User talk:Causteau/Archive 4

E1b1b map
Thanks for your comments. One big problem is simply fitting legible names on to a comprehensible map, but I'll look again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After a quick first re-check: (1) I do not see where anyone says V32 originated in Egypt/Libya. I would be interested though, so can you point it out? (2) Concerning V12, I have a problem of ability moving it any more northwards. If you look at the older versions of the map, I have made efforts to fit it into the formally defined region, and it only just fits. I don't know if this makes it more acceptable but it is right about where the centre of frequency is on the contour map in the 2007 article. (You see, I even thought about this.) I am obviously trying to avoid having much crossing over of paths. If I have to do that then I guess it would be better to take out some of the sub-clades, or brutally trim some of their migration paths, but that would be a shame. Let me know your thoughts on my practical problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting a question mark on M293 sounds fine, and again if you look at earlier versions I used such a system for other questionable positions. I am hoping to avoid having to put them on nearly every clade though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if we must get formal about things, V12 is in the correct area and there is no doubt about it. It is in Egypt/Libya, and it is right near the point of highest frequency of the 2007 article, and near the Nile, the "bi-directional corridor". You and I and others might move Mr V12 around forever within Egypt/Libya, but we might never agree on which village he lived in! :) By the way, what if I had put V12 in Libya? :) Anyway, I am going to consider whether it is a solution to collect V12, V22, and M78 into a collection, and thus decrease the number of arrows. Downside is that this would decrease the graphic power showing people how clades moved together but separately. Upside is that it might make the bidirectional corridor show up nicely. Could you in the meantime tell me if you still have any concerns about V32? I am obviously putting off playing with maps again until I have all my work lined up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat my question. Why do you say that the literature puts V32 in Egypt? I've already offered to change the map, but why should it be changed if you are mistaken for example? Please make citations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check the new version and comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please hit refresh on your browser and comment again. :) The only thing I have no response to yet in the new version is V32, because you have not explained why you say it originated in Egypt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for now citing the sources for your remarks on V32. You say you explained it 3 times by the way, but I think there was only one attempt, just before your new one, and this seems to have crossed over. Sorry for missing that. Anyway, please note that these are the same sources I was looking at when I decided that I was forced to fit V32 into the Horn of Africa. So at first sight they can be read two different ways. I'll therefore have to look over this again and make a new version very soon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked through the wording of the 3 Cruciani articles, as well as other standard articles like Hassan which touch on this subject. My conclusion so far is that Cruciani team show no commitment either way about where V32 first happened. It seems that they believe that the V12* line it was in was part of a migration moving south, but they don't say where it was when it happened. However they do specify that V32 was in the Horn when it started dispersing, at least for the dispersals they can identify most clearly. The wording you have chosen is in other words not really conclusive. However, your interpretation is a possible one, and the data in Hassan, which is newer, makes it all the more reasonable (or possibly even encourages us to put it in Sudan). Conclusion: I'll try to fit V32 in Egypt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * New version uploaded.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Moors Assistance if you can
I believe you have been interested in editing the Moors article. A bit of assistance would be helpful. (collounsbury (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Famous People
Hello, just to make sure you are aware, the famous people subject is also being discussed on the relevant Wikiproject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Are_the_.22famous_members.22_sections_trivia.3F --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA)
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. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning. But seeing as how your edits constitute a clear cut case of sneaky vandalism, I think it's you that you should be warning (incidentally, you seem awfully familiar with Wikipedia's policies for a supposed "newcomer"). Causteau (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau. We should be happy to have help on this article. Let's assume good faith and address the arguments you disagree with, instead of the person. There are enough debates without the unnecessary ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Moors
User:Nillarse has been blocked as a sock of User:69.118.72.18. User:ProfXY is obviously a sock of these two as well. Please revert Moors to whatever version you are comfortable with -- even if it's a week old or whatever. I will watch that article for signs of further disruptive edits and will make reports accordingly. Thanks and happy editing. --Boston (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

mt haplogroup M
Hi Causteau. I am honored and a bit surprised to see you asking my opinion, and even mentioning me on this article's talkpage as a reference concerning rational debate :). I'll have to remember that! I had been watching this article but I was hoping the short passage in question would be simple enough to allow a compromise. I shall go through the article though it is not a haplogroup I know a lot about right now. I guess it is a good opportunity to learn! I shall try to list the concerns you mention... Is that the list? Making a first effort I think I can comment on two of these...
 * Insisting on using old literature which has been superseded.
 * Citing an inappropriate personal website as a source.
 * Falsely dismissing literature because it is part of "Hindutva".
 * Etiquette etc.
 * Concerning the personal website, was this the Ian Logan website? If so then I think you have cited this before on mt haplogroup webpages, and I think Wapondaponda just removed it and Cadenas2008 seems to have accepted this? Actually I am not sure I agree that this is a website of a type which Wikipedia can not use. Anyway, is that the reference you are talking about or another?
 * Concerning etiquette, I really had considered saying something to you before about this article's talkpage. I have been watching both that and your personal talkpages. With all due respect you are very quick to call people vandals, shameless, etc etc and I do think you could easily change things from your side. From the first moment your discussion with Cadenas2008 has looked like it was going downhill. I have to point out that this does tend to happen to you more than to most, particularly perhaps when you first start bumping against a particular editor. I know from experience that you always seem to feel that others "started it" but please be cautious about taking such feelings too far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 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) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen so far the racism comments are indeed uncalled for. I'll keep looking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

E-M78 age
Hi Causteau. Yes I know what you mean but if you look at the table there are actually two methods used to calculate age. They do not say the other method is wrong, and they explicitly mention that they'll use only one method in the running text as if this is just a convention. See page 1303. "The difference is ... attributable to the relevant departure from a star-like structure because of repeated founder effects". (In other words, the difference reflects real possibilities.) Can you please look at the footnote I posted as part of this edit? I really looked more than twice before making this change. Let me know if I am wrong because if I am want to know anyway. Thank you for posting here first!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a point on both counts. I'm not sure I agree on where you are headed, but we could try changing things. Please consider:

1. Concerning Battaglia et al., yes, they seem to want to leave open or even emphasize the option that the V13 mutation actually occurred for the first time in Europe. In other words it would not then be E-V13 people who arrived in Europe, but E-M78* people. I think I can reword to cover this. The reasoning they give for this is strange and trying to integrate all of it into the article gives problems because they effectively ignore their own data and their own approach and the literature before them. I'll keep working on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Concerning the age of E-M78 you present the case Cruciani et al. make for one method, but they present the case for both. I see nowhere where they say which is right or wrong. They specifically say that the differences in estimations represent what might have really happened (non star like clustering means the assumptions in these models are in question). The reason for simplifying all this into 10,000-20,000 is because they do not give the ρ age a min/max but rather a standard deviation (2.3kya), which is certainly big enough to imply 10,000 as possible. Therefore taking all this complicated information what does it mean? It means that E-M78's pattern of variance (not star like) shows signs that make the age estimations is very inaccurate. For this reason I converted the text to a very rough estimate. What do you propose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, I see you are ignoring the above in the reverts you are making. Cruciani et al. did indeed say that they used the second aging method as a check. They also explicitly say that the check turned out to be relevant for one age estimation - that of the root, i.e. M78 itself. The state that "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." Please respect the article you are yourself citing. To the extent that 13.7kya is not actually a minimum, as discussed above, this simply implies we should even put a lower minimum such as 13.7kya minus 2 standard deviations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup M (mtDNA)
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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam, BT & A
I know that BT didn't split from A (as in M91). Per ISOGG A is not the ancestor of all haplogroups anymore, I always felt the same way A-M91 downstream mutation of either Y or earlier A or whatever you want to call it. BT article was not worded clearly thats why I left it open for changes although I think it should be aligned with M91 article & all edits saying that A is the ancestor etc should be changed.

At the end it just depends what you want to define as A. I asked a colleague who is working on a study in the Caucasus why is he using A* (instead of Y*), he had a strong opinion that A goes beyond M91 & splitting A on its own contradicts earlier works...etc. Anyways glad that someone finally gave a damn about the edit! Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Causteau.

Can you please let me know what pages (well besides M mtDNA..), I edited alot of TOA because some just didn't addup (especialy R1, R1b & R1a, since the artciles discussed the age of R, but the quotes used it for R1b!) The E pages I was more concerned with creating the new articles for E1, E1a, E1b, E2 to take some pressure of the main E & E1b1b pages, I was not very specific about the place of origin to avoid arguments. My idea of the origin of E1b1b is similar to M1, I envision E1b1b/M1 couples moving down the Red Sea coasts but its just my own imagination I don't edit based on that :)

The J article is easier to edit because their journey is much less complex than E1b1b. Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

T in Sciacca Scilians
Hi Causteau,

Keep in mind in earlier edits I tried to keep frequencies exclusive to to Nations only. However, later edits added Fulanis & Ibizans so I thought I should the Sciacca guys.

For this study;

Differential Greek and northern African migrations to Sicily are supported by genetic evidence from the Y chromosome Cornelia Di Gaetano. Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am starting to notice that more clearly now, On top of my head I know it shows up in Guanche (Canary) & Egyptians. Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Serbs also have high E1b1b (25%), it would have made more sense if the other Balkan people also had T we can then positively connect E1b1b with T in Egypt, Oman, Somalia. This needs more sampling, the Balkan Gypsies made alot of stops beofre entering Europe maybe they acquired more haplotypes from there. Their Indian Y-Chromosome is H1a I think with Indian 25%~40% M (mtDNA) still amongst them, another layer they picked up as they moved into Europe & then more E1b1b in the Balkans -lots of it is V13 though, but they also have other types of E1b1b as you already know. I know you follow everything about E1b1b :) Cadenas2008 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
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. ''You appear to be involved in an epic 3RR war on Haplogroup N (mtDNA). Please stop and seek consensus.'' Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All those Africa and Asia discussions
Hi Causteau, yes, I am aware of that discussion about Tibet versus Africa. Of course that is dealing with so little data that it is hard to draw very many conclusions from it. Anyway, of course we can not cite that discussion just as we can not cite what I type here. However I'd say that the present evidence tells us that the ancestry of DE is in Africa, but that the two main branches ended up in Asia and Africa respectively, telling us nothing about where exactly they dispersed from. My thought on E itself are that it probably dispersed for the most part from a Sahelian or perhaps even Saharan homeland. (Dispersal is not the same as true origin. The mutation could have happened almost anywhere.) DE probably entered Asia from somewhere nearby the Sahara also, and that's about all we know. I think there is a lot of confusion created by talking so much in terms of Africa or not Africa. The North African and Near Eastern areas are close to each other and have clearly always had interconnections. This one "super region" is itself clearly a point of origin to both Africa and Asia, and can perhaps be usefully thought of as a separate region, overlapping with other regions. All the regions we can think of are to some extent artificial categories.

I have to say I am a little uncomfortable with the discussions about DE (Y DNA), and M and N (mt DNA). I am trying to keep a straight-forward attitude, so in that spirit I should mention that I do not think the discussion is only about what literature is new. I do agree with Wapondaponda that old literature can of course be relevant, and worth mentioning. I imagine that you would agree at least upon reflection? I do however think that...

1. The raw material for speculation about origins are the data coming in from new surveys and new sequencing work. When new data comes in then of course this is a the type of thing that makes old literature quickly deserving of some caution.

2. There has been no big published reaction against the 2 or 3 papers which claimed to Asian origins for Haplogroup M. There was a reply in Nature to Olivieri but it appears to have been a reply that agreed with this basic position and only debated the age estimates.

Given the above there certainly appears to be a clear leading theory. I do not oppose mention of the other theory given that these are all recent events and for example there might be a big article coming out next month so to speak. Can you agree with this summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Causteau, thanks for your friendly remarks. They are appreciated. Just a quick comment because I've been out of town and not following for a few days at least. You mention Wapondaponda's personal page, but this is clearly marked as intended humour. This is the kind of thing that happens in all online debates of course, including those on Wikipedia: people tend not to see the fine points and discussion gets extreme.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are exaggerating, and exaggerating is in itself a big part of the problem you are having collaborating.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on April 7 2009 to Haplogroup N (mtDNA)
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

3rr no 2
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. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:18, 18 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)

I am still trying to study more about the Sahel ethnic groups, Chad is ethnically diverse so even small samples will not be enough when you take into consideration there are over 100 ethnic groups! The Sahel region has to be somewhat connected to Western Sudan. If I had to guesss I will think Chad has alot of E1b1b, moderate A, B & some R1b & J1, but thats just guessing! Cadenas2008 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps
I think we need to have the maps based on all samples taken that we have to keep updating every study -I don't have a problem trying to produce the maps with that if thats what you agree on. I tried asking Hxseek to draw an E1b1b map because he draws nice maps, but I think he is busy......BTW whats youe estimate frequency/type of E1b1b in Chad? I wonder if its similar to Darfur? Libya? Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on April 18 2009 to Haplogroup M (mtDNA)
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moors # Seensawsee's edits # The facts
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The Ogre (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.126.251.101
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)