Talk:Haplogroup E-M215: Difference between revisions
Line 612: | Line 612: | ||
::::::I couldn't agree more: all that writing for what? Just read it and read what you revert, before you revert, then you'll see. You are defending things which having nothing to do with the edits you are reverting. The words "prevalent" and "throughout" (at least being used together like you do) are not defensible from any of the sources or arguments you are using. The edits, sorry you call them manipulations, which you've been reverting fit your sources and explanations better than the wording you are insisting upon. '''Your''' wording and lack of explanation given the contexts in the article, is '''not''' something which you get from your sources. Please slow down and stop doing full reverts without first considering what other people are trying to do.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
::::::I couldn't agree more: all that writing for what? Just read it and read what you revert, before you revert, then you'll see. You are defending things which having nothing to do with the edits you are reverting. The words "prevalent" and "throughout" (at least being used together like you do) are not defensible from any of the sources or arguments you are using. The edits, sorry you call them manipulations, which you've been reverting fit your sources and explanations better than the wording you are insisting upon. '''Your''' wording and lack of explanation given the contexts in the article, is '''not''' something which you get from your sources. Please slow down and stop doing full reverts without first considering what other people are trying to do.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Stop manipulating the [http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Straub/StraubDNA-results-HgE.shtml source]'s assertion that "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1" -- it does not need any additional "qualifying" from you. What's more, the word "prevalent" in terms of frequency in population genetics more often than not is used interchangeably with the words "common" or "frequent". Working geneticists use them interchangeably all the time in their work, including Elise Friedman of the [http://www.familytreedna.com/public/JewishE3bProject Jewish E3b Project] (viz: "The E3b haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups world wide. It is considered to be the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population. "). [[User:Causteau|Causteau]] ([[User talk:Causteau|talk]]) 13:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:41, 4 October 2008
![]() | This article, Haplogroup E-M215, is currently the subject of informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal.
The mediation discussion is located here. You are encouraged to read current and past discussion on this talk page.
|
![]() | Human Genetic History Unassessed (inactive) | ||||||
|
Mediator comments
My apologies if anything finds these comments a bit lacking, as I have no desire to rehash some of the fine points of a dispute that (even by Wikipedia standards) is overly concerned with semantics and hypercorrectness.
Before I begin, I want to reiterate some facts about genetic genealogy:
- This is a very young field. The "state of the art" in the field changes very rapidly, which means that nomenclature and prevailing opinion also changes very rapidly, and it means that scholarly articles can have a very short shelf life before their methods and analysis become outdated.
- Much of the raw data and, for that matter, some of the advances in the field have been made by private industry and the hobbyist community. This presents a problem that does not affect most of Wikipedia; much of the data out there has not been subject to any form of verification (i.e., time and place of origin of the ancestral line has not been verified, analysis and interpretation hasn't been updated to reflect new information, etc.)
- The relative dominance or absence of a haplogroup in a given area does little to indicate its age or whether or not it is indigenous to an area; to the extent that we can currently measure these things, this sort of information is usually inferred from haplotype diversity and by the presence or absence of parent and/or sibling haplogroups. Until SNP and STR analysis of exhumed bodies becomes commonplace, this is the best approach we have.
- Any information in the article other than listing the location and prevalence of a haplogroup invariably leads to speculation that will someday be challenged by other editors, precisely because of the first three facts listed. Therefore, it's probably better to err on the side of being vague (but less likely to be disproved) than being "precise" (but very likely to be contested).
Finding common ground
I'm sure we can find some common ground here, as what we all want is a better article, and there doesn't seem to be a substantive disagreement on the content of the article. What are things everyone can agree on? I'll start with a few things:
- The mutation M215 defines the haplogroup that is the subject of this page.
- It is found in varying levels in Africa and Eurasia.
Suggested course of action
- Many of the discussion points here pertain to similar articles; I ask that interested parties take up their concerns at WikiProject Human Genetic History so that a consensus and guidelines can be developed for all human haplogroup articles in order to avoid future disputes.
- Encourage everyone to read (or revisit) the following Wikipedia guidelines: WP:OWN, WP:NAM, WP:PSTS and WP:COOL.
- Encourage the editors at the heart of this dispute to take a cool-down period; this would be helpful for those editors to find a sense of perspective (To be blunt - Ask yourself: do you REALLY have nothing more important in your life right now than to argue with strangers about something very trivial on the Internet?) and this would give other editors a period of time to take a look at the article without being drawn into an edit war themselves.
I see no reason why an amicable solution cannot be found; all I ask is that everyone involved check their hostility at the door and are willing to reconsider their own views and opinions. – Swid (talk · edits) 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A few points as a first response from Andrew Lancaster:
Concerning WikiProject Human Genetic History see [1]. I would like as many editors as possible, including any editors who have worked on this article or similar ones before, and I have contacted potential editors wherever I see them but I think, from messages I have had, that many potential editors with a lot of knowledge in this area are put off from entering the discussion.
I personally think this has a lot to do with what you mention above: the discussion being "overly concerned with semantics and hypercorrectness" and more specifically the way in which edits are reverted and deleted in the style of the above "silly" reverts as I described it in a section, with "hypercorrect" criticisms being used as an explanation. As can be seen there, I got angry responses about even pointing to the details of the silly revert, even though the reverter admitted that at least most of the reverts were just a result of not looking at what he deleted. I would add that many of the seemingly "hypercorrect" concerns seem artificial and/or superficial, and all with a tendency towards one editor, Causteau, trying to avoid too many changes being made by another editor, me. For a flavour of this you should really look at the discussion in more detail, including the debates in May which included, for example, a long debate and many reverts concerning the "controversy" of including mention of the parent clade in E1b1b in this article. And you might want to look at [2] , [3] , [4] , [5].
I believe that concerning matters of fact there is indeed no reason to think that this subject should be so difficult. To the extent that editors are allowed to work on this article, it can be improved further in ways which are pretty non-controversial, or at least should be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You may get the wrong point, so perhaps it is better to refer to your suggestion about finding common ground and ask why we don't just do that better. The problem is not finding common ground. For example...
- There is no debate about what Cruciani's 2004 and 2006 articles, clearly the primary and up-to-date reference for everyone, describe as the likely homeland of E1b1b and E1b1b1. The "problem" comes from the fact that although both Causteau and I, and I think anyone who reads those articles, can see that the answer is "the Horn of Africa" (and this is what the Wikipedia article says at first) in one paragraph which is currently quoted or paraphrased in the wikipedia article as an explanation about how this conclusion was reached, the words "Eastern Africa" are used. Causteau will not let anyone change that because, as I understand it, he believes that would be "original research". Hence all the reverts. The direction is now pushing for is to pretend that we are not referring to Cruciani 2004 by referring to secondary sources.
- There was no debate in May about what the parent clade was of E1b1b, but it took many reverts and a lot of debate before anyone was allowed to actually mention it in the article. Apparently mentioning the parent clade in an article about a clade, was considered irrelevant by Causteau, and once again it was bad enough in his mind to be the subject of reverts etc. (See Archives 1 for this talk page.)
- There was no debate about the status of M293 in Henn's new article which is where we started last week. And yet also concerning this subject, we had multiple reverts and silliness. I was accused of working for some sort of Afro-centric secret society because I used the word "sub-saharan" just for example. It was argued that writing a clade name for the new SNP as E-M293 was "original research" for another. Causteau edited the article repeatedly to show the name of the clade as E3bf-M293, which does not fit in the more up-to-date nomenclature of the article. He argued long and hard that this was necessary in order to avoid "original research". Finally he backed down when he was forced to read one of the references which was already being referred to that explained how "official" the mutation based nomenclature for clade names is since 2002.
--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: A new moderator comes in and correctly indicates that the discussion has moved in a negative, unproductive direction. He also accurately points out that there is too much emphasis on pedantic minutiae that no one gives two hoots about instead of the article itself, as well as absurd levels of ad hominem (viz. the "self-interested fraud" debacle above). As a remedy, he then quite sensibly proposes, like the administrator Elonka before him, that we start afresh, perhaps even take a break from the article before resuming actual discussions. And what does Andrew do? Bring up old discussions from not even days but months ago that were long-resolved and moderated. He also once again engages in the petty finger-pointing and baseless recrimination already visited ad nauseam in the preceding paragraphs -- the very sophomoric behavior both Swid and Elonka specifically instructed us not to engage in! In essence, Andrew was again given the opportunity to demonstrate good faith and a genuine desire to resolve this issue, but chose instead to continue as before, commenting on the contributor rather than the content although Wiki policies expressly discourage this. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly to find an amicable solution to this issue when the other party seems dead-set on avoiding just that. Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the best way to show good faith for either of us is to work on the article itself rather than reverting, deleting, wikilawyering etc. But I am being stopped. My finger pointing is not about the past but about problems I am having with editing, and therefore all attempts to "find common ground" or "start afresh" - here and now. Your finger pointing, even in this above scold, is different. You make it very hard to see that you shares the aims of the greater community, especially a good article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
More geography questions
I want to point to old discussions which were never finished off.
1. Sicily, and more generally Southern Italy. See Calagero's remark in Archive 1. Because a mixture of different types of E1b1b are found in Southern Italy, some areas have a very high level. So even though it does not have quiet as much V13 as the Balkans, as a European place having high levels of E1b1b haplotypes, it should be mentioned. I am wondering whether in "(especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans)", Mediterranean should be changed to "Southern Italy". Are there really any other parts of Europe that compete with these two specific areas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, it should be not changed to just "Southern Italy" because it is by no means just Southern Italy with a significant presence of E1b1b. It is the entire heavily-populated Mediterranean region (especially Greece where it reaches frequencies of up to 47% in the Peloponnese), as Rosser et al. (2000) and Pericic et al. (2005) among others clearly show. Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Greece is in the Balkans. So where else in the European Mediterranean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. "Balkanization". See the discussion involving me and Causteau in Archive 1 referring to the V13 sub-section. This week we saw another example of the Balkanization I mentioned there: editors constantly coming in and changing the emphasis on which countries have most E1b1b. My proposal was to replace all mention of specific countries with just "the Balkans". In fact, looking at different data sets in different papers shows all different variations of detailed level conclusions you could draw but there is no doubt that the general area is the Balkans. Causteau's concern was that this term would cover places like Hungary. I replied showing that at least according to Wikipedia, Hungary is not in the Balkans.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, editors were not "constantly coming in and changing the emphasis on which countries have the most E1b1b". Only one editor added Romania to the list of countries in Europe where E1b1b is observed at a high frequency. That does not qualify as a trend much less a deluge of editors. Our long-resolved and moderated discussion of months ago, moreover, took place back when I, for one, was not nearly as familiar with the prevalence of E1b1b/E3b across the world as I am now. It therefore has no bearing on our present discussion. That said, the considerable presence of E1b1b in the Balkans is very well established. From Albanians (27%) to Serbs (20.4%) to Macedonians (24.1%), it is ubiquitous in this region. The second highest prevalence of E1b1b in Europe is, in fact, found in the Balkans among Kosovar Albanians (46%). Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect Causteau, I've been working on this article for a lot longer than you, and there have been constant "drop in" edits on that list. I am sorry that I can not take into account that you think you were much less knowledgeable all of a couple of months ago. The basic fact of the matter is that we left the discussion open, as per my link. When you say it has no bearing on the present discussion what do you mean? This is an old point I am reawakening, concerning the article as it presently stands. The "present discussion" is a "the article and whether it should be changed". Can you address that? My question is simple: don't the standard definitions of the Balkans explain the area we mean in one word, and avoid us having to list all of the countries and regions and ethnic groups involved? Do you have strong feelings about this? Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- If by editors "constantly coming in and changing" things you don't mean recently but over your admittedly long history of editing this page, then that isn't exactly any different a situation than what goes on on just about every other article on Wikipedia. Moreover, I mean that it is not helpful to bring up old, long-resolved discussions as if they are still unresolved when you yourself never indicated as much at the denouement of our last moderated encounter. As for the Balkans, no, I do not have strong feelings about it. But other editors apparently do since you yourself said they keep coming in and adding countries. Causteau (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I can make a text no one will edit, but I do aim to make it less and less tempting to edit for anyone who knows this field. Seems a good aim? So please focus on that question: do you not think that one word can replace several here? Would it be a big problem if we try it? And concerning the Med, I am equally open: is there really any other part of the Euro Med with really high concentrations like Sicily and the Balkans? I see some old studies which mention Andalucia, but it seems unclear? Just tell me what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, one word definitely won't do here, as these are heavily-populated areas with very significant frequencies i.e. millions of E3b carriers per country. And it's not just Sicily in Southeastern Europe either -- it's the entire region, especially Greece. Causteau (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and Greece is in the Balkans. So apart from Southern Italy and the Balkans, please be more specific. Where are the high levels in the rest of Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- All the areas already mentioned in the text including a few not mentioned such as certain Welsh towns where Roman soldiers are known to have settled down (e.g. Abergale at ~39%). Causteau (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand. We were talking about whether the term Mediterranean could be replaced by Balkans and Southern Italy. Do you now want to make no distinctions between the Med and the rest of Europe? Why make this point now even if it is a real point? And if this is serious why don't we just say it is found "in the world"? I thought we were trying to name the areas with the highest concentrations? Please consider.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. A distinction is already made between the Mediterranean region and Europe as a whole in the introduction. In addition, the Balkans is for the most part a distinct region from the Mediterranean. Southern Italy also represents just a part of Italy, which in turn is only one country in the Mediterranean. The term "Southern Italy", moreover, doesn't cover other areas of high prevalence such as Portugal and the Pasiegos of Cantabria (>40% in the latter). So that proposition is inadequate and not really necessary. Causteau (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Intro actually says "Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans)". Portugal and Cantabria are both not in either of these parts of Europe. So your comment on these places (could you tell me your source? I am interested) still doesn't count as a defense of the text as it stands. By the way, whatever your sources, I'll bet they involve single studies, which you are elsewhere deleting any mention on in the article. Do you think we can use them, but just not openly state where we are sourcing the information? That doesn't seem logical to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Portugal is not technically on the Mediterranean Sea, but is considered a part of the Mediterranean community, as is the Pasiegos of Cantabria, which is in Spain (another heavily-populated country with a significant presence of E3b) that is, in turn, on the Mediterranean. Secondly, you are once again not assuming good faith ("I'll bet they involve single studies, which you are elsewhere deleting any mention on in the article"), which is both uncalled for and ironic since both the Cruciani et al. (2004) (for the Pasiegos of Cantabria) and Rosser et al. (2003) (for Portugal) studies are already referenced in the article. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- What is this Mediterranean community, and should we mention "in the Mediterranean Community"? If you look at the relevant Wikipedia articles, Cantabria is certainly not even a place with Mediterranean climate or flora. It is less Mediterranean than Paris. (If you are talking about modern political affiliations, what does that have to do with an article like this about ancient human affiliations? At the very least the wording in the article now is misleading.) Concerning your reference for Portugal, I do not see a particularly high concentration of E1b1b there. Perhaps Southern Europe would be better than Mediterranean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing misleading about the wording; Cantabria is a region of Spain which is in the Mediterranean. Portugal is adjacent to Spain and, though not on the Mediterannean Sea, is considered a part of the Mediterranean (politically, culturally, ethnically). Moreover, at frequencies of 11-20% of its ethnic population of 10,000,000, there are indeed many Portuguese that are E1b1b carriers. Your proposal that perhaps Southern Europe would be better than Mediterranean seems to me unnecessary since that's pretty much the same thing as stating "Mediterranean and the Balkans", which is already in the text. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cantabria is in non-Mediterranean Spain. I understand that there might be very specific ways of referring to Canatabria as linked to Spain politically and therefore politically Mediterranean, but this is certainly not obvious. By the way you give no source for your remarks implying that there is a definition of a "Mediterranean Community" so I am assuming that this is just being conversational. (Anyway, political definitions seem quite inappropriate in an article about such timespans of human history. You should look at how the terms are defined in Wikipedia and other places. If the interpretation of the terminonology is ambiguous we have a choice of putting in extra verbiage to make it clear, or else seeking a word which gets rid of ambiguity. Southern Europe would work though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
A confusion here comes from the fact that there were two separate proposals about the article text being discussed together now. I want to separate them again.
1. article now says:
As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).
I asked whether the parenthesis is or is not mainly referring to the Balkans and Southern Italy - a question raised before during these long discussions. (I don't consider that subjects never replied to are now to be ignored.) Although looking at [6] I wonder if just Italy would be more appropriate.
Causteau has replied by raising what I can only read as a new subject - that there are pockets of non-Mediterranean Europeans with high levels of E-M215. Actually, I think that adding a remark about this is probably a good idea, because it is one of the interesting this about this haplogroup that is often remarked upon as possible evidence for Roman or other Mediterranean settlement in various areas. See for example the various online comments of Steven Bird and his article on JOGG.
But I believe there is also evidence that there are pockets of E1b1b all around its fringe, and all widely dispersed in an interesting way. This is at least Causteau's interpretation of the situation in Southern and Eastern Africa if I read him correctly, but I think I recall that the same could be said about pockets stretching out to Iran and past it?
Just as an example of what might be better than the existing text, but I think needs consideration first, we could have
As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Balkans and Italy).
...or, if it is true that places like Andalucia and Southern Portugal (which is not in the Med) have high concentrations that are not just in pockets As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Balkans and Southern Europe).
1.2. And do we have enough sourcing to justify a new sentence, in answer to the point raised by Cauteau? For example
It is notable that isolated pockets of high E1b1b in other parts of Europe, for example in Cantabria and Wales, have lead to speculation[1] as to whether this is the result of Roman or other Mediterranean settlement within historical times.
2. In the V13 section I had a more simple practical suggestion. The current article says
This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans, where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.
I propose simply removing the questionable and unsourced diversion into details, meaning all of "where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations". The first sentence is very debatable, and needs careful sourcing which looks at the competing articles. In my opinion, there is not enough data anywhere to be so sure about which areas have the highest concentrations. Some parts of Greece obviously have very high levels for example. The second sentence is simply redundant and a diversion.
So the paragraph could look like
This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.
Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A confusion here comes from the fact that there were two separate proposals about the article text being discussed together now. I want to separate them again.
1. article now says:
As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).
I asked whether the parenthesis is or is not mainly referring to the Balkans and Southern Italy - a question raised before during these long discussions. (I don't consider that subjects never replied to are now to be ignored.) Although looking at [7] I wonder if just Italy would be more appropriate.
Causteau has replied by raising what I can only read as a new subject - that there are pockets of non-Mediterranean Europeans with high levels of E-M215. Actually, I think that adding a remark about this is probably a good idea, because it is one of the interesting this about this haplogroup that is often remarked upon as possible evidence for Roman or other Mediterranean settlement in various areas. See for example the various online comments of Steven Bird and his article on JOGG.
But I believe there is also evidence that there are pockets of E1b1b all around its fringe, and all widely dispersed in an interesting way. This is at least Causteau's interpretation of the situation in Southern and Eastern Africa if I read him correctly, but I think I recall that the same could be said about pockets stretching out to Iran and past it?
Just as an example of what might be better than the existing text, but I think needs consideration first, we could have
As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Balkans and Italy).
...or, if it is true that places like Andalucia and Southern Portugal (which is not in the Med) have high concentrations that are not just in pockets As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Balkans and Southern Europe).
- Again, Southern Italy is just a part of Italy which in turn is just one country in the Mediterranean. E1b1b enjoys a considerable presence in the entire region, not just one part of one single country in that region. The article therefore states "Mediterranean" because E1b1b is indeed ubiquitous there as Rosser et al. (2000), Cruciani et al. (2004), and Pericic et al. (2005) among others have already shown. Causteau (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence you have given so far concerning parts of the Med outside the Balkans and Italy does not include any clearly "Mediterranean" places, and nor does it show evidence of anything other than "pockets". Putting the latter concern aside, should we change to Southern Europe? Please consider the Wikipedia articles on Mediterranean Region and Southern Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The studies above give many European populations and cleary show a preponderance of E3b in the Mediterranean and Balkan regions in particular. It's, again, not just "Southern Italy". Moreover, the term "Southern Europe" encompasses both the Mediterranean and the Balkans, which is what the article already states. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Southern Europe contains more than the Mediterranean and the Balkans. If anything is arguable, then we need to include extra explanation in the text to show how we are using the term, or else use the simplest term, which seems to be Southern Europe. Indeed we could drop the Balkans, because we are going to be explaining that later with the sub-clades. This is better because the Balkans is especially high in concentration of V13. But parts of Italy may have higher concentrations of E1b1b1 (E-M35) generally, because of the mixture of different types there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1.2. And do we have enough sourcing to justify a new sentence, in answer to the point raised by Cauteau? For example
It is notable that isolated pockets of high E1b1b in other parts of Europe, for example in Cantabria and Wales, have lead to speculation[1] as to whether this is the result of Roman or other Mediterranean settlement within historical times.
- The "notable isolated pockets" of E1b1b only refer specifically to Britain since that is what the JOGG study I quoted for you on Abergele and other Welsh towns addresses. It does not pertain to the nebulous "other parts of Europe", a continent where E1b1b is in fact the third most common Y clade. So no, the above phrase definitely is not supported by sourcing. Causteau (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- So "other parts of Europe" is a bad way to describe the pockets because "nebulous". So we should name every one exactly? Oh, but we can't because accurate enough data does not exist. We could just name some examples. But what you propose is nice and clear: say nothing about pockets, one of the most interesting aspects of this haplogroup, and pretend the spread is even. This makes editing easier. And as you have said many times, Wikipedia is for you all about clear sourcing and not whether it is true or not. Sometimes reality is nebulous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
2. In the V13 section I had a more simple practical suggestion. The current article says
This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans, where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.
I propose simply removing the questionable and unsourced diversion into details, meaning all of "where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations". The first sentence is very debatable, and needs careful sourcing which looks at the competing articles. In my opinion, there is not enough data anywhere to be so sure about which areas have the highest concentrations. Some parts of Greece obviously have very high levels for example. The second sentence is simply redundant and a diversion.
So the paragraph could look like
This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.
Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Albanians were indeed observed to have the highest concentrations of E1b1b in the Balkans by Rosser et al. (2005) in their study:
In Europe, the highest E3b1{alpha} variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks.
- The second sentence is also not redundant since Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Macedonians all show high concentrations of E1b1b, whereas it's not as high for Romanians. Causteau (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we both know that there are various articles describing various different concentrations in these areas. Rumania is not always lower than the rest, and Albania is not always the highest. Call me old fashioned but I think it is dishonest to make the article sounds like we, the editors, know of no such reason for doubt. And why worry about that if we can just use one word, Balkans?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The frequencies of E1b1b observed in Albanians, Greeks, Macedonians, Serbs, Bulgarians, etc. are consistently high per Rosser et al. (2005), Pericic et al. (2005), etc. And Romania indeed is not always lower than the rest. However, Albanians, Greeks and Macedonians are consistently the highest. The envelope term "Balkans" conceals this fact. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1. The article now says that Albanians, just Albanians, have the highest concentrations.
- 2. You only cite two articles! I'm sure we both know that there are more articles that do not all clearly give the same result. Albania is not always highest and Rumania is not always lower than the rest of the Balkans. A big part of this certainly seems to be because Rumania and Greece are large and ethnically complex, not single units on the same scale as Kosovo or Albania.
- 3. Pericic is not about Rumania or Greece, although it does cite other works.
- 4. Pericic says the highest concentration is in Kosovo, which is not Albania.
- So we seem to have a few options, say "Balkans" which is basically right, or say something like "in most parts of the Balkans", or say a full list of all areas and ethnic groups. I'd say the last options is out, because even if such data were available, this would be for a special section on its own.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- BTW (I have tried to make this point several times, but I've had trouble gets edits to upload) Roumania is not in most definitions of the Balkans.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update. I made an edit and surprise, surprise, Causteau did a revert. Comment was: discussed but definitely not agreed to. Question: is it justifiable to say that after months of having a question open, where the defender against edits can not come up with an argument against, that Wikipedia demands permission be given by the said defender before one may edit? So how do you edit on Wikipedia again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Lancaster, surprise, surprise, made unilateral edits we of course did not agree on. Instead of going through the discussion and resolution process, he opted instead to insert into the text his own preferred version of the regions where E3b is prevalent, and compartmentalized the different regions to boot. That's hardly productive and goes completely against what the moderators have recommended. Causteau (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any points left which were not discussed? There is not rule in Wikipedia that you need Causteau's permission to make edits. The "process" for these subjects has gone months. There is no sign of any substantial point being made anymore from your side. The replies, when you were still writing them, repeat points already covered more than once. You have no factual or stylistic or sourcing reasons to make reverts. Why may I not edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, what's wrong with a "unilateral edit"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka made it clear that we should discuss and agree to edits before inserting them. And this is an edit war, in case you hadn't noticed -- not business as usual. Using your logic, I could easily modify the entire article as I see fit, and when you naturally will balk at my edits, what's to stop me from telling you "there is no rule in Wikipedia that you need Lancaster's permission to make edits"? I'm not interested in your jaundiced interpretations of what I NEVER stated. When I agree to an edit, you'll know it because I won't be telling you why your own proposed edits are inadequate. Causteau (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Causteau, which of my comments are you referring to, exactly? --Elonka 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the best of my recollection, my instructions were to stop reverting each other, to stay civil, and to work on changing each other's text rather than just deleting it.[8] If I said something else that I'm not remembering, please refresh my memory? Thanks, --Elonka 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka made it clear that we should discuss and agree to edits before inserting them. And this is an edit war, in case you hadn't noticed -- not business as usual. Using your logic, I could easily modify the entire article as I see fit, and when you naturally will balk at my edits, what's to stop me from telling you "there is no rule in Wikipedia that you need Lancaster's permission to make edits"? I'm not interested in your jaundiced interpretations of what I NEVER stated. When I agree to an edit, you'll know it because I won't be telling you why your own proposed edits are inadequate. Causteau (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So according to the above interpretation, all anyone has to do is (a) make sure things stay messy so that this is called "an edit war" (easy, just revert things) and (b) pretend to come up with objections (at least to a comma or something) and then you can do whatever you like. No, not quite: this rule does not work the same for people wanting to edit, and people wanting to do anti-editing. This is indeed the problem on this article. Can we put that on an RfC? Anyone can go through the discussions and see how they get circular and stop, how edits get attempted and then reverted, and so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to remind what the issue is here. Causteau's own sourcing which he produced to justify keeping the current text, which I believe I put in originally, disagrees with him. (It is amazing how often Causteau is defending old edits of mine against my own updating or improvement. He even uses the fact that I wrote something as an argument against changing it: for example when he defended a block revert which re-inserted old weasel words recently.)
See my responses 1, 2, 3, 4, and BTW above which therefore justified the edit I made and which Causteau reverted only on the basis that he had not pre-agreed. Causteau has not responded to either of those very clear non-technical points - neither before nor after the reverts. Put simply, Causteau's last defense of the existing text actually makes it clear that it is wrong. If he now refuses to comment further, what further discussion can there be?
BTW, it could be said that Causteau has supplied a second argument, which is that he wrote to Elonka stating that my reverted edits had claimed to be on the basis of agreement. He calls this a "stunt". This is actually untrue, as can be confirmed by checking the edits. They only claim to have been discussed at length. People who want to understand what is going on with the editing would be advised to see the notes Causteau has been writing to Elonka's talk page for some time, asking her to intervene and stop me from trying to edit the article so much without his permission, and now more recently complaining about the excessive amount of discussion I am producing while trying to get his permissions.
Clearly a big part of the problem here is that Causteau seems to feel that this might work. And indeed until now it has. His steady level of reverts are being allowed, while any increase in re-reverts trigger reactions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
starting again on the blocked geography discussions
Here are the reverted edits. I start again, because that's the only option I have to try to edit this article...
1. A long, complex and ambiguous sentence is broken up and terminology chosen to help simplify.
As discussed in more detail below, various forms of E1b1b and E1b1b1 are found in male lineages whose ancestry is from...
- Africa, mainly Eastern (especially the Horn of Africa), and North Africa, but also parts of Southern Africa.
- West Asia
- Europe (especially Southern Europe).
...reverted to...
As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).
2. A long, complex and ambiguous sentence is broken up and terminology chosen to help simplify.
This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.
...reverted to...
This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans, where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and [[Ethnic Macedonians|Macedonians]] show high concentrations. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.
I do not believe there is any outstanding point of fact or sourcing that has been raised as a reason for these reverts. I also don't expect any news ones because it has been discussed to death. Causteau has been given every opportunity to justify a refusal to allow editing on this, and has taken every opportunity. The proposals have indeed been changed and adapted to try to take account of every possible objection. In his last replies before he stopped replying, he was giving citations and summaries which made it clear that the text he is still defending is wrong and known by him to be wrong. The geographical terminology in the proposed but reverted version has been shown to be less ambiguous than the version being defended, and more in line with Wikipedia articles on the areas in question. Causteau has never really addressed that justification at all despite the length of the discussion, presumably because of the normal argument he makes that the onus is on others to convince him a change is required, which I think is a disputable principle to say the least. Can anyone give a good reason for not re-instating the new versions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried 2 new versions of the above proposed edits today and [only got reverted on the first one]. The other one was edited, but in a considered way, and I am happy about that. Also, concerning that first one, I got a comment, which I appreciate. So I'd like to try to understand it:
- "edited regions of frequency back to neutral setting; if it's to be compartmentalized at all, it should be by the sub-clades that are actually most prevalent in each region"
- By "neutral" I can not see how breaking a long sentence in bullets is non-neutral, so I suppose this means that a revert is being assumed to be more neutral than an edit? Not sure. Or it might be a reference to the following nuance...
- By compartmentalizing I understand that this is a reference to splitting the long sentence into bullets. Perhaps the spin on this word implies that the bullets, being 3 traditional continents, give some sort of biased view or send people in the wrong direction? The only way I could follow that is that indeed, most branches of this haplogroup are in Africa, and maybe West Asia and Europe should be lumped together as another branch? But that doesn't sound all that convincing either as a proposal or as an interpretation of what is intended. Indeed, I remember once proposing that we should just say that E-M215 is basically African, and this was shot down also. Europe had a fast growing population for quite a few recent centuries, so indeed in crude number terms it has a lot of representatives of this clade, even if nowhere near the same diversity.
- Concerning dividing into sub-clades, instead of the compartments of the continents, I don't follow. The follow on from the introduction does this, and in fact makes up most of the rest of the article. So this introductory closing paragraph was originally intended just to give people a picture of where this haplotype is before talking about the real stuff, which is indeed the sub-clades. But there is no point moving the whole rest of the article into the introduction?
- Sicily has been removed, which leaves a reasonable question open which another editor raised in May. In terms of pure raw % concentrations of any type of E-M215, this then raises the question (which I have raised at this point before) of why we specify the Balkans at all. Because Sicily has just as much as the Balkans. Easier would be leave detailed discussion to the sections below?? If the thinking is that the Balkans has a high concentration of the V13 sub-clade, then of course this will be handled there.
Any assistance in understanding what the concerns are would be appreciated, because I think the current long list with sub-lists format would work better as a bullet point list.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
E-P2* in Semino 2004
Concerning this change: [9] I do not understand the explanation which says that "what Semino source actually says; it identifies E-M2/E3a/E1b1a as a "signature of the Bantu expansion" and it was found predictably mainly in West African groups". Neither the text being changed, nor the new proposal, mentions anything to do with that?? The only things being removed are my poor "helpful link" paragroup once again, and a simple explanation of what a paragroup is "sibling lines to E1b1b and other major E-P2 clades like E1b1a". Can someone at least put in that innocent link again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Semino source only states that "the E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians" in reference to its study. It does not mention "sibling lines", and only ever mentions E-M2 long enough to point out that this clade, by contrast, is a signature of the Bantu expansion and was observed at its highest frequency in the Senegal. Causteau (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so why was the change necessary? E-P2* means "sibling lineages of E-M215" and I was only trying to explain that. That is not synthesis by the way, but just trying to make jargon easier to understand. I am open to your proposals! But can you at least please fix the link you removed for the umpteenth time?? Fix what you change.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
E-M35* in Semino 2004
Concerning this edit [[10]] it has two parts. The second part has been discussed above ad nauseum. But the first part completely removes, without replacing it with anything,
Coming to E1b1b1 (E-M35) the undifferentiated paragroup E-M35* may be at it's highest concentration amongst the Oromo of Ethiopia[2]
and claims as justification
the Oromo statement is not accurate; it is observed elsewhere at higher frequencies; citing NE Africa after East Africa gives the impression that Cruciani doesn't mean it when he does
The paper says (p.1025) that
The E-M35* lineage shows its highest frequency in the Ethiopian Oromo
I can imagine making the wording better, or including a footnote explaining what newer articles have added to this, but I see nothing in newer articles which change the conclusion fundamentally at first sight? In any case, can this be explained please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're too late. Although I know this statement is likely false, I have not reverted it in my latest edit. However, the fact that the statement immediately precedes (and in the same paragraph) Cruciani's assertion that E1b1b originated in East Africa makes it appear at a casual glance like E1b1b originated with Oromos when of course Cruciani never stated as much. I've separated the paragraphs to remove this impression. Causteau (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- E1b1b is E-M215. This comment is about E-M35. The reference is to Semino, not Cruciani. Please look again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, the Semino et al. source never states that E-M35* is at its highest frequency globally among Oromos -- just among their few sampled populations in their one study! Causteau (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. Isn't that all any study does? Please explain. Is my quote above wrong, or needing some context to understand it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that Semino et al. only reported that the Oromos were the highest E-M35* carriers in their study -- not globally as implied in the article. Causteau (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where do they make that distinction? The wording looks global to me at first sight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- For one thing, they cite the frequency from their own Oromo sample (19.2%). They also never state or imply that that frequency is the highest globally. Causteau (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- In normal English, highest means highest globally. Although of course this was a study, like all these papers, it was a pretty big one. You'd have to put in a qualifier if you meant something else. So your assertion is not in the paper, but just a guess surely? Maybe you can look at other papers to see what they say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- In normal English, "highest" means "highest" -- not "highest globally". If I conduct a study with some Frenchman, some Peruvians, and some Ainu, and I observe that the sampled Frenchman have the highest frequency of, say, E3b in my study, then it means just that: my sampled Frenchman have the highest frequency of E3b in my study. It certainly does not mean that they have the highest frequency of E3b globally/around the world unless I directly and explicitly say so. Causteau (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- To me the wording looks like it is pushing for a global meaning, but let's just say that it can be interpreted two ways. This still means you need a source to make your sourcing work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- What sourcing? Where? Cause I'm not trying to add this statement here. Or are you referring to the ISOGG "Near East" business? If so, please see above for my response. Causteau (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. I can't do a "let's say it is unclear" in this case. So, OK, I still think it is clear: Unless there is something I am missing the wording looks global. The article claims to to have ">2400 subjects from 29 populations, mainly from Europe but also from Africa and Asia". It hardly sounds like a regional study, or a small study.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Large or not, that's still one study. And Semino et al. still never state or imply that that figure they cite applies anywhere other than the sampled populations in their one study. Causteau (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The quotation you remove also just states this and does not say the conclusion is definite. Please consider where this logic takes you: you can't cite any data because that data is never all data. This logic is indefensible surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The quote states that "coming to E1b1b1 (E-M35) the undifferentiated paragroup E-M35* may be at it's highest concentration amongst the Oromo of Ethiopia", essentially speculating that Oromos carry the highest frequencies of E-M35* around the world. If the quote wasn't referring to global percentages, then it is hardly notable since that would make it just another frequency. Furthermore, the quote was initially placed in the exact same paragraph in the Origins section as Cruciani's criteria identifying East Africa (actually, the Horn of Africa) as E1b1b's possible place of origin in Africa. This gives the impression that Oromos in particular were at the root of E1b1b's origins when Cruciani of course does not state this. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please compare the article as it stands to the paper being cited and show me the difference in wording that shows what you mean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- They're both already quoted and analysed above. Causteau (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and from what I see the text in the Wikipedia article is succeeding to give the same range of possible interpretations as the original from which it is paraphrased - unlike what you do with the ISOGG webpage. But I am open to hear why you think this is not true. You have not explained that yet in terms of the latest version you've reverted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- A range of possible interpretations, no doubt, since the edit was vaguely worded to begin with and not in line with what Semino et al. actually wrote. Again, the quote states that "coming to E1b1b1 (E-M35) the undifferentiated paragroup E-M35* may be at it's highest concentration amongst the Oromo of Ethiopia", essentially speculating that Oromos carry the highest frequencies of E-M35* around the world when Semino et al. neither state nor imply this. All Semino et al. report is that the Oromos were the highest E-M35* carriers in their own study (@19.2%). Furthermore, the quote was initially placed in the exact same paragraph in the Origins section as Cruciani's criteria identifying East Africa (read: the Horn of Africa) as E1b1b's possible place of origin in Africa. This only serves to give the impression that Oromos in particular were at the root of E1b1b's origins when Cruciani of course does not state this either. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The quote used similar words, in a similar context (discussion about origins). You are taking it out because it gets in the way of your Near East wording, as does any attempt to enrich this section. You do not believe yourself that E1b1b is currently written about as coming from the Middle or Near East, but which is now an obsession for you to try to make sure it stays in. So this is one of several direct quotes which you are trying to make less direct and less exactly quoted, in order not to conflict with a theory you can not and would not defend yourself, and nor can you say where it originally comes from.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hidden revert?
Causteau, isn't this a full revert of the edit two before? If not can you please explain the differences between this edit and a full revert in order that I avoid making any wrong edits? As usual with your editing a whole lot of changes are deleted in one big step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- No Andrew. That is not a full revert of the edit before it, and I ask you once again to refrain from not assuming good faith.
- Well, as you are now peppering your replies with such comments, I'd like to ask you what on earth in my question demands this sort of "request to refrain"? Are you saying any question is "not assuming good faith"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a very simple way to see whether or not an edit is a full revert, and that is to compare the "last good version" as it were with the latest alleged "revert". This link does just that and clearly shows that no, my last edit indeed was not a full revert.
- I just asked you to go through the changes for me then. The way you show of checking this does not work I think, because it has trouble showing when sentences have been moved rather than changed or deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- My last edit was, in fact, a removal of a speculative assertion that "however, Eastern Africa, probably the Horn of Africa, is the normal opinion reflected in the most recent published works on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 [3][4][5]", when of course none of those sources state that that is the "normal opinion reflected in the most recent works" -- they're the most recent works themselves!
- I already noted in my next edit that this could have been fixed with a small edit, and I tried to make that small edit, but --- you reverted that also! So your explanation does not fit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The remainder of the edit also re-inserted "Northeast Africa" alongside "Near East" in the ISOGG statement when I clearly explained to you above that 1)this is a rehash of the exact same concern you raised about us citing East Africa as the place of origin in one place yet the Horn of Africa as the place of origin in another since the Horn of Africa and Northeast Africa are synonyms, and 2)it also gives the fallacious impression that Cruciani was referring to Southeast Africa and not Northeast Africa in the paragraph preceding it when he of course specifically meant the latter. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see Southeast being implied? Please explain? Again, if the confusion between Northeast Africa and the Horn of Africa is the problem, a small edit would fix this, and not such a big edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your latest edit also commits several errors:
- You immediately follow Cruciani's enumeration of his criteria for identifying East Africa (read: the Horn of Africa) as the place of origin of E1b1b with the unrelated statement that "in other words, the population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181[6]." That is not at all an equivalent statement to what Cruciani wrote nor a corrollary to that. The mutations of the population in which the E-M215 man arose has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa -- the latter has to do with what he himself enumerated: the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup.
- Specifically it is point 3 is what is being explained in "other words" here, not the whole conclusion. Changing the punctuation could make that clear. No need for blanket reverts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- You've again amended the ISOGG phrase identifying the Near East as another possible place of origin of E1b1b1 by re-adding Northeast Africa despite the implications explained earlier of doing so.
- If you want to cite ISOGG, these are the only types of words you can use. Changing the words in order to change the meaning can't be acceptable surely? And if you say you are not changing the meaning then what is the problem with changing the words back to those used in the original article? I did however try to answer your concern by making a parenthetic remark, but see below where you reject this also...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- You've also only slightly modified the same exact phrase as before (viz. "However, Eastern Africa, probably the Horn of Africa, is the normal opinion reflected in the most recent published works on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 [3][4][5]") to now read "however, Eastern Africa, with the evidence pointing towards Northeastern Africa (the Horn of Africa), is the opinion reflected in Cruciani et al. (2007) which is the most recent work on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215, and this agrees with prior studies [3][4][5]." The net effect still minimizes the importance of the Near East as a possible place of origin of E1b1b by citing the "most recent work" on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 -- studies that are already cited where they should be, namely, in the part of the Origins section that first suggests that East Africa is the place of origin of E1b1b in Africa (i.e. "according to Cruciani et al. (2004[4], 2006[7], and 2007[5]), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago"). Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the structure is now changed so that there is a conclusion paragraph which indeed tries to tie up the information already discussed, for the reason that the ISOGG throws a lot of confusion into the running text above. Without that ISOGG quote, or pseudo quote, this might not be necessary. So what it the problem with all that? Please explain. Most of these changes were, as I am sure you realize, put in to cover your concerns. Is it only your concern that the Near East theory, the existence of which I question, is not emphasized enough? So it does not just have to be mentioned, but also emphasized? This is a theory that depends upon an arguable reading of a tertiary source, which two members of the organization who made have told should not be read as an authority this way, and...
- Which you insist on re-wording on part, reducing the range of possible interpretations, in order to get the article more definitively saying what you think it intended.
- Which you also say contains a mistake which you are so sure that you can re-write it yourself to say something which is not even arguably the same anymore - changing the very name of the clade which is the subject of the sentence!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing whatsoever "pseudo" about the ISOGG reference. It clearly states that the Near East is one of the places where E1b1b1 may have evolved, and the article dutifully relays that rather than concealing it. The "Northeast Africa" part I've already also explained is redundant, as that is what Cruciani meant by the "East Africa" we've already included in the text. Repeating "Northeast Africa" just gives the impression that he was originally referring to Southeast Africa, when he of course was not. You also complained earlier about the Horn of Africa being cited as the place of origin in one spot in the article with East Africa also identified as such in another spot in the article. Well that's exactly the same situation repeated here since Northeast Africa=Horn of Africa. Lastly, the Near East view isn't just limited to ISOGG. It's held by many other prominent geneticists and organizations including National Geographic's heavily-publicized Genographic Project:
Causteau (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)The man who gave rise to marker M35 was born around 20,000 years ago in the Middle East. His descendants were among the first farmers and helped spread agriculture from the Middle East into the Mediterranean region.
- You turn a comment which can be interpreted several ways (for example that the Near East is just mentioned to describe a "greater Red Sea region) into a comment that can be interpreted only one way, and this with a source you think contains mistakes, and which is a tertiary summary which you don't know how to explain the sources of.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. What I did, in fact, do is demonstrate that the view which holds that E1b1b1 originated in the Near East isn't just limited to ISOGG. Indeed, it's also held by many other prominent geneticists and organizations including the folks at National Geographic's heavily-publicized Genographic Project. I demonstrated this with a quite explicit quote. Now if your gripe is that ISOGG states "Near East" while the Genographic Project states "Middle East", you should know that the two are often used as synonyms. Whatever the case, the Genographic Project is very explicit about where the M35 marker originated, which now handily resolves whatever issues you may have had with the ISOGG source. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- So now you found a quote on National Geographic webspace that does not even mention the Horn of Africa. So you don't agree with this webpage yourself, and you know it is out of line with all the literature, but you have been looking for a webpage to win your pointless point. Is this really a reliable source? Of course you will interpret it to be so. If Spencer Wells says he doesn't know where this comment comes from, would you care? No, because as you have said before, you understand that Wikipedia is not about getting true information, but about collecting sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion from the mediator
I'm glad both of you didn't see anything wrong with my comments, but I'm disheartened that they didn't get us any closer to a compromise. So, here's a possible compromise about semantics and terminology:
- For clade names and trees, use the most recently-updated Y tree available (now and for the foreseeable future, this will usually be the ISOGG tree). As to the use of mutation-based or phylogenetic-based nomenclature please discuss this at the relevant WikiProject. Sources using outdated nomenclature should be converted to current nomenclature (if necessary, a bracket or note can be made to indicate the change).
- For description of locations, use the geographical designation from the source in question. If more than one designator is used for the same place/country/region/etc., or for consistency among sources or in the article as a whole, default to the UN Standard Country and Region designations.
If there are objections to this compromise, please respond in this section. To keep things moving forward, I ask that all responses be made to this suggestion alone, and not to the responses posted by other editors. – Swid (talk · edits) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you once again for your helpful comments. I'll from here on in only respond to this section per your recommendation. That should indeed hopefully keep things moving along. I especially agree with your proposal that we ought to follow the most recently updated Y tree available (ISOGG). That seems to me to be the most sensible solution. Best, Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any debate on that anymore. Like every update though, it took a long time be accepted by Causteau when I introduced that as a reference back in May. Of course the more recent nomenclature discussion was about a new clade not yet appearing on ISOGG. That is also now finally resolved, but again after enormously long and unconstructive deflections. And this is generally what happens. I want to repeat: - the problems editing on this article are in my opinion not to do with any particular facts or sources, but with trying to add any facts or sources that Causteau was not previously aware of. I really think people looking at this article need to look at the detail, and not be too general.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have also answered the two points...
- 1. I think I already mentioned that I have posted on the WikiProject page some time ago, about the nomenclature subject. It seems to hard to get everyone moving. Anyway, as mentioned above nomenclature is not being debated for the moment.
- 2. The US source you mention seems to be about very big regions, so it doesn't define things like "the Balkans", "the Mediterranean" (in Europe), Northeast Africa etc. Mind you, I also don't think the definitions of these regions is an enormous problem in this discussion.
- The problem in this article is when discussion comes along about actually changing anything: the defence always varies, but often does not even pretend to be about a fact or sourcing question: edits are said to be redundant because someone can look it up, or already decided long ago by a vote, or it shouldn't be included because it raises new questions, or it is synthesis because it requires referring to two sources, etc. This article has editing problems in a basic way - i.e. too many edits get deleted for silly reasons - and I am guessing that most people find it hard to see that it is this simple because they don't try following the rather imposing (because long) looking discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Near East Origins non-theory
We have a problem, because there is an insistence not only that there must be a reference to the fact that some people supposedly believe that E1b1b1 originated in the Near East (even though we have no source naming such people and the person, Causteau, defending this wording doesn't believe it or know of any evidence, and indeed in a circular way he has had to look for new citations because he realized his original one was not reliable) but also that any too-accurate quotations from real and known sources in recent years, none of which mention the Near East, have to be removed or doctored to make sure they do not conflict with this theory that no-one claims. In reality this all comes down to defending old edits over new edits, and nothing else.
In actually fact, for about 5 years, all discussion in the literature has been based on the papers of the Cruciani team who, like Causteau, think that Eastern Africa, or more specifically, the Horn of Africa, is the most likely place of origin. Nevertheless, the direction of current editing by Causteau is to deny that this is what the literature says, with increasing extremism.
It might be difficult to get together a full paper trail but my memory is that all the references to a Near Eastern origin go back to very old snippet texts which were given to E3b customers of Family Tree DNA, like myself, who also cooperate with the National Genographic Project on many things. However, they have changed that text in recent years. It now reads...
This haplogroup probably originated in eastern Africa and is about 25,000 years old. It expanded into the Mediterranean during the Pleistocene Neolithic expansion. It is currently distributed around the Mediterranean, southern Europe, and in north and east Africa. Lineages that do not belong to any of this haplogroup’s branches are found mainly in eastern and southern Africa.
I have been following events in this field for some time and have been in contact with many of the people involved in some of the citations being used. Causteau says, perhaps partly rightly in a formal sense, that this is irrelevant in the end, but in a common sense way, on a discussion page, it does not really seem irrelevant? In other words, whether he refuses to consider what I say is a matter of personal judgement and not of Wikipedia policy as he would like to paint everything.
Anyway, if facts are important, then this article has continuing problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing "supposed" about the view that E1b1b1 (M35) may have originated in the Near East/Middle East, and my links to and quotes from ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project are proof of that:
The man who gave rise to marker M35 was born around 20,000 years ago in the Middle East. His descendants were among the first farmers and helped spread agriculture from the Middle East into the Mediterranean region.
- What's more, my edit in the article clearly identifies the Genographic Project as the source for this assertion, so your point about us having "no source naming such people" is moot, to put it mildly. You also seem to believe that quoting Cruciani -- who is already identified in the article as believing that "E1b1b1 may have evolved in Eastern Africa" -- regarding the possibility that E1b1b1 may have originated in Eastern Africa somehow negates the existence of the Near East origin view. It most certainly does not, and per Wiki policies, if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents -- something I've already seen to above several times over. Causteau (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are talking a different language...
- 1. You are proving only that you can find a source that says what you were looking for, but in this case you know personally that all the sources cited by anyone in this field in at least the last five years, and which you also believe in, are different. You are one of the Wikipedia users who misinterprets "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (a real policy) as "Wikipedia is not about truth" which is hopefully never going to be given the same sort of status.
- 2. You only have a "source" in the weakest possible sense, because you know the source is based on some fossilized paper last century at best. It is a National Geographic article which cut and paste from FT DNA's old webpages as far as I can tell. That's why I asked for a person who actually wrote an option or cited an opinion anything like this. You do not want to be taking that question seriously though, do you? But Causteau, you explicitly say that there is a "view" - so someone somewhere according to you has presented the argument and actually believes them, now. Who? Spencer Wells? Name your source for the existence of this person. But you'll just say that if it says so on some webpages, this is a source.
- 3. Of course I don't see any reason why there can not be, in principle, such a "view" out there in the world just because Cruciani's series of papers are the main ones everyone cites. But name one person who supports this view, and has done so after those articles. Cruciani's articles don't need to be what everyone agrees on, but in practice they are. You agree with them don't you? Name one person who does not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1. You don't and can't know what I am "looking for" or what I "know personally" until I tell you as much. The passage from Wikipedia that you quoted above ("the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") ironically only serves to further render your complaints even more absurd since the Genographic assertion of a Middle Eastern origin for E1b1b1 is sourced whether you personally believe it to be true or not!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can however ask you direct questions and note the reaction. Did you or did you not go looking for a source to agree with the ISOGG webpage once you realized that concerning another subject you'd said that you could not take the ISOGG texts seriously? (You said you could change the wording when you quoted it because there were obvious - to you - mistakes.)
- 2. I'm frankly not interested in what you personally believe regarding the source, which is The Genographic Project -- a group of scientists and researchers, not just one guy (nor does Wikipedia even demand that I track down that putative one guy -- only you do).
- Again, that's fine, and it would be better if you give a simple answer concerning what you know about this source. Who made this webpage? A national geographic web designer? Spencer Wells? Or do we not know?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- 3. It does not matter what I personally believe or what you personally believe in this matter; try and understand this. It's about presenting all significant viewpoints on this issue which I've seen to. Causteau (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1. You don't and can't know what I am "looking for" or what I "know personally" until I tell you as much. The passage from Wikipedia that you quoted above ("the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") ironically only serves to further render your complaints even more absurd since the Genographic assertion of a Middle Eastern origin for E1b1b1 is sourced whether you personally believe it to be true or not!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are a classic subject changer. It matters that you have written that someone believes this. You say that it is someone's view - now and not in the past. You now seem to admit indirectly that you know that no-one does, and that you think you can avoid this becoming a point of discussion through your appeal to neutral rules. But it is simple. You have found fossilized texts on the internet, after deliberately searching for what you wanted, and you want to stick to them to make your point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above comment is not helpful. Please keep discussions focused on the article, not on other editors. For example, please try to avoid the words "you" and "your". Keeping things in third-person may make it easier to discuss things. --Elonka 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are a classic subject changer. It matters that you have written that someone believes this. You say that it is someone's view - now and not in the past. You now seem to admit indirectly that you know that no-one does, and that you think you can avoid this becoming a point of discussion through your appeal to neutral rules. But it is simple. You have found fossilized texts on the internet, after deliberately searching for what you wanted, and you want to stick to them to make your point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it is possible to avoid "you" and "your" in response to a comment specifically about the importance of what "I personally believe or what you personally believe" but I fear it will look so weird that my point will not be clear! Attempt: "If a person claimed that other people believed something - now - then it would matter to judgments of the validity of that claim if at least someone, obviously not necessarily the one making the claim, really believed that thing. If that person making the claim would show by their discussion that they agree that they can name no such specific person (only webpages which seem to be cut and past from out-of-date materials) then the claim seems hard to justify." :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot debate Lancaster's opinion that National Geographic's much-publicized Genographic Project is somehow "fossilized". What I can state is that the prominent Genographic Project's official position regarding the origin of E1b1b1 is that it evolved in the Middle East (as the quote above from their website clearly shows), and that this present article clearly attributes the Genographic Project with that view. Causteau (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- So who wrote that snippet of text that appears on that webpage? We both know that there are not that many teams of scientists out there publishing in this area, so may not also ask, which articles are there, which that person had in mind? If there had been no article, then how was this snippet written becomes the question again. I've told you that I think it was cut and paste by one webpage maker from their partners over at FT DNA, who have long since changed their own old snippet. Might I be write in your opinion? If I even might be right, then, isn't there a big problem here with this crucial piece of sourcing holding back a whole bunch of edits?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- What does it matter who wrote it (assuming it's even one person)? There are, for example, many articles published by the Associated Press that are simply signed "Associated Press" and not, say, "John Smith". That doesn't stop them from being authoritative and admissible source material per Wiki policies. Same goes for National Geographic's Genographic Project quote. It's the Genographic Project itself's official position that M35 arose in the Middle East, and per Wiki policies, that is indeed good enough. For the rest, I again cannot debate Lancaster's speculations. Causteau (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- By speculations you are referring to the fact that I am saying that if we know that the snippet might be a fossil, and we know nothing else about it, then we know this is not good sourcing. But anyway, do you agree that all the serious positions on this subject come from a fairly number of teams of published scientists? So you'd be presuming, let's call it speculating, that the author of this webpage snippet had read one of those and learned about this theory you say some people hold? Right or wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew Lancaster, just to make sure I am clear here... Are you trying to argue that National Geographic[11] is not a reliable source? --Elonka 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- By speculations you are referring to the fact that I am saying that if we know that the snippet might be a fossil, and we know nothing else about it, then we know this is not good sourcing. But anyway, do you agree that all the serious positions on this subject come from a fairly number of teams of published scientists? So you'd be presuming, let's call it speculating, that the author of this webpage snippet had read one of those and learned about this theory you say some people hold? Right or wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Any source, even the best of them, can be wrong, and there should surely always be a way to discuss multiple sources or the context of a source, in order to avoid reproducing a mistake just because it comes from somewhere respected? The National Genographic webpages are on National Geographic webspace, and the project is run in cooperation with Family Tree DNA. However it is a separate institution. The information which Causteau is citing is from a section which is called "Atlas of the Human Journey". When it first came out there was a lot of online discussion about how out-of-date is was already then. It seemed to have been taken from old Family Tree DNA webpages, which are long since replaced. The scientists involved in this project are known, and their publications can be read and checked to see whether they agree with the blurbs on the webpages. If the webpage was not written by them, then by who? IMHO if all this type of context counts for nothing then anyone can say whatever they like and good sourcing would just be a game. Let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, just to make it clear, the blurb being quoted is in disagreement with the current Wikipedia article. It was brought in to back up the ISOGG webpage statement that didn't look strong anymore, but it says something different, because much less indecisive. It does not even mention the main theories of the last 10 years as a possibility. This is the evidence that it is a fossil in hyperspace.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so Causteau feels that the NatGeo link is a reliable source, Andrew Lancaster feels it is not. In these cases where there is a disagreement about whether or not a source is reliable, please bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions. --Elonka 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well that answers it, doesn't it? Lancaster thinks National Geographic's Genographic Project is not a good source because of some online discussion some anonymous users apparently had some place claiming that it's information was outdated. It still doesn't change the fact that that's just pure heresay when what the Genographic Project actually writes on its website most certainly is not. Causteau (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, just to make it clear, the blurb being quoted is in disagreement with the current Wikipedia article. It was brought in to back up the ISOGG webpage statement that didn't look strong anymore, but it says something different, because much less indecisive. It does not even mention the main theories of the last 10 years as a possibility. This is the evidence that it is a fossil in hyperspace.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, please compromise here. I know where Andrew is coming from when he says that the E1b1b info at Genographic may be outdated (this has happened with several haplogroups -- Genographic hasn't updated its website quickly either and members of the genetic genealogy community have had to ask them to make appropriate updates to some outdated or confusing info, which they generally have done when asked). However, I wouldn't consider National Geographic to be an unreliable source. So can't the article just say, "According to National Geographic's Genographic Project website, [...]" And then if there's a source that contradicts what Genographic says, add a "However, according to XYZ, [...]" That way, both sides are covered, and the editors of the article aren't making the decision as to which is right and which is wrong. --Efweb (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect Efweb, we cannot do that since what you are proposing is to essentially provide a counterargument in the article to National Geographic's Genographic Project's plainly-stated assertion that M35 originated in the Middle East, and solely on the basis of a few assurances from you and Lancaster that what is written on the Genographic website is perhaps dated. This is unfeasible because we've already presented in the preceding paragraph of the article the other major viewpoint that E1b1b1 originated in Eastern Africa. Repeating that E1b1b1 originated in Eastern Africa or attempting to negate that some (e.g. Genographic Project, ISOGG, Jon Entine in his 2007 book Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People) hold that it actually might've originated in the Near East/Middle East therefore only serves to give undue weight to the already stated view that it originated in Eastern Africa. Causteau (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Causteau I have not named the whole source unreliable. I have said that every source can be questioned if it is in conflict with everything else in the literature and there is a reason we know, for example that it might be a webpage updating question. Do you disagree with this principle? Anyway, if this new source is right, the article is wrong. We have to drop Cruciani, or do a compromise like Efweb is proposing, and like we had for the ISOGG source already. (The problem however which spreads from that is that you are also blocking and distorting editing on this whole section of the article because mentioning what the literature says would disagree with this minority view that you are now hooked on keeping in the article. For example you have removed sourced quotes, made some less accurate, and downplayed references to the key articles in this area by the Cruciani team.) So, I have asked you direct questions about your beliefs concerning the context of the quote you found, where you think it comes from, and whether you think it is true, and you duck away from them. What is most important about this is that as far as I know, you do not disagree with me concerning anything at all about this source and whether it is correct or not. Your argument is that this is not relevant, and I question whether that is a valid defense. Data on webpages can be out of date.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, we do not have to do drop Cruciani (huh?) nor should we follow Efweb's recommendation to give the Cruciani viewpoint undue weight since this isn't an either/or proposition as Lancaster is suggesting and never has been. The Eastern Africa vs. Near East origin are different viewpoints on the same issue, and Wiki policies make it clear that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" -- something I've already done above. It's also not a question of outdated web-updating and no one as yet has been able to prove it is. All we've heard is personal assurances that it is a matter of outdated web-updating, which definitely does not qualify as proof. On the other hand, what is written on both ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project's websites regarding M35's origin in the Near East/Middle East is crystal clear. It's just as clear in John Entine's recent 2007 book Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People, where he writes in Appendix 2 that the clade is:
Believed to have evolved in the Middle East before spreading into the Mediterranean during the Pleistocene Neolithic expansion.
- I'm also tired of having to defend myself against Lancaster's personally-directed remarks, accusing me of "blocking" the page when he refuses to allow the other major viewpoint regarding M35's origin in the Near East/Middle East to even be featured unmolested in the article. He writes that "data on webpages can be out of date" yet has no way of proving that this is indeed the case here, whereas I quote from not one, but two different prominent organizations as well as a recent book on top of that -- all of which uphold the other major viewpoint that the clade originated in the Near East/Middle East. Is the book also suffering from outdated web-updating? I beg to differ. Causteau (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. First, please can you avoid always trying to find rules I am breaking? Lately it is "personal attack" whenever I mention your name. That there is a dispute between us concerning your claimed right to delete and revert and generally make it difficult for anyone trying to edit is no secret (you are trying to defend it) so when I mention it, it is hardly a controversial accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Secondly, let's take a step back and not loose perspective. My latest (reverted of course) proposals concerning this passage were all allowing mention to remain of this theory. Anyone reading the above might not realize this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Thirdly, on to work, I think that one way or another the wording of any reference to this theory. It is not the theory we find in the up-to-date literature as you well know. That makes it very likely, not certain, that it is an internet fossil. I think you are quite wrong to say that there is nothing one can do to investigate the possibilities of that, and so please let's keep an open mind. In the meantime I am still trying to make contact with people to see what is remembered about the sources of these webpages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Quit telling me what I know or don't know. You, again, have no idea what I know until I up and tell you. And you can contact whomever you like, but that still is not enough to overrule what is actually written on National Geographic's Genographic Project website. Causteau (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- You tell me then. I have asked you. Do you think that Cruciani's is leading theory? Hang on. I am fairly sure you've even said otherwise or implied it reasonably strongly, and more than once. Thank you for permission to contact people. I will also be continuing to try to understand what you are thinking, despite your commandments to the contrary. Might be easier if you just explain what it is you are thinking. Why would you keep it secret?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Fourthly, you introduce a new source. You seem to have a copy. Maybe this was always on you mind? You don't have to answer this, but if so I wish you'd mentioned it before. If you have a copy though, I would be genuinely interested to hear from you what sources it cites for this claim. I do not know of the author, and his bibliography doesn't make him look particularly mainstream. He seems to have written a lot about why Jews are bad at sport and African Americans are not. In any case he doesn't seem to be a researcher himself, so he must have his data from elsewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have introduced a new source, as is my prerogative. And I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised that you've begun attacking this source as well -- alluding to the author having "written a lot about why Jews are bad at sport and African Americans are not" and whatnot (a jab at the author's bestselling book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It). But here as elsewhere, the source is quite explicit that the clade might indeed have originated in the Near East/Middle East as opposed to East Africa. Causteau (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked you a straightforward question, and my "attack" consists of saying about all I can say quickly, which is that this is not a DNA researcher as such but rather it seems a general social/political commentator with an interest in DNA and races. That's from looking at more than one book title by the way. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. I don't know. I also most certainly have not denied your prerogative to refer to this source. However, once I again I wonder why you won't answer straightforward questions. Who does the author cite? This might be very interesting information surely? We are interested aren't we? It's not secret is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Starting Once More on the Origins Section
In this section also, numerous edits were recently removed, not only involving the Near East theory which is discussed above. (So as usual, I am really talking about wanting to edit my own work.) I think a lot of the discussion is now in Archives or in discussions long left unanswered by Causteau. I want to summarize the last proposals and the mess in the current article, leaving aside the Near East Theory. Please note that I can't go through this paragraph by paragraph because a key problem that has developed is in the order of the comments, which is stuck between different ideas I had, and now being defended from change...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Current Version
- According to Cruciani et al. (2004[4], 2006[7], and 2007[5]), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago. For M-215, Cruciani et al. reduced their estimates from 25,600 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2007, re-calibrating the same data. E1b1b1 (E-M35) seems to have occurred only marginally more recently.
- The population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181[6]. It is therefore relevant to note that in a study by Semino et al. (2004), E-P2* paragroup lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians[2].
- The Cruciani team proposed that East Africa is the likely place of origin for haplogroup E1b1b because it has: 1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b* (E-M215) paragroup.[4]
- However, according to National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen in the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.[8]
- As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, North Africa, and Western Asia.
Latest Proposal before reverts[12]
- According to Cruciani et al. (2004[4], 2006[7], and 2007[5]), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago. (For M-215, Cruciani et al. reduced their estimates from 25,600 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2007, re-calibrating the same data.) E1b1b1 (E-M35) seems to have occurred only marginally more recently.
- The Cruciani team[4] proposed that East Africa is the likely place of origin for haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) because it has: 1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b* (E-M215) paragroup. In other words, the population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181[6]. In a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E-P2* paragroup lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians[2].
- Concerning E1b1b1 (E-M35), according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), "E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East" and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea.[6] However, Eastern Africa, with the evidence pointing towards Northeastern Africa (the Horn of Africa), is the opinion reflected in Cruciani et al. (2007) which is the most recent work on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215, and this agrees with prior studies [3][4][5].
- As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, North Africa, and Western Asia.
First things to note:
- The first and last paragraphs are the same in both versions.
- The ISOGG reference was left in by me, and although it is in discussion, a National Genographic comment could fit there also - presumably with some kind of wording which justifies putting in a highly questioned caption on an internet graphic next to the leading and most recent theories. Anyway, this is for discussion in the section on that subject.
Coming to the first basic problem:
1. The flow of discussion is now senseless. There is no explanation about why we should be interested in E-P2* people if we are considering the origins of E-M215*. Numerous attempts have been made to finish off the editing I started here, but all reverted. I am not saying that my last proposal is good enough, but something else is needed. And full reverts just make things a mess. My words "In other words" are wrong for instance and would have to be changed. "Similarly" might be better.
Hopefully I can try things here without being reverted...
New draft
- According to Cruciani et al. (2004[4], 2006[7], and 2007[5]), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago. For E1b1b (M-215), Cruciani et al. reduced their estimates from 25,600 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2007, re-calibrating the same data. E1b1b1 (E-M35) seems to have occurred only marginally more recently.
- The Cruciani team[4] proposed that East Africa is the likely place of origin for haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) because it has: 1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b* (E-M215*) paragroup. Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians[2].
- However, in contrast to Cruciani's and Semino's studies, the website of the National Genographic Project, says that E1b1b1 may have arisen in the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.[8]
- As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, North Africa, and Western Asia.
Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Both of your drafts are unsatisfactory, and here's why:
- Regarding the Latest Proposal:
- You immediately follow Cruciani's enumeration of his criteria for identifying East Africa (read: the Horn of Africa) as the place of origin of E1b1b with the unrelated statement that "in other words, the population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181[6]." That is not at all an equivalent statement to what Cruciani wrote nor a corrollary to that. The mutations of the population in which the E-M215 man arose has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa -- the latter has to do with what he himself enumerated: the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup.
- You've added the phrase "However, Eastern Africa, with the evidence pointing towards Northeastern Africa (the Horn of Africa), is the opinion reflected in Cruciani et al. (2007) which is the most recent work on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215, and this agrees with prior studies" after the phrase identifying the Near East as another possible place of origin. The net effect is to minimize the importance of the Near East as a possible place of origin of E1b1b by citing the "most recent work" on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 -- studies that are already cited where they should be, namely, in the part of the Origins section that first suggests that East Africa is the place of origin of E1b1b in Africa (i.e. "according to Cruciani et al. (2004[4], 2006[7], and 2007[5]), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago").
- Regarding the New draft:
- The Semino source only states that "the E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians" in reference to its study. It does not mention "sibling lines", and only ever mentions E-M2 long enough to point out that this clade, by contrast, is a signature of the Bantu expansion and was observed at its highest frequency in the Senegal.
- Regarding the Latest Proposal:
- You've tacked on the phrase "Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians", which has absolutely nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa (read: Horn of Africa). Again, the latter has to do with what Cruciani himself enumerated: it has the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup. What's more, the Semino source only states that "the E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians" in reference to its study. It does not mention "rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b" much less link them to Cruciani's reasons for identifying Eastern Africa as E1b1b's place of origin. Causteau (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I think we should only look at the new draft. You make two points.
- *Concerning your first point, I have tried to discuss this with you before. I guess you don't understand the terminology. E-M215 is a sub-clade of E-P2. All other E-P2 lineages, are siblings of E-M215. This is not original work or synthesis. As this is not the first time I've explained this, and you have never even attempted to answer yet, I think you really should consider this and give a response which shows you've understood.
- *Concerning the sibling terminology, see the point above. For the rest, I see your point on the second item, and I had mentioned above that a small edit, a strange concept I know, might be able to fix this. In particular, I already mentioned that the word "Similarly" might be the point to fix. Maybe I am linking the Semino article too strongly to Cruciani. Of course the two reports are about the same subject, and trying to pretend there is not a big pile of evidence adding up to the same conclusions would certainly not be fair to the public.
- The idea is to try to keep what is good by making it better, editing it, rather than deleting whole blocks of work without trying to consider what is being lost and whether there was any value in it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- *Concerning your first point, I have tried to discuss this with you before. I guess you don't understand the terminology. E-M215 is a sub-clade of E-P2. All other E-P2 lineages, are siblings of E-M215. This is not original work or synthesis. As this is not the first time I've explained this, and you have never even attempted to answer yet, I think you really should consider this and give a response which shows you've understood.
- The first bullet point in my response to the New draft was a quick cut and paste from an earlier discussion we had that I added as I was editing the second point below it. I just forgot to remove it; my mistake. The second bullet point below it was intended to be my sole response to that draft. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- *Concerning the sibling terminology, see the point above. For the rest, I see your point on the second item, and I had mentioned above that a small edit, a strange concept I know, might be able to fix this. In particular, I already mentioned that the word "Similarly" might be the point to fix. Maybe I am linking the Semino article too strongly to Cruciani. Of course the two reports are about the same subject, and trying to pretend there is not a big pile of evidence adding up to the same conclusions would certainly not be fair to the public.
- The word "similarly" won't solve it since the phrase in the new draft that "Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians" still has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa. The latter has to do with what Cruciani himself enumerated: it has the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- So let's use the same wording as that point 3) to describe what Semino says. That article observes the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1 (E-P2) paragroup. E-P2 is the parent group of E-M215. You find odd old types of E-M215 in a place and that is an indication that it might originate there. You find odd old sibling clades, and it's the same. That's how these articles are written isn't it? They all list out those sorts of geographical areas where the odd old types are whenever it comes to trying to work out where a clade might have originated. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The word "similarly" won't solve it since the phrase in the new draft that "Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians" still has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa. The latter has to do with what Cruciani himself enumerated: it has the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is to try to keep what is good by making it better, editing it, rather than deleting whole blocks of work without trying to consider what is being lost and whether there was any value in it.
- Exactly. And what is actually relevant to why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa are the reasons he himself enumerated and which we've already included in the text. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- But don't you agree that the information from Semino 2004, cited of course very often by Cruciani, is not the same information? And that it adds something to the same evidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the same information. Cruciani attributes the origin of E1b1b in East Africa specifically to the high number of different sub-clades of E1b1b, high frequency of E1b1b, high microsatellite diversity, and presence of the undifferentiated E1b1b paragroup. Semino, on the other hand, points out that there is a high frequency of E-P2* in the region as well as many different E sub-clades as part of an overall effort to show that haplogroup E as a whole originated in East Africa. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right. It is different information, presented in the same sort of context in the original paper. So why may it not be mentioned in the Wikipedia article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to put it in more context, you also removed similar paragroup information about E-M35* which is explicitly a subject of this article, and not only E-P2*. There are two discussions I started in sections (about E-M35* and E-P2* citations I tried to put in the article) above which were left hanging by you despite you feeling you could revert the edits under discussion. The same goes for the geographical discussion concerning your last reverts by the way, which you've explicitly claimed to be justified because there was discussion! Anyway, why are you leaving paragroup discussion in the article only concerning E-M215*? It can't be because there is something basically wrong with mentioning paragroups when trying to discuss possible places of origin. Cruciani's work builds upon Semino 2004 and cites it. How can the removal of such key facts in this field be justified? I know you don't like me saying it, but it at least looks like it is because you want to downplay the power of the data of the Cruciani papers of recent years, which are the articles on this subject, in favor the old indirect quotes you found about the Near East.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the same information. Cruciani attributes the origin of E1b1b in East Africa specifically to the high number of different sub-clades of E1b1b, high frequency of E1b1b, high microsatellite diversity, and presence of the undifferentiated E1b1b paragroup. Semino, on the other hand, points out that there is a high frequency of E-P2* in the region as well as many different E sub-clades as part of an overall effort to show that haplogroup E as a whole originated in East Africa. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- But don't you agree that the information from Semino 2004, cited of course very often by Cruciani, is not the same information? And that it adds something to the same evidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. And what is actually relevant to why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa are the reasons he himself enumerated and which we've already included in the text. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- *Concerning your first point, I have tried to discuss this with you before. I guess you don't understand the terminology. E-M215 is a sub-clade of E-P2. All other E-P2 lineages, are siblings of E-M215. This is not original work or synthesis. As this is not the first time I've explained this, and you have never even attempted to answer yet, I think you really should consider this and give a response which shows you've understood.
Footnotes
Something that may help with verification of the disputed claims in this article, might be more precise footnoting. For example, I see that there is a dispute about sourcing that is related to the 2007 Cruciani article. Rather than just saying "Cruciani 2007" as a reference then, which could make it difficult to tell where the specific information came from, I would recommend including exact page numbers and/or quotes from the report. There is a "pages" option and a "quote" option in the {{cite journal}} template which could be useful for this.
For example:
- {{cite journal|url=http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf|pages=p. 1020|quote=The E-M123 clade was found in Ethiopia (11.2%), the Near East (3.7%), Europe (1.7%), and northern Africa (0.9%). In our data set, all the E-M123 chromosomes also carry the M34 mutation (E-M34), with the exception of one E-M123* subject from Bulgaria.|journal=Am. J. Hum. Genet|title=Phylogeographic Analysis|author=Cruciani|date=2004|accessdate=2008-09-05}}
Which might look like this:
E-M123 has been found in multiple areas, from Ethiopia to Bulgaria.[9]
Or it could be shortened even further:
- <ref>Cruciani, 2007, p. 1020. "The E-M123 clade was found in Ethiopia (11.2%), the Near East (3.7%), Europe (1.7%), and northern Africa (0.9%). In our data set, all the E-M123 chromosomes also carry the M34 mutation (E-M34), with the exception of one E-M123* subject from Bulgaria."</ref>
Make sense? --Elonka 06:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Any advice on such things is appreciated, because I have had to learn a lot quickly about nicer formatting of refs in order not to leave excuses for reversions and deletions on this article, but I am still no expert. I am certainly not against nicer formatting, exact page numbers etc, but I do not really think page numbers of sources are in dispute. Causteau and I are looking at the exact same texts. Since I first started encountering Causteau's protection of this article in May "sourcing" has mentioned as an excuse for the reverts. But the sourcing has never gotten worse from any edit I did (remember that Causteau is often simply defending my old edits from efforts to improve them) and it is currently very easy to find the exact passages just by clicking links. So that excuse for reversions should be put to bed.
Apart from page numbers, the idea of putting explanatory text in footnotes had been something I thought it was good style to avoid, but it was in my mind as a possible emergency compromise for some of the explanations which the text needs cleared up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
References
- This section is so that references will display properly, with WP:POPUPS
- ^ a b Steven C. Bird (2007) Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a Possible Indicator of Settlement in Roman Britain by Soldiers of Balkan Origin JOGG
- ^ a b c d Semino et al. (2004) Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area, American Journal of Human Genetics, 74: 1023–1034.
- ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
Underhill2001
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Cite error: The named reference
Cruciani2004
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f g h i Cruciani et al. (2007) Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24:1300-1311.
- ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference
isogg
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e Cruciani et al. (2006), Molecular Dissection of the Y Chromosome Haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a): A Posteriori Evaluation of a Microsatellite-Network-Based Approach Through Six New Biallelic Markers, Human Mutation
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Genographic
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cruciani (2004). "Phylogeographic Analysis" (PDF). Am. J. Hum. Genet: p. 1020. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
The E-M123 clade was found in Ethiopia (11.2%), the Near East (3.7%), Europe (1.7%), and northern Africa (0.9%). In our data set, all the E-M123 chromosomes also carry the M34 mutation (E-M34), with the exception of one E-M123* subject from Bulgaria.
{{cite journal}}
:|pages=
has extra text (help)
3rd biggest haplogroup?
There is (or has been) a sentence in the article as follows...
E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there.
It has a footnote which refers or referred to a Genealogical webpage for the study of surnames such as Britton. This Surname project lists the main haplotypes of its participants in the usual way for such projects, at least some years ago, by listing R1b as the most common type, and I1a as the second most common (these are very commonly the most common haplotypes for British surnames, but actually most people now divide R1b up more), and then it lists E3b (which is actually a haplotype which often does not appear at all in British Surname Projects). The project has one haplotype of this type, and notes in a very brief way that "HAPLOGROUP E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe and reaches its highest frequency (about 47%) in the Balkans." There is no source information given.
There is a problem with this way of describing how common E3b is in that there are no logical definitions of "levels" in the phylogeny of Y haplogroups. For example, if you say "apples are the most common fruit in Europe" then the relationship between "apple" and "fruit" as categories is clear: fruit is on a well known level known as "species". So you can in fact compare apples and pears, because both are species, but you would never say apples are more common than fruit.
In Y chromosome phylogeny things are not so clear. All levels of the phylogeny are simply known as haplogroups. So if we can say that E3b is third most common, then we can also say it is second most common, if we decide to lump all the more common haplotypes in a different way. For example you can say that "F is the most common haplogroup in Europe and E is second". You could also name three different subclades of R as being the three most common, and push E down the rankings. So making such comparisons is meaningless without more explanation.
What is true is that E3b is the approximately third most common of the major haplogroups used in recent years by genealogists: R1b, I1a, R1a, E3b etc. (However even this is possibly not correct. As more Eastern European families get studied we may well find that R1a is more common. So there really should be a better citation than a surname project.)
Will all of the above in mind, on this edit on the 1st October I added some words to a footnote as follows...
The comparison in this source is to the more common haplogroups R1b and I1a.
I mention this now on the talkpage because a few hours later this small edit was reverted by Causteau with the following remark:
replaced unnecessary and inaccurate amendment of citation; source quite clearly says "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe" -- not just in comparison to haplogroups R1b and I1a
...as explained above, this is in fact exactly what the sourced webpage does, and removing this extra comment actually makes the whole footnote and sentence meaningless.
A second change which has also apparently not been understood concerns the wording itself. "Prevalent" implies that something is dominant or most common, and is therefore simply wrong English. Given this as well as my doubts about the fact and the source, I also changed, on 3rd October, from ...From...
E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there.
...To...
E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean.
This was also reverted. Note that all of my edits had explanations attached also, but here are the problems that need to be solved in summary...
- The formal meaning of haplogroup imples no possibility of comparing sizes. If you name the haplogroups being compared you can do it, but the point of such an exercise is questionable. It is more common an more logical to simply say what % of male lines a haplogroup represents in a particular area or ethnic group, and this is the method already followed in the rest of the article.
- Even if it were clear which clades were being compared to make this remark (R1b and I1a), the statistics need a better source. It is clear that most surname projects base their remarks upon the traditions within the "genetic genealogy" community which is dominated by British families. R1a is more common than E3b is a very big part of Europe. IF E3b is not clearly bigger I feel the wording should be less "certain sounding". Surely that is not unreasonable?
- The word "prevalent" is incorrect if you want to say something is the third most common type of some category.
- It is also worth mentioning that this sentence is in an arguably inappropriate section, concerning a sub-branch of E3b, and not E3b as a whole - albeit a section about a sub-clade which is most common in Europe. There is an earlier discussion about the areas where E3b is found, and surely this comment belongs near there if anywhere.
To be honest, if the text can not be improved (because attempts to edit keep getting reverted) then the article is wrong and the simplest solution is deletion. In my opinion the sentence and footnote add nothing to the article, but if they must be included then they have to be improved. Otherwise, the two changes I have had reverted seem extremely minor and reasonable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing unclear about what the source says. It does not state that "E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean." as you've written above. It states that "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe", and not just relative to R1b or I1a either, but to all haplogroups. Moreover, the fact that E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe is a fairly well-known fact that other folks in the genetic genealogy community are well aware of (viz. 1, 2). What's more, E3b is common throughout Europe -- not just the Mediterranean. Per Firasat et al. (2007): "E3b is common in Europe". Cruciani et al. 2006 with regard to E-M78: "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Most importantly, the word prevalent is just being used wrongly, and the word throughout makes the problem worse. Please fix it. The sentence now means that E3b is the most common haplogroup is all parts of Europe. Is that really what you mean to say?? Perhaps you have not really looked carefully at the blocks of edits you are reverting or the explanations being given? It would seem so, because I notice you even reverted punctuation changes etc, which is a frequent characteristic of your edits. Concerning the rest I am surprised by how important you now view "folks in the genetic genealogy community". You've always taken the position that such comments are irrelevant to you. I administer several projects as you know, and am pretty well informed about such things. I really think this type of sourcing is not good enough, but it also seems clear that you normally don't either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, there is nothing "wrong" with the way the sentence is worded. It clearly states that "E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there", which is what the sources say ("E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1") -- they don't say in parts of Europe. I also don't want to have to ask you again not to talk about me. Causteau (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am clearly talking about the edits, and talking to you about your edits, nothing else. But you clearly are not reading what you edit or respond to. Please instead of rushing to find reasons to get angry, look up "prevalent" in a dictionary. It does not just mean "common". It means "most common" or more exactly it means "dominant". Please read what I wrote. Take your time more. Your source does not say "most common" or "prevalent". It says "third most common". Is it "most common" or "third most common"? Please make your wording consistent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Secondly, please see what I said above about the necessity of naming which haplogroups are being compared if you want to give haplogroups relative rankings in terms of how common they are. (If you don't do that then you can give E3b any ranking you like: 2nd compared to F, or a much lower ranking if you compare to equally valid "haplogroups" such as R-S116, R-S21, etc, or whatever.) Again, your own source does do this. It names R1b and I1a, which is what I tried to mention in the edits I made, but which you reverted. Please read what I wrote, take your time, and explain your reasoning about the points I've made. Maybe you just didn't understand the point I was making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning the word throughout, which is again something you add and that is not in your own source, surely you realize that there are large areas in Europe where E1b1b can hardly be found, and other haplogroups like R1a are very common (sometimes even more common than R1b)? I can't see how you justify this misleading word, which implies a homogeneous "third most common" ranking all over Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the whole remark is very questionable. In recent times, after your sources were written, many new haplogroup defining SNPs have been discovered, and data about non Western countries has started to become available. So citing old Surname projects is not very convincing at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lastly, you are not at all addressing my request to make sure that we put discussion about ALL of E1b1b into sections which are clearly about ALL of the clade, rather into "asides" within explanations about sub-clades. E1b1b is found in many forms around Europe and amongst Jewish populations. By discussing all E1b1b in Europe under one sub-clade and all Jewish E1b1b under another you are giving a very incorrect impression which could be easily fixed in ways which seem very uncontroversial. Why may no one fix this? You might not think it is important, but then why would you think it important to revert people who try to make the article slightly better unless you think they are actually making the article wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- All that writing, and for what? The sources (1, 2) clearly state that "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe" and "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1". They, again, do not state that "E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean" as you've written above. Heck, there are places in Europe where even R1b doesn't have such a high frequency (e.g. in Finland, Belarus, Bosnia)... but that still doesn't stop it from being the most prevalent haplogroup in Europe. E3b, likewise, is the third most common haplogroup in Europe. There is also I'm afraid nothing wrong, misleading or bizarre about quoting the fact that E1b1b/E3b is the second most prevalent haplogroup among Jews in the very section where Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are actually discussed. Causteau (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more: all that writing for what? Just read it and read what you revert, before you revert, then you'll see. You are defending things which having nothing to do with the edits you are reverting. The words "prevalent" and "throughout" (at least being used together like you do) are not defensible from any of the sources or arguments you are using. The edits, sorry you call them manipulations, which you've been reverting fit your sources and explanations better than the wording you are insisting upon. Your wording and lack of explanation given the contexts in the article, is not something which you get from your sources. Please slow down and stop doing full reverts without first considering what other people are trying to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Stop manipulating the source's assertion that "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1" -- it does not need any additional "qualifying" from you. What's more, the word "prevalent" in terms of frequency in population genetics more often than not is used interchangeably with the words "common" or "frequent". Working geneticists use them interchangeably all the time in their work, including Elise Friedman of the Jewish E3b Project (viz: "The E3b haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups world wide. It is considered to be the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population. "). Causteau (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)