always. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was the original edit that Wapondaponda copied onto his page that was partially intended as humor. On his personal page, that same essay is only superficially intended as humor to those not actually privy to his modus operandi. However, to those that are aware of his editing/argumenting style, the sinister strategies it describes are all too and sadly familiar (as my post & links above more than show), and the essay is therefore intended as the Wiki equivalent of the middle finger. Causteau (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

M78 Map
I noticed its showing a high requency in Yemen & Western Oman? (more than that in Iraq). In Oman & Yemen M34 & basically M215(xM78) is the most dominant, with 0% M78 in 2 studies done on Yemenis? & only 1%~2% in Omanis. In Iraq M78 is actually higher 2%~5% but the map is not showing it.

An M78 map has to show that M78 radiates north to South (both sides) from the Levant (or elsewhere) & becomes equal with M34 in Southern Emirates, in Oman M34 picks up all the way to Yemen. If you want to make an E1b1b M78, M34 & M81 map we can all work on it, but we have to be more specific on frequencies & clearly mark the low frequency regions, just like we marke the high frequency regions.

Cadenas2008 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Continually removing sourced material is considered Vandalism Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at this and it is clearly a content dispute, and the edit was not vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And it might be a good idea to leave personal attacks on you on the talk page -- have you read WP:NPA on responding to personal attacks? Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Sure, I will do. I have been absebnt from 'genetics' recently, as I have been dabbling with linguistics. I note that Wapondaponda has been banned. My comments on his relevant sections have been made on thhe G.H.o.E article talk page. If any new issues arise, I would be happy to try and back you for a "middle ground approach" - if justified. Hxseek (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been following that talk page discussions. I did have a glimpse into it, and it looks painful. It would be an arduous task for me to start from the top and acquanit myself with the volumes of discourse. I am not particularly keen to do so. But if you feel that something really needs attention, then point out what in particular and I will try and help Hxseek (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why E3b needs to go

 * Old -- New
 * E3b1 -- E1b1b1 (fine)
 * E3b E1b1b (fine)
 * E3 -- E1b1 (fine)
 * E E1b (NO!...so we have to skip two mutations for the sake of the Psychological comfort of the old name?!)

I have a general understanding why Many "E3b" people are stubbbbboringly holding on to the old name E3b, Whats disturbing me is that their insistance on using E3b ruins the E1b1b tree in the process! Cadenas2008 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b1a
I think that E1b1b1a probably is significant enough a topic that it deserves its own page. Normally one would say 'at some point' but given that it is pushing five levels on the section headers, it probably been beyond that point for a while. The synopsis is pretty well handled in subclads of E1b1b1 so that you could simply do a under the section head after no or a very breif introduction.PB666 yap 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It would not be too difficult to create the page, I would take the intro material from the E1b1b page copy and edit it and mesh it with the intro of E1b1b1a in E1b1b1 section. Add references (copy all references and delete the ones not needed).PB666 yap 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you review this E1b1b1a phylogeny.png and see if the info on it is correct, I had a hard time extracting the sub-clades from the E1b1b1a pagePB666 yap 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

re:removal of post etc
Okay Andrew, yes no misunderstanding in that repects,i am just removing post of recent sock puppetry,me myself am not trying to eradicate every old post by wapondaponda etc etc,but his socks have taken a very keen interest in me and User:SOPHIAN so i figure i will keep a sharp eye out for his socks and do the encyclopedia a favor by reporting his socks and help remove there edits--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

i anserwed you back on my page,but i will say i hope you guys are making room at that article for minority views as long as they are reliable sourced particulary when dealing with a subject such as genetics--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe
Let me point out the logical problem. 1. I am for a page that discusses point to point migrations, Say NW African admixture into Iberia, or Ancient Nubian/Egyptian admixture into the Aegean region, the problem is that there is a pretty hard case for Sub-saharan admixture since the distance is great and the likely hood of having enough individuals to make that journey successfully and detect is hard. 2. Logical problem, all humans have ancestors that came out of SSA, I think Tishkoff is now pointing toward the southern rift valley lakes region. I could write a page on the topic, it would be much shorter and avoid the garbage science, there are some interesting aspects, most of it would be OR and synthesis. Nothing really encyclopedic about the topic yet until a WP:RELY source appears.PB666 yap 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * a. In the context of a page NW African admixture in Iberia one can talk about the genetic origins of peoples in NW Africa, and the consequence of gene flow after admixture.
 * b. In that specific context one can also discuss counterflow (such as Iberian gene flow into NW Africa)[I have a new paper out that documents this]
 * a. So any page that deals with this topic neccesarily has to establish a time frame which means the genetic evidence needs to be such the TMRCAs can be established for particular markers in europe, etc.
 * b. corroborating archaeology and paleoanthropology?

On another subject here are some references on a very long haplotype: HLA_A3-B7-DR15-DQ6

The HFE - A3-cw7-B7-DR15-DQ6.2 haplotype appears to be one of the longest known stable haplotypes in the human genome with estimated ages exceeding 7000 years (My estimate) the paper claims A29-Cw16-B44 recombined with A3-B7 much earlier, I don't think the A29-B44 haplotype was in Europe prior to the Younger Dryas. These monsters are for some reason stable across long distances and Europe is some crazy center of haplotype stability. Some of the detected haplotypes that are spread about Europe are over 6.5 million nt in length. (The second paper has A A-V as one of the authors so .. . . ).PB666 yap 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * [Previous paragraph was removed]SOPHIAN appears to be disparately trying to avoid deletion of the page.
 * 19:20, 18 July 2009 Bjweeks deleted "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe" (Result of AfD)
 * 15:04, 19 June 2009 Stifle deleted "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe" (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
 * 22:14, 18 June 2009 SOPHIAN moved "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe" to "Recent North African and Near eastern Admixture in Europe"
 * 02:40, 7 September 2006 Centrx restored "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe" ‎
 * 02:38, 7 September 2006 Centrx deleted "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe"
 * I was going to add some references for this but I guess I will pass for now. I am going to set-up a sub-page for evidence of Recent Africa genetic contributions to the Greeks on one of my pages to address this issue.PB666 yap 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Afroasiatic
Thank you so much for looking and fixing this article. Wow, it needed work as it was just a mess. I hope to find more actual linguistics data on it. Since this is your talk page, what are your views on any possible Urheimat for AA or the validity of AA at least with respects to Omotic. Cheers Azalea pomp (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, if no one uses this study or this haplogroup to make a claim against the Ancient Egyptians being black, then I will acknowledge what you are saying. But if an editor, lets say Wikiscribe, comes to the Ancient Egypt debate and brings up E1b1b haplotypes, will you do the honor and tell him what you just told me and refute him? So If we read the words "The Ancient Egyptians couldn't be black, because the E1bhb haplogroup is found/not found blah blah blah" on any race debate about the Ancient Egyptians you will know then why I said what I said in that article. --Panehesy (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Elb1b reduction
Now that ...a page has been created are we going to see a reduction of E1b1ba section on the E1b1b page, have the references that rely on this section been adequately redone, what's the hold up on this page?PB666 yap 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the E1b1b1a subclad sections from E1b1b page and rearranged the page somewhat. The page is half descent now. The wording for E-M81 talking about E-W clines in STR variation and the western mode is a bit hard to follow. It took 3 reads to understand what is to be understood.PB666 yap 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe
After watching this article over the last few days, I consider the situation hopeless. 2 or 3 editors are ruining the article. I think it should probably deleted or rewritten from scratch at this point. Section are removed and rewritten with a non-neutral POV. The article is mature enough now that this type of daily editing should have subsided. I see it is listed under Human Genetic History Project as one needing improvement. What it needs is Administrative oversight and possibly page protection.PB666 yap


 * I have entered an entry for the article under NPOV in hopes we can get more administration attention for the WikiWar that is going on and off the page. I don't really expect much to become of this but . . . .PB666 yap 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe.PB666 yap

New AfD
Afd for African_admixture_in_Europe.PB666 yap 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New Images
Andrew, I have created several images over in the commons. . I know these files probably have a few errors or oversights, I don't think the data is complete since they are based on Semino et al 2004.PB666 yap 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There has to be more data than this out there. I am not going to even attempt a contour map, because of the OR issue and also because without substantially more data, how reliable are these. One issue, the HLA studies differentiated Algerian berbers, are there any studies of Y that differentiated algerian or tunisian berbers? Are there any studies that looked at the Ivory and Gold Coasts? What about Egypt and Libya? Some of the studies Semino includes are bottom-of-the-bucket statistics. Essentially arguing that there is 0 when only 30 to 50 males have been typed, at least by HLA standards is not 0.PB666 yap 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One way to improve this wiki: http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Kujanova_et_al._%282009%29. is to provide a Map for the subpopulation that was typed, for example what are the boundaries in which their immediate ancestors come from. Anyway thanks for the pointers. I think that given that these paints are going to come from several sources, I need to present each source on the commons-page for the graphic, so that the sources are transparent. I had to clean up all of Small Victories mtDNA frequencies on Genetic His.. because he failed to properly divulge the source and he converted absolute frequencies to %'s which I have no great problem with but unfortunately that falls under statistics-original research. PB666 yap 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Let me know if you really can not get to the new article about Syria and Lebanon etc. Can you give me a PMID on this one?PB666 yap 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The data can be found in the supplementary material, or specifically this table. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have completed most of the additions between the two Cruciani studies. EM-81 is no-data on many samples in EM-78, the reason for the gaps. Some areas the need to be filled are in both are Chad, Interior of Spain, Galicia(sp), Switzerland, Izibans, Malta, Jordan, S. Arabia, etc. More coverage of the Ivory & Gold coasts. Since you know where to find the info if it is available what I am going to do is going to give you the divider between the color scales that way you can modify the maps in paint. The way to do this is simple use the eye-dropper to pick a color off the paint scale which includes the % and use the paint bucket to fill the area. Also with regard to Sudan, the HLA studies are picking up major differences between peoples within the sudan, particularly those living on the lowest nile within the country. I suspect that Y-chromosomal breakdown will follow the same pattern as this is seen between Egyptian berbers and southern Egyptians and between different Ethiopians and different Kenyan groups. Ergo in terms of complexity the proxi-nile region is going to show the greatest frequency changes per geographic distance. You may find errors in the maps or things you think should change, please feel free. The values between color boundaries start with 100% each subsequent boundary = 0.79370052598 of the previous boundary. This can be generated on Excel quickly. I paint zero values as 0 to 0.1% because using zero (pure white) on maps with with white  boundaries makes it difficult to repaint different colors later. The new images are not up yet but will be soon. I will indicate here once they have been uploaded.PB666 yap 04:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops, yes I painted serbia with Slovakia. I have to get back to EM-78. Its not complete yet.PB666 yap 05:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

El-Sibai et al.
The paper is available online but was not listed on the main page, but one has to look under early view, it was the only paper. I don't think this paper can be used, the problem is that the authors did not subtype E1b1b1 into a, b, or c, despite that they used papers from other sources that were subtyped. They did to STR data but unfortunately the STR data cannot be aligned with a, b, or c. In addition they also separated Syria into 4 zones, but they did not look present the breakdown of which samples came from which zone. The data in Supplimentary table 5 is useful, if not difficult to dissect and is available from other sources, anyway.PB666 yap 01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one aspect of the paper, this comes from the backdrop of what happened to mtDNA in 2001 to 2003 with respect to sequencing, again the cause as I will illustrate, is different the the effect might be the same. The authors go onto say migration and back-migration between the Levant and North Africa were evidence from the haplogeography of haplogroup E1b1b1 and its hapltye network structure.They go on to discuss the movements of moroccans back into the middle east after the displacement of spanish moors. The problem however with this hypothesis lies in Figure 5. There is alot of reticulation (for an analysis of reticulation see bandelts work on asian mtDNA from the 2003-2005 period) within their star diagrams, and the bigger problem when looking at the supplimentary material is that different STRs were shared across different E1b1b1 subtypes (*, a, b, and c) from studies that did type these. This is OK if an STR is shared between E1b1b1 and a daughter clad, but only version per site is allowed one can not have multiple STRs for a given site shared because then it implies that a, b, or c are not descent by common ancestry.

The problem here is that subtyping may have resolved these reticulations and that these reticulations may not be as commonly shared across different populations. Consequently the failure to subtype E3b after it was known that subtypes have widely different geographic structures is a major flaw in this paper and it should have been revised prior to publication.

As to the cause, Bandelt was able to show with mtDNA that reticulations except at a few sites (e.g. 16129 or 16189) that were hypervariable were largely due to sequencing errors. While this cannot be ruled out, more recent studies of Y have shown that different STRs have different stabilities and that some STRs evolve rather rapidly with noticable reversion within the extant generations. This is most likely the source, and therefore the primary source of information must be the SNP, with STR supporting addition information, but it is neither conclusive about joining ancestry. THis is a warning, particularly to Muntuwandi about using the discussion section of this paper as the results are somewhat speculative.
 * I haven't read the main article as I don't have access to elsevier. I did see some subtyping in supplementary material though it is the information has not been compiled. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SSA Section
Any change I make Small Victory will and has reverted. Small Victory does not seem to understand what Wikify means. My priority right now is to get the maps complete after I finish this unexpected venture into Eve. I have a couple more things I want to do with that page.

What about this idea, since African Admixture in Europe is a keep, I want to try to improve that page and maybe take a synopsis back to the Genetic History of Europe.

Here's the basic problem, for me, I don't think we can go talking about genetics without providing the appropriate eye-candy, either in the form of diagrams, maps or tables. If I spend alot of time trying to fix bad edits, the eye-candy is not going to get built, so it is better for me to spend my time creating the media than arguing with extremist.PB666 yap 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

El Sibai
El Sibai seem to agree with Arredi 2004's assertion of a middle eastern dispersal E1b1b1 back into Africa. The E1b1b1 frequency gradient, considered in the light of the haplotype diversity, suggests an early migration (Neolithic) from the Levant into North Africa that is consistent with a limited gene flow into Africa followed by a rapid expansion and later punctuated by some back migrations as a result of migratory events in the Mediterranean (Arredi et al.,2004). Wapondaponda (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What did I say above The problem here is that subtyping may have resolved these reticulations and that these reticulations may not be as commonly shared across different populations. Consequently the failure to subtype E3b after it was known that subtypes have widely different geographic structures is a major flaw in this paper and it should have been revised prior to publication.

I said this just for you and you went ahead and ignored it anyway. PB666 yap 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

R1a postings from Jamesdean3295
Please explain to me why you think r1a is a domainant haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. ==

You said that I was trying to dismiss r1a in Southcentral Asia by calling it a pocket. If you look at the map that is clearly what it is. There is a corridor from Russia to Southcentral Asia that ends in a "pocket" or "bubble" or round shaped geographical area, of which the center, where r1a actually reaches more than 50% is an extremely small area compared to the European R1a.

R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men.Jamesdean3295

Regardless of weather or not you like my sources you have yet to sight a single source that proves that R1a1 surpasses 15% in Southcentral Asia.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you sited this pub med article to me on my talk page to illustrate that R1a surpasses 15% in India.



This article states that in the Indian sample R1a accounted for 15%.

Here is another article that says from 15 different tribes in India the average R1a was only 9%



The fact is that India is very Tribal and the different Tribes in India have varying degrees of R1a, but I think that the general consensus is that R1a does not surpass 15% if you factor in the entire population of India. I think that all of the evidence supports my theory that R1a only reaches high frequencies in certain tribes within South Asia.

As far as Central Asia R1a only reaches high frequency in Kyrgyzstan where R1a averages 35-40%. In Kazakhstan R1a only accounts for approximately 5%. The Uzbeks only average approximately 15%.

The Pub Med article said that in Pakistan R1a accounted for approximately 25%.

--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove that R1a does not reach high frequency in Central and South Asia. I would be delighted if the majority of South and Central Asians belonged to R1a. Most of the Sources that I have seen suggest that R1a in India accounts for 15-20% of the male population. It would be impossible for anyone to be entirely sure given the vast population of South and Central Asia.

South Asia typically consists of Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Republic of India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, Tibet, the British Indian Ocean Territories and Iran. 

Central Asia is defined like this. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Other areas are often included such as Mongolia, Afghanistan, most of Pakistan, north-eastern Iran, north-western India, and western parts of the People's Republic of China such as Xinjiang. South-western and middle China such as Tibet, Qinghai, Gansu and Inner Mongolia, and southern parts of Siberia may also be included in Central Asia. 

I have seen different statistics on the percentage of R1a in Pakistan, but the pub med article that I sighted earlier said that in their sample R1a accounted for 25%. If you look at this map and the map on the R1a page. It looks like their is a thin stream of R1a that goes through Central Asia and rapidly decreases to either side. Furthermore the map on the R1a web page clearly shows that R1a only exists in the far North of India. The map illustrates that most of South and Central Asia is absent R1a. According to the world Haplogroups Map R1a accounts for 30-40% in North India and 5% in the South. Kyrgyzstan is shown as being 30-40%. Persia or Iran is shown to be 15% or more, which is also the figure given for Iran on Eupedia. Uzbeks are shown to 15% or more. Kazakhstan is shown to be 5%. Tibet is also shown to be 5%. If you factor in what would be the Russian part of Central Asia, those populations are shown to be 25%. 

I have looked at all of the Asian Listings that you gave on the web sight and they clearly show that R1a frequencies vary from 70% in some South and Central Asian groups to Zero in others. To me it looks like R1a accounts for anywhere from 15-25% of the South and Central Asian populations depending on what Geographical areas you factor in.

It seems to me that their are still conflicting opinions in the academic community on this subject. I am sure as time progresses more information will be available on R1a in South an Central Asia.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate all of your advise. Are you actually affiliated with Wikipedia, because it sounds like you are quit sure of your opinions. Well whatever your qualifications maybe everyone has a right to have an opinion. I was wondering why you keep telling me not to sight the map on Wikipedia. You just sighted Wikipedia to me in the last message you sent me. You have your sources and that's great. It maybe that R1a is as high as 30% in Pakistan but, I'd say that's disputable. It sounds like you are really trying to prove that R1a reaches high frequency in Asia. Good luck, remember that the term South Asia doesn't necessarily even include Pakistan. What needs to happen is that samples need to be taken from many different parts of each country and from that you could come up with an accurate average, but then you would have to factor in all the different tribes, their frequency of R1a and what percentage of the population belonged to each tribe. --Jamesdean3295 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to get into an edit war, but please stick to the normal page format. List countries and tribes of highest membership along with percentages. West Asia is the Middle East and R1a is only 5-10% there. Don't take stuff down about the Vikings, that is the kind of thing that makes this interesting, unless you don't like Vikings, but most people do. Maybe you should lay off the percentages a little and write something about the connection between the Proto-Indo-Europeans and how they came to be or something.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster stated that it was important to note that R1a is carried by an extremely large number of Asians.

The Percentages of R1a in Central and South are disputable. What is not disputable is that South Asia had far fewer people just decades ago. From 1991-2001 the population of India increased by 21%. This is a ridiculously fast pace of population growth for a Country that is already extremely overpopulated. Pakistan is even more densely poplulated. These countries have a major population control issue. 

Numbers of males belonging to R1a in these areas have dramatically increased over the last century. R1a likely was at a range of 15-20% in these areas a century ago as it is today. The population of India has more than tripled in the last 50 years.

To say that, just because, these areas have an extreme population explosion problem that they are the origin of R1a is ridiculous. I would characterize Central and South Asia as having major overpopulation problem but not as have high levels of R1a within those populations.

The actual number of men carrying the R1a lineage in South and Central Asia is not relevant, the Percentage of males carrying the R1a lineage is, when describing areas of High Frequency of R1a.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The population issue is important when discussing the number of males carrying the R1a lineage in Asia. ==

I think this is a relevant issue not only in the discussion that you and I are having but also to the entire Asian R1a topic.

I think it is important to post these comments on both pages because I was responding to your argument, but I hope that others will join this discussion so that we can get other opinions on the topic.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for looking after the R1a article, Andrew. I had noted it as a problem spot for some time but I never had the heart to tackle it. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve
So it comes down to meaning that they give older common ancestor estimates?

I am going to deal with issue the mitochondrial Eve page under a section called Implications under coalesence times. There is ploidy and there is effective ploidy (a mythological nomenclature that is akin to unreal numbers) mtDNA and Y are treated as haploids but mtDNA is monoploid DNA. However it can only be passed by females, therefore it is effectively haploid in its behavior. This is not a far step, however the next step is effective numbers or ratios in a population. For example about 1/2 the number of effective males pass Y as females pass mtDNA, ergo in coalescence theory mtDNA is behaving with an effective ploidy of 0.66 and Y is behaving with an effective ploidy of 0.33. Remember the Superduper computer in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, we have to play the same experiment. What this means is if we placed humans in an infinite number of evolution trails, and we had no information about chromosomal segregation, we could look at the fixation plots for loci and sort loci according to the ratios 0.33, 0.66, 1.66 and 2.0, because the median fixation times would plot .66*generations, 1.33*generations, 3.33*generations, and 4 times generations. If we inverted the 2N rule, IOW divided these values by median fixation generation/2 we would argue according to coalescence theory that the loci had ploidy of 0.33, 0.66 1.66 and 2. However we would be running our little experiment for a very long time, with great risk of the subjects smacking us with a hot plate, so to speak, trying to assess the ploidy of HLA loci. The reason for this is that apparently we can sense our HLA, we (mostly women) make decisions about mating based on HLA (the sweaty T-shirt experiment). Animals are much better at this. Survival also depends somewhat on HLA diversity, and the risk of cancer and certain autoimmune disease is higher in homozygotes. (E.g.Coeliac Disease) The risk of disease in homozygotes is 6 times higher than heterozygotes. If you are truely interested in balancing selection and TMRCAs I suggest the following reading.
 * The review by Shaffner (easy reading)
 * Naoyuki Takahata-Allelic genealogy and Human Evolution
 * N. Takahata-Testing Multigreiognality of Modern HUman Origins.
 * Hey and Harris (I forget the year 1998 or 7)
 * Harris and Hey, 1998
 * If you can get it, Critical Reviews in Immunology 1995, Watkins. Page 1
 * The Myth of Eve (from a different perspective). Science. 1995 Dec 22;270(5244):1930-6.
 * Population biology of antigen presentation by MHC class I molecules. Science. 1996 Apr 5;272(5258):67-74.

The last paper is interesting and explains why Ayala's paper was a misstep. While it is true there was no Adam and Eve bottleneck, Ayala failed to comprehend the reflexive nature of HLA to diversity. In the last paper they characterized class I loci in South America, they found a large number of new alleles, what Takahata says about HLA recombination is true, at times intergenic recombination is slow, in fact classical intragenic (meaning long range recombination through HLA) genes is not what we would think. However what Watkins, Parham and Ohta found is that a special form of recombination gene conversion was working at the HLA, this recombination was previously thought to be a labratory trick in molecular biology. Now, of course it has been recognized on many sites. But at HLA, in terms of non-synonomous changes gene conversion dominates (or appears to dominate) and thus in South America the first migrants went through the Isthmus bottleneck, this pruned diversity, selection responded by increasing diversity of HLA alleles by retaining new gene-convertants in the population. I had a discussion with one of my colleages at the college who argues that gene-conversion is an abortive form of recombination and this generally is unproductive (we dont see the results). What Ayala failed to see is that the HLA favor surrogates for site mutations using this form of recombination, if one is not aware of this, one begins surmised TMRCAs that are really ancient, and they may be, however reducing the clutter we have 14 HLA-DRB1 that appearred to have passed though the population constriction whereas we only have one mtDNA and one Y (there are now >700 HLA-DRB1). So balancing selection of this type will prevent TMRCAs from occuring, and gene conversion may make exaggerate the apparent age between branch points of alleles preserved as a consequence of balancing selection. Shaffner makes the point as well as anyone can make it, we cannot rely on a single locus to tell a story. Not only do different loci have different selection constraints, but also by simple random chance even in a constant population we expect fixation times to range from 0.5 to 5.0 times the median fixation time at 96% confidence. With so many genes in the genome of course we are going to find a few that don't fix at 10 times or 20 times the median time, this does not mean they had a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees or gorillas, as some have interpreted (MX1 locus as an example). The way we can place this in laymans terms, imagine a population size as a room size. Imagine a new allele as a point in next center of the room which at the exact center is a hole, and imagine that a person in the center of the room then randomly walks in several directions until he hits a wall (fixes) or the hole (exclusion). Ploidy increases the size of the room, however selection may attract the subject to the wall (positive selection) or to the hole above the center (negative selection). Alternatively selection as two opposing forces on the person keeping it away from the hole and keeping it also away from the wall. If one can imagine dropping new persons in the room, the room eventually gets very crowed, because no-one is leaving the room. Now add gene coversion, two players can touch and create a new player, the room gets more crowded. In real life evolution doesn't play games - Fastest evolving loci?


 * Hey, with regard to the article, I found it to have numerous errors in it. Concerning Japan I have been there and was entertained at an archaeological institute there. The discussion of Japanese prehistory is largely erroneous in that article compared to what I've learned. I would be happy to discuss the reasons why however its pertinence here is questionable. This is one area where I am studied, the other regard was constitutes a PMRCA, as present evidence suggest a region of Tanzania or points to the west is a likely place of expansion of AMHs. Sample densities for many studies types are not high, yet in these regions. Even Shaffners paper X-linked studies have not delved deeply into this region. Findings of exoafrican PMRCA may be nothing more and fortuitous associations and/or undersampling.PB666 yap
 * The error I want to address however is Hammer's claim of Erectine HS intermixing. Again I use HLA as a guide. If one considers a track of human migration from East Africa to Australia, and if one assumes that most recent alleles that have entered by migration are tracable from elsewhere and are in linkage disequilibrium (they are, and are mostly from west pacific rim, east Asians) then what we see that as one has moved from India to Australias aboriginal peoples diversity dropped. I test the hypothesis of whether diversity increased around flores Island (remembering that HLA tend to capture and preserve diversity when other loci tend to loose diversity except under extreme population events). No such increase in diversity was seen in either Sumatra or around Java, quite the opposite, diversity dropped for HLA-A, A2402 almost fixed in some peoples. I scoured the literature and databases of new alleles or groups that must be evident with admixture, none were found of any consequence.PB666 yap
 * Hey and Tiskoff published recently on the pitfalls of sampling, and now it is quite clear that undersampling in certain parts of Africa will give false impressions and interpretations. The study indicates the pitfalls of sampling methodologies. This is something I predicted more than 15 years ago, that despite even this best sampling effort, recent fixation in Africa, and fortuitous mutations outside of Africa while make some loci appear (as a well of diversity) exo-african in origin. In addition I also pointed out there was a core region of SSA and that specifically undersampling in this unknown core region would result in the highest risk of a false conclusion. For the HLA there is B48 which is Asian/Native America, and, more or less, the mode is in the Orochon of NE China, ESE Russia. Hammer finds evidence for things I would strongly resist calling evidence without an appropriate sample size. Unlike Hammer I make no claim about HLA-B48 except to argue that its origins are ambiguous, as for genetic contribution from regionals into the islandic Indopacific, there is no evidence what-so-ever for genetic contributions to AMH populations that crossed during expansion from Africa. If indeed B48 constitutes interpopulation gene flow, given HLA diversity, it would have likely represented 1 to, at most, 5 intermixing events. MX1 locus is an example of a locus that appeared have this melansian contributions with Hap4 and Hap5 and a well of diversity in the East (the other well, as with many other X-linked loci and HLA is in central Africas baka pygmies). For years this is the best evidence the MREH group had put forth. However, later publications showed that there is no evolution of the MX1 in any other apes making the TMRCA in humans 5 to 10 million years in age (and In Asia). Henceforth the locus was found is under selection within the tropics and that rare mutations may have undergone positive selection (or purifying selection) and this explained the increased number of haps in Asia. Ergo one has to be very careful in interpreting or giving credit to those who interpret these findings.
 * Human population structure, by HLA. There are several competing models of how humans spread, demic diffusion is one, diffusion with intial migration is another. HLA haplotypes preserve intial diversity, the evident patterns suggests bands (or streaks) of migration have occurred over time, these have typically occurred between intermediate zones, for example we see evidence of migrations from Kyushu, Ryukyu region or Manchuria/Korean peninsula down to Austronesia, but not from say Eastern Siberia. Two major streaks from SW to NE have made their way across Asia, one appears to have initiated from NEAfr/Levant and the other from the Sahel via the Indus river.

One sees evidence of pehistoric migrations from west in the East Asia, but not from Ireland into East Asia, we can make the case of migrations from the Horn of East Africa into Iberia, but not from the !kung into Europe. How far back in history the discrete intermediate range migrations took place is unknown. In the case of Africa, if certain alleles and haplotypes are scraped of then the hunter-gather population looks quite stable, same with Australia. IOW there is strong evidence in HLA for Serial assymetric expansions in which processes of migration eventually lead to the culling of allele frequencies, these are mostly evident outside of Africa, however the origin of some recent migrations appear to be African. In this background, alleles like HLA-B48 may be explained by discrete migration from Africa, and undersampling within Africa. Ergo I am very cautious to draw conclusions as Hammer has.PB666 yap 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

the r1a artcile change
Hi Andrew. Sorry, I'm a newbie. I didn't realize i had to use the talk page untill now.

''"I suggest you read you should always read through any article you want to edit, and check whether all of what you are saying is relevant, and in the right section and whether it has already been inserted by others. " ''

- As for how it fits, I tried to make it fit, but English is not my mother tongue which is a major problem for this kind of exercice (i'm that calabasas guy in the discussion page of R1a you may remember). Noone adding these informations, I thought I would try to do it.

- I checked and I didn't see anything about any of the informations I mentionned.

You say that the Eulau findings has been mentionned but I wasn't able to find it in the article with research w/ words such as "Eulau" or "corded" & "ware". Can you help me to see it ?

- As for the wrong section, yes, that was a blunder, sorry for that and thanks for your patience.

Your revision of my input seems to leave too much informations aside.

"Blond Hair and Blue eyes have nothing to do with this article."

On the contrary, a siberian (and strongly supposed to be indo-iranian) population with a majority of such characteristics in its population, is very likely to have its origin close to Europe. Phenotypes do have an hinting value here. This gives even more probatory strength concerning the origin of this R1a1 WHICH is the _purpose_ of the section.

also :

- You removed the percentages which IMO are pretty meaningful, especially in their historical context.

- The Kazkhstan findings have been discarded. While they do not mention R1a1, they do prove that the population was of west eurasian origin. Later findings have shown that R1a was present in this region in bronze age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggg (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

R1a/R1a1 (Nasidze) Iran
Dear Andrew if you take a look at the table on http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf Tehrani carry 0.2 = 20% R1a1 Isfahani carry 0.18 = 18% R1a1 The chart on that page confirms it too, R1a1 = sky blue What I edited was correct, —Preceding unsigned comment added by R1000R1000 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps
I am going back to work on the maps, for a time the first will be EM-78. What needs to be done to improve it?PB666 yap 03:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the following table Table 1 Y-chromosome  Hg frequencies (%) and heterogeneities (H7SD) in Iberian populations I notice that there is no information in this table concerning E3b1a (E1b1b1a)?PB666 yap 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with IberianM817201samples.gif is too much detail, the frequencies differ from other studies, however I supposed I can append that data onto the current map. I am going to work from the Cruciani data for M-78. You noted that Serbian frequencies were too low, I moved the misplaced coloration to Slovenia, but is there Serbian, Bosnian or Kosovar data. From there I will work toward M-35* and E1b1b1c. I notice that the Admins have finally figure SV out, i expect we will see more sockpuppets.PB666 yap 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History. Hisham Y. Hassan,1 Peter A. Underhill,2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza,2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim1*. They break down Sudan very nicely, however they fail to give percentages. The do a good job illustrating where they sampled from however, if this data was broken down according to percent, the it would be fair game for the map.PB666 yap 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going through Cruciani data on M35*, the differences between older studies is pretty remarkable. Am I making the assumption here that Cruciani assigned these older M35* to other clad, and Am I also making an assumption in saying that if the do full sequencing on Somalian and South African M35 that these may be assigned to new clades? Is this the reason the map is saying, if so the M35* Map is not of much utility.PB666 yap 01:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Cruciani data here There is an apparent error under the column heading M123+(Always M78+) I think you meant Always M35+, if not pipe me a reply.PB666 yap 03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

E-M33
Is there any recent data for E-M33?PB666 yap 15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

E-M123
Errors on this page: The values for Semino 2004 are presented as percentages in Table 1, Ergo Algeria 3.1% of 32 = 1 (0.992) of 32 the same was also confirmed for Tunisia 5.2% of 58 = 3 (3.016) however in the table these are presented as 9.69% and 8.97% IOW a percent was treated absolute frequency and used to calculate a percent. You can verify this by comparing column Hg E (%) in Table 1 to the some of all subclads. As per the discussion, whenever I am using external controls if they have not given control absolute frequencies, then first their percents are converted back to absooute frequencies, I have found numerous errors that way. The next think I do is to create a single selection probability distribution. Looking at the E-M123_data page you can see the value of doing that. I also now have to correct the map for E123.PB666 yap 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Omani Arabs should be 10% not 0.10%


 * On monday, I will see if I can find the paper. PB666 yap 07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what I think you are looking for.

They do not give a table of what these Haplotypes are I gathered the following M122 (M134 and LINE-1/M159) 24–30% M17(SRY-1532, SRY10831) Salar (17%)  Bo’an (26%) and Dongxiang (28%), M130 Salar (7%), Bo’an (3%), and Dongxiang (0%).

There are at least 4 other types present M45, M173, M9, M119, M95, M89/213, M172 in a very low quality graphical presentation. M45 Salar (4%), Bo’an (6%), and Dongxiang (9%) M173 Salar (4%), Bo’an (0%), and Dongxiang (4%) M9 Salar (10%), Bo’an (10%), and Dongxiang (18%) M119 Salar (3%), Bo’an (0%), and Dongxiang (0%) M95 Salar (18%), Bo’an (3%), and Dongxiang (2%) M89/213 Salar (0%), Bo’an (9%), and Dongxiang (4%) M172 Salar (9%), Bo’an (9%), and Dongxiang (11%) PB666 yap 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Albanians
Thanks you for being part of the discussion. What concerned me and some other editors in that article was the sentence that stated that Illyrians are extinct. While that could be the case, we can never be certain, so I required a more broader view on the issue. I tried to explain other theories concerning the issue, and the good thing is, it had a sort of success (for the first time with this Megistias guy) Here is his change. —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this text?

'''As for the fate of Illyrians in Illyria proper there is no consensus among historians. Traditionally scholars have seen the Illyrians as proto Albanians.(1)(2) Although this hypothesis makes geographic and historical sense(3) this is untestable since we know little about Illyrian(4) 'The competing hypotheses that derives Albanian from Thracian or Dacian are likewise untestable since little is known about them too(5)(6)''


 * (1)Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs, and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. ... However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493 p. 10
 * (2)Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society By Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill Edition: 2 Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2006 ISBN 3110184184, 9783110184181 p 1874
 * (3)The origins of the Albanians cannot be separated from the problem of assigning their linguistic ancestors to one of the three main groups of the Balkans:Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Although there are some lexical items that appear to be shared between Romanian (and by extension Dacian) and Albanian, by far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian. The latter was attested in what is historically regarded as Albanian territory since our records of Illyrian occupation. The loanwords from Greek and Latin date back to before the Christian era and suggest that the ancestors of Albanian must have occupied Albania by then to have absorbed such loans from their historical neighbors. As the Illyrians occupied Albanian territory at this time, they are the most likely recipients of such loans. Finally as Shaban Demiraj argues the ancient Illyrian placenames of the region have achieved their current form through the natural application of the phonetic rules governing Albanian eg Durrachion>Alb Durrës(with Albanian initial accent) or Illyrian Aulona> Alb Vlonë`Vlorë (with Albanian rhotacism in Tosk) (page 11) Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985
 * (4)"The widespread assertion that it is the modern-day descendant of Illyrian, spoken in much the same region during classical times, makes geographic and historical sense, but it is linguistically untestable since we know so little about Illyrian"..Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Author Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley and Sons, 2009 ISBN 1405188960, 9781405188968 p. 446 )
 * (5)"Competing hypotheses likewise untestable would derive Albanian from Thracian, another lost language farther east than Illyrian, or form Daco-Mysian, a hypothetical mixtor or ancestor of Thracian, Illyrian and the nearly unknown language of Dacia (a nearby Roman province)"Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Author Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley and Sons, 2009 ISBN 1405188960, 9781405188968 p. 446
 * (6)The linguistic records of Illyrians Thracians and Dacians are just sufficient to make it reasonably certain that they were all Indo-European. Nothing known of them so far shows any particular connection with what we know of Albanian Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985 p. 9

Is it ok? Aigest (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was making two discussions at the same time. So you were right. I was saying that there should be a categorization of information. Illyrian-Albanian theory is among the oldest and most accepted theory of Albanian origins. (As you can see by sources that Aigest provided, and there are many many more), however since it is just a theory, it should be treated as such. So a good (if not equal) amount of space should be given to other theories too. The main challenge in all this issue is politics. The article should be formed in such a way that NO (as less as possible) political connotation can be present. So even small details are of great importance. And it is on these details that the problem lays. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think discussion should continue on the article talkpage. My main concern was that people should not try to press too hard for anything which is unlikely to ever be agree by others. For example, I think everyone is now agreeing that pushing for any kind of text which proclaims that there is a clear leading theory will be controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the text describes the situation perfectly. Even the google test supports it
 * Albanian+Illyrian 1,740,000 results
 * Albanian+Dacian 345,000 results
 * Albanian+Thracian 144,000 results

Practically every book published by non biased scholars regarding Albanian topics, history sociology etc maintains that view. If this is correct or not that is another issue but generally when a book is written about Albanians says that without going in details. Keeping in mind that this is the oldest theory since 1854 (Hahn)and continuing through these days, still have more support while being very common place for authors to say that "Albanians descend from Illyrians" in English published sources, therefore the "traditional" view (I am not saying scientific view) is quite the correct term to be used. Aigest (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is certainly a well known and common theory. No doubt about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b1b
I noticed in the text on the E1b1b page that a number of percentages are given for various sites that are not currently updated in the image, including the western Desert for egypt. Are these additional percentages correct?PB666 yap 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bar Yosef 1987
I noticed you cited this article, Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective in your publication. I haven't been able to access the article, but I was interested in finding out more about the publication for the article on the Natufians. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Berber people
The article Berber people has a few sections on genetics. The sections are quite detailed but may need some tweaking. I will take a look, but I think some contributions from you could improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Age of R1a
Hello Andrew. I reverted a poster's claims about the age of R1a, but I may have erred. In any case, I felt like this should be discussed and agreed upon on the talk page, as it's such a potentially divisive topic. I do see some discussion there, but wasn't sure there was any sort of concensus – nor any good, verifiable recent estimate from experts. You might want to take a look. All best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently Karafet et al. (2008) give a TMRCA for R1a of 18,000 years. I see other guesses as young as 7,000 years. I'll keep looking into this, but it appears we may need to rejigger the age dates. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

R1 clade
I was getting to updating the cladogram, adding subbranch 334 when I noticed the following:
 * R1-R1a : M420, M449, M511, M513
 * R1a-R1a1 : M448, M459, M516
 * R1a1-R1a1a : M17, M198, M417, M512, M514, M515, Page7
 * R1a1a8: Page68

These additional mutations, which I did not consider increases the age of R1 branch and R1a branching, but decrease the age of the M1a1a clade. Are we going to add these new mutations to the branch diagram or would it be better to footnote these, I notice also the that R1a page defining mutations is obsolete.

''SRY1532.2 also known as SRY10831.2 has normally been said to define R1a. M17 and M198 define the very dominant sub-clade usually called R1a1. (They always appear together so far.)'' PB666 yap 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what my concern was. The L62 and L63 mutations are missing, whereas the have M420, M449, M511, M513. Note they did not underline any of the 4, which means either they don't know, or these are additional mutations. The problem with SNP clocking is that it appears they have no idea how many mutations there are between any well studied haplotype and the seqMRCA.


 * We are going to need an R1a1a page. Cadenas2008 created the page on October 24th, sure would have been nice if he had told someone. I am going to start working on refining that page.PB666 yap 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I suggested Haplogroup R1a1a (Y-DNA) not R1a1a1. This is from Nortvert A Closing Note of Caution:  A TMRCA estimate for a pair of present-day haplotypes is a fairly blunt tool at best, and it is easy to read too much into it. The statistical conﬁdence intervals for such estimations are very wide, even if very high conﬁdence in the underlying mutation model for the markers were at hand, which is not yet the case.  But with that caveat, if the tool is to be used at all, it should not start from the very beginning with up to 100 percent error due to neglect of using information on the particular haplotypes involved.  Such information pertinent to the haplotypes under examination is now readily available in the present Y-STR databases—databases that are growing rapidly, especially for certain regions of the world.


 * You can't have a mutation model without a fairly complete set of mutations between clade branches. Given this, quantities of mutations in the peripheral branches relative to SNPs can give fairly good estimates particularly with bushy trees, is the long branches that give the most problem. Consider the following, Standard error = Variance/ (N)^0.5. If the number of branches is 4 versus 2 then the branch structure then the confidence range drops by 30%, if the branches then increase to 8 then the confidence range drops by another 30% and so on. The problem with STRs is saturation. The paper I am referring to observed saturation in the extant generations, and this is occurring in the rapidly evolving STRs. The mutation rate of SNPs are so low and so spread out over the Y chromosome reversals will only occur on disgenic sites, or extremely are hypervariable sites which can be masked if observed. As a tree coalesces toward a single point in a maximum parsimony analysis the individual age estimates are impeded by short branch lengths (binomial probability distribution can be easily done to replace Nortvert's Monte Carlo analysis). However the number of branches in the periphery increase the accuracy of determining more basal branch times. These time begin to loose accuracy as the tree collapses because there are fewer defining mutations with the branches until finally there are two branches. Very long branches also mask the effects of saturation, as reticulations that are visible in surface branches disappear in older branches.PB666 yap 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a1a
"Sharma et al. (2009) found 22.8% R1a*" - Did Underhill09 type these R1a* variants?PB666 yap 03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They did not type these variants, Sharma et al calls R1a1* R1a*, they typed no other version of R1*

Ergo these are R1a1*. J&K Brahmins had 2 of 51 R1a*(R1a1*) and this group did have unclassified R1*. Location appears to be in Datia.PB666 yap 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The R1a1a page was looking OK, IMHO. You are however right, I knew this was going to be complicated deal and I was hoping to create the page in a sandbox. However, it was already created. The R1a page is more of a problem. The material on the R1a1a was no less than a October 23rd variant of the R1a page, without modification and with no consideration of the inconsistencies, essentially a crop and plop split.

In returning to the old page the following decisison making needs to be made.
 * 1) Remove all content from the R1a1a page and redirect it to the R1a page.
 * 2) Return it to an almost R1a1a to a duplicate of R1a, which is most likely to be deleted and a merge placed on it, and I see it as likely that within several months the literature would force a split.
 * 3) Blank and Delete the R1a1a page.

3, at this point is out. 2 only forestalls the inevitable. State your concerns on either page and lets work to fix these.PB666 yap 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, please let's first create a situation where we can understand what we are reading. The removal of all the talkpage material here for example makes any discussion a joke.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, I think you are emotionally tied to a vision of the article WP:OWN

Lets take a look at the facts then.
 * 1) I have been cleaning up page after page after page, behind you guys edit warring.
 * 2) All most all of you references are incorrectly created, Harvtxt = ((Harvtxt|lastname1|lastname2|lastname3|lastname4|year)) not ((Harvtxt|lastname1 et al.|year)), and it is not encyclopedic to throw this referencing 4 or 5 to a sentence or in every single sentence.
 * 3) you created two identically named subclade sections.
 * 4) when I came across the article you had a list about 4 time the length of an exceptionally verbose article on a relatively minor subject.


 * 1) This is the current structure. It has major logical and substantive problems.
 * 4 Origins
 * 4.1 Central Asian Origin Theories
 * 4.2 Eastern European Origin Theories

Origin of what R1a or R1a1a? In case you haven't notices there were 10 new mutations added between the two, its you who needs to get your head around this. The origins of R1a and R1a1a as temporally separated by at least 10,000 years. In addition, since R1a1a is now two tiers above R1a and results from a single assymetric expansion event, R1as origins are no longer linked to the dispersion of R1a1a, the R1a* and R1a1* diversity are key to this issue, how much info do we have, nothing.

You wrote: "South Asian R1a older than European R1a. While neither group of authors took a decisive position, both articles felt the data consistent with South Asian origins. Mirabal et al. (2009) felt the data to also be consistent with Central Asian origins, while Underhill et al. (2009) took to be also consistent with Western Asian origins. In any case, the publication of these major articles, both with large panels of co-authors, makes the Asian origins the leading theory as of late 2009."

Underhill did not look at a single R1a* or R1a1* in India, not a single one, they only looked at R1a1a IOW their STR determinations were singly with R1a1a*. R1a1a is less than 15,000 years in age and may have originated in India. There is no concise inkling of information as to where R1a evolved, therefore theories of origin at the moment are out of the question. "Some geneticists now believe that R1b arose in Central Asia[3] or Western Asia.[2]

Belief of where R1b evolved is not enough to construct a theory of where R1a evolved. IOW the theories section does not meat the criteria of notability for R1a. The statement above you own and its become a central organizing concept of the origin section which suggests that by keeping the page as one you are going to keep confusing these two concepts. I ahve been telling you repeatedly that this needs to be deleted, and I did delete it, but you seemed fit to return this garbage.

If you think I am going to go away on this issue you are mistaken, I am going to keep on this issue until these sections are refactored. Wikipedia is not a modern age myth making machine. You have the facts now, where the basal branches of R1a are found (Where R1a* and R1a1 split based upon SNP are more definative than STR of R1a1a)

R1a1a appeared once, at a single point in time, during a single generation, with a single set of STR. The SNPs currently observed are derived from that single founder, and the STR that are observed are derived from that single founder. R1a's coalesce is dependent on this one founder, but also all the other versions of R1a that exist are of equal importance, more so since these have evolved since that founder lived.

You have even recapitulated the R1a* aspect of Underhills table. To perpetuate this myth any longer is a major distraction to the page.

What data is there for a Central Asian origin of R1a, other than R1b (which is in Europe) is there any phylogenetic marker that suggest R1a originated in Central Asia, any iota of evidence that R1a originate in Central Asia. And yet this continues to remain and its lousy, useless quotation and a subtitle theory, which it is not a theory. How come you took all the effort to destroy the R1a1a page but this remains??

What data is there for a Eastern European origin of R1a? Its stronger than a central asian origin, not one mention about a R1a's origin in SW asia even though R1a is found in Oman, Iran, UAE, and Turkey. And you claim I messed up the page. Geeze. The bronze age has absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the origins of R1a, in Underhill, it and the Migration age are discussions about how R1a1a* dispersed and nothing more.

4.2.1 End of the Ice Age R1a's origin may have been 20,000 years before the end of the ice age, the lineage that defines R1a from R1 and the lineage that defines R1a1 from R1a may have all occurred before the end of the Ice. With these new added mutations has anyone estimated the age of R1a or R1b. This is something we just don't know and cant reliable say. You might be able to argue when R1a1a evolved, but you have no idea at the moment when R1a evolved. You did not distinquish the fact that you were talking about R1a1a. That is a major Faux pas.

The reason I was asking you questions about Sharma et al was trying to confirm this or deny this, the R1a typing (R1a1) that they did does not do anything more than establish a presence in a tribe, a specific unclassified R1a1*type that may be homogenous in the tribe due to a recent founder affect. Based on underhills work in the same regions their cline map can be thrown out. IOW, we do not have sufficient enough data right now on the STR (which is probably useless at most sites due to saturation) for R1a and R1a1. Ergo, what do we have, nothing. All of its for R1a1a.

4.2.2 Bronze Age (Indo Europeans, Indo-Aryans, Kurgans and Horses) A dispersion theory. for R1a. And BTW, Underhill sets the outside age in the Neolithic, having a bronze age presense means that the distribution is at least as old as the bronze age.

4.2.3 Historic era (Slavic languages): Movements within Europe More dispersion theory

4.3 South Asian Origin Theories 4.4 South-West Asian Origin Theories These two have the most meaing for R1a1a, but for R1a again whose origin may be 20,000 years previous, we know almost nothing.

So tell me, who has screwed up the page. huh? Get your act together, you did not like the way I fixed it, if you don't like my edits, fine, simple deletion is an alternative.....No more mythologys.


 * Andrew, the time for arguing is over. Either the page improves or it does not, Marmadukes criticism aside, this page has existed since 2005, that is 4 years, and it is still start class. WP:BOLD is exactly for these circumstances where things do not move along. I have set a deadline, if you guys want to tag team revert what I do that is fine, I am not starting an edit war. Both of you agree with each other, if you cannot, in agreement find a way to bring that pages quality up to standard, then please step back. Read the class guidelines and work toward bringing the pages quality up. The reason the page is still start class is because of all the unwarranted speculation dressed up as theory.PB666 yap 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT, no, I believe that R1a1a would make a good article, it is easy to construct, and the nomenclature problems will catch up quickly with new publications. Second point, if your not working toward bringing up the articles status, then it is of no real benefit to the page. Have a page which has a section that is nothing more than a 'bag of old stale brain-farts' is not getting it, adding new versions of that is not either going to improve the page. I can lay this at you feet very simply.


 * Show one example of two haplotypes, either 1 R1a and 2 R1b types, or a number of R1a types that point that Central or West Asia is a place of origin for R1a. Show one scrap of evidence that the Central Asian or East Asian origin theory is viable. By this I mean show two haplotypes that have the expected SNP pairwise diversity that would indicate this is a PMRCA. I am not confusing the MRCA of R1a1a* with the lineage of R1a1a* evolution, we have to get past this first major sticking point to simply approach the other major problems. If we cannot agree on this foundational issue then I cannot work with you toward a concensus on this page.PB666 yap 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows you to used discretion with sources, sources which are excessively outdated can be rejected or the emphasis can be greatly downscale. I can't believe you would sit here and say, gee, I know that the theory in this paper is verifyably incorrect, there is no support for the data, it creates 2 or 3 contradictions, but I am going to present it anyway, place it in big-ass quotes and really not discuss why it was a big mistake, and in doing all of that defend 'absense of evidence' thinking. You don't even drop these theories into a science-history framework or 'major theories'/'minor theories' framework. The R1a1a page was no worse off that the crop and plop, which did not even attempt to resolve the nomenclature issues, and it is no worse off than the current R1a page, which has acute factual inaccuracies, IMHO. Give it up, unless you change the R1a page soon to reflect the current status, I am going to split off R1a1a to reflect the most solid aspects of the science, this spares me from having to delete the entire origins section which I wanted to do to begin with.PB666 yap 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than hyper-referencing, I can't see any evidence that you have worked toward bring the articles quality standard up. I admit i create alot of spelling errors, however given time I generally go back and correct these errors. Creating spelling and grammar errors is far less problematic relative to creating logical errors or discussing something like bronze age or slavic period origins with no background context, even when the context is clearly provided in the most recent literature. As far as readability is concerned, I have a manuscript in progress that discusses Poisson based Monte-Carlo analyses that is more readable than the Origins section is as it stands. The logical organization and fluidity of the section is poor, WP:SOFIXIT. see what you can do, maybe on saturday :^) I will change my mind, but arguing with me will definitely not change my mind.PB666 yap 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, as if you were in no hurry to delete the R1a1a page. Name one Y-DNA page that you have brought to class-B or A status. Lots of edits, lots on information added, very few pages that are class-B E1b1b is one example.

Genetic history of Europe- Start. Nicomachean Ethics-Start Hexis-Start Energeia-Start

At any point are you going to improve a page until it is a C-class or higher page? If you know of a way to improve the page to make it C or B class, you would have said, hold-on, I'm working on the problem, here is my outline to fix your or other critiques. Its not difficult, I've marked 50% of the critiques in the text now. IMHO, very seriously there are two distinct origin issues, one that can be addressed intelligently but is not for R1a, and the other can only be addressed by converting assumptions, refuting old publications, and alot of double talk. Solution, split off that which is cogent so that its origin discussion is pertinent to the page. Not a threat at all, its proposal for improving at least part of the article to elevate its class. Ask yourself the question:

Wells et al. (2001) Typed which (any) of the following L62, L63, M420, M449, M511, M513, SRY1532.2, M448, M459, M516, M17, M198, M417, M512, M514, M515, Page07 Semino et al. (2000) Same question Quintana-Murci et al. (2001) Same question Sengupta et al. (2005) Same question Sahoo et al. (2006) Same question Kivisild et al. (2003) Same question

Removal of the new cladogram and replacing it with the old cladogram is not only evidence of WP:OWN but also information suppression. The removal from the text of many of the above mutations may make it appear that the problem has disappeared, however it only avoids WP:NPOV. By removing what I consider to be critical information only increases the likelihood that I will split the page. Priority should be on the most recent, the most accurate and that can be crosscompared with other studies (i.e. sequence, not randomly selected markers).

In addition we have rooted an opinion of Sharma et al based on their typing R1* (Not R1b) AllBr. 5.47 Alltr. 1.47. Underhill tested many Brahmin and Tribal groups and found none. Good typing? Whose error? Tribes in which R1* (NotR1b) are found: Bihar Brahmin, Bihar Paswans, Gujarat Tribe, J&K Brahmin. Underhill typed the following:
 * India Birhor Chattishgarh 1 R1a1a 0 R1a 0 R1a1
 * India Birhor Maharashtra 1 R1a1a 0 R1a 0 R1a1
 * India Jammu (Brahmin) 23 R1a1a not a single R1a*, R1a1*
 * Sharma type 106 Brahmins SRY1532.2 and finds 2 R1a1* p = 0.1509
 * Sharma types 289 Brahmin R1* and found 15 R1*(not R1b), Underhill types 166 R1(not R1b) and 0 found R1a*, p = 0.0016, New R1(c), bad typing? Maybe some of these R1a were improperly typed.

And yet you think its intelligent not to use discretion with regard to these issues.PB666 yap 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Random Page break
Wet phases of the Sahara Sahel region and human migration Open Acess article.

List of R1a frequency by population
I noticed that none of the U2009 data is in the table, I WOULD THINK, given the paper has been out for 10 whole days that this data would already be in a table! [Jumping up and down, ranting and raving]................. just kidding. This is an area where one can avoid confusion with a very simple approach, data gathered under ISOGG 2009 nomenclature can be place in its own separate table.PB666 yap 13:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cladogram
That was intentionally placed there, as prior to 2009 it was treated as R1* and not R1a, and is consistent with the text. In addition its color is light gray, indicating that it went undetected, in other words the Pre-2009 cladistics made the incorrect assignment of R1a. The logic in the nomenclature is add suffixes to the name in accord with branching, relative to R1b, R1a had already branched, however earlier branch points in R1a were treated as R1* and again if the cladogram is wrong, as you say, it is because the cladistics created an improper assignment. If it will make you feel better I can call pre-2009 'obsolete R1a assignment'. lol. PB666 yap 18:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How can any reader possibly understand that this is the logic behind putting a mutation in the OLD phylogeny which was NOT KNOWN in "OLD phylogeny" times?????? If we can put in ghost clades for ones not yet discovered then maybe you should put a few in the new phylogeny also?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

evolution
You provided an example, with two versions, to illustrate your argument. I think you are trying to make a point about directionality or teleology. It seems to me that the problem in both examples you give, is the word "partially." Why say "partially changed? Isn't half of a change still a change?  Isn't it your idea that the change is particla what puts teleology into the sentence (and not the word "evoution")? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"evolution is not just "change" but NORMALLY change between two clearly defined points" - this is how creationist understand evolution. They distinguish between microevolution (not this) and macroevolution (this) and say they believe in the former but not the latter. But it seems that even if you are not a creationist you agree with creationists on the definition. However, fro evolutionary scientists the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is only a matter of scale and nothing more. They are in every other regard the same, the same mechanisms and processes. It would not surprise me if as many people who said they believe in evolution misunderstand evolution, as those who reject evolution - it just showes that most people (creationists and non-creationists) have the same understanding of evolution. But both are wrong, at least, not educated in science. The scientific view of evolution does not and cannot make the distinction you are making. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Genetic Genealogy
What is your opinion of the use of this as a reliable source? Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I believe that Doug, who apparently thinks I'm not to be trusted, is referring to the Levy-Coffman article I added to Talk:Stephen Oppenheimer. Thought you might be interested. DinDraithou (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there's been the issue of whether Oppenheimer is anywhere "refuted" and I have tried with little success to say that often nobody bothers with people like him. The trouble is that we've got all this "Oppenheimer says..." everywhere and so I'm starting to bring in what says otherwise, especially on R1b and the Basques and Irish and all that craziness. Apparently no one read Alonso 2005 until last year. Anyway so in Talk:Stephen Oppenheimer I added Levy-Coffman just to show that there was more than one "early" paper questioning the madness of the era.
 * I'd like to contribute to the R1a page but don't have a copy of Mirabal yet. What I do have a copy of is your recent paper on E-M35 open in Adobe and plan to enjoy it soon. Cheers. DinDraithou (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the article looks fabulous in either case, but I do believe in having the most helpful section titles possible.


 * Re R1b, the Basque saga now continues with López-Parra et al, which I just read. Their conclusions are not a little preconceived IMO, and they don't seem to be able to get R1b1b2 into the mountains, saying only that I2a2 was already there from the Franco-Cantabrian refugium. And they are using Zhivotovsky. Obviously many others are now saying R1b1b2 snuck in with the Neolithic so this is a problem, or maybe not, but López-Parra et al seem determined to make it Pre-Neolithic in the Pyrenees. Whatever. But at least we can say R1b1b2c (R1b1b2a1a2b, R-M153) is very, very Basque, and say it confidently. What that says about the rest of R1b1b2, excepting the related R1b1b2d (R1b1b2a1a2c, R-M167/SRY2627), is apparently nothing.


 * Lacking a Basque substrate in Europe R1b1b2 could still have come into Europe with Indo-Europeans, now much more likely with the new timeframe. It looks to me just like something went a little funny in the western Pyrenees, and eventually we got Basque, which for all we know may have deep roots in some form of Proto-Indo-European or Early Proto-Indo-European. Typological shift is possible. Or maybe the ancestor held onto its archaic Early PIE agglutination. Or maybe it involved Aliens. Theo Vennemann's Vasconic substratum theory is ridiculous btw, and apparently based on what you appropriately called urban legends. DinDraithou (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and it's really starting to look pathetic. Meanwhile millions more are "negatively" misinformed about their ancestry and the same number "positively", often for good. But JOGG has a way to go too, looking at Wright for example. Any Irish scholar could tell you that Cormac Cas is fictional and the Dál gCais pedigree is "patently false", to quote Francis John Byrne. They can't be traced before the 9th century and originally belonged to the Déisi underclass, not even a specific ethnicity. A Journal of Genetic Genealogy needs an expert on this kind of thing (I'm not volunteering). I won't even go into the problems with the supposed Uí Néill M222 or Norse ancestry of Somerled. Proper articles on Irish "peoples" include Déisi (major contributor), Uí Liatháin (author), Iverni (contributor), Darini (principal), if you're interested.


 * So there's sensationalism everywhere. Everyone is trying to get traction and they don't accuse others of what they're guilty of trying themselves. But I like JOGG efforts in general and reserve most of my distaste for studies like López-Parra, or anything in the "Semino/Wells" tradition as Dienekes calls it. I discovered he had already trashed the study after posting on your page... although I think he might have gone too young with his own estimates. Anyway please excuse my continuing little rant. DinDraithou (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it's hard to write on something I'm only interested in from time to time. Until recently I hadn't read anything since Karafet then Lao last year, which is why López-Parra was new to me. Maybe I've given the impression I know more about, and wish more success for, genetic genealogy (as it is) than I do. Most of what it does is award questionable pedigrees, associations, and "special knowledge" to those who don't need all that, or are even undeserving. Everyone wants to feel like they gave someone else something essential to their existence in the past. It's all so tragically middle-class.

I got accepted to Uppsala University in Sweden with a good introductory paper on Scandinavian prehistory, which was to serve as the introduction for a larger paper on Aesir vs Vanir cult sites (plenty do exist), which is still forthcoming. Two years ago I ended up with Visa problems at the last moment and the Swedish government said no. I am still waiting. Early Irish history is something I can do from home and is keeping me occupied. Dienekes whatever. DinDraithou (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a
Thanks again for the articles mate. Just a thought: It seems that some conclusions based on apparent diversity levels are made prematurely. Case in point, even if R1a is more diverse in India, does it really mean it arose their ? Eg it could well have arise in Ukraine/ Poland, but due to the geography and other social/cultural factors, it could have become homogenized to a greater extant than in Sth Asia. This would obviously give a very diferent conclusion Hxseek (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. BTW, has that R1b article by Cruciani been released yet ? Hxseek (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I added my 'two-cents worth'. I am a bit weak on the details of the whole nemonclature aspect, however, I tried to look at the arguements between you and PB6...

By the way, can you point me to the articles which criticize the utility of Y-DNA (ie it's accelerated mutation rate, and therefore overestimation of TMRCA). Hxseek (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, those maps loog very good. I trust they meet the WP:RS, and therefore can be reproduced ? Hxseek (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a article
Hey Andrew. The R1a article is now excellent. Very academic yet understandable also. Hxseek (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done
 * It is getting very interesting now with more accurate phylogeny. Klyosov's paper is interesting in that in contains some new dating on R1b (which will be interesting to compare with Cruciani's one, when it is published). Although his CIs are surprisingly narrow. I doneri f, in keeping with the new work on R1 haplogrous, newer papers have been published for E1b1b, J2, and I. Hxseek (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I forgot about a very important region ! As for 'adding coastlines'. what do you mean ? Lavel the seas and rivers ? As for the map of age/ spread of R1a1, sure that can also be made as an additional map, as well as the R1a1a7 map also. Hxseek (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave it with me. I might have to tweak the formatting.From earlier, I would also tend to think that it is likely that R1a1a spread by way of the Tarim basin, with all the archaeological evidence. Hxseek (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the Middle East is, so far, one of the least suggested 'homelands' for R1a1. Hxseek (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See if this comes up right

In Europedia, there is an extensive cataloguing of R1b subclades. It lacks in-line citations. Do you think it, and other 'Project pages' meet WP: RS so they can be included in articles ? Hxseek (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lancaster, if you feel that WP policy is being violated and/or that PB666 is creating "puppet" accounts to voice his opinion, I suggest that you take the issue to an administrator (if you haven't already). They can lock the article and help you take care of the concerns you've expressed. I quick-failed the GAN because it the article clearly isn't stable. I also suggest that it be submitted for peer-review, which seems like an ideal way to achieve consensus on issues in dispute and get outside perspective. Good luck. MMagdalene722 talk to me  15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When the { {CN}} tag is place on a sentence you are not supposed to remove it until you have referenced. "When to cite sources: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image." Note:I challenged it. If it isn't referenced I get to remove it. PB666 yap 04:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I can make a map for R1a1a7 when I get some free time Hxseek (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ! Happy new years Andrew ! I am getting increasingly busy at work, but i will try to put together some more maps in the near future.

Genetic history of the British Isles (again)
Just to say that I'm fully supportive of the approach you're developing, and I'll try and give constructive help as far as I can - recognising that I have no background in genetics (other than reading the dreaded Oppenheimer), and have many other pressures on my time (as I'm sure you do). It will be difficult to steer a straight course through this, given what seem to be the academic differences as well as the "political" (term used loosely) issues, but we should try to give it a go collectively. Just one minor (but sensitive) point - your draft intro refers at one point to Britain when I assume you mean to include Ireland as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I don't think it's reliable either, but you might want to comment. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you feel frustrated, but I think I need to let you know that you are getting rather too close into WP:NPA territory. What helps, is to avoid using the term "you". Try even to avoid phrases like "your position". It may be clumsy to say every time " The view that ...", but it really does help.   (I've left a similar comment elsewhere)   DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Albanians
Since you have participated before on the same topic, Could you please give an opinion here. Things are getting really ridiculous (ad absurdum) there Aigest (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your question in Origin of Albanians talk page. Aigest (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please comment again there. As I suspected (see the link for the reference brought by Megistias) the argument is a WP:SYNTH extrapolated from the context usage. Aigest (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are talking about but please notice that in this kind of topics (many prejudices) checking collaboration sometimes is frustrating. We've got weeks of discussions in what was simply nonsense at prima facie, let alone going further. Thanks anyway Aigest (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed during the debate, I did supported Hxseek idea. I don't like the actual form either, but other contributors had the opionion that the article should had remained as it is. What to do? Aigest (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

R1 sourcing
Hello, thanks for the message. I simply removed that source as I agreed with you that it seemed to be self-published, but I see your point. If you want to restore it and wait for another and tag it in the meantime, that's fine by me. I was simply trying to help out. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted that fact tag on Rb1 because I was looking something up and stumbled on that footnote (and a couple others) that, astonishingly, led only to google maps. So I did a pin the tail on the donkey and moved on. I'll try to have a better look in at the piece. R1b isn't my forte, but that shouldn't prevent me at least digging up a few sources better than what's there now. By the way, anything new at all in the world of R1a1 that you know of? MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of news, I was specifically referring to this, and wondered whether you thought it promising or important? MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Chadic languages
Hi Andrew,

I accidentally stumbled upon the article Chadic languages and Y haplogroups. What's new. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also found this reply. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

River Calder
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Scillystuff (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment at my talk page. I've tagged River Calder, Yorkshire with a history merge so an administrator should be able to merge the history pages. There's usually no need to move the primary page of a series (i.e. River Calder -> River Calder, Yorkshire) as long as there is a disambig link at the top. Some editors get really upset by it, especially if they have a vested interest in the page that has moved. However, I'm not one of them :) I'll give it a week for the dust to settle, then I'll redirect and rename the Yorkshire Calder references (such as List of crossings of the River Calder) to River Calder, Yorkshire. After that, you should be able to leave the River Calder and Calder River pages to point at the disambiguation page, without fear of reversal. Scillystuff (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Nice work on the disambiguation of Calder River, I hadn't noticed the ohter rivers of the same nme whn I wrote the initial articel. You may have noitce that I moved your artciel from Calder River, Western Asutralia to Calder River (Western Australia) and it has since been moved to Calder River (West Australia). Most of the rivers in Western Ausralia have the standard naming system of: River Name (Western Australia) not River Name (West Australia), if you want to check the List of rivers in Western Australia you will see this is th case. Best Regards and keep up the good work --Hughesdarren (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's mother's grandparents
Hi Andrew, I reverted your change and described the genealogy of Dylan's mother here. Might it not be an idea to check whether it was the parents or grandparents before you change it? Best Mick gold (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks :) Mick gold (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Andrew Lancaster cross posting unnecessary, inappropriate and false statements. Thank you. —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CK
"1+1=2" is a very selective citation from what is, in any case, not a policy or a guideline. I did wonder whether you considered, before your reversion of me in an article to which my contributions include and, that (1) none of the four cases that "should most definitely not be left to common knowledge" applies here, (2) there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires a footnote for every undisputed fact. The result is that we have a "ref. needed" tag on the single sentence in the entire 77 kilobyte article that least requires a reference! What really mystifies me is that you have that, in comparison to 384 and 322 BC, would surely have to count as "controversial"! (Let me be clear, I say, let such additions stand until they are shown to be problematic.) Is any agreement possible here? I'd rather believe it is before engaging others unnecessarily. Wareh (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Your caution in dealing with ancient evidence is appropriate in many cases.  However, it doesn't apply so well to the case of Aristotle, whose dates are most definitely not "just traditional guesses."  We are talking about an important figure who lived in the middle of a hotbed of chronological inquiry, not an archaic poet.  Historically critical studies have cast doubt on any number of questions of Aristotelian chronology while affirming these dates.  So, we have a situation where it would be hard to find a single WP:RS expressing doubt, but they all concur in stating this as solid and undoubted knowledge.  In fact, therefore, though I have added an adequate citation, my pleasure in contributing learned tidbits to the encyclopedia is accompanied by a dirty feeling, that giving in to a mistaken tag on a fact that commands such scholarly unanimity does logically lead nowhere else than to having no right to protest if someone comes along and tags the article's every assertion.  I have seen too many cases on Wikipedia where the plain and simple is made complicated for the wrong motivations, so, with one hand, I am solidifying the foundation, while with the other letting proceed the tendency that allows for correct historical presentation of antiquity to be undermined by ignorant doubts.  I don't think the chemists are restoring tags on facts of equally universal agreement.


 * To my mind, you did more than "question" my removal of the tag (the tag said a reference was "needed," and may or may not have been added by someone well-informed about where the article actually needs references: I'd want a more positive reason to insist on such a tag in the face of another editor's resistance). Because you made it the position of two editors against one, I did not feel able in good conscience to accept your invitation to "decide what to do with the dates."  Perhaps I prejudiced the case in your mind by citing WP:CK which could have been a red herring and in any case is unofficial; but I hope you'll consider the possibility that, in a way you might have missed in the grasp of an analogy to less certain facts about antiquity, this really might be common knowledge in some real sense that matters to Wikipedia. Wareh (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually not that remarkable for a fourth-century Athenian whose life was quite public and who was himself closely involved in promoting historical record-keeping (on a strong foundation of archon lists and all kinds of other carefully kept records). Have a look at Demosthenes!  It is not mere carelessness that has forgotten to sprinkle several dozen "approximatelys" through that article.  Basically, total consensus of sources + fit of all knowable external facts + plausibility of reliable assertion and evidence = a fact that even centuries of industrious German classicists will have trouble undermining (not to say we don't have a certain fondness for the frequent enough efforts to support the unsupportable).  Is it conceivable that the whole edifice could be questioned with shocking new evidence?  Yes. It is, also, in the natural sciences and everywhere else, as you know.  For Wikipedia's purposes, I think "the due attention of many good WP:RS keeps affirming the same thing" is good enough.  In short, "90% of such cases" and "much more recent" could mean a lot of things.  But for Aristotle's contemporary significance, in his time, place, and milieu, the 90% number would be wrong.  Depending on which "much more recent" milieus you mean, of course, there will be greater doubt in many of them!  Many people are alive today, the facts of whose lives could not be ascertained with anything like the reliability of Aristotle's life years, or the milestones of Cicero's career.  Wareh (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No one can do more than construct an argument about an original source (though there is excellent reason for such arguments to focus on Philochorus and, as a later intermediary that leads to some of our sources independently of Apollodorus, Hermippus of Smyrna), but the FGrHist reference I put in the footnote is to the chronicle of Apollodorus, whom Diogenes Laertius quotes by name (and who was also followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus). The ancient lives and encyclopedias are unanimous in their agreement with this most important traceable strand.  Now, that might seem disappointing, but Apollodorus seems to have had good information (though pinning it down really would require a bunch of footnotes if Wikipedia were to address it), and there are any number of other sources about Aristotle's various periods of life that accord well with it.  Like I said, not impossible to imagine getting overturned, but also without a plausible ground for doubt.  Wareh (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge
Hi, Andrew. Thanks for keeping after me for my consent. I just posted this at the Talk:Entelechy:

Sorry, I've gotten caught up in other things. I just looked at the ""Potentiality and actuality" article. I say, go ahead an merge. (I've saved the much of the Entelechy article in case anything there comes in handy in the future). I'd suggest just that the "Potentiality and actuality" wiki also cover the more traditional view of entelechy, at least far enough to cover the ideas of First Entelechy and Second Entelechy. Anyway, maybe I can try my hand at it later, at least I'll be on safer ground than in the other stuff I did. I can just quote some stuff that's out of copyright. The Tetrast (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

P.S., I also saved all the recent stuff at Talk:Entelechy as well. Lots of useful stuff you did there! The Tetrast (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Sources, citations and "forced plagiarism"
Hello, I saw your discussion notes on the way WP rules, or the fashion in which guidelines on sources are exercised, force people to break or bend those same rules in order to avoid endless fights on what is an RS anbd what is permissible as a line in the article. I guess I generalized your points a bit, but I absolutely recognize those situations when people either try to protect a dubious statement by hooking it up to a supposedly "reliable source" and masking where it really came from, or you meet up with someone who razes half the content of an article and puts in a few derogatory comments on you personally, working fast from purely generic use of a WP guideline or rule, and it's obvious that they have very little familiarity with what the article is about or with the issues discussed in the sections they went over. Sounds familiar, no?

Saying every single atomic statement in an article must be sourced with the exact same meaning is impossible and in reality it's uncontrollable, too: many statements you need to make are underpinned not by a single one or two, but ultimately by dozens or hundreds of raw facts, inferences and steps of reasoning - no way you could cite every single step in a footnote! Strausszek (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanded a bit at the project page. The views of what makes RS is more of an anarchy than many people like to think, and personally I don't see us getting a really solid encyclopaedia just by trying to come up with the perfect list of RS and banning everything that wasn't copied from such a source, and a fast-available source, too (recent newspapers vs academic dissertations with limited availability or web content that's behind paywalls). Of course there haa to be discussion of what's in a statement too: where does it come from? how does it relate to other statements? is it logical or consistent? biased? is it an implicit reply to somebody and therefore trying hard to push some points? has it been supplanted by later and better research? But people evade those issues by just puting up an RS or non-RS falg and then editing and counter-editing away in an 'anything goes' spirit.Strausszek (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User VV
Is that by chance Vince from ISOGG ? Hxseek (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your article of 2009
I read your very interesting article of 2009. As usual I was more concerned with EV13 issue:) although even the other part was very interesting. IMHO the question of EV13 was somewhat confusing. Did it originated in Asia or in Europe? I know that ther is no definite answer on those issues yet, but I would have appreciated if you would have included both hypothesis in more explicit terms with their associated archaeological and linguistic arguments. For eg. if EV13 originated in Asia and later moved in Balkan that would be either proto IE language (Renfrew) or non IE language (afroasiatic? Bernal?!). Anyhow if you take a look at hypotheses regarding the language of pelasgians which are the most old documented populations in the Balkans and you could find some matches for your study. Moreover i would suggest Etruscans also for further speculations. A lot of folks including me, would like to have an article which tries to integrate genetics, archeology, linguistics and history.
 * I also read some of your posts in the haplozone forum and I noticed (if I am not wrong) a difference between you and Steve Bird about the place of origin of EV13. If Steve thinks that it is near Montenegro and you possibly in Asia (right). Could this be explained with the leapfrog theory (originated in Asia->moved to Adriatic)? This was just a curiosity of mine. You are of course free not to consider my suggestions, I am not sure if I am totally "unscientific":). Congrats anyway for your article. Hope you write a new one soon. Aigest (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be then the EV13 mutation happened first between Druze then in leapfrogged among Mediterranean islands until reached costs in Dalmatia, when it grow in numbers and then moved inside Balkan Peninsula and along Adriatic in Italy (Cardium Pottery)? Would that explain low numbers of EV13 in areas around Druze (Anatolia, Egypt etc)? Aigest (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I meant "pre-Druze":). Anyway, I would be more careful with Montenegrin data. Many of the Montenegrin tribes, were Slavicized Albanian-Gegh tribes. (Kuči, Vasojevići, Same ancestor with the Albanian Hoti and Krasniqi tribes Piperi clan see here etc) from the most isolated areas in the Balkans. This complicate things more, don't you think? Aigest (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know, but does the data help in this case? In Montenegro we have the oldest EV13, next to them Albanian Geghs, and somewhat later Tosk Albanians. It looks like a radius. Is there a possibility to have a figure based on the "oldest" EV13 data in the Balkans? Aigest (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My idea is that if a map on "oldest" doesn't represent odd cases but it has clear radius, than it is possible to speculate. Am I right? Aigest (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are the data for EV13 in all existing Balkan populations (but even other populations) we can calculate more or less the EV13 age for every population and their clustering according to more or less the same age of EV13. An example would be that Montenegrin data are the oldest one, followed by Gegh Albanians and Bosnians, later on Tosk Albanians, Macedonians, Serbs and Croatians, later on Bulgarians Romanians Greeks etc. These would mean than we have a radius from Montenegro to the neighboring countries. This would be a perfect case for speculation. With odd data I understand that for eg Croat and Bulgarian (two distant populations) data have the same age and so on for the other populations. In this case we don't have a clear radius and we can't speculate so much. Am I right? Aigest (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. That would be a case of odd data. If age of EV13 is somewhat like 6000 ybp Roman and Turks came like 4000 years later. Too late for messing up data in great quantity. EV13 should have been spreaded by that time even in farest parts of Europe. So the whole Balkan area had a clear picture by then. I am speaking about the EV13 age not the concentration of the EV13 on the population. Unless all members of EV13 in the surrounding areas have been moved or killed, still you have the others a little far away who inherited it. Isn't that so? Aigest (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should they have left some data in the neighbors. Eg: this village in East Thrace was displaced by the Romans in MOntenegro. They should have left some traces to the neighbours during 4000 years. In this case the oldest data are in Montenegro and the next ones in Bulgaria, not in the neighboring countries. That would be the case of odd data. Right? Aigest (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you meant by the spread of data. Is there a study on the "age spread" of EV13? If not, could it be done with the existing data? Aigest (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When you said scattering I took it for spread:) Anyway I was curious about it because I thought that the first conjecture of Battaglia that it originated in situ in Balkans, probably in Thessaly area would make some sense, since there are areas when you can have a great number of population, while in Montenegro, I can not understand this population boom and later expansion. Also Thessaly are would have been more appropriate if EV13 happened somewhere in Asia, it is closer to the "Asian origin". An STR map of EV13 in the Balkans would be very interesting. Returning to the article in difference between Tosks and Gegh, according to the linguists the separation of the two dialects happened somewhere between 4-7th century AD before the Slavs entered into area (given the precise division of dialects (Shkumbin river supposedly they were there by that time etc). So before 4-7 ventury AD there were close linguistic contacs between two groups (possibly it was the same proto Albanian) How could it be this connected with the difference between the two groups in EV13 and I2A values? Aigest (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. But if someone (probably Steven:) creates that map, please let me know. Bests Aigest (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling he's working on something!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories
Sorry to bother about stupid issues but mentioned you here. Bests Aigest (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model
Later events renewed my interest in Genetics:) I've read it before, but seeing it again I've difficulties to understand what does this data mean? And why Albania is in top of that? Yeah always my special concern, but you have to forgive me for that, being an Albanian myself:) Bests Aigest (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that during Bronze age that could be taken as true. As for the Iron age I am not so sure. That would coincide with the entrance of IE tribes in Balkan. AFAIK the direction was mainly from North to South eg Dorian invasion. Could have been few farmers arriving that period from south, but their contribute to an existing great amount of population (migrations from Balkan to Europe show this numbers) would have been insignificant, don't you think? Anyhow what does that Albania in top really means according to them? Closer to those farmers than the other populations? Aigest (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I created the genetic section I collected many materials related to that matter. As I am reviewing them I see that in many publication genetic values are very much the same between continental Greeks and Albanians and to a lesser degree between Albanians and South Italians. Between Albanians and Greeks the similarity is pretty striking in every haplogroup (apart some controversial SubSaharian genes which were presented among Greeks causing much noise). It can be seen in Semino, Rootsi, Pericic, Cruciani, Battaglia in all their results. What do you think of it? Aigest (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first thing that goes to my mind regarding that similarity are Pelasgians, the mythological population of South Balkans before the IE tribes invasion.Anyway this is not what I support, but would be interesting to find out how much contribution Northern invasion is vs Southern invasion (Neolithic farmers etc), in the Balkans as a region. Could it be assumed that right now, from the data we have, it looks like the autochthonous model is more adapt to explain the origin of different ethnoses in the Balkans. There was a large population mainly descendant of Mesolithic, Neolithic or other southern populations already in the Balkans when IE entered the area from the North. There was some language shifting to IE (if there was no IE language, prior to IE tribe invasions from the steppes) but the numbers of the IE newcomers were little compared to the existing population and there was no mass extinction of the last? Aigest (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was referring to this map. What I meant was that that movement didn't affected much the genetic composition of the existing population (by authocthonous I mean existing population before invasion events which was not much displaced or extinct but absorbed the newcomers and took their language, thus creating IE languages Thracian, Illyrian, Greek). I was referring to Haplogroups like R1a probably linked with that kind movement in the Balkans from Ukraine. P.S. I though R1b was linked more with West Europe (Bask area) and not so much present in the Balkans, How did it went there without passing Balkans? Aigest (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If R1a was more common in Europe before IE tribes entrance could it be verified through the actual genetic data? In the end there are some millenniums separating the events, somth must have differentiated their R1a composition (still R1a but with some variants). Anyway returning to IE invasion I was referring to that of around 1000 BC, just before the creation of Balkan populations of Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks. There are two models regarding the creation of Illyrian ethnos and the same can be said on Thracians and Greeks also. I just wanted to have a clear picture of Prehistory of Southeastern Europe. When IE tribes entered the area were they more numerous than the existing population at some point, did they imposed their culture by numbers or by elite ruling. Or there was a symbiosis resulting in e new culture eg like that proposed by A. Benac and B. Čović, archaeologists from Sarajevo, who hypothesize that during the Bronze Age there was a progressive Illyrianization of peoples dwelling in the lands between the Adriatic and the Sava river. and that is the scheme proposed for Illyrians, and smth pretty much the same was also proposed for Thracians. Returning to that Genetic composition of Balkan populations I was curious to find how much were the IE newcomers in regards to existing Balkan population(whatever was that, Pelasgian etc). I don't want to find the exact number but just a hint, if it can be a hint. Aigest (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Never edited WP:SYNTH, I will not certainly start now:). My curiosity was Gimbuta vs Renfrew based on the genetic data of "old" populations of Balkan area, since Balkan was mentioned in both hypothesis. Aigest (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While we see E and J values in Balkan area can we say that they probably are not a result of a bottleneck? Did old pre-IE Balkan populations had a genetic profile and what that would be? Aigest (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By bottleneck I meant that there were other haplogroups present in Balkan pre IE populations, but they were lowered in number either by war or smth else (an example would be R1b if it also came with neolithic farmers in Balkan area). So the existing E and J high data can not help in having a clear picture of the old (pre-IE invasion) genetic profile in the Balkans. Aigest (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RS discussion
Andrew, as an uninvolved participant would you mind putting a template at the top of the discussion and leave a note to that effect at the talk page? Thanks muchly. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Check this out
World_Y-DNA

study_alam2008

Do you think the above links from this site can be used for referencing Bangladeshi R1a percentages in R1, R1a articles and other Haplogroup articles?? Or should we look for PDFs which I was not able to find unfortunately. Bangladesh, being an important South Asian country will provide an added value to the articles...--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks...we can put this on hold till we find something more authentic on Bangladeshi DNA.


 * I was referring to the fact that I was unable to find PDFs and authentic articles related to the above mentioned studies on Bangladeshi DNA after googling them for a long time, that's all...As far as important articles/PDFs/docs referenced in R1a, R1b, R1 articles are concerned, I've most of them downloaded to my Hard Drive long time back for faster cross checking.--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy
Andrew, WP:BRD is pretty clear what should happen when this is a disagreement. At the moment two editors think the list should be deleted and/or only be there if there is a source which compares philosophers. You are now adding additional philosophers based on a couple of "votes" without any agreement as to the existence of nature of any list. -- Snowded TALK  07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. In addition I am working through some comparative sources which I will post later, I'm not removing the list per WP:BRD so I would appreciate you not adding to it or reordering it per the same policy.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the point on the talk page but let me make it more forcibly here. The last edit summary from our numbered friend stated "Been discussed for weeks, no one objects except you -- and you give no reason WP:OWN)".  The previous edit summary stated "no discussion ever approved of Popper, and no specific objections have been made against a strongly-sourced claim for Lewis."  In both cases the editor made no contribution to the either discussion other than to state his/her position.   S/he then waited  a few weeks and edited the article to reflect that position. This was clearly against consensus in the case of the Popper removal.  Lewis is more ambiguous but normal practice would have been to post on the talk page section something along the lines of "If there are no further objections then I will make the change in 24 hours" or similar.  In addition we have continuous accusations, which have not been backed up that opposing him/her implied ownership issues on the article.  This is a significant behavioral issue, its an "I know best" approach and was coupled in the early days with the odd "I teach philosophy therefore ...." type statements.  I'm not trying to prevent edits being made, but not against consensus and accompanied by false edit summaries.   Any thoughts on our new editor by the way?  Single purpose newby or something more suspicious?  -- Snowded  TALK  12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for your edits in World Civilisations. If you can do more, that will be good and you are welcome. Thanks again.117.97.251.247 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason/reasoning strategy
Hello Andrew, I just wanted to say that you appear to be set on deleting reasoning on the grounds that its content overlaps with reason. Could I suggest instead that we improve one of the articles so that the other is redundant, then there would be no need for debate, it would be a natural progression. I hope we can spend more time editing in article space than in talk space. pgr94 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

MNOPS
Honestly I don't have any reference for that. But I compare the age of P: 27,000-41,000 years BP, NO: 34.600±4.700 years BP, and K: 47,000 years BP, they are referenced and MNOPS is between them. I believe it was important to make the change, the date 25,000-30,000 that appeared wasn't logical. --Maulucioni (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Karafet-2008 gives 47,000 years BP average for K and 34,000 for P. MNOPS is between them but only for one mutation: M526. P has 15 mutations, this means that MNOPS would have 46,000 years BP average or 40,000-50,000 (for Cross-multiplication), right?. --Maulucioni (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Machiavellianism
OED's definition of Machiavellianism is "The principles and practice of Machiavelli or of Machiavellians; cunning, unscrupulousness, or duplicity in behaviour (esp. in politics); an instance of this.", at least according to the third edition from 2009. Doing a quick search of the definition used in the wiki article only brings up Wikipedia mirrors. I assume that the current quote in the article is from the second edition, but clarifying that in the text or with an inline citation would be best. Gary King ( talk  ·  scripts )  16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

R map

 * OK, I put the references in the own file. --Maulucioni (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I guessed that at any time somebody would be interested on these subjects.

The R map I did is about native population in the present days, and it is in accordance with cultural and ethnical items.

Bortoloni said that it is believed that these populations could be the result of European admixture, however the high frequency of haplogroup R1-M173 (known by Bortoloni as haplogroup P-M45b) in native northamericans also makes it unlikely that all these chromosomes result from admixture, since such a predominant European ancestry seems inconsistent with the preservation of the cultural identity of this population.

The Zegura and Malhi articles both treat R as the result of European admixture. But they don’t show the data for this conclusion. We can't rule out anything without shown evidences.

On the other hand: You can see the map about and you will notice the similarity to R (Y-DNA).

We may also talk about the Kennewick Man, who lived 6-9 Kya ago in Washington state and whose genetic analysis resulted X (mtDNA) and many related him to the Western world because of his seemingly caucasic look.

The main matter is that native americans have been poorly studied. It is incredible that the first mtDNA names: A, B, C and D were given to North American natives, giving the impression that they were the first ones to be studied. But, as for Y chromosome DNA, they are the last ones.

Archeological evidence is not concluding, though many believe that the first Americans came from Europe (See link) the called Solutrean hypothesis.

Let see more: X mtDNA evidence indicated that X2 settled America 15 Kya, but we don't know whether it came from Europe where it is currently 2% or if it came from Altai region where it is 4.4%. R Y-DNA evidence shows R1b/R1a in Europe. But R1a is also common in Siberia, with 9.1% in Mongolia. And the presence of R1b in Siberia is not solved as you can see in Derenko 2005.

In conclusion, the presence of R in North America is to me an unsolved subject and it is mandatory to know new researches.

Regards. --Mauricio (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that every "native" has the right to be presumed a native until proved he isn't so. --Mauricio (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't use words arbitrarily, I use references. We shouldn't argue about not yet proven subjects. I give you another example: Jeffrey T. Lell et al 2002 The Dual Origin and Siberian Affinities of Native American, believe that native americans came from two Siberian migrations, one of which brought R1-M173 (also called P-M45b). --Mauricio (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I answer you. The R map I did is based on several sources and is about frequencies in native populations. The last source (Malhi 2008) uses frequencies for R, not only in a table, but in own map; also the term native (even in title). My map doesn't give conclusions about Native American origin. I have not written down my own conclusion because as I told you, the presence of R in North America is to me an unsolved subject and it is mandatory to know new researches.


 * On the other hand, I believe that it is difficult to know the true history of the origins of native americans if we close the door to all possibilities. The presence of R in Great Lakes region is too big to pretend that the all of them came from recent admixture and at the same time to keep their culture and native languages. It is important to get more data and to know all the mutation of the R samples to know the true antiquity. --Mauricio (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, you're right. I already place it in Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) subarticle.--Mauricio (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please state your case on the Leo Strauss talk page
Hi. Concerning your repeated efforts to remove the section about people Strauss influenced and turn it into a short list of only direct students (this for example) can you please give some sort of argument for what you are doing on the article talk page? Your edit summaries are frankly misleading and inconsistent. First you called it a format change, and now you are saying that what you are removing is a content fork? In what way? One of the things most discussed about Strauss was his strong influence on a number of interesting people. To me it seems like you are simply trying to erase mention of this. Quite a lot of your edits on this article seem to be designed to give the article a less neutral "flavour".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is hard to tell, to be honest, if you really do not understand what I am saying, but I'll take your comment in good faith. Most of your edits seem to be directed towards removing anything non-standard, to use your description. Just as a general principle also I see absolutely no reason to say that because a format is unusual then it should be changed. Generally whenever I see such weak arguments being used to justify deletions I must admit that I do get concerned about what the motives are. Obviously the fact that you changed explanation now 3 times also raises concerns. And particularly you have to consider that this article does suffer somewhat from editors passing by who seem to want to protect Strauss's reputation. I can understand the sentiment, but I do not think such efforts work anyway. When deciding what should be on Wikipedia it is best to follow Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOTE which means that whatever published sources say about a person should guide us. Coming back to what you say yourself, you now say on my talk page, as your third justification, that you are trying to make the article just like ones about any academic. But for better or worse (and please understand I am not anti-Strauss) Strauss is not your average academic. He is a person who had a strong and novel formative influence on many people, not only including his students. That is one of the main things people remember him for and it is to some extent unusual. It is not only anti-Straussians who write about "Straussians". Please be flexible about things like format, and please try to avoid filtering Wikipedia no matter how good the motives. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, I find the way you write somewhat patronising. For example, you write "[o]bviously the fact that you changed explanation now 3 times also raises concerns". You sound like a head-teacher talking about a troublesome student. As editors, we go out of our way to improve these articles, which often takes quite a lot of time and effort (e.g. I just wrote a whole new section on Strauss's relationship with Schmitt and Kojève).


 * If I list multiple reasons for an edit, it's because I can think of numerous reasons why the article needs editing. The over-riding reason is to bring it up to scratch academically, which means that it better reflects the material published by academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals. We all know that Strauss recently aroused journalistic interest, but the more notable and reliable sources are those published by peer-reviewed university presses. We've had similar issues on the Wittgenstein page, and the consensus is that we try to use academic sources wherever possible (rather than newspapers).  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.


 * I've ordered the Cambridge Companion to Strauss. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2326977/?site_locale=en_GB I'm looking forward to reading the articles, and will try to add more from them when I have time. As for his students: a good model for this kind of section is the one we have for Quine. Quine had even more notable, and possibly controversial, students than Strauss, but there's no need to write some (content forking) summary about Donald Davidson, let alone the unibomber, on Quine's page. A link to the student (with comments in brackets) is much better, insofar as it doesn't give undue weight to the student on the teacher's article, while all the information is still available on the student's own page. See W._V._Quine.


 * It's true that the case is slightly different, because Strauss is known to have wanted to establish a school of thought after himself. However, if we want this to be discussed in the article, it will require a separate section, where it's discussed on the basis of sources that discuss Strauss's own thought on this matter.


 * I'm not a political philosophy student. I'm a post-grad student studying analytic philosophy. I have however read a few academic books on, and by, Strauss. There's no question that his arguments are controversial. However, it's not a matter of "neutralising" his controversial arguments, when we insist that they be accurately represented. Avaya1 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for sounding patronizing. It is extremely difficult to get the tone right sometimes online as I am sure we all experience some days. Strauss is definitely not like Wittgenstein. If we take away what is interesting about him, we do everyone a disservice, including in my opinion Strauss's memory. Strauss described himself not as a philosopher but as a scholar of political philosophy. He emphasized time and time again how academic philosophy on its own was unsatisfactory to the spirits of young men and how his heroes in Greece helped educate controversial rulers. He did not see this as simply a good or bad thing, but he did see it as something important. Journalists did not make that up, but academia have not necessarily covered it well either (because they do not tend to handle such things well). Just food for thought: during world war II he gave a speech in New York saying that he understood perfectly the feeling that intelligent young Germans had when supporting the Nazis, because modern culture was in fact rotten, but, he said the Nazis were "vulgar" and while desiring empire might be understandable, others deserve more to rule, such as the British. Please check the bibliography under "On German Nihilism". I am not saying Strauss was politically active, or that he is to blame for the Neoconservatives (at least not on his own) but his influence was important in politics and not just academia, and deliberately so. Sticking to a dry academic discussion would miss a lot in the case of Strauss. Please let's resist the urge to over-standardize? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, thanks for the reply. (i) I think Wittgenstein actually had an even stronger influence on his students, and, perhaps unintentionally, created a kind of discipleship after himself - Norman Malcolm described his influence as devastating. I agree that the teacher-student relationship is an important subject in the history of philosophy, and of course, according to Strauss's interpretation, Socrates pleads guilty to the charge of corrupting the young - which is done in the mere act of teaching them philosophy.


 * (ii) The relationship between philosopher and rulers is obviously an important theme of his work. According to Strauss's view, in the ancient world, philosophy is inherently vulnerable and open to persecution, because it undermines the myths that regulate the polis. This is why Socrates was killed. However, the attempt of ancient philosophers to offer console to rulers, and thereby try to ensure the safety of philosophy, is a disaster (the seventh letter of plato, or seneca/nero etc.) It is the inadequency of this solution, according to Strauss, that leads to the first wave of modernity, which is the attempt to re-build man on a more stable, albeit limited, foundation, in the light of reasonable self-interest. However, the fact that Strauss critiques later developments - he sees final stage of the modern project (the third wave of modernity) as leading to the re-animalization of man (in the words of Kojève) - doesn't mean that he wanted to revert to the ancient solution, that of consoling the rulers. Strauss believed that it was precisely the demonstrative inadequacy of the ancient solution that (according his controversial ideas about esoteric writing) motivated Hobbes and Machiavelli. Rather, Strauss's tentative proposal is to regain the second wave of modernity. This proposal has been followed by his students like Jaffa and Bloom. Jaffa and the West Coast Straussians work on American constitutionalism. Bloom's main concern was, like Rousseau, to supplement the narrow foundation of the first-wave of modernity, with an education of the sentiments (thereby making it less unstable). His inspiration is de Tocqueville.


 * (iii) For Strauss, of course Nazism is a product of value relativism (the third-wave of modernity). For Strauss, Nazism and modern liberalism are two sides of the same coin. For him to say that he understands the impulse towards Nazism is no different to saying he understands the impulse towards modern liberalism. Both impulses are inevitable, for Strauss, given the dogmatic acceptable of value-relativism. Strauss was opposed to Nazism, not least because he rejects value-relativism. However, Strauss also recognises value-relativism as a legitimate philosophical position, which he studied both in Nietzsche and Heidegger. But he believes that the position has the political consequence of either (i) vulgar barbarism (the Nazis), or (ii) re-animalization (which is the threat in contemporary America). This has to be distinguished from his philosophical view, which is that value-relativism is a permanent philosophical position open to man (it consitutes one of the fundamental alternatives).


 * (iv) The connection between Strauss, neo-conservatism, Iraq or Bush is tenuous (aside from the three degrees of separation, through Shulsky). Afterall, Strauss was a practitioner of Kulturpessimismus. He never showed an interest in the notion of "spreading democracy" to the third-world. His letters to Kojève show hostility to philosophically inspired social-engineering projects, as do his interpretations of Plato's Republic (Strauss argued that the republic is a reductio ad absurdum). Ironically, Strauss was a scholar of Arabic, who believed that the Islamic philosophical tradition was the best corrective for the modern European interpretations of Greek philosophy. The main inspiration for neo-conservative foreign policy is Trotsky's theory of world revolution. It derives from the whole climate of the cold war, with the belief that political systems easily jump across countries (with the Truman doctrine etc).  See this article http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/#ConRev Avaya1 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply.
 * (i) Yes but the influence of Wittgenstein was never suspected having helped inspire major international conflicts. He was not a political philosopher.
 * (ii) This is about Strauss, not so much Wikipedia, but as the subject interests me...
 * I think you definition of why Strauss thinks Socrates got killed is very very over-simplified. My understanding is that Strauss suspected that Socrates was happy to die. But that is also not the whole story.
 * I do not know of anywhere in Strauss that it is suggested that the first wave of modernity is a reaction to the failure of Plato to get safety for philosophers by offering tyrants advice. Do you want to re-state that? Maybe you mean something slightly different?
 * I am not confident of your definition of that first wave as an "attempt to re-build man on a more stable, albeit limited, foundation, in the light of reasonable self-interest". The problem I have is the word "man". Don't you mean "political philosophy" or something like that?
 * This might just be my ignorance, but does Strauss refer to three waves of modernity or only two? I think Strauss does not make the big distinction most other commentators do concerning the "post modern". Or to put it another way, I think he starts it back with Rousseau.
 * I do not think there is anywhere in Strauss where he defines "the ancient solution" as "consoling the rulers". In fact I don't think he ever defined any ancient solutions, only permanent problems. Anyway I think consoling the rulers is not the key difference between ancient and modern political philosophy according to Strauss, and also not in reality.
 * I am interested in your proposal that Strauss saw promise in the second wave of modernity, and also that you think Jaffa and Bloom agreed on anything this important. Also fascinated to see you say that Strauss was inspired by de Toqueville, who may have been very interesting to Bloom and maybe Jaffa. Any sources for any of those three assertions?
 * (iii)
 * Value relativism is Strauss' definition of a third wave of modernity?
 * Strauss calls modern liberalism AND Nazism both equally "inevitable" if there is value relativism? I do not think so.
 * Strauss expressed the same type of sympathy with young intellectual who took up both? I do not think so.
 * Where does "re-animalization" appear in Strauss and how does he define that term?
 * (iv) Back to Wikipedia: it does not matter what you or I think of the link between Strauss and Neo-conservatism. (I agree with at least big chunks of what you say under this point.) This is Wikipedia and we summarize what reliable sources report. Academic sources are not always the best reliable sources for political matters, and this becomes a political matter quite obviously. Also bare in mind that people can have influences that they did not intend. I think that in fact it is true that this happened with Strauss. Would he have liked Bloom's best seller just for example? Some of Strauss' fancy talk about noble lies and natural rulers who know what is best for their people did fall on the ears of politically active folk. One fairly balanced review I remember seeing was in the Economist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (i)
 * I don't think that argument is very persuasive. The existence of suspicions is not a notable fact, unless those suspicions either (a) have reasonable grounds, or (b) don't have reasonable grounds but have an independent efficacy in themselves (e.g. the suspicions in the affair of Dreyfus are a significant historical fact, even though they didn't have reasonable grounds).
 * (ii)
 * Of course, according to Plato's early dialogues, Socrates was happy to die. The more controversial aspect of Strauss's essay on The Apology is Strauss's argument that Socrates, according to Plato, both pleaded, and was, guilty of the charge of corrupting the young, on the grounds of impiety ('Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy', 41); an impiety that is implicit in the very act of philosophising (in the later framework of Plato's Republic, inducing aporia in citizens would be a corruption insofar as it undermines the falsehoods that regulate the polis - and this is implied quite often in the early dialogues, for example Anytus's response to Socrates in the Meno).


 * For Strauss, the political danger of impiety in the apology is the same danger that motivates Hobbes, although it is now somewhat different in character with the introduction of revelation (on tyranny, chapters 8-9).


 * No the word "man" is essential in Hobbes - always capitalised "Man". I believe in Strauss's reading, exoterically the argument of the Moderns against the Ancients is a descriptive debate about how man is; esoterically, it is a normative debate about how man should be (normative in response to political considerations).


 * Strauss refers to three-waves. Rousseau is the second-wave. Nietzsche the third. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cpx2j0TumyIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=modernity+strauss+waves&source=bl&ots=heDYHBKvZi&sig=4XfJzVqOpFSnqPhtmlNZQDKjxng&hl=en&ei=DFkqTYWeEMa3hAeDjc2oAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=modernity%20strauss%20waves&f=false But you're correct and I'm wrong, all American constitutionalist thought, grounded in natural rights, would indeed be a re-trenchment in Strauss's first-wave, which seems a bit historically implausible. Yet people like Bentham and Mill would be located in the second wave just as much as the thinkers of the counter-enlightenment.


 * "Consoling the rulers is not the key difference between ancient and modern political philosophy according to Strauss"; however, a difference between ancient and modern political philosophy, according to Strauss, is that in modern political philosophy such consolation is no longer required. That such protection should no longer be required, is the motive force in the quarrel with the ancients: society becomes aligned with or amenable to reason, and therefore society and philosophers are aligned.


 * The pronoun in the sentence "his inspiration is de Tocqueville" clearly refers to Bloom. I don't know what Strauss says about de Tocqueville.


 * (iii)
 * Value-relativism is the cause (not the definition) of the third wave of modernity. Nietzsche's value-relativism is a result of his radical truth theory. However, according to Strauss, the fact/value distinction is often substituted for this truth-theory.


 * "Strauss calls modern liberalism AND Nazism both equally "inevitable" if there is value relativism? I do not think so." I don't use the word "inevitable". Both are a product of value relativism. That is "modern liberalism" meant in its post-war sense American, in opposition to "classical liberalism".


 * "Strauss expressed the same type of sympathy with young intellectual who took up both? I do not think so." It's not a matter of expressing sympathy, but of seeing them both as the product of value-relativism.


 * "Where does "re-animalization" appear in Strauss and how does he define that term?" The term is from the second edition of Kojève's lectures, in the English edition, footnote p 156-62, and similar but slightly different terms in his letters with Strauss. Strauss uses the term "nihilism", although that word encompasses both Nazism and gentle modern liberalism.


 * (iv)
 * * The priority is surely to get more of Strauss's philosophy on this page. On the criticism section, it would surely be desirable to get actual philosophical or methodological objections to his work. I'm not a political philosopher or a classicist, but I'm sure there must be a huge amount of criticism that's actually relevant to his work and methods.


 * The argument now seems to be that the Strauss had a significant causal, but not reasonable or intentional, influence on the Iraq war? Shulsky, a real student of Strauss, played a (presumably quite minor?) role in helping to plan the war. And who's to say that Shulsky wouldn't have helped plan the war, even if he had studied with a different professor? Wolfowitz was also somewhat influential (but the influence Strauss had on him is debatable). Strauss must have taught hundreds (or even thousands, if you include everyone on his lecture courses) of students. If maybe Bush et al, had been his students, then there would be a significant influence?  Otherwise even the possible causal role seems pretty minor to me. I think it's fine to cover it in the notable students section and the criticism section, but it doesn't deserve undue weight. Avaya1 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) It does not matter if it is convincing to you. It matters that it is in fact a suspicion that has been published about by reliable sources, which it has. This is Wikipedia. On the other hand the grounds for suspicion are perhaps not so well known to you. They do exist. Strauss gets cited in strange places. As noted in another point this does not mean it was his intention.
 * (ii) OK, there were 3 waves. For the rest if you read what you replying to, in the context of what it was replying to, it all still stands.
 * (iii)
 * Don't see you citing any sources for Strauss calling it the cause or the essence.
 * You did use the word inevitable.
 * What Strauss said he felt sympathy with is important in an article about Strauss as a person. Wikipedia is not just about philosophy.
 * I think you have to be careful about swapping Kojeve's terms with Strauss's. Don't you?
 * (iv) No I disagree, and so does Wikipedia policy. That is my concern. Wikipedia articles sometimes get taken over by people interested in one discipline or perspective which they consider the pure one for that subject, and who then try to make articles about philosophers exclude mention of other aspects of their life, or articles about animals only about biology and so on. This article gets a bit of that. But that is not an approach I agree with in principle. Anyway, in the case of Strauss you only have to read what he wrote or what people wrote about him to see that he would not agree with it either. He talked about being Jewish, about Germany when he grew up, etc, in published contexts related to his scholarly work. One of the aspects of modernity he criticized was the way philosophy had become an academic profession, and politics had become something to be abstracted from. For him real, i.e. political, life and philosophy should be discussed together, because they are linked and should be linked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (i)
 * In its current state, the article gives quite a lot of weight to these accusations. The mere fact that there are published suspicions about something doesn't make them notable, in terms of our weighting of the article. What constitutes the weighting in such a case is always going to come down to the judgement of the editors - you can't solve it by saying 'verifiability not truth'. Currently the article has very little on his philosophy (compare the article on Eliade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade ). Perhaps more significantly, the article totally lacks any relevant academic criticism.
 * (ii)?
 * (iii)
 * This is discussed in 'the political philosophy of hobbes' and 'on tyranny'. This is what I got from reading them. I might be able to find a few neat quotes, summing up these points, but to skim through the books would probably take half an hour.
 * If you're going to nitpick, then at least nitpick accurately, otherwise it's a bit pointless. I wrote "Both impulses are inevitable, for Strauss". The impulses are inevitable. Now re-read your paraphrase: "Strauss calls modern liberalism AND Nazism both equally "inevitable" if there is value relativism? I do not think so". The meaning of your paraphrase is completely different, and therefore irrelevant to what I wrote.
 * Find the quotes for this. Then feel free to put it in the article, as long as it's all in context. I merely want to add that it a significant fact that within his scheme, for him to say he understands the feeling young Germans have in supporting Nazis is like saying he understands the feeling young people have in supporting the hippies - they're both a product of the so-called "crisis of our time". I don't know what it says about him as a person. I understand the feeling people have in supporting the Nazis (in montaigne's paraphrase, humani a se nihil alienum putet), that doesn't make me a Nazi. It also doesn't mean I support the Iraq war. However, I agree that that essay is notable and should have a section in the article.
 * I think Kojève's term allows us to be more precise, since re-animalisation is one of the potential consequences of, or responses to, nihilism. (BTW, secondary commentaries on philosophers often do well to introduce terms not in the original texts).


 * (iv)I also haven't removed anything on this matter from the article But I don't understand this point, since there's very little on his philosophy at the moment - the article's mainly biography and journalism. . On the academic side, it is currently POV in favour of Strauss, since it doesn't have any philosophical criticism of his work. Strauss is all quite a long way away from my subject, so I can't help much in this area. Strauss is obviously very interesting, but there are clearly a lot of problems in his methods. Problems to do with misreadings, coming up with a lot of wrong interpretations, historical implausibility etc. Avaya1 (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to answer everything because you never answer directly anyway. There is no point trying to discuss things with someone who keeps changing subject. Let's focus on the Wikipedia article.
 * In its current state, the article gives quite a lot of weight to these accusations. No I do not think it does at all. Please see WP:NEUTRAL which says that "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Quite a lot of what has been written about Strauss is being filtered out. I do not just see this as a policy issue either because a lot of what is most interesting about Strauss is controversial. There is no policy on WP about avoiding controversial statements.
 * Find the quotes for this. I've already told you where to find it if you are interested. Please look at what I wrote.
 * for him to say he understands the feeling young Germans have in supporting Nazis is like saying he understands the feeling young people have in supporting the hippies - they're both a product of the so-called "crisis of our time". That strikes me as a nonsensical statement. Strauss himself, in written form, expressed certain things about politics. That is relevant to the Wikipedia article surely? Why not read what Strauss himself wrote?
 * that doesn't make me a Nazi Who said it did?
 * It also doesn't mean I support the Iraq war. Who said it did? And who said Strauss would have? But Strauss certain ideas which became influential amongst those who did: noble lies (according to the BBC documentary all mention of which keeps being deleted from the article), the inevitability of war and the way in which idealistic liberalism can lead to the conquest of evil men, a great respect for Churchill and in general of the virtue of good warrior statesmen, the evil of attempts to aim at world peace, etc. Strauss himself certainly was not a neo-conservative.
 * feel free to put it in the article. Actually I would be very careful about doing that as the lecture is one piece of primary data and I know of know secondary interpretation, nor any non-controversial way to quickly sum it up. Originally we were discussing your edits and how I thought they were non-neutral as per the WP definition cited above, and I mentioned it in order for you to help understand that Strauss was not so simple as you seemed to want to portray him. You seemed to see him as closest to Rousseau. I think he probably came to see himself as closest to Xenophon, who he saw as having already written much of what Machiavelli wrote but in a less open way. You would say the Strauss sees the difference between Xenophon and Machiavelli as one of living in a more dangerous time for philosophers. I would say that this is not true. The difference is that Xenophon and the Socratics did not want their ideas too widespread, and part of the reason for this is that they were no aiming at progress for humanity, but at philosophy for its own sake, which they saw as the naturally highest form of human life. Strauss however had to grapple with the problem that this attitude seemed to be teleological and teleology is a problem, as the Socratics themselves realised.
 * On the academic side, it is currently POV in favour of Strauss, since it doesn't have any philosophical criticism of his work. I agree. There are not many useful critical secondary sources unfortunately. Someone should spend time on this one day. I the meantime I am more concerned that it is being chipped at by people trying to change it in particular directions based on personal preferences rather than what can be found in reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply,
 * No I do not think it does at all. Please see WP:NEUTRAL which says that "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Quite a lot of what has been written about Strauss is being filtered out. I do not just see this as a policy issue either because a lot of what is most interesting about Strauss is controversial. There is no policy on WP about avoiding controversial statements
 * I agree there's no reason to avoid controversial statements - controversial statements are all that 'the criticism of strauss' section currently contains. It doesn't discuss the controversial aspects of his writing very well. The more interestingly controversial stuff about Strauss is surely his philosophy, which we've hardly covered.


 * We also have to weigh the different sources. You can't solve this by saying verifiability not truth. We already had this discussion a couple of years ago on the wittgenstein article. The articles about Strauss written by journalists are generally less reliable (they don't have any citations for starters). For example, if you google 'leo strauss', the second most popular result after our page is an article called "Leo Strauss's Philosophy of Deception." The article quotes Strauss's paraphrase of Schmitt's political theology, from a letter to Schmitt, as if it were Strauss's own philosophy: ""Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."" Journalists have to be quite rigorous fact checkers when it comes to reporting the news, but this is not the case when they write about ideas and philosophers. The driving force is to create an exciting story for the readers, this is especially the case for the investigative journalists, who are looking for a scoop. They might still be reliable, but if they make a very strong claim about his philosophy, then it's surely our role as editors to looks for some citations from his actual work. However, note that I haven't actually removed anything from the article.


 * That strikes me as a nonsensical statement. Strauss himself, in written form, expressed certain things about politics. That is relevant to the Wikipedia article surely? Why not read what Strauss himself wrote?
 * Well if we go back to the original point. You claimed that I was 'neutralising' the article. You then quoted a statement about the Nazis as evidence that Strauss shouldn't be 'neutralised'. However, I didn't find anything particularly controversial in that quote, insofar as I can have sympathy for the Nazis without being one (the argument here is just a modus tollens inference, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me of being a Nazi!).


 * Who said it did? And who said Strauss would have? But Strauss certain ideas which became influential amongst those who did: noble lies (according to the BBC documentary all mention of which keeps being deleted from the article), the inevitability of war and the way in which idealistic liberalism can lead to the conquest of evil men, a great respect for Churchill and in general of the virtue of good warrior statesmen, the evil of attempts to aim at world peace, etc. Strauss himself certainly was not a neo-conservative.
 * This is off topic but the idea that Strauss advocated (as opposed to described) 'noble lies' seems inconsistent with his interpretation of the republic. Where's the evidence for it? Also were Strauss's ideas influential for the decision makers behind the war? Only for Shulsky (and questionably Wolfowitz)? From what I can read, Shulsky is only appointed after they've all already decided to go in, and they need a yes-man to fabricate some intelligence. But this is off-topic. I downloaded the Adam Curtis documentary and have seen his other programs, they are definitely not a reliable source (documentaries like that have no citations, they're essentially like opinion pieces in the newspaper). The same Adam Curtis made a program claiming that Freud's family invented the advertising industry. He made another documentary where he exploited Nash's schizophrenia to claim that game theory is responsible for a schizophrenic kind of individualism and late-capitalism (he seemed to think that game theory was normative, his programs are really incoherent).


 * Actually I would be very careful about doing that as the lecture is one piece of primary data and I know of know secondary interpretation, nor any non-controversial way to quickly sum it up


 * I disagree. In a philosophy article, we should try to use primary sources as much as possible. I agree that there's no non-controversial way to sum it up. But some more quotes from primary sources would improve the article.


 * Actually I would be very careful about doing that as the lecture is one piece of primary data and I know of know secondary interpretation, nor any non-controversial way to quickly sum it up. Originally we were discussing your edits and how I thought they were non-neutral as per the WP definition cited above, and I mentioned it in order for you to help understand that Strauss was not so simple as you seemed to want to portray him. You seemed to see him as closest to Rousseau. I think he probably came to see himself as closest to Xenophon, who he saw as having already written much of what Machiavelli wrote but in a less open way. You would say the Strauss sees the difference between Xenophon and Machiavelli as one of living in a more dangerous time for philosophers. I would say that this is not true. The difference is that Xenophon and the Socratics did not want their ideas too widespread, and part of the reason for this is that they were no aiming at progress for humanity, but at philosophy for its own sake, which they saw as the naturally highest form of human life. Strauss however had to grapple with the problem that this attitude seemed to be teleological and teleology is a problem, as the Socratics themselves realised.


 * Your comment is interesting, however, I would perhaps reject the comparison between Strauss and the thinkers of the past that he would want to be compared to. If we're allowed to reject Strauss's anti-historicism when we interpret him, from my (perhaps limited) reading of Strauss, he strikes me as extremely similar to Adorno. Of course, there are also great differences! (Strauss is far less conflicted in his elitism). But they are two plants from the same soil (compare their 'dialectics of enlightenment' and also 'the jargon of authenticity'). A difference is that for Strauss the dialectics of enlightenment were, in part, consciously planned (whereas Adorno attributes it to the cunning of reason). But a crucial similarity is their distinction between instrumental reason and philosophic reason. For both of them this apparently epistemological distinction is also an ethical one. The quest is to re-find philosophic reason. They both take this on like detectives. The fact that the enlightenment dialectic is in part planned, for Strauss, allows him to create a hermeneutics of the early-modern and ancient philosophers. Adorno instead develops an esoteric hermeneutics of contemporary culture. But their systems have a very similar shape.


 * On the academic side, it is currently POV in favour of Strauss, since it doesn't have any philosophical criticism of his work. I agree. There are not many useful critical secondary sources unfortunately. Someone should spend time on this one day. I the meantime I am more concerned that it is being chipped at by people trying to change it in particular directions based on personal preferences rather than what can be found in reliable sources.
 * If you look at my edits, I wasn't chipping away. I actually added stuff from two more major sources. There are enough primary sources to create a far better article than we currently have. We'd just need some editors to write more on his philosophy, working from the primary sources (perhaps ideally some post-grad students who study Strauss could help). Avaya1 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Machiavelli and Guicciardini
Hi! Honestly I had given as obvious that articles about those two giants would be nearly perfect... instead they look (especially the second, a copy-paste from the horrendous 1911 Britannica - despite its deep POV showed me a side I didn't know about Guicciardini! It seems at school that bad sides of guy are not taught, or perhaps at the time I was more interested in girls... ;)) quite crappy. It seems Italy in this encyclopaedia has a bad destiny... I wonder if I didn't improved some 10,000 articles about Italian arguments in the last 5 years what situation we would have. But I'll keep doing my best. Ciao and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Vettori who? Consider I studied Machiavelli and Guicciardini at High School (20 years ago...) Ciao... --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just added the article about Petrus Victorius... Maybe it'll need some cleanup, as my English can sound a bit too Italian sometimes... :D --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ciao... I just improved a bit your article. Just a note: please use the spelling "Niccolò". Believe me, "Niccolo" in Italian sounds ridiculous. In the meantime, can you cleanup Pietro Vettori if you've time? --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

good job
Good work on aristotle's potentiality and actuality actually. I had just edited it a bit myself, and went back to check, and there were your ten or so edits (improvements, I might add).


 * Check out help:edit summary when you get a spare, tired moment. In there is a potential for editing wp:ACLASS articles too. &mdash;  Cp i r al Cpiral  04:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out my example. Buy buy. &mdash;  Cp i r al Cpiral  04:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hey there old friend. I see you keeping yourself busy with Genetic Anthropology. Any groundbreaking new discoveries ? Slovenski Volk (Hxseek) (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's encouraging. I;m sure you've seen some of the articles which try to use genetic data to "prove" certain facts about ethnic origins. I think, at this point, DNA data is useless for this except in a very broad way. What the data do reflect is some every old patterns- and only minority of what probably went on.


 * Have any new aDNA studies you were referring to been published ?


 * Another user pointed me toward new theories (not published, but on his forum) by Nordveldt, who places the origin of "Balkan" I2a2 to Moldavia region, rather than the Dinaric Alps.


 * Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Would websites such as his be considered WP:RS for the pruposes of wkipedia articles ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping
There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash  have a chat 00:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence assessment - move request
You might be interested in Talk:Intelligence_assessment PamD (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Argument
I have tried to expand the scope of this article so that it is about philosophical arguments in general, and not just arguments in formal logic. As well, I have added a section on World disclosing arguments. Someone has suggested that section should be deleted or moved into another article (see the talk page).

If you have time, can you take a look at it?

Thanks, Walkinxyz (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

p.s. another editor went ahead and deleted it, and I restored it based on the fact that I had made extensive revisions in response to feedback, that were not discussed in relation to the proposal to delete.


 * Thanks for taking a look. Another editor has also pitched in some supportive comments.


 * In terms of the nous/intellect stuff, it is really worth reading Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, especially Chapter 1, "The Invention of the Mind." The book is a critique of representationalism (or "mentalism") in Western philosophy, and it is one of the most important philosophy texts in the last 50 years. Chapter 1 discusses the transformation of the mind/body problem from Plato's time to the time of Descartes, Locke, and up to present day philosophers of mind, including discussions of nous. The question is about whether we are most basically "knowers", as modern philosophy has supposed since Descartes, or whether intelligence is even "separable" from physical nature to begin with, as has been supposed since Aristotle.


 * Rorty (and a lot of other philosophers) think that the inner/outer separation of mind from the rest of the natural world is incoherent, and that this has ramifications on all the different issues that arise from our view of intelligence (including self-knowledge, the use of language and reason, agency, and the concept of personhood). This is consistent also with a critique of subject-centred reason, and the notion that intelligence, mind, etc. are things that happen "inside" our brains, instead of between persons or speaking subjects and the things with which they interact in the world.


 * Walkinxyz (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis and comments
Hi! I just wanted to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for your careful analysis and corresponding comments at RSN recently, concerning a thread I've contributed to extensively there. It's really quite generous to be willing to sort through so long a thread, and to comment with the obvious care and understanding of policy that you brought to the discussion. I'd expressed my thanks on that page, already, of course, but your effort and follow up seemed to me to merit a more personal note as well, so thanks! Best regards, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

E-M78*
According to Battaglia 2008 "The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians), previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile, gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been." and also "the only I-P37.2* chromosome observed in Albania, not characterized by the unusual DYS388-15 repeat motif marker, could either represent the consequence of a reversion event back to the ancestral allele or be a rare representative of the ancestral P37 state." Where could they point to? Do we have nowadays an exact idea about the time of EV13 mutation? Cruciani seems to contradict Battaglia on that. In your opinion which is the most probable timeframe of that event? Regards Aigest (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)