:::::::::::::Yes. I could be wrong about Sanchez having more data. I just have it in my mind that there was more data somewhere.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes. I could be wrong about Sanchez having more data. I just have it in my mind that there was more data somewhere.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*wow, OK, guys let me reiterate the point, its not about arguing ad-nauseum a point where there is relatively good agreement, it is about cleaning up synthesis and original research on the main-page. I would do it myself but I think you 2 (or 3) need to sit down, go over the rules of wikipedia and decide what is clearly referencable and clearly parsimonious, and what is speculative. I understand that PMRCAs and TMRCAs are not factoids but derivations of facts, given that stick to what is least likely to be wrong. While the horn of africa may be more probable than the western Sahel or the southern part of east Africa, certainly one does not need perfect overlay of probabilities, after all this is an encyclopedia. The time for the debate here is over, its time to clean up the main. BTW, if I start cutting, just remember, I think the literature itself is highly speculative, I'm of the Bandelt camp of molecular anthropologists myself so . . . . .[[Special:Contributions/128.249.96.252|128.249.96.252]] ([[User talk:128.249.96.252|talk]]) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
I actually agree with Andrew here. It's a bit much to remove someone's picture just because we don't happen to know if they have been tested. I mean, were the Jewish man and the Libyan Arab boys whose pictures you didn't remove tested?
I didn't leave any Libyans or Jews [[2]] both are less likely to be E1b1b than Somalians.
Personally I will be very disappointed if I find my photo under R1b or H1 just because of my nationality. I think you have an ethical obligation to ask these people & findout whats their Y-DNA & if they want to be on the article before posting their photos! least we can do is post group photos of Somalian children, Berbers.Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect your purism on this, but if you can't find good photos do we need to have no photos or bad ones? If you can find good ones, everyone is happy! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your initial flurry of edits yesterday when I wrote that you didn't remove the photos of the Jewish man and the Libyan boys, and of course I am right. It wasn't until today that you removed the rest of the photos (1, 2).
I again agree with Andrew. This is a really purist stance, which could easily be applied to any article on Wikipedia (and most other articles on the internet, actually). Take the Druze page, for instance. How would those men in the pictures on that page feel about having been elected virtual "representatives" of the Druze albeit without their consent? It's the same thing, and thankfully is not considered a problem in Wikipedia's image use policy. Causteau (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Causteau I swear with our MRCA that I didn't see the photos of the Libyan boys or the jewish guy & I thought I removed every photo. The Druze article is an ethnic article (I am not Druze or E1b1b for the record! I already was accused of being a jew -not that its a bad thing!- in the R1a article I don't want to end up being in an ethnic issue here).
The photos just stuck out, I didn't see this in the other article, if you want I will do my share & try to make a good E1b1b map to beautify the article? & I had a group photo posted, but they were lost in an edit conflict :) .Cadenas2008 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use it instead? It is a little clearer in quality, and the idea that a group is a better picture of an ethnic group is something I see no reason not to respect? Ethiopia is extremely rich in E1b1b haplogroups. I don't see that Somalia has any higher claim for a photo than Ethiopia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why:
1) The Borana image is of uncertain copyright status, as it is not hosted on Wikipedia whereas the Somali picture is.
2) Somalis are almost exclusively E-V32 whereas the kids in that photo are Borana Oromos (the link says "boranatp2.jpg"), and Borana Oromos have many different clades of E(xE3b) (and even a considerable frequency of haplogroup A).
3) Somalis have a higher frequency of E-V32 per Cruciani et al. 2007.
4) Boranas only number about 200,000, whereas Somalis number around 16 million, so there are exponentially more E-V32 Somali carriers than there are Boranas. Causteau (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Causteau how about this one?
A beautiful photo of smiling Somali Children & their phenotype is pretty much that of the average Somalian so it doesn't leave any doubt!
Umm, I'm not sure how to put this, but at least two of those children are girls. The one in the middle certainly is. Hence, the head-covering. Causteau (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound rude, but I wonder if you've ever actually met a Somali? Because if you had, you'd already know that several of the boys in that photo are Bantus and not Somalis. Further, Bantus aren't E1b1b carriers but E1b1a carriers (see Sanchez et al. 2005). The man in the man in fez.gif photo, on the other hand, is a confirmed ethnic Somali. He will do just fine, and actually is representative of the average Somali: from the narrow, elongated face, to the high forehead, to the aquiline nose, to the reddish-brown complexion, it's all there. Causteau (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I know how Somalians look!
The guy you posted doesn't have a typical Somali phenotype -least to say & we are trying to profile 77.6 % of the V32 Somalians!-.
He didn't look like the average slim built, smooth skinned small nosed Somalian.
That latest photo has only one recognizably Somali person in it: the guy on the bottom right. Certainly not the guys on the left. I could easily counter it with far more typical examples (e.g. 1, 2) and leave it at that, but that's hardly conclusive. So I'll go one better. Here; read this. It's an old (and still the most thorough yet) anthropological survey of the Somali people by a former president of the Anthropological Association of America. It covers everything from their nasal index to the average hair form and somatype, and echoes what I've written here about the typical Somali phenotype. Causteau (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the man in fez.gif gentleman's nose is quintessentially Somali since it is elevated and narrow, with tower-shaped nasal bones. The ubiquitous aquiline features of the Somali people have already been attributed by the anthropologist Loring Brace, among others, as a physical adaptation to living in a hot and dry environment. Note that the absence of this nasal elevation in some of the chaps you've posted suggests that they either evolved in a very different physical environment from the arid lowlands of the Horn of Africa or that they have incurred significant foreign admixture. Read this paper for the details; it's really eye-opening. Causteau (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you from Somaliland?
Are you Mr Caddoow himself? (if thats the case you can say so & we end the discussion here!)
I am concerned because you are trying to say that the majority of the Somalians are not Somalians!! (so far you claimed 90% of the Somalian guys I posted are not -real- Somalians! you even ridculed the 3 children & said two of them are girl lookalikes!)
if you are trying to tell me those beautiful Somalians I posted are not the majority of the people of Somalia today. (regardless of who moved in who didn't move E1b1b is the majority today & they don't like Mr Caddow!).
I did a search on the guy you are using & he is involved in politics (correct me if I am wrong)
The people in Somaliland are at odds with southerners because of the war....etc (just reading your ethnos comments on youtube), please don't translate that into biased wikipedia articles!
Does this have anything to do with your selection of Mr Cabdullaahi Axmed Caddoow, this is his profile [6].
This is surreal. Am I from Somaliland? Am I Mr. Caddoow himself? Where exactly is this stuff coming from?
Before you say anything further, please take a good, long, hard look at WP:CIV, AGF, and WP:PA, and see how your entire post above completely disregards those important policies.
Next, try and understand this: I have not "ridiculed" those three children or anyone else for that matter. All I've done is point out to you that the middle child in particular is definitely a girl... as her head-covering proves (please use logic here). The reason why I pointed this out is because this is a Y DNA page, not an mtDNA page. I figured you already understood the implications of this since you seem to have edited other haplogroup pages, but I was apparently mistaken.
I've also linked you to several studies that back up what I casually asserted regarding the typical Somali phenotype; it wasn't just talk. And I certainly didn't do this to hurt your feelings or to cause trouble. But had I known that this is how you were going to react, I'd honestly much rather not have gone through all that trouble. Causteau (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about 15 Somalians so far all of them didn't add up in your eyes!
How about this Somalian boy?[7].
You have not posted about fifteen Somalis, but only a few well-chosen photos of people you have insisted are Somalis yet whose physical characteristics don't necessarily jibe with that designation. This is why I asked you right off the bat if you have ever actually met a real Somali or if they are perhaps instead just an internet abstraction? Did you know, for instance, that not everyone that inhabits Somalia is an ethnic Somali? That Somalia like Ethiopia has actual minority groups, and that many of said groups live in Mogadishu proper?
Further, the Somali phenotype has also already been heavily documented, so there's no point in attempting to re-invent it here on this talk page. It's also a futile exercise to attempt to link a Y chromosome to specific physical traits -- there's no such thing as a typical E-M78 "look", as it spans several continents and peoples. Causteau (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Sanchez et al.) M78 77.6% Somalia
High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males
SANCHEZ Juan J. (1) ; HALLENBERG Charlotte (1) ; BØRSTING Claus (1) ; HERNANDEZ Alexis (2) ; MORLING Niels (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Forensic Genetics, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, DANEMARK
(2) Departamento de Canarias, Instituto Nacional de Toxicologí]a, La Laguna, Tenerife, ESPAGNE
Hi. I don't quite follow. Perhaps you need to explain a bit more in detail what you think might be wrong. The way I understand you currently, if you would change "or" to "and" this might imply that the E-V12* group is V32 negative but M224 positive?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been corrected. The old version said "E-V12 or M-224," just a typo.
Trivia section
The section "Famous E1b1b members" is a trivia section. This is an encyclopaedia, this article should be about the haplogroup and not about people who happen to have been a member of it. How does the section improve the article? Do we need it? This article is not a branch of FTDNA or worldfamilies or any other surname project. I fail to see the encyclopaedic relevance of these contributions. Wikipedia has core content policies that demand that information be verifiable from published sources that are reliable. It's even more important in science, see here and here. I think it should be removed as irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Relevance of content and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. Alun (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one opinion.
1. This is only arguably trivia. Arguably it is just something more interesting to the genealogists than to the geneticists - both of whom share an interest in this subject.
3. Deletion would not be uncontroversial. Wikipedia is democratic, and so it is sometimes hard to be too snobby about (arguable) "trivia".
...So I happily played a big role in working on this section when I heard people starting to talk about how the article needed it. I (and I think other editors) tried to keep the section short and as well-sourced as the genealogical material allows. I think deletion would be very controversial for at least some people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with a simple listing of names of famous people with the haplogroup. The problem with the section as it currently stands is that it is original research. The only "evidence" that these people are in the haplogroup is anecdotal from surname project administrators. The evidence is in any case inferred from other results. The Harvey pedigree looks distinctly suspect too. These old published genealogies are often full of errors. Y-search entries and surname project websites are not reliable sources for such claims. This sort of research needs independent verification. If this section is to be included then you would need to get the project admins to write up their research and get it published in a respectable genealogical or scientific journal. Alternatively you could write an article yourself so that it can be referenced as a source. Note that the Famous DNA section on the ISOGG website is based on published sources in respectable journals.Dahliarose (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your estimations of the potential standards of comparison might be a bit unrealistic...
1. First, any random sample of genealogical publications will include many errors, including new ones and "respectable" ones. This is not controversial, just a known problem in the field. Many fields have similar problems, but clearly it is not the idea that whole fields get banned from Wikipedia for such a reason. Genealogical publications are often also very good.
2. On the other hand surname projects are normally quite reliable publications, which often have to be acceptable to several different genealogists working on the project. They also have clear contact addresses so that you can cross check things. It is not fair to pass this off as anecdotes, at least in the cases represented here.
3. There is no obvious way to ensure independent verification in genealogy. I wish there were. As genealogy goes, the cross referencing in this case is pretty solid as far as I can see.
4. I do not agree at all about your judgment of the ISOGG pedigrees. I say this with full respect to ISOGG, of which I am a member. The Niall claim for example has not one single pedigree and is arguably media hype about a very common haplotype in Ireland. I repeat, when it comes to genealogy even respectable journals are difficult to trust. The claims of the Irish article involved in that case were very vague, and on the whole the DNA study was less detailed and cautious than what many surname projects do on a constant basis.
My core concern is that effectively your standard mean no practical level of publication will be good enough for nearly any normal genealogical claim. Genealogical remarks obviously can not be banned from Wikipedia?
Lastly, your claim that OR is the correct description of the potential problem with this section is unfounded. I gathered the information and cited my sources. I added nothing to it, even though I recognize that the sources in genealogy are always a little difficult. I think there is no way this can be described as Original Research. You can only say that the citations are not convincing enough, which I think is debatable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sourcing that is part of the problem. The Wright Brothers claim is backed up by a comment on a Forum which does not count as a reliable source. The Harvey claim, if I've understood correctly, is backed up by an unsourced unpublished statement from someone who claims he is a descendant of Turner Harvey. I cannot see any statement anywhere in the Harvey surname project to the effect that they have a descendant of William Harvey's family in their project. As the Harvey section now stands disparate pieces of information have been drawn together, and conclusions have been drawn which are not made in the original sources (ie, the Y-search entry and the Harvey project page). This is therefore original research. The Niall of the Nine Hostages research might well be wrong, but the point is it has been published and covered by the media so it can therefore be cited. If it's wrong then no doubt other papers disputing the original research will in due course be published, and the Wikipedia article can be amended accordingly, citing the new research. No one is doubting the hard work put in by the surname project administrators, and their work will in the vast majority of cases be vastly superior to the published work of the Victorian antiquaries. However, if the surname project admins don't publish their work, or at the very least publish their conclusions on their websites, then their work can't be cited. I'm not saying that genealogical research should be banned from Wikipedia. As with any other subject covered on Wikipedia, it just needs to be published in a reliable source. Dahliarose (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we see the same problems. I would just say in summary that it is controversial either way. If you just delete these sections then we'll probably see things constantly re-inserted, deleted etc. And I am not convinced that there is a solution as easy as you seem to suggest. Remember this is not ONLY a problem of finding good genealogical sources, but ALSO a problem of linking them to the DNA results of a modern person. Surname projects are therefore sometimes limited in terms of what they can "publish". The forum messages mentioned are however clearly messages by surname project admins, and/or at least in one case moderators of the E-M35 phylogeny project, so not just average forum messages because to a large extent verifiable. The Calhoun case is probably an exception, because I could find a pedigree on http://www.smgf.org which is a lab who also employs genealogical researchers to check pedigrees, that it then publishes in a linked way. I could then extend the evidence by referring to a modern published genealogy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think surname project admins appreciate how important their work is and the need for publication. The problem of finding the good genealogical sources and linking them to the DNA is a problem for the person who publishes the research not for the Wikipedia editor. Are you in contact with any of the project admins? Research doesn't have to be published in a scientific or academic journal. An article could be published in a genealogical publication such as the journal of a local family history society. The important thing is to get something in print so that other people can then cite the research. Even if your own research shows that the Calhoun case is cast-iron if the statement hasn't been published elsewhere then it can't be used. It doesn't really matter for now, but so much hard work has gone into this article that you really should be aiming for good article status. The famous people section as it currently stands would automatically fail the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Other editors have raised concerns by tagging the article so the problem is not going to go away until the proper sources can be found. Dahliarose (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I doubt there is a neat solution possible. This will probably remain a borderline matter. Surname projects (and yes, I've had contact with all these) are a source which is better than some which are widely accepted. Maybe a point of detail but maybe you misunderstand my point about the Calhoun case. It has a neutrally published pedigree and DNA result. http://www.smgf.org is not a surname project. Anyway, I had fun doing my best to make a famous people section (a standard for Y haplogroup articles) which is perhaps the best one on Wikipedia :) but I have no big position on it. I just hope people won't be edit warring about it because that may mean the article ends up worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think it's only "arguably" trivia. The article is about the haplogroup isn't it? The article is not about people who carry this haplogroup, it's about this specific Y chromosome.
I know what you mean, but for argument's sake let me explain the other side. The haplogroup is defined by the people who are in it. When someone would talk about E-M35 moving from Ethiopia, THAT is a metaphor. You mean "people who were M35+". As I mentioned before, a lot of people see this subject as related to genealogy. Are they wrong? I think there are simply different aspects to this subject. To treat this article as something which should naturally be ruled by the concerns of molecular biology, or any of the fields which are concerned with it, would be controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in what a "lot of people" think. Genealogy as a subject may be very interesting, we can deal with that over at Genealogy. But that's not really the issue is it? The section in question is not really about genealogy, it's about "famous people". If we want a genealogy section in the article it should be concerned with discussing how this haplogroup has been used in genealogy research, and not discussing the lives of the famous people who are supposed to have carried the Y chromosome. Besides the haplogroup is not defined by the people who carry it. The haplogroup is defines by a specific SNP. That SNP was created bya single mutational even in an individual who cannot be known, how the life of that individual might be relevant to this article, "the first man to carry the mutation who is the direct ancestor of all subsquent members". But otherwise I don't see it. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the distinction you are making between "how this haplogroup has been used in genealogy research" , and "famous people who are supposed to have carried the Y chromosome". And I don't think this is correct: "the haplogroup is not defined by the people who carry it". I think it is defined that way, at least in the same as "black haired humans" is defined by the existence of humans who are black haired.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is obvious I would have thought. If you want to have a section that discusses this haplogroup and how it is used in genealogical research, then that would be relevant. I think the problem is that you are just wrong, haplogroups are not used in genealogical research, they are too ancient. Haplotypes are used in genealogical research because they have a much more frequent mutation rate, and we can get up to 100 loci genotyped, easily enough for the haplotype to be unique to any men that share paternal line ancestry, unlike this haplogroup. Being in possession of this mutation does not indicate family relatedness. On the other hand the section "famous people" is not about genealogy, it's about famous people. Genealogy is the study of families, it is not the study of famous people. I'd fully support the inclusion of a section about genealogy in the article. But as I say, I think you are just wrong when you say that any haplogroup is used in genealogical studies. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I don't think that's a very objective way to look at it. Having black hair is not equivalent to being a member of a Y chromosome haplogroup. For one thing there is no evidence that black hair is phylogenetically partitioned, unlike haplogroups. Secondly hair colour is a multi-locus trait, unlike Y chromosomes which act as a single locus. Thirdly hair colour is visible for all to see, whereas Y chromosome haplogroup membership is cryptic. Dividing people up into a set called "black hair" is biologically and evolutionarily meaningless. Dividing people up into Y chromosome haplogroups is not biologically meaningless. But the members of the group don't define the group, most people who carry this mutation are utterly unaware that they carry it. The haplogroup is defined by the mutation, that's how ISOGG define it. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your point about ISOGG, that is not an encyclopaedia. I am certain that the Wikipedia project has a completely different set of goals to those of ISOGG. I use ISOGG all the time, they are a reliable source and maintain an excellent resource. But if they want to include trivia then that is their prerogative, they are not an encyclopaedia.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the subject". Do you mean this specific haplogroup? When we are discussing a mutation that arose 26,000ybp, that is not genealogy, that's population genetics. Or are you claiming that everyone who is a member of this haplogroup is part of the same family? Clearly that's not correct, there are people who belong to this same haplogroup who are clearly not members of the same family and are totally unrelated on the sort of scale whereby we normally think of relatedness. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not genealogy is it? It's population genetics. I'm all for population genetics, having a genetics degree myself. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We, on the other hand, are not a genealogical resource. I am sceptical of the reliability of "family" DNA projects. For example the Harvey Y-DNA Genetic Project is cited in the article, how do we deal with this? Normally in science we accept only sources published by reliable scientific publishers. I don't think we can treat family projects any different from say blogs, and we certainly don't cite blogs.
I think there are a number of questionable assumptions here. First you make a sharp distinction between science and genealogy. There is a problem here, because we are concerned here with male lines, and male lines are a subject which concerns genealogy in a scientific way. So for practical purposes the genealogists most closely involved in these discussions, let's say ISOGG members, or people publishing articles on JOGG, are practicing science. We should not dismiss them on a technicality. So when you say "how do we deal with this?" that is a good question. I'd start by saying that ignoring the problem completely would be wrong. What I think is eventually required is some sort of peer review system run perhaps with JOGG and/or ISOGG help. I've started some discussions, but we do not have that yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make a sharp distinction between science and genealogy. I make a sharp distinction between published reliable sources, and unpublished sources that may be unreliable. Indeed I include genealogy as a science in my post, I just point out that family tree projects are no more reliable than any other blog. I wouldn't cite any scientific blog. I'm happy to accept that family tree websites can be considered reliable, if there is a consensus for such a thing. Personally I remain sceptical. Unless information is published by reliable sources then I think we need to tread with caution. I consider Jogg a reliable source, and have cited it myself here on Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very wrong to say DNA surname projects (not "family tree projects" which are not in this discussion) are no more reliable than "any other blog". They are not blogs to begin with, and they are at least in some cases outside of the "self published" category altogether. But perhaps more importantly I have already agreed several times that I see that the verifiability of DNA projects is a bit debatable. There is not need to go beyond that with exaggeration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is incorrect to say that DNA surname projects are as unreliable as other blogs, what I meant was other science blogs. There may be a great many sophisticated, well informed, knowledgeable experts on these projects, but they fall outside the scope of reliable sources. I don't see that changing, but you can always ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion is that there is a great deal of unreliable speculation out there, especially when it comes to genetic research, I think we need to stick to reliable sources. I also think we need to stick to the subject at hand. In this case the subject is the haplogroup, and not speculation that people from history might possibly have belonged to this haplogroup.
The way I see it, comments speculating about the haplotype of men living in the Natufian culture (if verifiable etc) are OK. I also understand that comments like "examples of famous early Virginians are..." are OK. Am I right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, a famous Virginian would have identified as a Virginian, would have been aware of being a Virginian. Being a Virginian would have been an integral part of their understanding of who they were, because they would have been immersed in Virginian culture and society for their entire lives. Indeed they may well have attributed their success to being Virginian. These famous people belonging to this haplogroup did not define themselves according to their haplogroup. We can certainly say that they might be famous because they were Virginain, we can't say any of these individuals are famous because they carried this haplogroup. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be an artificial attempt to create a rule that no one uses. You are implying that if a person can only be named as a famous Virginian if he identified himself that way or if being Virginian made him famous. Really? Again, if there is agreement that there is an issue worth discussing, why exaggerate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exaggerating, it's a valid point. Where someone comes from, the school they attend, where they live, these all play a fundamental role in the identity of that person. The Y chromosome haplogroup a person belongs to doesn't play any sort of role in determining a person's identity. Our identities are socially constructed and not biologically constructed, any anthropologist will tell you that. Trying to equate belonging to a Y chromosome haplogroup with being a member of an ethnic group is what I would call artificial. Indeed I find it quite alarming that anyone would consider these things equivalent. That's biological determinism. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think you have answered the question about encyclopaedic relevance. If you can espouse a good argument for the encyclopaedic relevance of these people being included, then I'd be more than happy. I don't see the connection at all, I think it amounts to attempting to turn what is an encyclopaedia into a resource for genealogists.
I believe Wikipedia has many articles which are of interest to genealogists. Your argument borders on saying that if something is of interest to genealogists it should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being silly. Why do you feel the need to pretend I'm saying something I clearly am not? Wikipedia is not a resource for genealogists, that's just a fact. This haplogroup is 26,000 years old, that's far too old to have much family significance. These people are not related to each other, they are not members of the same family. Presumably the interest this article has to genealogists should be the same as it has to anyone else who comes here, to see the genetic history of this haplogroup. Your argument is not that the section is relevant to the subject at hand, only that it is relevant to genealogists. I don't even think that's true, genealogists are interested in recent familial history. Genealogy is better served by Y-STR work than by Y-SNP work. Mostly population geneticists, anthropologists and archaeologists, researchers interested in ancient population movements, and population founding events, are interested in Y-SNPs because they are practically useless for recent familial history. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Alun, but what I said is at least debatably true, and your response is not addressing the fact that not everyone would agree with you. Just looking at what your write logically, you are making a lot of assertions that contain arguable assumptions. All humans are related, and many people feel this way and use the word related this way. I have no problem if you do not. You might find it ridiculous that genealogists spend so much time and money studying SNPs, but we have to try to find common ground.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and thanks for saying I write logically!! I'm really not at all sure what you are talking about. I think you need to be more specific. Explain what you mean when you say:
what I said is at least debatably true
What? That my argument borders on saying that "if something is of interest to genealogists it should be removed." Well I'd say that this response hyperbole, frankly. Now if I'd said "we should delete the article on genealogy", then you might have a point. What I said was that we should not have a famous people section. I still don't see the connection between famous people and genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families, and not the study of famous people. If you want to have a genealogy section, then discuss how the haplogroup is used in genealogical research, and not the lives of people who might or might not have carried this Y chromosome.
your response is not addressing the fact that not everyone would agree with you
And? I don't think I have to address that at all. I have given my point of view, that a "famous people" section is a trivia section, and it isn't a genealogy section as you keep trying to claim. If people disagree with me, that's their prerogative. If there is a consensus to keep the section, then I'll abide by it, if there is a consensus to remove it, then you should abide by that.
All humans are related, and many people feel this way and use the word related this way.
Yes, and that's called population genetics and not genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families and is not the same as population genetics. No one is disputing the usefulness of this haplogroup in the study of the relatedness of different human groups and populations. You need to decide what you are arguing, because now you are arguing something different. Genealogy is not the study of the relatedness of all humans, and if you are claiming that it is then I think you are confused. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more relevant to discuss the person who discovered the SNP that defines this haplogroup actually, if we are going to discuss individual people in the article. At least their notability is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Are we trying to say that these people are notable because they belong to haplogroup E1b1b? I don't think so. Alun (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some UEP discoveries are noted in the article as it currently stands. It is interesting that an increasing number are being discovered by genealogists. Perhaps these should be kept out of Wikipedia? :) Well, more seriously, just to name an example, when the Trinity College paper came out which announced the Niall theory, they were way behind the genetic genealogy community, who were responsible for defining the M222 cluster, first in terms of STR signatures, and then by reviewing old SNPs that people were not focusing on, and then organizing tests. The conclusions were debated online and very critically, and were much less speculative and sloppy as a result. Eventually one person, David Wilson, admin of the Wilson surname project, made a webpage. I presume you would say that this fact should not be mentioned because the Trinity paper was verifiable. But that's a shame isn't it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to be sarcastic. Yes it is a shame. I don't dispute the good work done by genealogists, and contrary to your attacks on me, I have nowhere said that we should not include genealogy on Wikipedia. I have said that we should concentrate on the subject at hand, that is the haplogroup. I have also said that we need to include reliable verifiable material. There may be a great deal of excellent information out there on many different subjects. There may be excellent original research going on online in the genealogical community. I applaud them for their hard work. Unfortunately this falls outside of the normal scientific and academic process. This doesn't mean that the work is valueless, but it might get ignored for some time. It also means that unless it gets published in a reliable source then it will remain relatively obscure. But at least what you say above is relevant to the actual science, that would be important to an article. The section about "famous members" is not equivalent is it? As I say, unless you are somehow going to suggest that their notability is connected with their membership of this haplogroup, then I don't see the relevance. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's focus on the issue. We agree that there is good work going on which is hard to cite. So instead of making statements about genealogy not being appropriate, let's try to find a way to avoid Wikipedia being distorted because of this. In some cases, I have suggested, resources such as SMGF already give what I think is a tolerable work-around. You never really comment on that in detail. In other cases, I have tried not to cite Surname projects alone, but also the E-M35 phylogeny project, which is outside of the self-published category (it has more than 1000 members, with the active ones all being project admins). I accept however that citing statements made on its message boards is not quite where we want to get to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that genealogy is "not appropriate"? A genealogy section would discuss genealogy, and not famous people. I don't think it's correct to claim a famous people section is anything to do with genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families, and not the study of famous people. If the article wants to have a genealogy section, then well and good, but it should then discuss how SNPs are used in genealogy research, and not famous people who may or may not have been members of that group. I think that's obvious. What I did say is that haplogroups are not generally used in genealogical research because they apply to deep ancestry and not recent familial ancestry. But anyone who's ever looked into this should know that. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--
BTW Andrew, why do you think anyone would edit war about this? I'm not impressed with this trivia section, but I haven't attempted to remove it from the article, and I wouldn't unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Alun (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that the views of genealogists should be discounted, but if their findings are to be quoted in a Wikipedia article then they have to be published, and publishing is something which unfortunately most genealogists don't seem to consider. Even if the people discussing the results of academic papers understand the subject better than the scientists, if no one goes to the trouble of distilling and publishing the comments, perhaps by writing a letter to the journal concerned, then those comments can't be referenced. You need someone to make the editorial judgement to decide which viewpoint to accept, which is the whole point of the peer review process. Otherwise someone can selectively quote from a Forum discussion to promote a particular minority viewpoint. With regards to the question of whether or not this section is encyclopaedic, I think this should really be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History. In their article guidelines they are currently recommending that such a section should be included in haplogroup articles. I personally think that a famous people section is useful and interesting to the general reader (not everyone who reads Wikipedia is a scientist), but it would be preferable to have a simple list, backed up by appropriate references. If the references existed there should be no need for the long explanations which we currently have here. Articles on towns and cities include a section on notable residents, and school articles have a section on notable alumni. When the numbers get too big they usually get broken out into a separate page as a list. I don't see why haplogroup articles couldn't follow the same format. That's only my view. The decision has to be decided by consensus. Dahliarose (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've written that quite well. To repeat: I do see the problems. (When I was making the section I asked at least a few surname project admins if they could take steps to make themselves more citable by the way.) My suggestion is that for now concerning this article some caution be observed. If deletions be done (if really necessary) please do it carefully and with good explanations about what was lacking in the sources. Some of these cases are better sourced than others, and in some cases a good faith criticism might actually lead to a nice patch. But I think that it is more important to talk at Wikiproject level, and with JOGG and ISOGG about how to create a way of dealing with this more general challenge. (I think problem is not a perfect word.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need a proper explanation about how it's relevant. I don't see this as analogous to school articles having a notable alumni section, or towns or cities having a notable residents section. When a person grows up in a town, or attends a school, that experience is something that molds their character and personality. It is something they are aware of, and something they may be very proud of. It might even be something they say is directly responsible for their attaining notability. e.g. "I couldn't have achieved this success if I hadn't attended such and such school" etc. But member ship of a Y chromosome haplogorup is not analogous to that. These peopel are not closely related to each other, and they are were not aware that they belonged to this group. I agree with Dahliarose, a simple list would suffice. We should really see how much consensus there is for a change to a simple list. So far two of us think a simple list and one thinks we should discuss these people in depth. Lets see if anyone else has any thoughts. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The format of the famous people section really needs to be discussed on the main project page not here. I see Andrew has raised the topic there and I've also added a comment. I've discovered that there is a List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. I suggest that it might be more appropriate to move the famous people content into that list for now, with a link to the list in the "See also" section. Then at least the content is not lost and the integrity of this article can be maintained. Would that be acceptable? If the references can be found then it would be a simple matter to add a short referenced list of famous people. Dahliarose (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view I am open to pretty much anything on this subject, despite my having taken up the devil's advocate position. I got involved in this subject because people aware of the article kept pointing out that the famous people section was missing, so to speak. I have some interest in the subject, but concerning whether it belongs in a Wikipedia article I can just state the case, and I know it has some weak spots.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dahliarose's suggestion. From my point of view membership of this haplogroup might be something interesting about a famous person, but the famous person is not something interesting about the haplogroup. I also don't think genealogy is the study of famous people, I think it's the study of families, so Im not sure of the connection between genealogy and a famous people section. Alun (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The genealogy of famous people is clearly a subset of the subject matter in both genealogy (it is an example of genealogy: therefore good for using as an example) and some published population genetics articles (whether we like it or not). It also frequently gets mentioned in Wikipedia. If this point were an essential part of your argument Alun (I do not think it is) then the argument would look a bit dodgy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think you are to decide whether an argument is valid or not? Surely that's for the community to decide? What population genetics studies have used the genealogy of famous people? I don't think there are any, population genetics is a study of evolution and population change, it is not the study of individuals or families. Furthermore when when articles include lists of famous people, they may be just that lists, (e.g. Notable Georgians or links to longer list articles, e.g. Welsh people, Lists of Welsh people) or they may be a category (e.g. Vantaa, People from Vantaa. You have included a summary style edit, which implies that the events of the lives of these people are directly relevant to the haplogroup, or in other words, that this information (about the lives of these people) would normally form part of the haplogroup article, but that they are too long to include. That's wrong, nowhere else is information about "famous people" presented as if the biographies of the people in question is directly relevant to the subject of the article, usually it's presented as little more than a marginally interesting but trivial piece of information. Is it relevant to haplogroup Elb1b that William Harvey discovered systemic circulation? Who says this? I also suggest you take a look at the essay Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, where it states To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. You are still confused here, you seem to think that just because other websites do something, that makes it valid for us to do it. So I'll say it again, it's no argument to say that "others do this so we can". We're an encyclopaedia, we have our own content rules and guidelines. We're not here to emulate ISOGG or other resources, they don't have the same content guidelines as us. I've always been amazed by the argument, often expressed on Wikipedia, that "we should do it because they do it". It's no argument at all. Alun (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with your philosophy, but please do not get too serious about it. The main thing is that you are now getting into a habit of misquoting me which I think is making it hard to find common ground. I only respond so we can get past it.
I did not argue that "we should do it because they do it" and we've already covered that. I refer to the relevant Wikiproject. The only "they" we discussed outside this was not raised by me: the whole science and genealogists thing. I referred to ISOGG as a serious resource with a famous people section because it was implied that there were none.
I also did not say I can decide what is "valid". I just said a particular argument looked dodgy. Now, the fact is that whenever two people have a discussion, they are always showing that it is a basic characteristic of being human, that we all have opinions about what is, yes well, "valid", which by the way is another word for "truth". So how should we discuss anything if we are not allowed to say what we think? And by the way, why do so many Wikipedian spend so much time recently proclaiming rulings to others which effectively tell the others not to proclaim rulings? :) (This is meant to be a humorous rhetorical question of course. I know there are good reasons.)
Coming to your content:
If you have not seen famous people mentioned in genetics literature such as Niall of the Nine Hostages and Thomas Jefferson, I am sure you can find such references very easily. I am not really that keen on many of these myself, but to say it is not relevant because too "genealogical" for a "science" article would be POV.
I have no problem with your remarks that the style might not be detailed here in this article. If this is what disturbs you most, then perhaps there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. I just looked at other articles, and saw that this is what people were doing.
However, I should mention something which keeps coming into my mind in this discussion. I think it would be really much more useful if you discussed the article text in concrete detail, explaining in each case what you are generalizing about. For example, I would say that a bigger part of the summaries is currently just about the DNA link, and not biography. If you can accept keeping a famous people section, then maybe it is possible that you could try editing it to remove redundant parts?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say I hadn't seen genetics literature about famous people? What I said was that population genetics is not the study of individuals or of families. Indeed it is not, that was a direct response to your claim that "genealogy of famous people is clearly a subset of the subject matter in both genealogy (it is an example of genealogy: therefore good for using as an example) and some published population genetics articles". Whereas I don't deny that the study of genetics has been linked to the genealogy some famous people, that's not population genetics. Furthermore it is all too common for editors here to make claims that are not made in original research papers. Mostly that's due to poor journalistic reporting, where editors read something poorly covered by a journalist and then cite the journalistic source rather than the original research paper, which is usually much more likely to hedge it's bets. Let's take the claim abour Niall of the Nine Hostages, what does the actual research paper conclude? Here is the quote "Genealogical association together with the predominance and pattern of variation of the IMH strongly suggest a rise in frequency due to strong social selection associated with the hegemony of the Uí Néill dynasty and their descendents. Figures such as Niall of the Nine Hostages reside at the cusp of mythology and history, but our results do seem to confirm the existence of a single early-medieval progenitor to the most powerful and enduring Irish dynasty."[8] So the actual paper makes a very hedged statement. They acknowledge that a powerful family probably did exist, and that it's male members were very reproductively successful. They acknowledge that the male members of this family probably derive from a single man. Then they say that Niall occurs te the cusp of mythology and history. When journalists make claims like this we ourselves are on the cusp between science and popular journalism. For myself, I prefer to stick to the science and draw the conclusions that the more reliable sources draw. The fact is that often journalists get science completely wrong, they either sex it up to make it a "better story", or they simply don't understand it. Likewise take a look at the papers about Jefferson's Y chromosome, it's not a population genetics paper, they do not make inferences about any populations, but simply claim to have genoyped Jefferson's Y chromosome and compared it to similar chromosomes, indeed they are actually cautioning against "assigning individual ancestry based on a Y-chromosome haplotype" [9].
"What I said was that population genetics is not the study of individuals or of families." This article is not under any set of rules concerning its need to adhere to being "population genetics". It is about E1b1b, which is of interest to many types of people. Secondly, I think that "population genetics" is a bit different than you describe it. It currently tries far too much in my opinion, to be about famous people and events. However, that is notable, and can be mentioned on Wikipedia. My POV does not count, and I won't push it. You should avoid pushing yours. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject for a minute, I've been following the discussion above, and I have to disagree with the contention that the Famous E1b1b members section is trivia. The article is about E1b1b, so mentioning a few real-life examples of well-known people that readers can recognize who actually carry the clade seems relevant to the discussion. The latter seems to be a subject of considerable interest to the reading public, with many articles written on the topic both here on Wikipedia (e.g. 1, 2, 3, ) and in the popular press (12, 3), as well as some genetic studies published in peer-reviewed journals (1, 2). If there's a concern about the relevance of mentioning that so and so was the inventor of such and such, that information was only included in the text to make it easier for readers to identify the famous E1b1b member in question. Sort of like the "President" descriptor in this study on Thomas Jefferson and the former haplogroup K2. Perhaps some of the sourcing leaves a little to be desired, but that's nothing that can't be fixed. Causteau (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is about E1b1b, it's not about "a few real-life examples of well-known people". I don't see an argument there. It's like saying an article is about the World so we should mention some real life people who live there and give their biographical details, but there is no mention of any individuals who live on the world in that article. As I say it's marginal to the subject. Furthermore the links you make to other Wikipedia articles are simple lists, they do not include paragraphs of irrelevant biographical information in the article. Have a list by all means, don't clutter the article with irrelevant biographical information, we don't do that elsewhere. I'd like to know why it is considered more relevant to include biographical details in haplogroup articles than any other type of article? Summary style is not supposed to be used in this way, summary style is supposed to be for sections of articles that have grown too long, so a sub-article is required. Here we say that the article William_Harvey is a sub article of the article Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). What's the rationale for that? It implies that Harvey is famous because he has this haplogroup. That's just wrong. Your examples from the popular press are not about famous people, so what argument you are making there I can't guess. The two peer reviewed article you link to are for mtDNA so their relevance here is not apparent. But anyway they are not relevant to any haplogroup article, they are simply looking to see if a set of mtDNA sequences are the same, they can't prove relatedness, but they prove unrelatedness. That's not relevant to haplogroup articles. In fact the analysis is directly relevant to the article about Jesse James, and is mentioned as an example of how mitochondrial DNA analysis can be used to see if two individuals are not related in the mtDNA article, but Jesse James's biographical details are not mentioned at all in the mtDNA article. I don't agree that several paragraphs of biographical detail can compare to the single word "President", which is not actually used in the title of the paper you link to in any case.
As for sourcing, it certainly is not something that can be easily fixed. We have a policy here about verifiability. The sources this article uses are not reliable, it's a great deal of hearsay and conjecture. As I say above, when we look at scientific papers we see lost of caveats, but on the sorts of websites cited here we don't have these caveats, and cannot be considered reliable sources. Andrew seems to want to ignore our normal core content policies, for what reason I don't know, so he can include the claims of any individual who has any hair brained theory that they want to post on what amounts to a blog. I can't accept that. Alun (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to you as an individual. You have to convince others. I believe surname projects are both reliable for certain types of information, and also notable for certain types of information (in other words reliable about their own opinions, which are in some cases interesting in their own right, meaning we can at least write that "they believe..."). I can not think of any occasion where you or anyone else has explained an example of how surnames projects are considered unreliable and un-notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to change all this to a list as per normal Wikipedia policy, we're getting nowhere here and I see no compelling reason that biographical details are more relevant in haplogroup articles than say in town articles. Alun (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alun, I suggest a few things must be fixed in your new version:
Why not reinstate the Savards and talk here about any reasons you have to remove them. You have not discussed this so far.
I think that the sourcing which is the biggest part of the text you deleted, should be reinstated as footnotes.
I suggest that the bullet points could be allowed by you to at least have a few added words to make sure it is clear who the people being referred to are like "...of the famous feud". I see no Wikipedia guideline saying articles must be opaque.
Concerning those sources, you clearly have "issues". I think it is pointless talking about those in general terms, so can you go through them case by case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is supposed to be aboud famous people right? The Sarvards didn't have a link to a Wikipedia article. I concluded that this is because they don't have a Wikipedia article. If they are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, why should they get a mention here? The whole point of the famous people section is to link to the Wikipedia articles of those people.
The cites still exist. I haven't moved anything from Wikipedia. I simply moved the information to the biography articles of the people mentioned. The information is still cited there. Then I linked to those articles fromt he list. In Wikipedia lists don't need to be cited as long as the article linked to is cited.
If you want to explian who they are fine. Of course it seems odd to have to explain who they are, I mean if they are famous then they are famous right? Alun (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching Savard on Wikipedia. Serge and Denis are the ones. Their links were deleted by you so you could have checked this. The article used to say...
According to information posted to the E-M35 Phylogeny Project by Denis Savard, administrator of the Savard DNA Project and moderator of the E-M35 project, the Canadian hockey players Denis Savard and Serge Savard have a common ancestor with three Savard DNA testees. The three Savard testees, members of the Savard DNA Project, descend from three different sons of Joseph-Simon Savard.
I think it's really unfortunate that the Famous E1b1b members section had to be wittled down to just an uniformative list, but I guess that's better than nothing. That said, I've been combing through the discussion above for some kind of agreement regarding the paring down of the section, but I couldn't find any. Can someone please point me to where consensus was reached on this matter? Last I was aware, Andrew, Dahliarose and I had all agreed that the section in question was not trivia and was indeed worth keeping; the difference was over whether to maintain the section as it was or to pare it down to a simple list. Causteau (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I did say somewhere that the normal format (as with notable people from places, and notable school alumni) is to have a simple list with an accompanying reference. With the new list the sourcing problem still remains. The latest footnotes seem to be Andrew's own original research using a compilation of primary sources. Wikipedia:No original research states "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." I cannot find any reliable sources which specifically state that any of these people belong to this haplogroup. Dahliarose (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dahliarose, obviously that is a fairly biased way to describe the changes. I think it is clear that the sourcing information which Alun deleted, has now been converted into footnotes, in order not to offend the taste of people who think this section must be dry and uninteresting. The other change is the addition of more cross referencing. In other words what might at first look like synthesis because it includes a web of extra references now comes largely as a result of the fact that as we all know, Surname Projects are currently being questioned as a reliable third party publication. What the new details show is how easy it is to cross check this information, at least in all these cases. The sourcing is all still straight to very direct and clear information which can be found published online by various different third party organizations which are the experts in their field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I'm being biased by stating that sources are unreliable - it is a simple statement of fact and a concern which is shared by other editors. You've only had to resort to extensive footnotes because the reliable sources do not exist. The Harvey claim, for instance, is made on a DNA forum. Your original research in the footnotes suggests that the claim might well be true, but this does not get round the problem of the lack of a published reliable source. If these projects really have identified the haplotype of a famous person they should be writing up their research and getting it published. For the Harvey research an article in the journal of the Kent Family History Society might be a good place to publish the research. Dahliarose (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a lab has tested viable genetic material from Harvey etc. to determine their Y haplotype, making claims here is original research. Web-based family trees are either self-published or constructed out of self-published material and are not reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted materials contained several links to the webspaces of testing companies. I can see two quickly, one of which links the tests at least to a surname (family tree dna), and the other gives an actual pedigree (www.smgf.org). All of the families mention were of course tested by labs according to claims independent of Wikipedia. So can you explain further?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if the material comes directly from the company, it is a reliable source regarding what the company sells (but cannot be used to make any further claim). These testing companies are commercial concerns. This material is promoting their commercial interests. I personally would have no objection to a section on the commercialization of genetic lineages - in fact I think it is a good idea, even for a separate article, and there are books by academic presses and articles in peer-reviewed journals analyzing this phenomenon that would be great sources fo such an article or section of an article. Within this context, I would have (just speaking for myself) no problem with saying that these companies make these claims and specify the context (do they make these claims in promotional material, or in material individuals purchase from the companies). In other words, these are reliable sources for what these companies are selling. And it is fine to use them to illustrate what these companies sell. I think it is a matter of using these sources appropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I follow, or maybe there is a misunderstanding. Sticking to the two examples I named, www.smgf.org is a foundation which does not test commercially. The other type of example was of DNA surname project who use Family Tree DNA webspace. When they do this, then the lab results on their results table is controlled by the lab. There was no reference to any kind of offer to do commercial services. It was you who wrote that "a lab" has to have tested, and so I mentioned some examples of labs, one of which does indeed charge money. But I was addressing your point about labs. Taken literally, of course it is claimed by the organizations involved that in all cases a lab did a test. This could all be discussed in more detail but what is the precise reason for implying deleting the section with a comment which implies that labs were not involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I've understood correctly it would be acceptable to state for instance that Family Tree DNA claim they have identified the genetic signature of the American president Thomas Jefferson because they make this claim on their own website. [10] As a notable commercial organisation FTDNA are careful only to make claims on their own website which can be backed up by reliable published sources. There is in fact a published academic paper from the University of Leicester about the Jefferson case. It is however not acceptable to state that the genetic signatures of William Harvey and the Wright Brothers can be found in surname projects on the FTDNA website because FTDNA do not make these claims themselves. The surname projects don't even make these claims on their FTDNA websites as far as I can see. A surname project uses the services of FTDNA but the surname project admin analyses the results. FTDNA have a team of respected scientists such as Dr Michael Hammer analysing their results and publishing scientific papers. The scientific content will no doubt be carefully approved by their scientific consultants. Dahliarose (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dahliarose, I understand that you judge surname projects not to have reliability for linking a pedigree and a kit. I honestly do understand that. I just do not agree, and I don't see that you've any done any more to defend your position than simply accuse me of obviously not understanding Wikipedia rules, or of trying to break them on purpose. And as you know this is the subject of an RS/N discussion. If you saying that Slrubenstein just means that he agrees with you about this then why did he not say so, and why have they posted no remark on that discussion of which Sirubenstein is clearly aware? Sirubenstein mentioned that the testing needed to be done by a lab. Nothing was said about judgments concerning reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the reliability question I think it is relevant to note on this page that Dahliarose does think Familytree DNA is a reliable source for DNA test results, and also apparently that they would even be reliable concerning linking those results to a pedigree. On the other hand if you go to Family Tree DNA's webpage and search it for information about particular surnames, they will direct you to contact any relevant surname projects which they recognize. I believe all of the ones in question for the E1b1b famous people section are in this category.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to deliberately twist people's statements. I have repeatedly stated that the only requirement is for surname projects to publish their results in third-party publications (ie, not on their own FTDNA websites). I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make such judgements. That's why we rely on secondary sources so such arguments are not necessary. No one is disputing the reliability of the results of the DNA tests. That is not the problem. The tests are the raw data. They are equivalent to birth, death and marriage certificates. Someone has to analyse the data. This is what constitutes original research. Family Tree DNA is simply providing a facility to host the data from surname projects. It is not making any attempt to analyse the data. When it does analyse data the results are published in academic journals. We are going round and round in circles and I do not intend to comment on these issues further. Dahliarose (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare...
"I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make such judgements." Dahliarose 15:53, 17 January 2009
"Of course we have to use judgement as to which sources are reliable." Dahliarose 15:46, 4 January 2009 [11]
I am sorry Dahliarose but I find your remarks having the twisting already in them. Can you please just give a simple yes or not then, could we cite Family Tree DNA as a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this "I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make such judgements. That's why we rely on secondary sources so such arguments are not necessary" I fear that it makes a nonsense of the whole discussion. If you do not claim that the surname projects are unreliable then this is clearly all coming under the definition of Wikilawyering because you are only arguing on a technicality, and clearly not looking at the intention of the policies, which by the way never say that Wikipedia only uses secondary sources. If the projects are understood by people who know about them to be reliable for certain types of data, and if the data on them can be cross checked, then they can be potentially used depending upon the details of the case. Indeed you are right that Wikipedia editors do not get to define who is reliable independently of third parties outside Wikipedia, and that is what I am asking you to stop doing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my analysis of the problems with this section please see here. I outline three major problems.
Reliability of the sources. A major concern, most of these sources do not represent academically rigorous research that has been peer reviewed, nor do they represent sources that have a reputation for fact checking. Mostly they are self published online public resources, such as family name projects, discussion boards, and haplotype data uploaded to databases maintained by sites such as Ysearch, by members of the public.
Synthesis. As far as I can tell at least three of the claims are the product of synthesis on the part of a Wikipedia editor. These are the claims for Harvey, Wright and Calhoun. The fact of synthesis is indisputable, for us to claim something on Wikipedia we must have a source that unambiguously makes the same claim. As far as I can tell we don't have any source that states specifically that any of these people (Harvey, Wrights and Calhoun) belong to this haplogroup, we only have several sites that, put together, suggest that this is the case. That is a synthesis. WP:SYN states "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." (emphasis added)
Relevance to the article. I can't personally see the relevance of this to the article. The article is about haplogroup E1b1b, but these sources are all linked to haplotypes used for genealogical research. Haplogroups that are this old (>25,000ybp) are not used in genealogical research, and most of the genealogical sources cited have have data for haplotype so that families can calculate how closely related they are. One cannot make this sort of determination by knowing that one carries the M35 mutation. On the other hand this sort of thing does seem to be a standard part of these sorts of articles for some obscure reason that no one has ever explained to me. Alun (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alun, the section is deleted and also under discussion on a Noticeboard, but given that you are still apparently pursuing a more general agenda I want to reply to your relevance point here, which however should be discussed on the Wikiproject board. I have tried to go over these points before and gotten nowhere, so I'll use simple language. The whole paragraph is ignorant nonsense. Indeed your terminology is so messy that we need to divide the claim up into several things it might mean:
There is no UEP discussed in this article to any great extent which is necessarily >25,000 years old. The article does discuss many very young clades however, all the clades known to the literature which come under E-M35.
Many of haplogroups are identified using STR markers which is apparently what you refer to as "haplotypes used for genealogical research". In other words, these same haplotypes are used in population genetics.
Haplogroups are categories of people including living people. I am in haplogroup E-M35 but not >25,000 years old. Only the UEPs which define the clades have ages like this (although 25,000 is a big number!).
Even the oldest UEPs (not clades) are often (and increasingly) used successfully in genealogy. They are often useful for eliminating doubtful matches, especially in the R-M269 clades.
The younger clades within E-M35 are being discovered exponentially. Their use in genealogy will increase exponentially, as it already is.
Putting all of the above aside, none of it is relevant. The deleted famous people section is about people who are in E-M35, and not about genealogy as such. It is also not about population genetics as such. That's it. These are examples of E-M35 which people like to know about, even if you personally do not. It is like pasting a photo in an article about Africa, something we are encouraged to do. Yes, you can argue (forever) about whether the article needs it or not. But please don't do that!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: molecular lineages and family trees
Please read the two sections, "Trivia Section" and "Removal of Section." The question is whether this deleted section relied on unreliable sources, and was original research. Slrubenstein | Talk22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unreliable sources and original research see User:Wobble/sandbox This is clearly both based on unreliable sources and a synthesis. Wow, what do you get when you combine an unreliable source with a synthesis? We need a proper standup to give us the punchline!!! Alun (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To close this discussion:
Alun raised the whole question/doubt leading to this, so the "wow" is rather disingenuous.
In answer to the question, there was no clear answer. Slrubenstein did the deletion and gave a reason for it which does not match the concerns of any editors. In other words it was a misunderstanding.
The whole section is deleted. But if someone else brings up these issues again on this or another article we are back to zero.
Is this material even desired? Surely there's going to be a huge number of people in this lineage. Trying to list them all seems rather foolish and counter-productive to me. Black people doesn't have a similar list. RS and SYNTH don't even come into it if the content is deletable in it's own right.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this was originally Alun's main concern. However the section was added as a recommended section from the relevant WikiProject guidelines, and discussions there, and on this talk page, and on the internet generally about this type of subject, show that many readers, not all, do want this type of thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of omitting this section. I agree with Slrubinstein that only statements that are made in peer-reviewed articles should be credited, and with OrangeDog that the material is not even desirable. The problems with fact-checking that Alun lists in his sandbox appear serious. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Wikipedia does not demand peer reviewed sources only, so why in this case? Alun's Sandbox contains incorrect information. As has been discussed before after not convincing anyone with other arguments, he started posting critiques of material used to show that facts could be cross-checked, and pretending this was the only source. The cases for and against are not so hard to state in a more neutral way. In my opinion they are all debatable both ways, but they are quite distinct.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Harvey and the Savards, the facts are stated by the administrators of the relevant DNA projects on the E-M35 Project's Message Board. The identity and respected status of these people and this large project, can be cross checked, as can their statements. The E-M35 Project, which these gentlemen are moderators in, is a source put together by similar people to www.ISOGG.org, which is an accepted source both in Wikipedia and in academic articles, and for Alun and Dahliarose who argued the case against inclusion. After reading all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, I see that such non-anonymous sources are often allowed, even though Message Boards themselves are normally a bad sign. That is where the pros and cons really are, as was stated when these items were originally posted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Calhoun, there is arguably synthesis. You have to look at a pedigree in two places and see that it is the same pedigree. And you have to look at two DNA signatures (simple series of numbers) and see that they are also the same. Is that synthesis, or is that "1+1=2"? The sources however in this case are strong: a published book and an non-profit research foundation (www.smgf.org) which employees both professional geneticists and genealogists. Again, cross checking can be done, as a check.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Hatfields and Wrights, the claims are made in a straightforward way on the relevant Surname Project Websites. These are respected projects when it comes to the relatively simple task of maintaining reference lists of pedigrees and DNA results. Again cross checking is possible for both the data and the organizations. In this particular case, I do find the arguments against inclusion start to fall apart. Peer reviewed sources do not exist for simple listings of pedigrees and matching DNA test results, and why should they?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. E-M78 originated in Northeastern Africa according to Cruciani et al. 2007. However, Northeastern Africa in that study refers specifically to the Egypt/Libya area, not the Horn of Africa. Cruciani and his colleagues refer to the latter instead as "Eastern Africa". Please see to Table 1 of the study for reference. Causteau (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize you're relying on Semino et al. 2004. The image's file page says as much. However, the Semino et al. study in this regard has been superceded by Cruciani et al.'s 2007 paper for the following reasons:
"Prior to Cruciani et al. (2007), Semino et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSemino_et_al.2004 (help) had proposed the Horn of Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78. This was because of the high frequency and diversity of E-M78 lineages in the region. For example, Sanchez et al. (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSanchez_et_al.2005 (help) found that 77.6% of 201 male Somalis tested in Denmark were members of this clade. However, Cruciani et al. (2007) were able to study more data, including populations from North Africa who were not represented in the Semino et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSemino_et_al.2004 (help) study, and found evidence that the E-M78 lineages in the Horn of Africa were relatively recent branches. They note this as evidence for "a corridor for bidirectional migrations" (conceivably the Nile River Valley) between Egypt and Libya on the one hand and the Horn of Africa on the other. The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".
An eastern African origin for this haplogroup was hypothesized on the basis of the exclusive presence in that area of a putative ancestral 12-repeat allele at the DYS392 microsatellite, found in association with E-M78 chromosomes (Semino et al. 2004).
In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa.
Yes, Cruciani et al. say E-M78 originated in Northeastern Africa. But once again, Northeastern Africa in their 2007 study refers strictly to the Egypt/Libya area, not the Horn of Africa. They refer to the Horn of Africa simply as "Eastern Africa". Have a look at Table 1 for this principle at work. Causteau (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this, I will adapt the these maps from Cruciani et al as well. But as far as I can tell, the two are just splitting hairs as to the origins of E-M78 as the two maps are very similar. Their disagreement seems minor and I think it is best to include both views. I went through the Cruciani et al and I saw no reference to Libya. In the maps there are two centers of concentration, the darkest is in the Horn of Africa, and the second darkest is in Egypt. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just splitting hairs. The Semino et al. study is depracated because she never even studied any North African populations to reach her conclusions. Cruciani himself states this. Have a look at the long section titled "Locating the Origin of Haplogroup E-M78". It explains in detail how and why Cruciani et al. changed the place of origin of E-M78 from the Horn of Africa (again, "Eastern Africa" in their terms) to Northeastern Africa (Egypt/Libya). The section concludes with the following paragraph:
"In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa."
Could you direct me to where Cruciani describes Northeastern Africa as being Egypt/Libya. The conventional description, according the wikipedia article Northeastern Africa is the basically the Horn of Africa not Libya. As I mentioned earlier, Cruciani et al make no reference to Libya, as far as I could tell. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, refer to Table 1 of the study for reference. Look at what areas Cruciani lists under Northeastern Africa. It's Egypt & Libya only. Ethiopia and the other countries in the Horn of Africa are all listed under "Eastern Africa". Next, actually read the section I've recommended (the long one titled "Locating the Origin of Haplogroup E-M78"). He clearly states that Semino et al. used to insist that E-M78 originated in "Eastern Africa" (i.e. the Horn of Africa) and that, based on his analysis of populations including North African ones, he proposes instead a Northeastern African (Egypt/Libya) origin -- an entirely separate region. Causteau (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I see it. Nonetheless, at the moment that is the interpretation of the Cruciani study. I will still create a map from Cruciani and place it in the page. I see no reason why we cannot place both maps, especially if all the explanations that you have put forth are included. This is a fairly recent study so there has not been much response to it. In addition, Cruciani seems to have gone against convention in terms of geographic nomenclature. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Cruciani et al. study is not fairly recent. It's two years old. It's also the incumbent standard. There aren't two competing "visions" out there; no one follows or cites Semino's hypothesis anymore since Cruciani's paper, including herself. I thinks it's frankly laughable that you're challenging Cruciani's authority on this issue. This is the man that not only assigned place's of origin for various E1b1b's sub-clades and sub-sub-clades, he discovered many of them too. And over the course of several studies, not just one. In other words, Cruciani=E1b1b. I'll have you know that contour maps are also no longer really kosher on Wikipedia's haplogroup articles. There was a big brouhaha a couple of months back that soured the powers that be on them. Why the need to cling to a deprecated place of origin when it has been effectively rendered obsolete and shown to be non-comprehensive? Causteau (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Experience has shown that in the field of population genetics, information changes rapidly, just as Cruciani is said to be an update of Semino, who knows what will be next. Cruciani is not definitive but strongly suggestive, he states:
In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa.
In addition the table that you provided a link, shows that the E-M78 is concentrated in the south of Egypt 50%, Somalia 52%, Baharia 41%, and oromo Kenya/Ethiopia 40%. The Libyans had relatively low frequencies at 8% for Libyan Jews and 20% for Libyan Arabs with samples sizes of 25 and 10 respectively. Whatever the case, Cruciani has not adequately defined Northeast Africa, I think it is a stretch to put Libya as being the place of origin. Cruciani mentions the Nile river as being a corridor for migrations, which eliminates Libya as a source of origin. Based on his map, Northeast Africa is Southern Egypt. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to hard. "We propose", "we suggest"... that's the type of language all the researchers use. It's called diplomacy; it's not an indication of uncertainty. Fact is, it's original research to pretend that Cruciani defined Northeast Africa as "Southern Egypt". He most certainly did not. In actuality, he makes it painfully clear what he means by "Northeast Africa" (as you yourself have seen, yet for some odd reason only known to yourself, refuse to accept): Egypt & Libya. This is indicated as plain as day in Table 1 of his study. "Southern Egypt" isn't. If you cannot accept this, that is your problem. Please keep your opinions to yourself. Only verifiable facts go into Wikipedia's articles, not the bizarre musings of individual editors. Causteau (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The study is very ambiguous on the definition of Northeast Africa. Libya is a very large country, in fact the fourth largest in Africa, so he could do with some explaining. As a matter of wikipedia policy, I have no issues with Cruciani et al's study. However the study uses terminology that is not conventional. Libya is even considered as part of Northwest Africa. In any case, if you are to use the table for definitions, then the frequencies are fair game as well. In which case the highest concentrations in northeast africa are in South Egypt, the highest frequencies overall are in Somalia, which he attributes to a back Migration from the Nile River. Though E-M78 is found in higher frequencies in Somalia, he argues against Semino et al 2004, because, the diversity in mostly Egypt of haplotypes is greater. The study is convincing, but is certainly not the end of story. The sample sizes used were still relatively smallWapondaponda (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the study is not ambiguous on the definition of Northeast Africa. It quite clearly indicates that the region is in the area of Egypt and Libya, as is already indicated and explained in the article. What on Earth does "the frequencies are fair game" supposed to mean? You think just because a region has particularly high frequencies of a clade, that all of a sudden makes it fair game to invent a new place of origin for the clade that the authors themselves never make? Get real. The Fulani have the highest reported frequencies of Haplogroup T, but the haplogroup is still accorded an Asian origin, not a West African one. In case you hadn't figured it out by now, we only go by reliable sources here. We don't invent data or entertain personal opinions. Causteau (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chill bro, Could you draw on a map where Egypt/Libya is. Its quite an ambiguous definition. What is interesting is the huge gaps in the maps between the Somali center of concentration and the Egyptian center of concentration[12]. In time those gaps will be filled, but that is an indicator that the study though rigorous was less than comprehensive.Wapondaponda (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, seeing as how Nilotes inhabit much of that area. And Nilotes are of course predominantly haplogroup A carriers, not E1b1b. Causteau (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit odd to have to centers of concentration separated by a large geographic distance, normally there is only one. The gaps is mostly Sudan, northern Ethiopia. Most likely patterns that will emerge will be similar to others in the region. The nomenclature for these haplogroups is always changing, so maybe within a year or so, there will be a new study with new names, new regions of origin. For now Cruciani is the most recent, so it will take precedence, but I see no reason not to include other information from semino et al 2004, which is quoted extensively in the article for purposes of historical context. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a projection dude; it's not set in stone. It was created using software like Surfer 8 (Golden Software), and is somewhat speculative. The Cruciani et al. 2007 study may indeed in time be eventually superceded as more data comes in. But for the present, it is the standard and the Semino study which, again, did not study North African populations, is obsolete in comparison. The Semino study, by the way, is already mentioned in the article; it wasn't omitted. That said, your continued insistence on citing it on the same level as the Cruciani study, as if they are two competing hypotheses when one in fact is an update of the other, is at this point a little troubling. Let it go. Causteau (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few remarks, which I hope everyone agrees with?
I think we can all agree with the principle that there is no reason to exaggerate the differences between Semino and Cruciani. (I am not really sure anyone is trying to do that.)
It is worth mentioning the fact that Semino originally estimated a different place of origin, but only if it is also mentioned that Cruciani had a different conclusion based on extra data. (This is also how the text already is/was.)
Sudan is certainly important. This gap was filled by the Hassan paper, which is also already mentioned in the article.
Trying to pinpoint a place within Cruciani's "Egypt + Libya (+Sudan?)" is a piece of information we can get from Battaglia et al. which is a recent article. Again, this is already how the article is written.
Coming to contour maps. I am aware of the concerns Causteau mentions. Neither he nor I raised them, but we should keep them in mind. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wobble#Maps and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Are_contour_maps_WP:OR_or_WP:SYN.3F However: first, I think these concerns were mainly directed at self-generated contour maps, ones involving combining data from different sources. Reproductions of a map from the literature overcomes this. Second, even if someone would make their own contour map, I do not think the debate was really closed. In the end it turned into an agreement that hypothetically, a self-made map might need to make assumptions which turn the map into OR. For example if we would combine information from Cruciani 2007, Hassan 2008 and Henn 2008, all made on very consistent principles with similar contributors, would that really be a problem? That's an example which was discussed, and left as hypothetical, but other examples have been pasted around Wikipedia and have not been deleted. Practical point: putting aside the more complex question of self-generated contour maps, I think Wapondaponda can certainly include a contour map based on one from the literature (as long as this does not violate copyrights). The Cruciani article is preferred, but in practice the difference is not big. Does all of what I have written make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but is ISOGG a reliable source on the origins of haplogroups. Judging by their website, they don't do any research themselves. It seems to me they are no different from wikipedia, in that the compile information. This page is referenced in the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISOGG is the source on which much of the haplogroup trees are based here on Wikipedia. To compare the organization to Wikipedia, a place where any old hack can edit a page, is something of a distortion and insult. If they aren't a reliable source (which they of course are), then guess what? Neither are any of said trees they publish, including the one in this very article. Causteau (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Educate me on this, but I looked at the reference [13], and it is a compilation of the very same references used in the article. The link above isn't a peer reviewed journal or article. Of course it is an organization, but if all they do is compile information but not publish anything, I don't see how they are any different from an encyclopedia. If they make a claim, it must be backed up by a study, of which I could not find any. If you know of the exact studies they reference, it would be great to know. Better to reference the actual study. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISOGG is not an encyclopedia, but the International Society of Genetic Genealogy. Most studies reference other studies as well when summarizing information, but that doesn't render them "encyclopedias". ISOGG similarly references other studies when publishing its haplogroup trees, yet we trust those because it's coming from them rather than, say, some random Wikipedia editor. ISOGG is also cited on all sorts of pages on Wikipedia as a reliable source, such as this info on a UEP cited on the haplogroup NO page, which was taken directly from this ISOGG page. Causteau (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reason why journals are some of the most reliable sources, is because they include a methodology for their studies. If ISOGG states that e1b1b may have originated in the Near East, I or anyone else, should be able to find out how they came about the conclusion. Looking at the website, I could not see how they came to that conclusion. There are a bunch of references at the bottom, but I have no idea which one. In the meantime, I will post some stuff on the genetics page or reliable sources noticeboard and see what others think. My initial impression is that they are a private organization that provides support for genealogists, but they are not accountable for anything that is published on their website. For the most part they do a good job, but once again, they are not accountable for anything as is the case with universities or research institutions. Neither do they appear to have any process of peer review. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is clearly a matter for the community as a whole to decide on once and for all i.e. to what extent ISOGG and other similar organizations can serve as reliable sources, especially given their extensive referencing on other haplogroup pages. However, given some of your questionable/over-eager past edits (e.g. inserting a map labeled "E" that actually just pertains to the E-M78 haplogroup) and your newbie (?) status, it would perhaps be preferable if someone like Andrew or myself were to initiate the discussion. Causteau (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, anyone can initiate a discussion, even an IP, see WP:BITE. If you take a look at the original images from Semino et al, you can see that the images are labeled in alphabetical order from A..G. Just by coincidence E-M78 was labeled E. I did not notice the coincidence until you pointed it out, at which point, I corrected the label. There was no intent to mislead anyone. ISOGG has made a claim, which at present I cannot verify. With Cruciani there is a clear methodology as to how they arrived at their conclusion of an African origin of E-M215. With ISOGG I could not find how they arrived at the statement "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". If the source they used can be found, we can verify its reliability and if it is reliable, we can use it alongside ISOGG. Until then, there should be a question mark on its reliability. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISOGG's SNP trees are now being used consistently as a reference in peer-reviewed literature, so their SNP trees are I think acceptable. These are effectively just webpages which are carefully maintained to reflect what happens in the literature. They are trusted. I think this is good enough for Wikipedia if it is good enough for the published experts. Concerning other types of information appearing on the ISOGG webpages I think it has to be discussed case by case. This has been debated here before, specifically concerning the E-M215 origins subject. See the archives of this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate ISOGG's efforts to create visual diagrams of SNPS that make it easy for even lay people to understand. For most trees that are uncontroversial, I don't see them as being a problem. But let say there is a dispute between two or more scientific groups regarding the exact position of an SNP in the tree. What will ISOGG do, most probably they will take one side over another. This creates a problem, if one uses them as a sole source of information as they may not have the whole picture. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISOGG is a big group of people, with respected leadership, and who are trying to fulfill a role that was not able to be filled by peer review, but still in a cautious and careful way. They understand that those particular webpages they maintain have become important. They are very careful about them. Secondly, what kind of controversy is really likely? Has there ever been one? Essentially this is data collection. Once someone respectable reports a particular result, that proves a point, and there is no debate: everyone just wants to know about it. I should mention that I am a member perhaps, but not fulfilling any particular functions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that these are not just visual aids, as you would know if you thought about why peer reviewed journals cite them. These are the ONLY up-to-date collections of the latest results.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Genographic Project
A similar problem arises with the Genographic project as well. What I have noticed is that they have not updated much of their information on the website over the last couple of years. This regards to the same assertion that E-M215 arose in the Near East [14]. They are commercial entity as well, I know Spencer Wells is involved with them. But once again, I see no methodology. In many cases it would not be a problem to use the genographic project, because there is general consensus on the world's genealogy. However on the more contentious issue of the origins of E-M215, a much higher standard of sourcing should be required. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is the E-M215 origins question you might be interested to know that the person who looks after the ISOGG page which mentions Near Eastern origins, and his predecessor, are both known to me and have both been contacted by me about this, and neither feel strongly about the information appearing there. It seems to have been passed down, and the main aims of those SNP pages is to record the latest updates in phylogeny. On the other hand I have been able to ascertain that people like Prof. Mike Hammer do still feel that there might be something to the idea of Near Eastern origins - however (I would argue) they obviously don't think enough about it quite enough, or have strong enough arguments about it, which would lead them to publish anything? I tell myself on this basis (but this basis is all information of a type that I can't use as a source on Wikipedia!) that this remains in the article while the scientific community finally decides whether or not it has discarded this idea. It seems inevitable that they will unless new surprising data appears soon. No one has argued the case for a long time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far, there isn't a recently published peer review journal that proposes the Near East theory. All the other peer reviewed studies, Cruciani et al, Semino et al etc propose an East African origin. ISOGG, and Genographic state the possibility of a Near East origin but have no methodology is available. From this would I be wrong to believe that the Near East origin theory is a currently a minority view and should be treated as such. As you suggested I looked through the archives and found the same discussion has taken place before. I find it interesting that Causteau was eager to dismiss Semino et al as being outdated, but yet sees the genographic project,( which still uses the older terminology e3b/M-35) or ISOGG as reliable on this very issue. Because of the lack of evidence, the Near East theory should not be given equal weight with the East African theory. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds suspiciously like an accusation Wapondaponda. I'll ask you to start assuming good faith and to not discuss contributors. Stick to the topic. For the record, I said that Semino et al. didn't even study North African populations in reaching their conclusions whereas Cruciani did. I also stated that Cruciani himself points this out in his 2007 paper. E1b1b is the single most common haplogroup in North Africa; the highest frequencies anywhere of the clade have been reported there, so this is no small matter. It's rather odd, moreover, that you should insinuate that I'm "eager to dismiss Semino et al." when 1) the Semino paper is already cited in the article and has been for quite some time now, and 2) you yourself appear to be not all that loath to dismiss the Near Eastern view. Heck, you won't even accord it a place in the article like the outdated Semino paper enjoys. I'll add that there is no truth to the accusation that the hypothetical Near Eastern origin of E1b1b is given undue weight. In reality, it's barely even mentioned. The Eastern African origin is indisputably given precedence. This is especially obvious when one considers the fact that the map in the Origins section unmistakably endorses an Eastern African/Ethiopian origin for E1b1b (E-M215). Neither Western Asia nor Europe is even featured in it, although E1b1b enjoys a considerable presence in both regions -- it's just one great big map of Africa. The map's caption also specifies that this is the standard theory according to the latest studies. I'll conclude by saying that Jimbo Wales specifies that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Well guess what? We've already done this with that one little blurb where we state that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture." And there's no map of the Near East to accompany or impose this view either; it's just that one little phrase. I agree with what Jheald told you on the HGH board: "Beyond that, for other information, a citation to their summaries is better than no citation at all; but if there is debate on a point, it would be a good thing to cite more authoritative sources as well." Causteau (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Causteau that this is not relevant to his questioning of Semino et al. on the specific point of E-M78 origins. Remember, Semino et al's older opinion is mentioned in this article, however we do not say that Semino et al's position is still a minority position and why should we? On the other hand it is interesting to contrast the two cases. I think if you look around the internet you will probably find places somewhere that say that E-M78 originates in the Horn of Africa. Possibly, if you ask around the academic community you might find a few who hold such a belief in a casual way also. But should we then be able to say that this is a minority position in a debate which is still on-going? And yet there is not really much evidence of any on-going academic debate for a minority position about E-M35 origins either. I suppose my position on this is fairly clear from the archives. I think the case for including the Near Eastern theory is weak, but I guess that for a subject like this:
Calling in neutral arbitration will fail because this subject is too obscure for most people (you'll see the admin in the archives who scolded me for questioning a National Geographic owned webpage as a source) and if we get a reaction it is likely to be a knee-jerk such as forbiding the use of ISOGG full stop. We have to try to make the community work. That means we have to convince Causteau, if not that the text is wrong, then at least that a change would be a reasonable compromise that he should not revert.
When a question arouses controversy, we should ask ourselves whether inclusion would be very misleading to the public, very controversial etc. In this case, I do not think so for the time being.
I think eventually the information in the public domain will be cleaned up. Unfortunately the two webpages cited are not often changed. The National Genographic project does not respond to questions about it, and I know the the ISOGG webpage is changed carefully in small steps. Victor Villareal of the E-M35 Project passes new information to ISOGG, but does not change the page himself. He has been looking into the text in question without wanting to rush to remove reference to the Near East without being sure he is doing the right thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PSTS, ISOGG is a tertiary source just like Wikipedia. Reliable sources states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources."
WP:SOURCES states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
Based on these guidelines, ISOGG and the Genographic project, aren't the best sources to use especially since they have not referenced any secondary sources in proclaiming the Near East origin of M215. The genographic project is a for profit organization. For $100 and a mouth swab and you get your DNA profile.
I have tried to find a peer reviewed article that proposes the Near East theory, but I could not find any. I agree with Andrew that the case is weak, and in my opinion somewhat misleading. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, The Genographic Project is not a commercial enterprise. It is a team of researchers financed by National Geographic, IBM, and the Waitt Family Foundation (someone bankrolls Cruciani et al.'s studies too, you know); not by some itty, bitty "Participation Kit":
"The Genographic Project is a global research partnership of National Geographic and IBM. With support for field research from the Waitt Family Foundation, Dr. Spencer Wells and a group of the world's leading scientists will attempt to collect and analyze more than 100,000 DNA samples from indigenous people all over the world. The goal of the Genographic Project is to learn about the migratory paths our ancestors took and how humankind populated the planet."
Second, the page you linked to which supposedly proves that it is a for-profit concern is actually just an open solicitation for DNA samples for the Project from the general public:
"The general public can actually take an active part in this remarkable effort by purchasing a Genographic Project Public Participation Kit and by submitting an anonymous sample of their DNA using an easy and painless cheek swab. By participating, you will not only contribute to this great endeavor, but you may discover something fascinating about your own genetic past as well. Furthermore, the proceeds from the sales of the Kits will be channeled back into the Project to support additional research and to fund education, cultural conservation, and language revitalization efforts for indigenous and traditional communities around the world."
Moving on, none of the policies you've quoted above forbid either ISOGG or The Genographic Project. Quite the contrary. WP:PSTS states that primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements. If indeed ISOGG and The Genographic Project qualify as tertiary sources, this is exactly the current situation since they're only being used in the article to source one phrase on the origin of E1b1b. WP:SOURCES likewise just itemizes the preferred type of sources, not all sources that qualify as reliable. It's actually unsourced opinions that Wikipedia forbids:
"Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material."
"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
The forgoing is exactly what's already done in the E1b1b article. That's in addition to the Jimbo Wales quote I've already cited in my previous post. With the recent discovery of DE* chromosomes in Tibet, the suggested Near Eastern origin of E1b1b has just been given a huge boost, especially given the distribution of both E1b1b and haplogroup D. These are indeed uncertain and very exciting times in population genetics. Causteau (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that, according to Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations DE* is an older African lineage, that has been found in Nigeria. I agree that biases form Wishful thinking should be avoided and the content of the article should be fact-based from reliable sources. Yes tertiary sources can be used on wiki, but wikipedia is clear that tertiary sources are lower in the hierarchy of reliability. Wiki policies provide some wiggle room in deciding how reliable a tertiary source is. There is no methodology or no inline citations from either ISOGG or TGP, and that TGP is using an outdated or incomplete nomenclature.
E1b1b is present in the middle east and europe. But based on all current standards and practices of scientific investigation, there isn't a shred of evidence for a near eastern origin of E1b1b. All the evidence points to East Africa. This clearly is the source of discomfort to some, because of some social ideas that people attach to these haplogroups. I find these ideas to be somewhat ridiculous, by chance events in history some haplogroups have become more common than others. By these chance events a haplogroup mutation could have arisen anywhere in the world. Editors should report what the facts based on scientific investigationa regarding the origins of these haplogroups rather than reporting what he said or she said that the haplogroup arose here or there with no facts. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DE* is not African, but of uncertain origin. ISOGG and others say it originated in Northeast Africa, while Templeton (2002) say Asia. Besides asserting that haplogroup D is exclusively found in Asia, Shi et al. 2008 are speaking in the past tense when they say that DE* chromosomes being found in Nigeria supports the Out of Africa hypothesis:
"The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria [2], supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin."
However, in that very study they found it in two Tibetans (a fact which, incidentally, Andrew himself added to the haplogroup DE article):
"In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians) [five Nigerians in total, Wap] but not in other world populations."
I don't now why you're even disputing any of this.
I also don't need to engage in any alleged "wishful thinking" since ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project -- which, again, are reliable sources, as demonstrated in my previous post above -- state right there in black and white that E3b/E1b1b may have originated in the Near/Middle East. First, you tried to assail those sources with policy and a false claim that the Genographic Project is a "for profit organization", and when that failed, you now resort to ad hominem and casting aspersions on my editing. Lame; really, really lame. Causteau (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put it this way: the case for saying that there is a serious argument that DE* is not of African origin is much better than the case for saying that E* or any other clade of E is not African in origin, but still very weak. Clearly of course it is true that there was a dispersion of DE* which happened very long ago and involved both Africa and Asia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with Wapondaponda in terms of my judgment of the facts themselves, I think that concerning sourcing guidelines I have to agree with Causteau. There is no rule that Wikipedia can only use peer reviewed secondary sources, and if there were we'd have to start deleting nearly all of it. It is not therefore a reasonable standard. Also I agree that the National Genographic Project is not a for-profit project. Wapondaponda made a reasonable case already, that there is no evidence of on-going debate, and that the websites mentioning Near Origins are just out-of-date. Maybe it is just my opinion, but I think all Wikipedians should try very hard to avoid the temptation to come up with artificial arguments in order to try to force a consensus on a technicality, rather than based upon what is truly convincing to this community. Wikipedia always has problems when people start doing that. I think that we must try to convince Causteau, and the other thing we can do is write to the National Genographic people responsible for the website to ask for their sourcing. (I tried a while back, but maybe someone else can try again.) I know Victor Villareal is reviewing the ISOGG webpage involved. These steps might not be fast, but we should all remember "there is no WP:DEADLINE".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at least with DE there are some actual peer reviewed journals that are for an Asian origin. I replaced the references from ISOGG on the page Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA) with the actual studies done by Hammer et al. At present, there is still no scientific study with actual human specimens and DNA that has been used to propose a Near East origin of e1b1b. I therefore propose removing the outdated reference from the genographic project and the reference from ISOGG that is not backed by any study. A reference to the Near East origin can be restored, if any such study is found in the future. With regard to DE*, I haven't been able to find many studies that reference it, possibly because it is so rare. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree DE* deserves to be treated as mysterious, because it is mysterious so far (but probably of African origin). Concerning E1b1b, I tend to agree that if someone really believes it originated in the Near East then they should publish their argument, because it would be a big call. It would be really exciting information in fact. But goodness knows that I've had much better referenced things deleted from Wikipedia! Causteau, is it really a compromise to keep this in, which is I guess how you see it? Isn't it obvious that the webpage references come from ideas that developed before Semino, Luis, Cruciani and all the rest circa 2004? Isn't it normal on Wikipedia to say that if the only sources are webpages, then the case has to be made for them? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really enough data in yet on DE* to be able to definitively conclude where exactly it originated. But based on all the information presently available (including the recent finding of DE* chromosomes in Tibet, the exclusively Asian distribution of haplogroup D, and the non-African origins of all the myriad descendants of haplogroup CF), haplogroup DE would most likely appear to have evolved in Asia, from where it later back-migrated into Africa:
"The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."[1]
We don't know yet, at the moment YAP+ is very Africa heavy. Though ancient migratory patterns were certainly complex involving a lot of back and forth. In fact the Near East and North Africa are essentially one ecological zone. The terms Africa and Asia are recent social constructs that didn't exist in prehistory. That said, there is a remarkable consistency in that most of the deepest lineages of the human family tree all trace back to Africa. At present the weight of evidence favors an African origin. So too does the archeological evidence, though still sketchy, there isn't much evidence of Humans present outside of Africa until after 50,000 years ago. If we take the YAP+ to be 65,000 years old, that places it right in the middle of Africa. However these dates are still being revised, an archeological find could change them. One more thing, it is well established that templeton and hammer are supporters of multiregional evolution, which is not widely accepted.Wapondaponda (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section break
Specialist wiki on this subject
Contributors truly interested in this field might want to consider looking at the E-M35 Phylogeny Project's own wiki. This might sometimes contain references or leads to material not yet on Wikipedia, or good ways of explaining things, although as another Wiki I do not believe it constitutes an independent reliable source for raw data etc. For those considering contributing keep in mind that it is the wiki of an organization and it is also a specialist wiki. This means you'll be kicked out quickly if you do not work constructively, but also that rulings about "synthesis" might be a little more lenient than Wikipedia itself (because what is "obvious" on that Wiki will be different).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. Why are you and Causteau repeatedly undoing my picture edit? What was wrong with it? We all know the phrase, a picture paints a thousand words.
Ackee's typical 'Somali man'
You and Causteau appear to think that your 'typical' 'Somali man' is more appropriate than mine. So, I have included both pictures in this talk edit, so that everybody can 'see for themselves' what it is you are trying to achieve with your 'white fez' image.
My edit was a positive, valuable and relevant contribution that actually helps to add clarity to the article. So why does it offend you and Causteau so much? Perhaps we should ask a leading geneticist to arbitrate? (I hear James Watson has a lot of time on his hands nowadays). Anyway, I can see that you've already been feverishly at work today, (perhaps in your 'living room'). I have no intention of getting into an edit war, as I'm supposed to be concentrating on my Masters studies. An edit war would only lead to a 'lock-down' - and I'm totally against keeping knowledge kaptive. Have you seen this - http://www.wikirage.com/editor/Causteau/ ? Tut tut. Ackees (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ackees. First please note that I only undid your reverting once, at the same time just now that I proposed you stop and post here first. You started removing the picture Causteau placed some time ago, and you and he have been reverting each other since. I did not see the point of having that continue. (You say you don't want an edit war, but that is what it has been I'm afraid.) So here is the problem: The pictures you are edit-warring over both seem equally Somalian, so why not just leave in the one that was there before yours? The only hint of a reason you keep giving is that you maybe have some issue with the Fez. Are you disputing whether this is typically Somali? By the way, you may want to look over the history of debate on this talk page and its archives. The photo Causteau is defending was the subject of some debate before. He can at least claim that he has made his case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what would be a good photo for this article? I'd say a group of men, and ideally men who had been tested positive for the relevant clade. There are some group photos of Somali men on Wikipedia, but mostly of poor quality and controversial because of Pirates or from old collections which are arguably undignified? What about this boy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Andrew. There was an edit conflict, so this paragraph is in reply to your comment of 11:48. First, I have only put my image in twice - and it has been reverted once each by you and Causteau. Secondly, yes I am disputing the 'typicalness' of your and Causteau's Somali picture (although I am not disputing that your man is Somali). But, my picture does look like a 'typical' Somali man, whereas your and Causteau's favoured version looks like an 'atypical' Somali man: that is, somebody who would stand out in a crowd of typical Somali men. As we are dealing with a gene that is present in the majority of the Somali population, it would seem sensible to use a picture of somebody who phenotypically represents the majority. Surely that isn't too much to ask in an article about genetics! What is your and Causteau's actual problem with my picture?
With regard to your 11:57 suggestions about the pirates, soldiers or the boy - all three have their phenotypical advantages over Causteau's picture. And I do not doubt that Somalia is a diverse country. But I carefully chose my picture because it was close to the previous one in age, gender composition and dispostion - the primary difference was that mine looked much more like a typical Somali man. If you agree that it's time for a positive change - why not just use my picture? Plus, I very strongly object to you altering my talk entry by changing my picture captions. That is not acceptable. My question remains, what exactly is your and Causteau's actual problem with my picture and it's rationale? Ackees (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for changing the picture captions. I added links, and removed your comment about my own intentions which I have explained to be wrong. (I have no preference between these two photos. I hope you can accept my word on that?) You said you included those two photos so everyone would know what the the discussion was about, so adjusting them in the way I did seemed acceptable to me. Oh well. As to how many reverts happened, believe me, Causteau will keep reverting if you edit this way. I just moved discussion here before things get ugly. Anyway, now we have something: You say the photo you removed was not typical looking. What do you base that on, and what do you mean by that? It is a bad habit to guess intentions of course but if I may risk a guess, you have only mentioned the fez. I also notice that your preferred photos all look a bit more generally African. Is that an issue for you? (I have learnt while editing this article over time that there are people out there who have surprising issues about how African E1b1b should be considered.) I only mention this because some people might wonder what the basis of your preferences are unless you explain them yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am going to go out of a limb and propose the boy photo. I like it aesthetically, and it is not a photo of a soldier, pirate or "big man".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all surprised that history and genetics are controversial! One only has to think of disgraced geneticist James Watson and politicians like Mussolini and Hitler - and remember that they have their contemporary adherents and opponents. I do not think that your man is 'not African', or even 'not African enough'. I am happy that he is Somalian. But, my image is more typically Somali than the atypical one you reverted to - who could perhaps also have been a typical Greek, Italian or Mexican. I am not an official of some Apartheid, Edwardian or American 'Board of Racial Classification' - quite the contrary. Of course, I accept that you and Causteau might have simply made an innocent mistake. This is a worldwide publication and, should you choose, you are quite free to defend your choice of image in front of all - whenever you're ready. Until then, I do agree that the boy seems more typically Somali than the image you reverted to. Ackees (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite irritating. You reverted my edit, apparently with no other reason than to merely repeat the unjustified action of somebody else. You then claim to have 'no idea' of the very subject at hand - despite the fact that I had already agreed with one of your own selection of pictures! Ackees (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember I told you that I asked you to discuss the subject here in order to avoid an edit war. Have a look at the history of this article. Also remember that you were the one who initiated deletions, not anyone else. In contrast to what I was hoping for, you have made no attempt to explain your preferences, which means your deletion of someone else's editing can be accused of being down to "taste" or in Wikipedian, your "point of view". I just hope whatever you propose will not lead to problems for the quality of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "unjustified" action of somebody else? Dude, you wrote in your edit summary "verifiable Somali man", as if to imply that the chap already in the article was not verifiably Somali, which is patently false. That is why I reverted you. Whether you like it or not, the man in the photo that's already featured in the article is Somali -- not "Greek" or "Italian" or "Mexican" (what the...?). How he could ever be mistaken for any of said peoples defies logic. Show me one single Italian, for one, that looks like that! That's a Somali through and through. In case you hadn't figured it out by now, Somalis and the people of the Horn of Africa in general aren't your typical Africans. For one thing, they share much ancestry with North Africans and Middle Easterners, and in many respects more closely resemble them (viz. 1, 2, 3, 4). That is why they look the way they do (e.g. 1, 2, 3, or the chap on the right). Why this troubles you and makes you so noticeably irate and belligerent, I do not know. I also don't know where you get off talking to perfect strangers as you have. Ever heard of civility and assuming good faith? Those are actual Wikipedia policies that you have just totally run afoul of. With that gratuitous Wikirage link, you also seem to be engaging in something distinctly resembling Wikistalking, which, besides being more than a little creepy especially coming from someone one has only just "met", is a form of harassment, which is also very much against Wiki policies. Get a grip. Causteau (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Causteau, what do you think of the boy with prayer tablet? It might be a good idea to use a more attractive photo, and one which is not of a politician or soldier? This photo seems to draw controversy for various reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this photo has only drawn controversy from people with an agenda, as can be seen by the histrionic comments above and my analysis of said comments. The boy with the prayer tablet pic is problematic because it makes a religious statement whereas the photo that's currently in the article does not. It's just the picture of a Somali man in a white fez, like the caption plainly indicates. Causteau (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know that Ackees has a systematic "agenda", we only know that he has a point of view which disagrees with yours. We have received a comment before about the person in the current photo being politician. I personally think that politicians not known to have been tested for the markers of E1b1b are a distraction in this article, because they are non-anonymous. On the other hand, I don't see how a photo showing that a Somali might be a Muslim makes a "religious statement"? Somalis are what they are, and mostly they are Muslims. The photo is meant to show a typical Somali male, right? (And I would say that if possible the photo should not be a grainy low quality one.) It appears that everyone agrees that this boy looks like a Somali?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a religious article, Andrew. We're not here to make religious statements of any sort, which is exactly what the image of the "Somali boy with prayer tablet" does. Arguing that the image doesn't make a religious statement is like arguing that a picture of a Southern Christian man holding up the Bible and/or the cross is not making a religious statement (since most folks in the Bible Belt are, after all, Christians). That's, if you'll forgive the expression, a little hard to swallow. Further, if the issue is what everybody thinks a "typical Somali person" looks like, then both previous objectors indeed officially have no point since the typical Somali appearance-wise has a lot more in common with Middle Easterners and even Europeans than he or she does with Sub-Saharan Africans. And that's not based on opinion either, but empirical fact: 1, 2, 3. The Somali man in the fez may also not have been "tested", but then again, no one else in the article has so that hardly makes a difference. Causteau (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are responding to points no one has made, and not responding to ones they did make. I did not claim that religious statements should be allowed (I just don't see any). Ackees did not claim that your proposed photo looks too Middle Eastern or not African enough (that was a guess of mine about what Ackees thinks). My point about politicians is that they are not anonymous, and therefore a distraction given that we just want a "typical" person. What if we cut out the prayer tablet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor's original objection wasn't that the man was a politician, but that he wasn't "verifiably" Somali. And when that was proven false, it changed to that he isn't a typical Somali, which is likewise untrue, as my links above prove. Moving on, cropping the image would leave just the boy's head since he is holding the tablet way up past shoulder height. I think it therefore best to continue with the theme already extant in the article, and that is pics of grown men all the way around, instead of having Somalis alone represented by a boy. I also don't see how the Somali man in the fez's political affilation is an issue when the Albanian man's artistic affiliation isn't. Causteau (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Causteau, you claim that Somalis 'in many respects' more 'closely resemble' 'Middle Easterners' than 'typical Africans'. To back your claim, you quoted the document "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease" 2, 3. This paper categorically divides the world into five 'races' 'African' 'Caucasian', 'Pacific' 'East Asian' and 'Native American', stating definitely, "the various racial groups were easily distinguishable".
If we use the OED definitions of "racial" (of or concerning difference in race)", than this is clearly a "racial" paper. They present various biological and genetic arguments to back up their racial views and specifically criticise scientists who disagree with the categorisation of humans into so-called 'races'.
Having quoted an argument about 'races', from a 'racial' document, we can therefore agree, that your P.O.V. on genetics and Somalia is a 'racial' one. We can agree that your agenda in using the image you have used is to illustrate your argument that Somalis 'closely resemble' 'Middle Easterners' as opposed to 'typical Africans'. To do this you have selected a picture of somebody who in your opinion 'more closely resembles' a 'Middle Eastern' than a 'typical African'. You support writers who believe in 'racial categorization' you wish to use this articale to pursue that agenda. And, to be fair, you have now come out and openly admitted your racial agenda.
Of course it would be totally wrong to assume that you and Neil Risch (author of the 'Categorization' paper) share the opinions of Ian Jobling, author the 'White America' blog, just because Ian is a fan of Neil [15]. However, it is clear that there are strands of thought in the world who believe that the concept of 'race' has a scientific basis - you, Risch, Jobling, Watson, Hitler, Rhodes, Southern Segregationists, Mussolini et al.
On the other hand there are many thinkers who reject the concept of race as a scientific, biological fact. For example, Dr J Montoya states that racial theories "correspond best to the imaginations of the scientists and not the presumably defining and stable features being measured[16]". Dr A.H. Goodman says that, "race is an inadequate and even harmful way to think about human biological differences" [17]. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, despite all his efforts, eventually admitted that "Classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin[18]".
It is clear is that racial classification is one of the most controversial areas of all human inquiry. ' Race' is not a scientifically established 'fact'. It is a historical strand of opinion. And, people who support racial points of view should be aware that racial opinions will forever be linked with fascism, segregation and apartheid.
So, how do we judge the scientific validity of the three phrases you use to justify your theory of race?
Let us take the phrase 'in many respects'. That is vague. 'In many respects' everything resembles everything else. A teacup, 'in many respects' resembles a mobile phone. Both are less than 0.5 litres in volume, both are made of atoms, both are made by people, etc etc. 'In many respects' is an utterly useless phrase. You can use the phrase 'in many respects' to justify anything. And what about your phrase 'more closely resemble'? Well, this too is useless -scientifically speaking - as anything can 'more closely resemble' one thing than another, depending on what category you use. If we use the category 'things that burn oxygen' then an elephant 'more closely resembles' a a motor car than it resembles an eraser. Brilliant! One simply picks an arbitrary set of categories to determine resemblance! As to the category 'Middle Easterners' - what on Earth are you talking about? What does 'Middle Easterert' mean? Does it mean 'Moroccan?', Spanish? Iranian? Turish? Sudanese? Nubian? Darfurian? Kuwaiti? Do all the people in these countries belong to one of your so-called 'races'. Does it include New York Jews? Russian Jews? Tanzanian Jews? I submit that 'Middle Easterner' is not a scientific category at all. It is simply a phrase which people use to mean whatever they want it to mean.
And so we come to your piece d' resistance the lovely, wonderful, phrase typical Africans". I would so love for you to give me a water-tight, scientific definition of the phrase "typical African". Does it mean of 'African ancestry?' In which case, that would be everybody on earth. How helpful! I support the non-racial view, that there is no such thing as a "typical African" - except in the minds of those people who have already predisposed to create arbitrary boundaries dividing people into various arbitrary 'racial' categories. '
To sum up. I do not dispute that your photograph is a Somali man. Nor do I dispute that he is an African. Africa and Somalia are phenotypically diverse - as is the entire human population. However, your picture is based on your clearly admitted desire to assert that Somalis 'in many respects' more 'closely resemble' 'Middle Easterners' than 'typical Africans' - despite the fact that non of those phrases have any scientific meaning whatsoever. What is more, everybody who looks at the page, reads your references, and reads this talk will now clearly understand your 'racial' agenda.
My picture is not based on your 'racial' P.O.V. or the 'race' theorists you quote. I, like the other image selectors you have opposed, am not trying to prove that Somalis 'more closely resemble' so-called 'Middle Easterners' than so-called 'typical Africans'. You are. But, accepting that your image is valid image of a Somali person, I am going reinstate my, equally valid image of a Somali person in addition. So, there will be two, in recognition of the visual diversity of the Somali population - thus refuting any suggestion of racial bias or exclusivity based on dubious theories of 'race'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Sure... you're not interested in "race". You only just introduced the very concept into the conversation by first falsely insinuating that the man in the white fez was not Somali, then, when debunked, insisting that he is not representative of typical Somalis with nothing other than your opinion to back that up, and finally topping that off with an insistence that he actually resembles Greeks, Italians, and Mexicans (!) more than the Somali he really is! Now, you come back here on the E1b1b talk page with some huge spiel on the race concept completely unrelated to the E1b1b article, and still have the temerity to insist that you are somehow not interested in race. Please. The Neil Risch source you take cheap shots at above states point blank that "populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians." Like I already pointed out, that kind of undermines your hollow claim that the man in the white fez is, in fact, an atypical Somali, doesn't it? As does this source which states outright that "the facial skeleton pattern of the Somali is closer to Caucasian patterns than the African ones". In fact, all the links to studies I've posted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) put the lie to your claims: that is why I cited them. Your likening me and Neil Risch -- the 2004 recipient of the Curt Stern Award from the American Society of Human Genetics -- as akin to Hitler (a man whose name you're invoking for the second time) and other evil types simply because I have the audacity to back up my assertions with actual evidence (such as Neil Risch's study) instead of my own "word" like you goes to show that you have very little in the way of respect for Wikipedia's most basic policies. Again, do not attack other users:
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."
"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
Do not attempt to force your edits into the article:
"Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute."
Get this: the point of the talk page isn't to provide a venue for you to take your frustrations at being unable to prove your point out on me or on Neil Risch or on Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza or on any other random person who happens to be able to do just that -- talk pages are exclusively reserved for the discussion of the article. And the point of the E1b1b article isn't to spam images of Somalis or those of any other single ethnic group as you've just done. It is to discuss E1b1b, understand? Take the lame racial politics that you and only you introduced, perpetuated, and exploded elsewhere. They are most certainly not welcome or needed here. Causteau (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why both photos can't be used. Since we don't know the exact DNA profile of any of the people in the photos, it is somewhat close to original research to even include photos of people. For purely Aesthetic purposes, photos are acceptable but they are of little meaning, since uniparental DNA has no known impact on physical appearance. For example John Revis. As a compromise, I would suggest using both photos. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Wapondaponda. But no, we can't use two photos of Somalis since this isn't The Great Somali Image Parade. It's the E1b1b article, and as such, it is reserved for the discussion of things directly pertaining to E1b1b -- not for illustrating any alleged "phenotypical diversity" of Somalis, Albanians, or of any other ethnic group for that matter. It's also not original research to include photos of "X man" and then claim that the ethnic group to which "X man" belongs is largely in the such and such sub-clade of E1b1b because the man in question does, in fact, belong to ethnic group "X", and the studies abundantly cited in the article already source the claim that his ethnic group is in the such and such sub-clade of E1b1b. Causteau (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ackees, I think you are speculating about Causteau's thinking far more than is necessary for this discussion. The practical point at hand is about a point of racial identification, if you want to call it that, which you clearly share an interest in with Causteau - i.e. what a typical Somali looks like. How do we handle that practical question?
None of what you have written above shows us any way forward. At least Causteau has taken the risky step of explaining something about his opinions. Perhaps you want to avoid doing the same because you expect something like the response he got from you? I tend to agree with Causteau that it is not a valid compromise to have two photos. My proposal is that you guys accept the spirit of compromise and go looking for other photos to propose. Please also remember to sign your posts on talkpages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iman (model)
Debates over ethnic images are not new, they happen all the time. Take a look at this archive Talk:White people/Archive 21. After contentious debates, about which people were true representatives of the ethnic group, a decision was made not to use images at all. Since there are only two images in dispute, a compromise to use both I think is not complicated. It becomes a problem when ten different editors want to insert their own preferred photo. As for me my preference is Iman (model). Though she probably doesn't have a y-chromosome, she is verifiably and recognizably of Somalian descent. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why talk of an alternate image should even be considered when no convincing argument has even been advanced to support the change to begin with, whereas a boat-load have in support of the incumbent image's retention. One shouldn't just compromise whenever one is faced with any 'ol weak, ad hominem-laced argument just to keep the peace, as it were. If Wikipedians at large were to do this, then every page would be subject to constant manipulation by any belligerent editor that throws a temper tantrum. No... real, valid, non-contradictory reasons must be provided first. Causteau (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd prefer no Somali photo than 2. This is not a major subject of discussion in the article. Causteau, compromise is relevant when 2 options are basically 2 points of view. Everyone has a point of view which influences their editing, but the idea is not to insist on your own. Compromise is also relevant if there is a strong likelihood that a 3rd option exists which ends debate. The boy with the prayer tablet almost got there. There must be others out there? Concerning Iman, you've omitted to tell Wapondaponda that you set a rule a while back that you thought the image should be of a male (because this is about Y chromosomes). And I accepted that as a reasonable guideline. I don't know what others think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All rules that are made outside of policies and guidelines aren't binding and in many cases will be temporary. This is detailed at WP:CCC. Wikipedia servers have plenty of free megabytes, so there is enough room for more photos. I tend to agree with Andrew, that no photos is probably the best place to go. If we are to use photos, they should be maps , graphs or charts rather than people. Photos of ethnic or national identity have a rightful place on articles that deal directly with such topics. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of 'race' has no biological/Scientific value for images or text in this article
Causteau, I refer again to the title of the Neil Risch paper that you cited above: "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, RACE and disease 2, 3".
I also refer you to your previous citation (above) of Carleton S. Coon's 1939 book "The Races of Europe" [19], [20] in which the very first sentence of the chapter "The Mediterranean Race in East Africa' contains the utterly fatuous claim that Somalis are 'white racial stock'.
Until your mention of these documents, the controversial concept of 'race' was not openly referred to on this talk page. Although you (perhaps understandably) 'neglected' to cite the titles of these papers, it is clear that, by quoting Risch and Coon, two of the world's most prominent advocates of 'race' theories, it was you that first referred to the concept of 'race' , not me. I merely expose the fact Risch and Coon are advocates of 'racial' categorization theories and that you quoted them in order to justify your use of the Cadow image man in fez.gif instead of the Hadraawi image[21] and others. It is not my fault that Risch and Coon use the word 'race' in the titles of their works, or that their works are about 'race', or that you openly quoted them.
And as to your statement about me, "LOL you're not interested in race" - I did not say that I wasn't interested in the subject. What I said is that the concept of 'race' is not scientific. You can quote "Caucasian" this or "sub-Saharan African" that until you are blue (or whatever) in the face. I, like Montoya, Greenwood, Cavalli et al [22], [23], [24] (quoted above) utterly reject the scientific/biological validity of all and any racial categories.
Therefore, your justification of an image based on any theory of so-called 'race' or 'white racial stock' introduces an erroneous racial P.O.V.. I, like the thinkers I quoted, accept that 'race' is just a 'social/political' concept, not a scientific/biological category. Furthermore, I note that so-called 'scientific' theories of 'race' 'closely resemble' the basic tenets of fascism, apartheid, racism and segregation. According to Prof. John P Jackon Jr, Coon (the 'expert' you cited), "actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity [25]". In plain English, Coon was a racist (I know, I know). I note that his work is also lovingly quoted on this neo-nazi website [26], where a strangely familiar set of 'racial' arguments about Somalis are regurgitated ad nauseum.
I am merely reminding readers of the close proximity of psuedo-scientific 'racial' thinking to evil ideologies, and warning contributors of the dangers of introducing so-called 'scientific' theories of 'race' into this article about genetics - which, as is about inherited molecules, not pseudo-scientific nonsense about'race'.
I note that you have reverted my image. I shall again re-introduce my image of a Somali person, on the basis that it is an image of a Somali person (in addition to the image of a Somali person that is already there). However, even though you justify your use of an image on the controversial, unscientific social/political, P.O.V. basis of 'race'2, 3, I shall not delete it. I hope, that as my image is not based on any discredited 'white racial stock' theory, but is simply a picture of a Somali person, nobody will repeat the mistake of removing it.
ANDREW LANCASTER There is no 'speculation' on my part about Causteau's racial theories. And, if you take the time to read his references, you will realise that there is no need to go forever 'hunting' for 'compromise' images. Causteau's citations unequivocally reveal that his P.O.V. is 'purely' 'racial' and, as such he will probably never accept any image that does not fall into his/her utterly unscientific category about 'white racial stock' that 'more closely resembles a middle-eastern than a typical African'. I know that you have worked on this article intensively. But, to defend Causteau's picture edits looks sadly akin to defending his/her openly stated racial P.O.V. As long as such racialized P.O.V.s continue to goose-step around this article, it will remain 'of low importance' 'starter class', and might even be seen as nothing other than mere propaganda for a long-discredited (but sadly still breathing) creed - 'Scientific Racism'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Yes Bot, this was me Ackees (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comparing someone to Hitler because you disagree about which of two photos looks most typically Somalian is probably a sign you've lost a bit of perspective while editing. Frankly both of you claim to be the more scientific while the other has an agenda. I am not convinced by either of these claims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to propose that we keep the images already in the article, and I even drew up a detailed response to Andrew's post, but I now see that Ackee is up to his old tricks again. It's clear at this point that he has absolutely no respect for Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. Instead, he keeps engaging in bizarre racialist speculation, re-injecting race into the debate when specifically asked not to, and insisting that he will single-handedly force the photo of his choosing back into the article with no argument offered to support his case other than more ad hominem. I agree with both Andrew and Wapondaponda at this point: We shouldn't include any photos in the article, lest we give the Ackees of the world an opportunity to racialize a page that should instead be focused on genetics. Causteau (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me that has lost perspective. I was deeply shocked that no other editor had anything to say about the use of the segregationist Carlton S Coon[27] to justify picture edits. I am appalled that no other editor had anything to say about the use of such discredited notions as 'white racial stock'. It appears that, in this article, and on this talk page, such 'racialized' POV garbage has become 'normalised'. I have not compared 'someone' to Hitler. I have pointed out the obvious and direct historical links between the segregationist POV of Coon and the racist POV of Hitler. It is disgraceful that, in this supposedly 'scientific' and 'thorough' discussion, the nauseating POV of a segrgationist like Coon is glibly quoted as though this were some neo-nazi progaganda page[28]. Why did no other editor deal with the use of the 'white racial stock' views of Coon - as advocated by an editor on this very page? Does no other editor understand how serious and damaging this is? Answers, please. Ackees (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit playing dumb. Carlton Coon was a former president of the Anthropological Association of America. He was also one of the last anthropologists that conducted large-scale physical surveys of populations. For this reason, his work is still quoted right alongside Cavalli-Sforza and other contemporary researchers (like in this 2003 study published in the reputable American Journal of Human Genetics). Even the great Jean Hiernaux based many of his measurements in his "People of Africa" book on Coons' work. You really need to lay off of the ad hominem. It only makes you look bad and seem incapable of formulating an effective response without resorting to personal attacks. Causteau (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ackees, with all due respect please do reconsider my point about lost perspective. Right from my first attempt to discuss this subject with you, you have looked for ways to try to over-rule rational debate by looking for reasons to be outraged - starting with my adding of a hyperlink to a posting you made. But I don't see anything else to your point. What is your point? Are you saying that your photo is a better choice because to prefer otherwise makes you a Nazi racist?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Causteau, Andrew Lancaster and Wapondaponda, all three of you have now stated that the one clear solution to the controversy produced by attempts to represent so-called 'race' or 'ethnicity' is to remove from the article all images apart from maps and graphs. In fact, this is the norm as most Haplogroup pages do not have other imagery. I agree that it is wrong to 'racialize' these pages. I strongly oppose the use of politically controversial 'racial' or 'ethnic' theorists such as Hiernaux [p156, p43 or Coon to justify the use of any 'ethnic' or 'racial' text or imagery in this article (on the page cited, Coon uses the word 'racial' 15 times, but never once refers to 'genes', 'molecules' or 'haplogroups'). The only legitimately scientific subject at hand is the locational dispersal of specific genetic material and hypotheses about its possible chronology. Therefore, in the interests of consensus, I concur with you three, all images that are not graphs or maps should be removed from this article. I will do this at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, the page is now purged of all images except maps and graphs. I am sure that editors will join me in continuing to purge the text itself of any pseudo-scientific 'racial' theorizing based on the gross distortions of segregationists like Coon and his contemporary ideological descendants. Ackees (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ackees clearly also has strong opinions about race. He just does not want to explain them. His one-sided "cry wolf" approach has not been helpful. It is a shame that the discussion went straight to extremes on both sides. I think it is worth reflecting upon the fact that his and Causteau's way of presenting (or in fact not presenting) a rational case for their photo preferences is the only place where silly and irrelevant references to Segregationists and Hitler occur, and this irrelevant material has led to the bigger idea of including photos also being questioned. I guess trying to include a little colour in this article is doomed to failure. First all the references to genealogy and well-known people were removed, and now all the pretty pictures. Oh well. For those who don't know, it has also been proposed by others that many contour maps should be removed from haplogroup articles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Are_contour_maps_WP:OR_or_WP:SYN.3F . What will be left? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm looking at the map now, and my initial impressions are that (assuming it's based on Peričic et al.'s Figure 4c) it seems to somewhat understate the extent of E3b1's spread in France, Germany and Poland. The contour line delineating Iberia's E3b1 region from its non-E3b1 region also seems a little off; it's more of a right angle in the study, but a straighter line in this map. Peričic's map's distribution also reaches into Scandinavia, but this map stops short at Lithuania. As for the Cruciani et al. 2007 study, Figure 2D appears quite similar to Peričic et al.'s Figure 4c, so I could see how perhaps Hxseek confused the two. My concerns here, therefore, would be exactly the same as those raised with regard to Peričic's map. However, to this I'd add that Cruciani's map indicates a much greater spread into Scandinavia, almost completely covering Norway and Sweden, but at the lowest frequency range available. I think that if these issues can be corrected, then there's no reason why the map shouldn't be included. I also think Hxseek should base the revised map on the newer Cruciani paper if possible. Causteau (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cruciani is certainly the best one in the literature right now? By the way if you are able to generate contour maps from raw data this might be something that would be allowed on Haplowiki which is a Wiki focused on E-M35. I can help get a good collection of data. We can not yet upload images there, but I think this is going to be fixed soon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But there was a specific proposal which is that all language referring to such things as ethnic groups should be purged from this article. This was a new proposal, but expressed as an extension of links that Ackees saw between the choice between the two photos, and things like Nazism. I believe this needed a response, and that this response was concerning the content of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Wapondaponda. Andrew asked me a philosophical question on my talk page and I erroneously moved the discussion here. Andrew, if you don't object I will progressively delete this talk section, as it is now irrelevant. Ackees (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin
Since the discovery of these haplogroups many people have attached significant importance to these haplogroups. It seems that these haplogroups have become badges of honor and symbols of ethnic identity and pride. So as the above study mentioned, it becomes a problem when the results of these studies have contradicted local narratives of origin. Some have even suggested that some scientists have been biased and have skewed results of their studies to align with local narratives.
I have mentioned earlier that I think it is possible that people attach maybe a little too much importance to these haplogroups. Firstly, the mitochondria started out as a primitive bacteria that hitched a ride on one of our ancestral single celled organisms. They had a symbiotic relationship and the primitive bacteria later became fully incorporated into our ancestral single celled organization. Technically, the Mitochondrial DNA is not "our DNA". The D-Loop section used for haplogroup identification is in the non-coding or junk DNA section of the mitochondrion DNA. Because the mitochondria is a "foreign body", its DNA does not recombine during sexual reproduction. Likewise the Y-chromosome also does not recombine. Apart from determining sex, the y-chromosome seems to be relatively insignificant relative to other chromosomes. The Y only has 78 genes whereas the X chromosome has over 1500 genes. Much of the Y is junk DNA. In fact the Y started out as an X chromosome, but due to loss of function has lost one of its legs due to shrinkage. Women can do fine without a Y chromosome, but males cannot survive without an X chromosome.
The D-loop of the mitochondria and NRY of the Y-chromosome are the most useless parts of the human genome with regard to phenotype. Yet they are the most useful parts of the genome in determining ancestry. Mutations in junk DNA do not influence phenotype and accumulate at much faster rates than in coding regions. A mutation in an actual coding region of gene will likely influence phenotype. Mutations on average are more likely to be bad than good, since our DNA has already been tried and tested by millions of years of evolution. Consequently, coding genes vary less across human populations and are less useful at determining phenotype. The mitochondria and the NRY are thus not good candidates for determining the so called ethnic superiority or inferiority of a population. They are just junk DNA.
The reason for all this is I think it may be a good idea in the future to create an article that deals with some of the social consequences of the human genome. Already the above article deals with the topic. Another article Genetic ancestry and the search for personalized genetic histories also addresses the conflict between social identity and genetic history. E1b1b appears to have important social consequences at least based on the popularity of this article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst not wishing to sound uninterested in any social problem, it almost seems like you are saying that there are obvious "important social consequences" that can most clearly be seen "based on the popularity of this article". Is it even popular? My first impression is that your remarks are highly speculative and any effort to write it up would mainly be original work. For a first remark, conflicting "social identities" are a problem of human reason. The conflicts develop without any need of genetics. People create narratives, and these narratives come into conflict with each other and with facts that will inevitably sometimes conflict with the narratives, because the narratives. I am not really sure where this leads.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article is very popular. This article cites over 51 references, but the articles of its ancestors Haplogroup E (Y-DNA), Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA) and Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), which I think are more important, only cite 15, 15 and 4 references respectively. Surely its popularity is due to its some social significance possibly relating to ethnic identity. I am still trying to figure out why this particular article is more detailed than and more active than other haplogroups. Maybe I didn't articulate the social implications very well, I will try to simplify them.
The genetic data on haplogroups will often conflict with local or historical narratives. For ::example the bible vs mitochondrial eve.
The genetic data may conflict with a person's social identity.
There may be bias among some, not all, scientists when it comes to studies regarding the geographical origins of certain haplogroups.
These biases tend to skew scientific studies to be in line with historical narratives or social identity.
One example is what has been the official position by Chinese authorities regarding the origins of the people of China. The official position is that the Chinese people are not descended from people originally from Africa, but that they are descended from Peking Man. this article has some of these details. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you equate popularity with number of references. I think this just relates to the question of how to divide up the articles about parts of a phylogeny. For example we could move all detailed material about sub-clades into an enormous article about DE, or on the other hand we could split up E1b1b into articles about each of its smaller sub-clades. In fact if you think about it, it is logical that this will happen - as more recent clade divisions become more clear and we can say more about them, they become the focus of research and the bigger articles on Wikipedia will be those ones.
Still, even if this showed the article was popular, then how does this show that there are "important social consequences"?
I do accept that genetics contributes to the many sources of facts which conflict with myths, thus causing "social consequences", but are they really important? The genetic data is indeed being distorted to create new myths which will then one day become a source of confusion as well. I find that some academic authors seem rather over-enthusiastic to play these games.
But still facts have always come into conflict with myths. Villages who have believed something wrong about their neighbours for generations suddenly find themselves confronted with a new text book, etc. Genetics is just a part of the bigger movement of critical scientific thinking which comes into conflict with myths.
In most practical examples, the myths which genetics comes into conflict with are myths about differences which is not real, so genetics is in conflict with the worst types of myth. Where genetics has been most questionable however is perhaps where do-gooders have over-stated their case and then opened themselves to criticism. I think the Adams paper last year about Iberia where they claimed 20% of Spanish ancestry was Jewish was silly for example, based on the data they had, and brings the discipline into ill repute. Such incidents get discussions going. The discussions perhaps feed interest in some of these haplogroups, but those public debates are healthy, and show the public's ability to critically digest science which is relevant to it. I don't see it going much beyond that. There are no political or social movements based on haplogroups that I am aware of and any attempt to start one would collapse as changing data from science arrived.
Even if the truth is dangerous, I think it is a big call to support myth against truth, and certainly beyond the scope of Wikipedia. There are alternative wikis which deliberately bias their contents, for example away from evolutionary theory, but Wikipedia is not such a wiki.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, the "social consequences" of these haplogroups are in my opinion, the main reason why we are having a lot of difficulty regarding these articles. In the past few weeks since I started looking into these articles, I have witnesses numerous and unnecessary attempts to somewhat distort information contained in these articles. If we don't address this issue, there will be prolonged and unnecessary edit conflicts on several of these articles. Instead of reporting all relevant information, some editors are selectively cherry picking information that favors one view over another. As you point out, some scientists are actually stoking the flames, by injecting politics into their studies. Even though peer reviewed studies are the most reliable sources, scientists have ego's and issues regarding their own identity and unfortunately, these sometimes end up in their studies. If a particular scientist publishes a study that would seem to promote an ethnocentric view of the scientist's own ethnicity, wouldn't there be a conflict of interest. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree. I think rudeness, WP:ownership issues, and calling people racist instead of responding to their arguments (the problems I keep seeing) are not problems particularly strongly connected to articles about Y haplogroups. They also have very little to do with the number of references in this article. There are lots of references because of one editor, me, who has not contributed as much to other haplogroup articles. One person does not a social issue make.
Concerning the peer reviewed articles, I think on Wikipedia we can only try to quote them as neutrally as possible. We can debate them on other forums, and my sense is that this debate is happening, and is being heard at the right level.
Concerning your last sentence, this approach really worries me. Whatever you want to call it ("political correctness"? "negative discrimination"? "politically managed science"?) it seems similar to Cadenas2008 saying that any paper about Indian DNA can be ignored because of the potential effect of Hindu nationalism via the sponsoring of research. I think creating circular arguments in order to selectively ban sources based upon their ethnic associations is against the fundamental ways in which Wikipedia works, and if you think about how someone might apply this type of logic to whatever your favorite sources are, it is also completely in opposition to what you are aiming at. We have to judge source reliability according to neutral norms, as is Wikipedia policy. We absolutely can not start saying that serious peer-reviewed articles and authors should be ignored just because an author is a member of one of the ethnic groups discussed in the article!
I recently said to User:Ackees that I find trying to manage what scientific facts get reported based upon political ideas heads us in the direction totalitarianism. I stick by that, although I realize this might sound extreme. You just need to look at how totalitarianism came into being historically. Good intentions are very blunt tools.
I noticed its showing a high requency in Yemen & Western Oman? (more than that in Iraq). In Oman & Yemen M34 & basically M215(xM78) is the most dominant, with 0% M78 in 2 studies done on Yemenis? & only 1%~2% in Omanis. In Iraq M78 is actually higher 2%~5% but the map is not showing it.
An M78 map has to show that M78 radiates north to South (both sides) from the Levant (or elsewhere) & becomes equal with M34 in Southern Emirates, in Oman M34 picks up all the way to Yemen. If you want to make an E1b1b M78, M34 & M81 map we can all work on it, but we have to be more specific on frequencies & clearly mark the low frequency regions, just like we marke the high frequency regions.
I've inserted the Robino contour map for E-M81, but am not sure if that is going to be found acceptable. If anyone wants to make a rendering of it, that sounds great. Concerning E-M78 I see nothing wrong with the Cruciani map which has currently been removed, although with any contour map there are always assumptions. Concerning the E-V13 map, I'd like to remind that it is clearly not a rendering of the Cruciani map which it claims to be. It should be changed, removed or corrected I think. I personally think that an adaptation of the E-V65 map from Cruciani would be very interesting in the correct place also. What is not in the literature is a good contour map of up-to-date E-M123, which is a shame.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these contour maps are developed using relatively small sample sizes, usually just a few hundred people. Very large data sets may be impractical at the moment. Consequently, they reflect general trends rather than being an accurate representation of the exact frequencies in a particular area. The most important issue demonstrated by the Cruciani map is that it does a good job of reflecting the two areas of concentration of M78. The rest of the information on the map is not specific, nor was it meant to be. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the map from 2007 didn't take into account 3 studies that took place in Yemen all show that the main E1b1b in that region is mainly E1b1b(xM78). Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, while awaiting more studies, we can still use the map based on Cruciani et al. Yes they didn't study population from Yemen, but they didn't make any claims about Yemen. Since according to WP:VERIFY, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not necessarily truth, we can include the cruciani based map until a more comprehensive map is found. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M78 in Yemen vs Yemeni Israelis
Even if you consider Yemenite Israelis as Yemenis they still only show 10% M78!
Now compare Y-DNA results of Yemeni Israelis vs Yemenis (combined 3 studies):
I know its very hard to draw an E1b1b map let alone an M78 map, but its not good to have a an incomplete map, maps should be updated on a study by study basis. Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give the Malouf and Cerny references? (I ask because they are not currently in the article references, and if they have relevant information that make them interesting.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerny (Socotra)
45/63 = 71.4% J*(xJ1, J2)
9/63 = 14.3% J1
6/63 = 9.5% E
1/63 = 1.6% R*(xR1b)
1/63 = 1.6% F*(xJ, K)
1/63 = 1.6% K*(xO, P)
Malouf (Mainland)
28/40 = 70.0% J1-M267
6/40 = 15.0% J2a1b-M67
5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
1/40 = 2.5% G-M201
Cruciani et al. (2004) gives .94% of 106 Omanis, and 2.5% in UAE (40 people). Luis et al. (2004) found 2/121 Arab Omanis. The numbers are small but this could also be said about many parts of Europe where the map has a light colour? By the way, it would be interesting if you gave more accurate information than "~0%". I don't think using such simple methods to prove your point helps get understanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far its 0m78 of all E1b1b samples found, thats usually a good indication that M78 is as rare as T in Yemen, especially that E1b1b(xM78) was found in big %, you can't just guess by looking at UAE, Oman (both have very low % of M78 anyways) when you already have studies done on Yemen itself!
Yemen (Cadenas)
1/62 = 1.6% E-M215(xM35)
2/62 = 3.2% E-M35(xM78, M81, M123)
5/62 = 8.1% E-M34
8/62 = 12.9% E1b1b total
Yemen (Malouf)
5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b total.
I prefer a new map based on all studies by 2009 (including Hassan et al) something like the V13 neat map.
East Chad & North Darfur Masalit people have a big M78 frequency 71.9 % (23/32)
It is good that you raise the Hassan article. It helps explain my point. If there was one major problem with all current contour maps available to us, it is that they do not have data from Sudan and so it looks like there is a gap there. The Hassan article makes it clear that this was just due to lack of data. If you had pointed to this as a more obvious problem with the Cruciani contour maps I would absolutely agree. But I am still not sure we should make our own contour maps, given how important the assumptions are. I'm happy to see someone try, but I hope it does not lead to silly arguments later. And this implies that you should give a quite detailed explanation about how the map was made. Better to have one "respectable" contour map than an edit war. By the way, for a case where we don't even have a respectable map, you might be interested to see the collection of E-M123 data I put here: http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M123. I think it is more complete than Wikipedia and in an easier format. Cruciani data is here http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Cruciani_data also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the map gets criticized it only makes it better, if you want me to make a map I will do so, but only if you have a genuine desire to have a map in the article! if its going to bother you for whatever reason. Then by all means use the older map although I see clear data that needs to be updated in Sudan & Yemen Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out Cruciani's map was not off after all :)
I am looking through the strs of a study that just came out this month, by the head of Dubai DNA Police Dr F. Shamali, her study shows some M78 I am not sure I am just looking at the STR but I can already see some M78 (V12 to be specific). I will give you the final total once I am done going through it. In the same study 11/106 Saudis are E1b1b, with 4 possible M34, 4 possible M78, the other 3 could be M35* or either. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
battaglia 2008
Does anyone have access to the full article to Battaglia et al. (2008) used in this article (V-13 section) ? Hxseek (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that for this article it is best to only include information about links to clearly defined entities such as the Cushitic language family. Whether this family has something to do with the biblical Kushites is something best discussed in the articles about those subjects. I believe Cushitic (the language family) is discussed quickly but fairly effectively in the present E1b1b article, and it has been mentioned in connection to E-V32 in Hassan et al. (2008). Also see my new review mentioned above which is not in the bibliography yet. Please have a look and see what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coffman quote
Is quoted [29]Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.
This statement is somewhat ambiguous and contradictory. On one hand the authors writes Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago and on the other the author states there is a missimpression regarding the origin. There is no standard method of describing haplogroups in relation to populations that harbor them. So in reality there are no African haplogroups, or European haplogroups or Asian haplogroups. There are haplogroups that are frequent in Africa, Asia, Europe, America or Australia but not elsewhere, and way may colloquially refer to them as African, Asian, European, American or Australian. This applies to all haplogroups not just e3b. We can also objectively refer to haplogroups by their most likely region of origin, in which case e3b is indeed "African". However this is complicated by the fact that haplogroups tend to move around and are continuously evolving. This obviously applies to e3b which is found in Africa, Asia and Europe.
From a scientific perspective, the Coffman quote is not really useful because the author does not describe what is incorrect about describing e3b as "African". If the origin is the criteria for describing a haplogroup, it is legitimate to describe e3b as African. In short the author prefers not to consider e3b as african but this a personal opinion or choice in how to describe a haplogroup. It may contain some social commentary but it serves no value from a scientific perspective. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted the same comment on two articles, but I am going to be difficult and say that although you you had a case on the other article, you don't have a strong one here. I recommend that you please stop this habit you have of pasting generic remarks on different talk pages all over Wikipedia. What is relevant in one place does not automatically deserve to be pasted all over the place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone cut and paste the same remarks from this article onto the Genetic history of Europe. The Coffman statement is somewhat inflammatory. I can see from the previous posting, that this issue has been raised before, and for good reason. This article can do without it as it is a magnet for controversy. Coffman's opinion on what is or not African is purely subjective and trivial in a similar manner to the Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Trivia_section discussed above. Furthermore, I don't know what she is referring to when she says the media refers E3b as African. As far as I know, the media doesn't cover population genetics. Except for a few popular science publications, and the occasional mention on Natgeo or discovery, the specific details on human haplogroups are almost never discussed. I have never heard E3b being discussed on TV. It seems that she is whining about the fact that E3b is indeed African.
A thread that I started on the Genetics project page I think should be taken seriously. At the root of all the numerous and current disputes regarding these genetics articles are attempts to politicize these haplogroups and this leads to a lot of unbalanced and unscientific material in these articles. I will restate a quote from Genetics and Tradition as Competing Sources of Knowledge of Human History
Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin
It is my hope that some wikipedians can step up and depoliticize some of these articles and simply state the current scientific consensus.
All very well but don't you realize that others accuse you of the same? And with good reason? Consider your constant attempt to delete discussion about the possible non African origins of DE and M, which are clearly real theories in the literature. I pointed out before, you always take the same side, so how can other editors see your editing as anything other than political? Concerning the Coffman quote you'll be aware from looking at the archives that I share some of your doubts about the clarity and meaning of it. However, I have learnt that what she was talking about was precisely the fact that E3b has been politicized by racists, sometimes leading people to misunderstandings. For example consider a Jew, Arab or Albanian who is told by internet propaganda that his Y lineage is African in the sense of not being Jew, Arab, Albanian etc. The sense she intended for the term African was, as I understand it, African in an excluding sense that an E1b1b person is less Jewish, Arab, or anything else non African than they might have thought. This is of course a real problem, and quite wrong, but it is out there. Whether it can be explained clearly in this article is something I would kindly ask you of all people to consider because you have expressed concern about social responsibility before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL You of all people talking about "depoliticizing" an article. Will wonders never cease... FYI, this issue has already been thoroughly discussed and long resolved. Ellen Coffman herself visited this page and explained in plain language exactly what she meant by that quote, and it predictably bears nary a resemblance to your self-serving mischaracterization of it and its author. And indeed, the passage has everything to do with the Origins section. There'll be no spinning this quote to mean something it doesn't, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't matter whether Jesus himself came and discussed an issue, there is no such thing as permanent resolution on wiki. See WP:CCC. The quote has nothing to do with the origins of E, which is purely a scientific matter. How people or the media discuss e-m35 is another issue. Maybe there can be a section on media portrayal, which discusses such thing. But as I can see from the above threads, it is quite trivial. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Causteau that Wapondaponda should be more self aware about being political. But I agree with Wapondaponda about the more fundamental issue that there is no closing of the books on any issue here on Wikipedia. Wapondaponda has raised real issues about whether the Coffman quote as it is now explained on the article is giving any clear and correct message. I've tried to explain a counter position but I guess everyone realizes that I basically agree with Wapondaponda. I've tried to explain how the citations might be interpreted in a clear way, but I am not sure anyone can get that interpretation from the Coffman article itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My statement was not intended to get Wapondaponda to be more self-aware, but to get him to stop removing reliable sources. I notice that in my absence he has repeatedly reverted a series of different editors over this one quote, and in an ostensible attempt to "address his concerns" as you put it (but curiously not those of the four other editors that support its inclusion, myself included), you added some original research attempting to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers. There are two problems with this: First, it has already been demonstrated by the author's own comments that you actually have no idea what her quote means. Second, WP:NOR makes it clear that adding original analysis of a source is not permitted:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
As for the quote allegedly having nothing to do with the origins of E1b1b, I already posted a detailed explanation of what the quote meant, which went as follows:
"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."
In response to this, Coffman-Levy asserted that my post above "restated [her] argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. I'm afraid you guys are on the wrong end of the demonstrated consensus, which is to keep the quote in the Origins section, and in its unadulterated, NPOV state. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where E1b1b SNP mutated .
Who know where SNP mutation defining this group appear? Plants rooted to ground move around the world in evolution its obvious: man can too.
a) In light of this uncertainty all soured thesis about the geographic location of mutation should be valid. There are at lest following possibilities:
It happen in the place where is today the highest concentration (no movement)
it happen in other place (then moved).
b) If 'in other place' it can be:
south
north
west
east (we can skip up and down consideration:)
c) The present distribution of genetic markers may be result of: (in any case with or without movement)
bottlenecks when somehow only newer moved out of 'mother/father'-genland
outgrow of newer generations caring newer markers(and perhaps other gens) pushing out the older markers eg. to pathogenicco-evolutionrefugia . see also genome lineages .Thesis/point c2 is valid to all other present day genetic markers distribution.
I think the place where a haplogroup is most common is not so important. What people really look at more to try to estimate place of origin (or at least the place where dispersal started leading to modern people) is the diversity. The Horn of Africa has the highest diversity of E-M35. Frequency is not the key point. For example nobody is arguing that the Western Sahara is the home of E-M35. It has an extremely high E-M35 level, but all close relatives along the male line.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced Material
Citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005
This info is scientific and sourced yet Wapondaponda will not stop deleting it.
SOPHIAN (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
See the above threads, yes it is sourced. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The statement has nothing to do with the scientific methods used to determine the geographic origins of gene variants. Discussing what the media says about a haplogroup isn't relevant to determining the origins of the haplogroup. My suggestion has been that the quote can be placed elsewhere in a section or article that deals with media "misimpressions". Wapondaponda (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that defending the quote needs more than just "it was sourced". The citation is done in such a way to give quite a specific impression about what it might mean, which anyone reading the original article will not recognize. The end result is to say the least very ambiguous, and therefore to say the least anyone defending it can at least go the effort of suggesting a better wording. It is certainly not a simple case that can be judged on the basis of whether it is cited or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried re-wording the citation. My aim is to try to clarify the Coffman-Levy quote. Wapondaponda is right the citation is very ambiguous. It implies that Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the African origins of E1b1b, and this is clearly not the case. There is no reason to keep the quote ambiguous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote does not imply that Ellen Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the origins of E1b1b in Africa. This is a nonsensical argument that was already raised before and thoroughly debunked. As SOPHIAN has shown, the quote actually plainly states that "citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". There is nothing amibiguous about that. Wapondaponda: I'm afraid no amount of gaming the system on your part (your new strategy after badmouthing the author as a "whiner" didn't work out) will eliminate the quote. It's high time you gave your POV a rest. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote does imply doubts about E1b1b being African in origin, because "African in origin" is one of the most obvious meanings of the term "African" which the quote says would be a WRONG word to use. I repeat: there is no need to keep ambiguity. So why is this a problem to fix??? Of course many people think that the ambiguity you always try to get into this article always goes in one direction - precisely because you WANT to imply something which was not in the original text. The new version made no changes in substance, so why do you have a problem with it unless you want that confusion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand and what you didn't understand back then either is that you can't analyze the statement for readers. You have repeatedly shown that you have literally no clue what Coffman-Levy means. Take your latest "intepretation":
"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example,Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".[2]
All the section of highlighted above (i.e. your "explanation") is pure original research. Nowhere does Coffman-Levy state or even imply anything of the sort. You want to know what she means by that quote? Again, refer to this section, where all your concerns have already been thoroughly addressed (and via direct quotes from the author herself). Lastly, in our previous discussion from months ago when Coffman-Levy dropped by, I asked her the following, among other things:
"However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa""[...] Please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written."
To which, again, she responded that my post above "restated [her] argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Please let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. It's getting very annoying, and several other editors have already indicated to you the importance of the passage. Kindly stop tampering with it. Causteau (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are as usual insisting on writing about me and you and not about the text of the Wikipedia article. I have not altered the content of the paragraph, nor removed it. I have only tried to make sure that there is no ambiguity. Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages, and even if she did it would not matter, because this discussion right now is only about the English being used to cite her, as is the tiny snippet you quote from our discussion. I repeat my question: if you truly want the article to say clearly that E1b1b originated in Africa, then why do you want to insert an ambiguous which says it is wrong to call it African? Such a remark can clearly mean to any English speaker that E1b1b does NOT have African origins. You know very well that we get frequent editors visiting this article who rightly object to the wording I've replaced. Why do you want to make it sound like there is some doubt about the African origin of E1b1b? So often you argue for confusing English! Always in section concerning something to do with African or Asian origins. And funnily enough you always want to make African origins unclear, never Asian. Why would that be? Your editing is certainly much more POV than Wapondaponda's. BTW to imply that adding describing Ellen's article as comment as being about a modern ethnic identity is OR. For goodness sake look at the title of that article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it is interesting to re-read the summary you cite which you made about what you supposedly think Ellen meant, and that she called eloquent. Funnily enough, it is very close to what I have said on many occasions about this passage, even though when I have said it, you dispute it! It is very funny. The key question is what is meant by African, and why it would be wrong. Have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I overreacted a little, but looking at your comments above, it's clear I wasn't the only one. Yes, I realize that you were just trying to explain the quote as best you could. But in doing so, you completely missed its essence since it has already been demonstrated that you didn't really understand the quote to begin with. You write above that "Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages". That is absurd. Of course she did. You and I were involved in a dispute, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what [she] was trying to convey": mine, not yours. I don't mean to sound snotty, but those are the facts. You suggest that this quote is "ambiguous", yet I didn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the quote -- only you did. But curiously, you now apparently believe that you understand the quote well enough to interpret it for readers? Does that make any sense??? The "frequent editors to the page who rightly object to the quote" that you allude to are yourself, an anonymous IP from months back when the quote in question used to flank a statement indicating that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" (which it no longer does, and which was what he originally objected to), and a blocked serial sockpuppeteer. You call that company? Have a look at the article's recent history, and you'll see that there is plenty of support for Ellen's quote & in its unadulterated form -- not against it. The latter distinction, once again, actually falls on just you. You can try and affix the "POV" tag on me, but it won't stick just like it didn't stick last time you accused me of wanting "to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects", only to have the author herself say that my analysis you ridiculed actually perfectly captured what it is she was trying to convey -- not yours. I'm not going to indulge this nonsense any longer. Let me demonstrate exactly how completely off-base your edit is (which, as I've already pointed out, is also all original research). Here's what you wrote:
"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".[3]"
Here's what Coffman-Levy actually writes:
"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
And here's the direct paraphrase of her quote that you replaced with your OR:
"Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.[4]"
It doesn't take a genius to see that, unlike the direct paraphrase you replaced with your edit, you are adding something to the article which Ellen in fact does not mean. For starters, you attempt to limit Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole! Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African", not the genetic diversity of non-Africans that carry it. That's an astonishingly audacious understatement. Again, here is what Ellen actually means:
"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."
From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
Your original argument regarding so-called "ambiguity" in the quote revolved around the notion that it immediately prefaced the aforementioned statement on ISOGG & the Genographic Project which indicated that E3b may have originated in the Near/Middle East ("To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East."). Now that you fought tooth and nail to have those sources removed and that they are indeed long gone, you effectively have no argument and on this front either. And none of the forgoing of course changes the fact that your latest edit is OR & completely misses the point, to put it mildly. Causteau (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, for reference, is Causteau's own summary of what he thinks can be non-controversially said about what Coffman-Levy specifically means by saying that E1b1b should not always be called African:
From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
So we see that what she means can be defined in an uncontroversial way according to Causteau himself, because everything in this "eloquent" summary is quite similar to wording I have tried over a long time to insert into the Wikipedia article. For example saying that Ellen's point had to do with some sub-clades was something Causteau has specifically disallowed, even though it appears in his own summary, and in Coffman-Levy's article. (Causteau argued that it was irrelevant because a few paragraphs away from the passage he wants cited!). This seems a particularly tendentious and argumentative approach. How can Causteau say both that it is obvious how the term is being used, and then accuse people who he basically agrees with of OR for trying to explain this in the Wikipedia article? The basic theme of Causteau's defense of the present wording of this passage is one he uses quite often and is extremely tendentious: the passage has been discussed before and it uses some direct quotes, therefore any attempt to improve it should be reverted. While Causteau allows himself the luxury of being able to use such circular arguments there is a problem, because this passage is being kept deliberately vague and ambiguous, so that it implies things which it most certainly should not be implying.
So that's what you're reduced to again, I see? Third person narratives & personal attacks? I don't blame you seeing as how my post above is pretty damn incriminating. Say what you will, you haven't refuted a thing; you haven't demonstrated that your "interpretation" isn't OR (how could you?); & that you have, in fact, captured part (nevermind all) of what Coffman-Levy means. All you've done is demonstrate that you're not above falling back on those trusty personal attacks of old when stumped. Causteau (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coffman-Levy citation: trying one more time to discuss
Yes, let's stop the personal stuff. Let's just look at the passage you want to revert. Please can you restrict your remarks entirely to that? Here it is:
Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".[5]
...and here is the version you are defending...
Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.[6]
...both quotes use the same source material, so obviously just complaining that "sourced material" is being removed is wrong. I see the difference this way:
One of these versions tries to make it clear in what sense the author intended to say that E1b1b should not be called "African", and what sorts of confusions in the media were being described. What this latest attempt also does (in order to achieve the aim of providing more clarity and context) is that it adds an uncontroversial (in my opinion) new remark about E1b1 raises issues in the ways in which genetics and ethnicity sometimes interact, leading into the fact that the Coffman-Levy article as an example of a discussion about genetics and ethnicity of one group. That cited part of the article is about this, and that it refers to other discussion on the internet/ media, is clear.
The other version does not try to address the ambiguity. Indeed it insists on increasing the ambiguity and potential to create false impressions by reverting to an old version which implies that the citation concerns "the media" right now, which is not possible given that the article is several years ago. (See Ellen's own remarks on these talk pages which are all in the past tense.) This potential to mislead is obviously a big problem, even if some readers like you, who wrote it, claim not to see any ambiguity. But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article. Indeed this is the passage you always cite yourself in order to explain how the citation should be understood. You wrote:
From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
Obviously if this is how you defend the passage, and you argue that it is clear in the original article, then it should be possible to insert something like this into the article itself. Sourcing should not just be on the talk pages! So, let's please develop a passage which inserts soemthing into the Wikipedia article and removes ambiguity about why the particular sense of "African" which Coffman-Levy intended, and the particular type of confusion in public discussion which she was concerned about.
I want to make it clear that if we can not do that then the very Wikipedia norms you keep repeating require us to remove this entire passage. Just because a series of words was lifted from an article does not mean that they are clear enough to be pasted into Wikipedia in any form at all. They have to actually be able to be brought into a format which shows a clear and uncontroversial meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go. I am, however, familiar with the policy that goes:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. "
While I commend you for getting back to non-personal stuff (why are you still talking in the third person?), your edit above distorts what Ellen says. Perhaps this indeed wasn't your intention, but that is the net effect. Again, your edit limits Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole. Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African": not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. This has already been explained above with direct quotes, including one from Ellen herself; please stop defending this indefensible edit. Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "
Instead of rehashing the same old stale arguments of yore & going at it for weeks again, I therefore propose we just go back to our previous arrangement that settled this dispute in the past i.e. the passage that went as follows and which you yourself added way back when:
"Citing Cruciani et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCruciani_et_al.2004 (help), Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005.[7]
I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go.
The problem is that if the discussion is about whether the Wikipedia article's summary of an article is written badly, or unclearly, then there is no authority we can appeal to apart from other editors. So to ignore other editors in such discussions is very clearly tendentious editing.
The version as it stands after our tweaks today recovers some of the compromise we had before your round of edits celebrating the blocking of Wapondponda. But I still find this section very dissatisfying for the simple reason that I still think it is being kept deliberately ambiguous.
The current way of citing Ellen's article specifically insists that it is "incorrect" to call E1b1b "African" but obviously any normal usage of English must take account of the fact that "African" will very often, perhaps most often, mean "African in origin". You claim that you do not intend this to be in the article, and yet you resist any efforts to explain exactly what sense of "African" is intended. How can that make sense?
It is very ironic to me that your own summary which you made only on talk pages, shows exactly that it is possible and necessary to spell some things out about the terms used if this passage is to be clear. So why refuse to allow this on the article itself?
In discussion here, you always refer to this summary, and Ellen's agreement, as your defense of versions of this citation which include no such explanatory summary? How weird is that? So we can explain things and agree on the meaning here on the talk page, but not on the article itself?
If you saying that your summary was reading too much into Ellen's article, that is quite odd. Who said that? Surely not you?
Anyway, if it were true that you thought that your own summary contains too much unsourced OR, how can we take you seriously?
Personally, I never found your talk page summary very controversial. To me it does seem that you can understand these types of things from the original article. No one I can think of has disputed this with you. It is very strange that you want to argue BOTH that your summary is just an obvious reading of the article, and that it is OR which we should not be reading into the source. Which is it? You can choose only one of these two options I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't appreciate being on the receiving end of sarcasm, then don't practice it yourself ("But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article.").
I did not propose ignoring other editors. That's a strawman argument & something you have quite literally made up.
What you lament as a "celebration", I call reverting POV changes by a blocked user.
No offense, but we aren't here to "satisfy" any one editor's wishes. There's a lot about this article that I too wouldn't mind changing for my own personal "satisfaction", but WP:NPOV just doesn't work that way.
Like I told you at least fifty other times over the past few months & literally just finished telling you minutes ago above, we can't add original analyses into the article because that is original research. Please start showing more respect for this important policy.
Great. Another strawman. I did not say that my talk page explanation was "OR which we should not be reading into the source". You did. Here is what I did write: Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "
Causteau, that was not sarcasm. Please come back to the subject again?
If your summary is unsourced, and inappropriate for Wikipedia, then this clearly means that you do not think it is obvious enough to put in a Wikipedia article? Obviously if it can not itself be put in Wikipedia, then this applies doubly to anything which is based upon your reading of the Coffman-Levy article (as per the summary). And yet in all discussion over many months, when called upon to explain why the citation is not ambiguous and misleading, you have cited your summary and said that the obviousness of the material in this summary makes it no problem to include citation as it stands with no further clarification. That is a key part of your argument for not allowing anyone to clarify the wording. Let's put it this way:
The accusation is that the wording in the Wikipedia article is ambiguous and misleading.
Your consistent response is to say that the Wikipedia citation needs no help, because the snippet taken from the cited article as per the summary that you cite, or any similar ones, none of which are that different from anything I have said.
But then when asked if we can put such obvious explanation into the Wikipedia article, you get very strict and suddenly claim that the summary you are making is not an obvious reading at all, and should not be included in Wikipedia.
And yet you continue to want it both ways. You want the citation which you can only defend on the basis of the un-usable summary being obvious, to remain unchanged.
We have two options. You can only pick one:-
1. If the summary of your reading is unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia, then the whole citation as it currently stands is unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia, and needing original research just to interpret it. That means we need to remove it.
2. If the summary describes an obvious reading of a well-informed reader, something which your fellow editors seem not to be disputing, then there is no such problem. But this also means that there is no problem tweaking the wording on the basis of what we all think the original article meant, in order to remove all possible accusations that this citation is ambiguous and misleading.
What are you on about? Did I not just clearly tell you that my analysis is what Ellen meant in that quote? Did Ellen herself not say it perfectly captured what it is she was trying to communicate? And now you insinuate that I think my summary is not "obvious enough"???? Your little mind games are leave much to be desired. Look, I'm not going to add that analysis for the same reason that I wouldn't add any original analysis placed here: it hasn't been published by a reliable source (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Do I have to explain to you again Wiki policies? How many times must I requote WP:NOR until you finally get it?
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "
If it's not published, it's OR -- get it? You're trying to pressure me into accepting original research into the article, but it simply won't happen. Only you find that quote ambiguous; the other recent editors have indicated with their own edits that they believe the quote to be valuable as it is. And with the statement that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" which used to flank the Coffman-Levy quote long gone, you effectively have no real argument left (repetition & strawmen arguments don't count). Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you do not understand what case I am making, or you are trying hard not to show any understanding. I am not pushing for anything at all to be included. The simplest answer if it is OR is that we have to remove this paragraph. In summary, your various statements are effectively stating that the citation in the article is OR, because you are saying it would not be possible for us to agree on what the words in the direct quote means, at least in any form which we can include in Wikipedia. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In effect you have created an absurd pair of diametrically opposed extreme definitions of what good sourcing practice is - for the existing citation, all that is necessary is that snippet of direct quote, no matter what amount of controversial twisting of the meaning it entails. But for a text which is agreed by everyone to be more clear, no amount direct quoting will do. Here is a caricature of the discussion just trying to make this clear to you how the discussion appears to be for me...
AL: This looks ambiguous and misleading.
C: No it's not, because anyone can see that it REALLY means...X.
AL: Oh, that sounds clear, and that's also how I read the original article, so why don't we use words like those?
C: We can't use those words which you find more clear, because that would be unsourced interpretation and original research. Your opinion about what is clear is not important anyway.
AL: But didn't you say it was just a clear summary of the original article, and isn't that all we want? Isn't that also what the present paragraph is supposed to be? We can still use similar sets of direct quotes etc.
C: Of course it is a clear summary of the source being cited, but the exact selection of words being used is unsourced original research.
AL: This implies that you think no clear agreement is possible about how to summarize the original article, so we should drop this reference. If clear and agreed-upon wording would be original research, then the controversial, misleading and ambiguous version, which introduces implications that were not in the original article, is far more of a problem, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Andrew, you've already make it clear in our previous encounter over this same issue that you ultimately wished to get rid of the quote altogether. But let me save you some trouble this time around and state things plainly: the quote isn't going anywhere. The demonstrated consensus is to keep it. As a reliable source, WP:VER also ensures its inclusion, even if you don't think what it states is "true":
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Above, you've invented some technicality wherein its permissible to remove sourced material that's a direct quote from a reliable scholarly journal under the pretext that one user (i.e. you) believes it is ambiguous. We both know no such policy exists. I've already demonstrated above that that "ambiguous" tag does not hold water in this case either. Your "dilute or delete" ultimatum, I'm afraid, is a no go. Causteau (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely up to you Causteau. We need to clarify the ambiguous wording or remove the quote. It was you yourself who came up with the absurd hypocritical logic which says that clarifying wordings are OR. If you insist on that then we must remove it. That's your choice. I have no bias one way or the other. My position is very consistent. BTW how do you get to always call your own opinions a consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Andrew, you have neither the policies nor the consensus to back up such a unilateral decision. I asked you to quote for me the passage in Wiki's rulebook that justifies such a removal and of course you have avoided doing so because no such policy exists. You're also well aware that most recent editors to this page actually value the quote in its present form which is why they have fought for its inclusion. This leaves you yet again on the wrong end of consensus (not my "own opinion", I'm afraid; stop projecting!). Causteau (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such strict rulebook. Stop wikilawyering. I can edit Wikipedia just like you can.
your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.
Guess what? There is no big secret. You are right. Trying to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin is indeed what I have consistently said would be wrong, because the article states that E1b1b originated in Africa. What is strange is that in discussion on this talkpage, for example when you summarized what Ellen really meant and Ellen and I agreed with that wording, you have consistently insisted that the quote does not imply that E1b1b has a non African origin. The case is closed as far as I am concerned. You have argued this (anyone can check) only since I showed you long age that Ellen's article takes the normal line in the literature and says it has an East African origin. Your true intention is now clear. I'll delete this paragraph but if you can find a better way to cite Ellen's article I'd be happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't back up a bloody thing. I exposed your lies above like I have many, many times before and typically on your own talk page. Take the latest haplogroup M1 debacle on the Genetic History of Europe article. That's just a drop in the bucket. When I came to you in that revert war with that blocked user, I asked you specifically to intervene -- that's the very term I used. I can't say I'm surprised you'd attempt to pervert it into something else though given your record with the truth and all. And look at you still whining about the Coffman-Levy quote; still smarting about not having been able to sway the author to your way of thinking like you had undoubtedly been hoping to do when she first showed up; still disappointed that the quote means exactly what you wish it didn't. "True colors"? Newsflash: my analysis=Ellen's view per her own comments. Love it or hate it, those are the facts. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen agreed to a summary you made. You refuse to allow the citation to say what that summary said because you want it to say something else. Ellen never disagreed with anything I said, and your summary was in conflict with the edit your defend, and all the arguments you had with me. I'll move a copy of this to the E1b1b article also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying "to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin", you disgraceful opportunist. What I meant to say was that the quote also discusses E1b1b in a non-African context, which is something you have already demonstrated terrifies you. That statement I made was after a long typically pointless discussion with you defending sources from your pathological need to remove them if they assert anything other then your preferred African origin -- just like you attempted right now, only to have your edit rightly reverted, and twice (1, 2). It's your POV that's getting the best of you, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what you reveal as your true understanding of this discussion...
your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.
As I asked already many times, if your summary of Ellen's argument, that she and I agreed with, proves that you are not trying to imply that E1b1b does not have an African origin, then why do you refuse to allow the wording in the article to be cleared up? See the posting you just tried to delete. No one is arguing for more or less sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because doing so is a) unnecessary, b) original research, c) something you have already proven yourself incapable of successfully doing in our previous discussion since its already been demonstrated that you don't even really understand what the quote means to begin with, and d) inserting OR as you are proposing is a slippery slope that can only lead to more instances of people asking for exceptions to include OR in the article. Bad idea. Also, you can keep trying to make a meal out of my verbal slip-up, but if you leveled with yourself for a minute you'd know that we had been discussing the Asian origins of haplogroup DE for hours at that point and it was a simple mental mix-up. Causteau (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out that if I "prefer" that the article says that E1b1b originated in Africa this is also what Causteau has claimed to prefer many times. Of course he has had to says this because this is what all the literature says. There is not even a fringe that says otherwise. To the extent that it "terrifies" me that people would slip another theory into the article, the word is an exaggeration, but it is abhorrent to see Wikipedia used to push for something like this. Causteau should supposedly also be worried about it, but the above outburst let's the cat out of the bag. He has clearly always seen this as a war of inches to try to get his wording in despite what the literature in this field says. Fellow editors might like to check User:Causteau's and User:SOPHIAN's talkpages for signs that they share an agenda which does not have sticking to the mainstream as its highest goal. We'll soon see again. After their tag team efforts to revert my recent deletion of this paragraph, I have included a new version which gives more direct quotation than the previous one. Will it be reverted despite the cries of horror that I deleted "sourced material"? Will careful edits insist on making it ambiguous? In the meantime Causteau has tried for a second time to censor my quotation of him here on this talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Push what, Andrew? Are you calling Ellen Coffman-Levy herself a POV-pusher? And you do understand that she described my analysis of her post as "precisely what [she] was trying to convey", don't you? How am I then harboring some "sinister" view when the author of the study herself admitted that my analysis of her quote was indeed what she was implying? Your grasping for straws dude. Instead of just admitting that your edits are OR additions to the Coffman-Levy quote, you demonize the editors who have refused to allow you to insert it into the article. You write that I hooked up with SOPHIAN to gang up on you or whatever, but actually, I very casually solicited his input on his talk page regarding this discussion since he himself has in the past edited this article and was involved in a dispute over this same issue. You know this, yet why do you pretend otherwise? As for "censoring" information, what actually happened was that you copy and pasted select portions of a rather heated conversation we were having on the haplogroup DE article's talk page onto this talk page's completely separate, unrelated conversation. On the haplogroup DE talk page, you wrote a nasty edit (the one dated 18:10, 22 June 2009) to which I naturally responded in kind (my post dated 18:37, 22 June 2009), but you then opportunistically only quoted on this talk page my response to your unprovoked personal attack as well as a deceptively "angelic" follow up to that on your part to try and make yourself appear as innocent as possible. And when I tried to expose what you were doing on this talk page, you reverted that edit of mine as well! All in all, that was very low and uncalled for. We have successfully resolved disagreements through discussion many times in the past (particularly the recent past), yet you still felt you had to resort to these underhanded tactics? Not cool. Causteau (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, Ellen never disagreed with me on anything on these talkpages, and the big agreement she had with you was concerning a summary paraphrase which you made that actually looks like the kind of thing I'd been proposing. In other words she agreed with precisely what you keep fighting to keep out of the Wikipedia article. Please stop calling whatever you've pushed for a "consensus", and please stop trying to invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it. It is an enormous distraction from discussion of the content. The controversy is about the wording you've been pushing on the E1b1b article. Talk about that? My concerns and the concerns of others are clear and easy to fix, and as discussed many times we do not need to use your summary because they can be installed by looking at more than one or two sentences in the article being quoted itself. (Concerning your stance that sourced material should never be removed it is interesting to note that you have repeatedly refused to let me quote from the detailed section of the cited article concerning E1b1b. You want everything centred on a vague introductory sentence which implies by a strange bit of wording that implies E1b1b might not be African in origin.) A simple fix can remove all doubts about the quote. You don't want to deliberately create doubts do you?. Concerning SOPHIAN, nearly all edits I've seen that new editor make have been quick reverts, without discussion, in favour of text originally fought for by you. I also had a vandalism accusation posted by SOPHIAN for trying to change this citation! Whatever your relationship should be described as, the effect on Wikipedia editing is not positive, and that is the simple fact of the matter. However the reason I referred to your talkpages was specifically concerning the agenda you share, which is to look for articles where African origins of anything at all can be questioned. If you are always taking the same side, then you are not being neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bald-faced lie. Ellen at no point ever disagreed with me on anything; quite the opposite, actually. Not only that, I hereby dare you to post a quote from her where you believe she did! We both know you never could cause she didn't. The truth is, you and I were involved in a dispute regarding the aforementioned quote by Ellen Coffman-Levy, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what [she] was trying to convey": mine, not yours. You also write that I "pushed" something or other. Actually, the past 48 hours have been the story of you relentlessly attempting to replace a direct quote from Ellen Coffman-Levy with original research that attempts to dilute the potency and significance of her quote. This has already been amply demonstrated by me in post after post in this talk page's two penultimate sections. You have a very nasty habit of misrepresenting what other people write, and especially when you believe them to be too far away from a computer to correct you. For example, you write that I "invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it". I've already debunked above your many previous attempts at misrepresenting what I have actually written. But this time, I'm not going to do that; you're going to have to prove your baseless accusations with actual evidence in the way of direct quotes. If you fail in producing this (which you will), we will have no other option than to conclude that you are yet again manipulating the facts to suit your ends. You write that the controversy surrounding the Coffman-Levy quote "is about the wording [I have] been pushing on the E1b1b article". Another untruth. I haven't been "pushing" anything, and the "controversy", as you so disingenuously put it, is over two things: 1) Your addition of original research to the Coffman-Levy quote (1, 2, 3), which you have tried to make me believe only helps "explain" it, but in reality, is a rather transparent attempt by you to rob the quote of its potency, since it does, after all, indicate that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". 2) Your repeated attempts at removing the quote altogether. In fact, you even gave me an ultimatum, basically threatening me to either allow you to insert OR into the text, or that you would remove the quote altogether (your posts dated 11:38, 22 June 2009 & 17:57, 22 June 2009)! And since I of course refused your offer to add OR & rejected your threat to remove the quote -- quoting the appropriate WP:NOR and WP:VER policies to you along the way --- you opted to go it along and just remove the quotes altogether (1, 2) When SOPHIAN reverted you (1, 2), he was right to do so because you had no business removing that reliable source, and you know it. You also contradict yourself when you indicate that SOPHIAN reverting your edits contitutes supporting "my" version of the quote, but in the next breath you insist that there is no consensus on the matter. Make up your mind already! Fact is, you've been trying to remove that Coffman-Levy quote since the day I first added it months ago, and strictly because it discusses E3b in a non-African context, which is something you vehemently oppose for some reason. But of course, in your head, that opposition doesn't constitute a POV, but "neutrality". Please. Hxseek, Alun, etc.: those are neutral editors -- not you. Causteau (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coffman-Levy continued again
Once again I need to start new sections in order to edit. I expect Causteau will accuse me again of doing this for some special tactical reason, but it is only a technical limitation. I remind him pre-emptively of WP:AGF.
Dear Causteau, please stop going off subject?? The opening sentence of your last post above is so misleading and comic-book-lawyeresque as to be comical. I did not say Ellen disagreed with you, so your outrage is unconvincing. I said she only ever commented upon your summaries on the talkpage which you made for her. But these summaries are very different from what you've been pushing on the Wikipedia article itself, which is that you've wanted to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa. This is something you originally argued for more openly, going to great lengths to say that Ellen herself wanted to express such doubts (15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)). In fact her point about the use of the word African was very specific and needed explanation, which she gives in her own article. One of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph! You only changed your tune (on these talk pages, not in editing the article) after I went through a lot of effort, including inviting Ellen to come and discuss things here. However the fact of the matter is that you did not take the opportunity to discuss the text you actually want in the article, but rather asked her to confirm a summary of her article which is actually the opposite of what you want in the Wikipedia article. So can you now pleas15:17, 29 October 2008 e stick to writing about the pros and cons of different versions of the text for the Wikipedia article itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."
As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph". That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against). In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)). That's why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?). Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."
Here's what was written. Andrew: "It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet." Causteau: "No... it's Coffman-Levy's view. And you've really lost it this time. Per WP:PA"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph".
Here what's was written: Causteau: "You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). ... However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b." Andrew: "Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what?" Causteau: "Coffmany-Levy's discussion of the controversy surrounding E3b is not "spread over a few paragraphs". It is discussed in only one paragraph, which I've already quoted for you above."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against).
Can you please name, for the first time ever, which original research I am inserting. Not every change of wording in a quotation changes the meaning of a sentence. You claim my edit is not needed, because the old word meant the same thing, so how can I be inserting original research? You can have the cake and eat it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).
When you've been in edit wars with other extremists you've often called for my intervention and showed you see me as neutral. You've certainly described nothing non-neutral? Is it non-neutral to disagree with someone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?).
So tell everyone in a clear way, for the first time, how I have changed the meaning the passage?? If the passage did not previously question E1b1b's African origins, and it still doens't, then no problem right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again).
I did indeed remove it! Thank you for finally coming back to the subject of the wording. The practical disagreement between us is indeed that you want to insist on saying that E1b1b "is often incorrectly described as African". And I and other editors say you either remove that part or we take the whole passage out because in normal English usage, "haplogroup X is incorrectly described as African" would NORMALLY mean "haplogroup X did not originate in Africa". So these are the words that say that E1b1b might not have African origins. Why do you insist on those particular words, and show no interest in other ones, direct quote or not? See the discussion between you and User:SOPHIAN on your talkpages. This is part of your pursuit of trying to question any African origins theory wherever they appear in Wikipedia articles, irrespective of what mainstream literature really says. If this is not the case and I have somehow misunderstood then sorry but of course there should then be no problem accepting a wording change, because you and I and Ellen all supposedly agree that anyone who reads her article in context will agree that it is not intended to question the African origin of E1b1b. So the English language is what sets the rules here, because the English language tells us the current words would normally be read to mean something we apparently agree they do not mean. Before you start posting pages of Wikipedia rules, please note that we do not need to directly quote wording ambiguities from original sources, if the meaning is clear enough in context. (Even in the citation of this passage, you've had no problem with you or other editors reducing or changing what words are directly quoted, in order to make meaning clear.) And concerning this particular passage, you have now insisted many times that you do accept that there should be no implication that E1b1b is not African in origin. So you should be able to accept the wording changes being requested now for so long. If not, why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've chopped up my post again, just like the good 'ol days. But would you believe it, there it is back again in its entirety right above your post. Just like magic. But who exactly are these "other editors" you speak of that wish to see Ellen Coffman-Levy's statement that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" gone as badly as you do? Cause all I see above is the one same editor who has been trying very hard to get rid of that quote in its entirety from the moment it was first added to the article. And that's in addition to every single source that asserts anything other than an African origin for haplogroup E1b1b, a haplogroup which you have already admitted to belonging to. Above, you disingenously "thank" me for what you describe as "finally coming back to the subject of the wording" ("wording" was never what the dispute was about, but meaning), yet can't help yourself from again bringing up my talk page discussion with SOPHIAN that, besides not even concerning you (see WP:Wikistalking), dealt with Out of Africa (an article I've actually never even edited) -- not E1b1b. Moving on, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with the rubbish you've written above. It has to do with two things that you are simulataneously omitting in not including it:
The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.
E1b1b is more a Mediterranean Middle-easterner&north African haplotype than African one.
Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.
So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)
Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.
Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.
For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.
So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.
Well if nothing else, I see that there certainly is ambiguity and misunderstanding out there concerning E1b1b, which of course means that the Wikipedia article should avoid creating any extra confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through what I can follow, but honestly I think you could have written more carefully and clearly...
Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.
I don't think that African mean "sub-Saharan" even if some people mistakenly mix their words up this way. Wikipedia needs to use standard English geographical terms, and really everyone should. This raises the question of whether E1b1b really is not sub-Saharan and I have to say this is also not clear. There are some quite significant pockets of it all the way down to South Africa, and one of the biggest concentrations of all is in Ethiopia and Somalia. Some may argue that the Horn of Africa is not sub-Saharan, but I think this is debatable, and indeed this raises a question of how clear the term "sub-Saharan" is.
So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)
Every assertion in this paragraph is wrong unfortunately.
No article has ever been published arguing that E-M35 originated in the Middle East, and the idea that it might have goes back to days when it seemed to be part of haplogroup D. The distribution is also not particularly heavy in the Middle East at all compared to nearby parts of Africa such as Somalia and the Western Sahara.
Greece is not Middle Eastern, and certainly Albania and Macedonia aren't either.
Once again please note normal definitions. In casual and unclear speech some people do include parts of Africa in the Middle East, but this is not the standard we must follow on Wikipedia.
There is significant E1b1b in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.
Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.
Sure. I think the article currently does not rely on any such strong links being assumed, and is fairly careful about that sort of thing? But it is hard to write an article if we can't use ANY geographical or cultural terms?
For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.
You would save people a lot of effort if you wrote more carefully. Can you explain how the Sahara seperates Eastern Africa from "the remnant" - by which I understand that you mean sub-saharan Africa???
So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.
Sure, but which ones exactly? I am sure everyone can agree that we should take them into consideration, but that does not yet define what we should do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coffman-Levy citation again
Causteau, your posts are so long and repetitive that I need to start a new section again. Sorry. I am also sorry for messily inserting quotations in response to the multitude of incorrect statements you made. I won't bother this time.
Please come to your point? Please state what difference in "MEANING" you think I am introducing into the text?
All versions under discussion have now and always included the concept that the term African can be used incorrectly in the specific sense of "over simplistically". This is exactly what Ellen intended. She clearly did not intend to say that it would be incorrect in a strict and literal sense, as her article, and your summary for her on these talk pages, and her comments on these talk pages, all confirm.
The current version explains this very subtle and important point in the author's own words, in a way your preferred versions do not. Your selection of words changed the meaning, deliberately, in order to imply that E1b1b might not have originated in Asia. My selection of words from the more detailed explanation does not.
Stop creating new sections. Try as you might, they won't obscure the discussions that have already taken place above. And don't ask me to "come to my point". You have just been shown in no uncertain terms with Ellen's own words the importance of the phrase you keep omitting. This means you have no legitimate reason for omitting it, like I keep saying. The version you edited did not capture the meaning at all. In fact, the current version doesn't either since it falsely concludes that Ellen is talking about the past (i.e. "at least until the time of writing in 2005") when my post above clearly demonstrates via her own words that she is talking about the present. Your claim that my edit changes the meaning to imply other origins is false, and was false from the minute you first uttered it. When I asked Ellen to "let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what [she had] written", that post included the following:
"Basically, the situation is that I have included in the Origins section of this E1b1b article a paraphrase from your 2005 study that goes:
Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.
However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa."
Causteau wrote "And don't ask me to "come to my point".". I think that says it all! You've claimed I am introducing original research by quoting different words, but you refuse to define any difference in meaning which you see. I have on the other hand repeatedly defined a difference which I see which makes your preferred citations change the meaning, and yes, any review of the talk page history for this article will show that it has been frequently remarked upon by others. There is no point talking about anything else because that is the core of the whole conversation. BTW can you try to reduce the number of blockquotes where you cite yourself? Citing yourself adds nothing but distraction to this discussion and your replies are currently about 70% you citing yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I said was "And don't ask me to "come to my point". You have just been shown in no uncertain terms with Ellen's own words the importance of the phrase you keep omitting." You only do yourself a disservice by quoting me out of context like you just did. Fact is, Ellen has indicated herself through her own words a) the importance of the quote you keep trying to omit (covered in my post above dated 13:23, 23 June 2009), and b) the fact that the quote I've inserted into this article in no way creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East like you've repeatedly claimed (covered in post above from 14:23, 23 June 2009). In fact, I've also demonstrated (in my post dated 13:23, 23 June 2009), again, through Ellen's own words, the erroneousness of the current edit; specifically the part youadded back the other day to the article asserting that there is no longer any such confusion surrounding the discussion of E3b. Errr, not according to the reliable source, Ellen Coffman-Levy. How's that for irony? I'm sorry if my posting actual details bugs you, but those are the breaks. Causteau (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not an answer. You are just telling me I quote Ellen's article using some different words. We already know that obviously. But what is the difference in MEANING between the two quotes? I've told you what I think. I think that the wording you've selected implies doubt about E1b1b being African in origin, and mine removes that. But you've specifically said that you don't want such a meaning implied into the text, so in that case there should be no problem if I tweak the quote to remove the ambiguity I and others read in your construction. Is there any other difference in MEANING between the two ways of quoting and paraphrasing the article? Just say what difference there is. What is the MEANING I am removing or adding or changing? You can't argue BOTH that the meaning is the same, AND that the meaning is different. Which is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire post above is based on the presumption that, as you say, you "think that the wording [I've] selected implies doubt about E1b1b being African in origin". However, I've told twice now that the author herself has indicated that she doesn't find that the way the quote is presented in this article creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East (covered in post above from 14:23, 23 June 2009) -- only you do. And to ask how the two versions (i.e. yours vs. the one you keep trying to get rid of) differ is to ask how is one is superior or inferior to the other since Wikipedia can't accomodate two versions at once. It's an either/or proposition. I've indicated to you in my post above dated 13:23, 23 June 2009 the importance of the version which includes Ellen's key phrase that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"", again, using Ellen's own talk page comments. Your improvised phrases are necessarily inferior to Ellen's quote because they omit the important meaning imparted by that phrase above (the meaning in question is also covered in the aforecited post, BTW). And as we've seen, your argument asserting the superiority of your improvised text which omits that key phrase rested on the notion that including that key phrase creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East. But as we've also already seen, that simply is not the case. Causteau (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are refusing to make your own case. For example now you say that my "improvised phrases [sic] are necessarily inferior to Ellen's quote because they omit the important meaning imparted by that phrase above". And yet you refuse to explain what the important omitted meaning is! I've explained the only difference I've seen. Now you explain. If you have no case you can explain, then forget it. You've already said that you supposedly think your wording means the same thing as mine, so why is it so important to you that you need to accuse me of original research and all those other things you accused me of? There are editors with a concern about your wording, let them make things clear. Let them make the wording say what you say you think it already says?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer screen, then, because I quite clearly did explain it (in post 13:23, 23 June 2009, for example). Of course, it's much easier to feign incomprehension when one has successfully obscured older text by continuously starting new topic sections. Again, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with what you've previously suggested. It has to do with two things that you are simultaneously omitting in not including said passage:
The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Nothing in this or any other comment you have made gives any explanation about the difference in meaning between the texts I am proposing, for example the current one, and any other. What am I missing? The current text also says that the word African has problems. The only difference is that it specifies those problems more clearly than you want. Just say what the difference in meaning is? Stop pretending that I am arguing with Ellen's paper. I am not. We are talking about the wording for this Wikipedia article. We are talking about your wording and my wording. Stick to topic, please!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're seeing what you want to see, Andrew. Ellen -- with her own words -- has demonstrated the importance of the very key words in that quote which you have been trying very hard to get rid of (that would be the italicized ones above). The edits you champion, which, by contrast, aren't direct quotes from the author in question but instead very much your own, specifically leave out these same points. For one thing, you've essentially robbed the article & therefore its readers of knowledge of the fact that this mistreatment of E3b in the public & the media is ongoing (not of the past), and that it is incorrect to describe E3b as simply "African" per the author herself. Again:
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
The edit which your SOPHIAN is currently reverting once more for you (though he asks below, after reverting, what the discussion is about) contains more direct quoting and explanations about these details than the particular sentence you want to put in, except of course that I can not accept pretending that the article was not written years ago. BTW you can't cite her words in 2008 on this talkpage as an update, even if they agreed with you. I repeat that you are not giving any justification for the reverts you and Sophian are making. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I never asked SOPHIAN to do anything of the sort, nor did I even notice he did. Unlike some people, I actually like to think before I write, so I don't always have time to mind other people's business for them. I will say, though, that the desperation in your arguments is almost tragic at this point. You're making literally no sense. It makes no difference whether Ellen were to have said that the mistreament of E3b in the media and public is still ongoing in her study or in her Wikipedia talk page posts. The point is, she, the author of both opinions, said it and emphatically. This of course completely debunks your fabricated notion that this mistreatment is no longer in effect, which is something you have then attributed to the author (if not the author, then who exactly? Yourself? Cause we all know what that would be, don't we?: Original research. And once again. More to be found on post 17:27, 23 June 2009. Causteau (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I've moved this question to right place. You inserted it into a post of Causteau and I almost missed it. Second, to answer you: to say that it is incorrect to call E1b1b "African" begs the question of which sense is implied for the word "African". The sentence is taken out of the context it was originally in and can mean a lot of different things. The most obvious thing it would mean is that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. However, the original article being discussed makes clear that the author believes that it DID originate in Africa, and it also makes clear (as Causteau has agreed many times) that the special sense intended was that calling E1b1b African is over-simplified, and not actually wrong as such. In other words, the author felt that discussions based too much on these prehistoric origins gave people silly ideas. The author, who has been a correspondent of mine since long before she wrote that article, is absolutely right about this. And it is this idea which I have no problem including in the Wikipedia article. But any quote which implies that she said that E1b1b does not originate in Africa has to go, because that is nonsense. Please let me know if this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Ellen certainly is an eminently sensible woman, as she has amply shown in her talk page posts. But you are again mistaken when you suggest that the statement was taken out of context. It most certainly was not, and I have repeatedly demonstrated this above (for example, in my post dated 14:23, 23 June 2009). Causteau (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that, as you yourself have explained on these talk pages, that she noted a very specific sense, and certainly did not mean it in the most obvious and literal sentence. Indeed her article makes it absolutely clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Ellen ever express any opinion that the key sentence in her whole article was the one which said that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African? No she did not. And yet you continue to imply that she did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Ellen ever make any remarks about any versions of text being proposed for the article? No she did not. And yet you continue to imply that she did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say Ellen had agreed on this talkpage with your opinions on everything, and said that E1b1b might not have an African origin. What then? It still would make no difference. Her article does not raise any doubts about it. Her article says directly that E1b1b originated in Africa, ie, "E1b1b is African". You can't use the talkpages as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen said this:
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
Notice the allusions she makes. 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. What she says is similar to what I want the article to say, and similar to what you summarized for her in 2008. It is very specific about the particular sense she intends by saying that E1b1b is wrong to be referred to in discussion as simply African. She very definitely did NOT intend the most obvious meaning, which would be that E1b1b did not originate in Africa (remember the context in her article is about Jews who are E1b1b). Do you agree or not? Just answer. How can we edit if you are only trying to win an argument? Do we have common ground or not? Or do you say that she doubts E1b1b is African in this sense of where it originated? Why not give clear answers?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen does not mean "E3b is ofen incorrectly described as African" strictly in the context of Jews. This is actually one of the misimpressions that currently plagues the article. She means E3b as a whole. I know this because that is precisely in what context I discussed the clade in my analysis of her quote, which she felt captured what it is she was trying to communicate:
"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."
From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:"
Also, do not interpret non-acquiescence as "trying to win". My many edits on this talk page over these past few days alone show I am sincere. So sincere, in fact, that I refuse to settle for an edit that in no way, shape or form fully captures (or indeed even cites) what it is the author actually writes. Causteau (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to acquiesce. I just think you need to clearly explain your position. The aim is that we all win. I have no problem, once more, with the kind of detailed explanation you give in your first paragraph here once again on talk pages, but just how do you argue that this is best reflect by compressing everything into one sentence which says that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African? By the way, just to keep our eye on the picture this sentence is what you want to appear in a section marked as being about E1b1b ORIGINS. My only concern, to repeat, is that if the author meant anything BUT origins then it would be very wrong to imply otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just look at what you wrote: the quote does compress everything into one sentence. So it's not a question of whether the quote is wrong. It is now a question of whether it is appropriate, given where in the article it is featured. This is something that Ellen has thankfully also already answered and which I have already pointed out to you several times (post from 14:23, 23 June 2009). I don't see how Ellen's view regarding the ultimate place of origin of E1b1b is misrepresented when a) we state in literally the same sentence at hand that she indicates the clade originated in East Africa, and b) she herself has indicated that not only is her view not misrepresented, it is actually well presented. Causteau (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before this is simply a question of English, so let's use another example. Let's say someone snips a quote from a newspaper article saying that someone, let's say a football player who plays in Israel, is incorrectly called an African, with a full stop after it. The clear implication of this quote taken on its own, and no matter what else is written, is that this person was neither born in Africa nor has or had any nationality there. But let's say that the article is actually all about the them of how complicated the origins of all Jewish people are. And let's say that the article actually goes on to make an extended point over many paragraphs that what it means is that this football player is often discussed in an over-simplified way, but actually he is African - African and Jewish. Would it be appropriate in this case for a Wikipedia editor, writing a section in an article specifically concerning this football player's origins, should deliberately choose to use the sentence which says the player "is incorrectly called an African" as the focus sentence? This is what you are doing. You have yourself said that you see these words as the critical ones that you want as much as possible to be the core of the paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy of someone snipping a quote from a newspaper has no bearing on the present situation since in invoking it you are presupposing that Ellen's quote was taken out of context, when I've just explained to you that she herself has indicated that it was not. We also don't need to speculate on the meaning of Ellen's quote, since I've already provided a concise analysis of it, an analysis which the author herself has of course said was ""precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Also, when Ellen writes that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"", she does not mean it strictly in the context of Jews. She means E3b as a whole, which is something that I've also already pointed out (see my post from 21:54, 23 June 2009). Causteau (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have defined a meaning on these talkpages, which was that the cited article is saying that calling E1b1b African in discussions in the media has led to over-simplification. We have long apparently agreed that the cited article did not intend to question status in terms of ORIGINS. But you will not allow the wording in the Wikipedia article to say the same thing. You want the Wikipedia article's ORIGINS section to centre around a sentence which says it is incorrect to call E1b1b African. You chose those words from an article which says that E1b1b's ORIGINS (the subject of the Wikipedia article section we are dealing with) are in "East Africa". So ins summary the analogy above looks perfect to me. If the analogy was wrong, please say how. Why do you never answer anything directly??????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Your analogy is completely irrelevant for the reasons clearly outlined above (see the word "since" in the first two sentences; that usually prefaces an explanation). Actually read my post this time and follow through on the other post I also linked you to. I also see you've fallen back on your argument that the key words "incorrectly" and "often" in the quote "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" are disposable, an argument which was debunked quite some time ago as well (post from 19:37, 23 June 2009). Since you are falling back on your arguments of old now, it's clear you have no new ones to put forth. Which begs the question: what's left to talk about? Are you writing just for the sake of writing or do you also have an actual argument to prove? Causteau (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is very difficult if the only justification you ever want to make is that you already "debunked" the positions of other people long ago. I asked you what was wrong with the analogy, which by the way is not an old analogy, so it can not have been debunked long ago. I don't see your debunking of it anywhere. This is a question of giving the right wording to get the right meaning. The section of the Wikipedia article is about the Origins of E1b1b. The article being cited says E1b1b originated in East Africa. You want to cherry pick a sentence which says it is incorrect to call E1b1b African, and you want the wording to be such that this sentence is the prime giver of meaning. That's where we are. Just justify that, for the first time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Coffman-Levy a fortune teller?
Causteau, I see that as hinted above you have decided to take action to (re-)open a second front on the Coffman-Levy citation. Here is your edit. Once again this is a repeat of an old edit you've been trying to force into this article for a long time. Once again I am afraid it can only be interpreted as part of a deliberate effort to create an impression of doubt about the mainstream scientific understanding that E1b1b is African in origin. I'll explain in detail before reverting...
Previous version:
In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help)wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005. She cited E1b1b...
Causteau version:
In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help)writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media. She cites...
The problem is simple. The article was written in 2005, which in the DNA world was a long time ago. Your new wording implies that the article was written now, or at least that it discussed what is happening now, in the future so to speak. This is obviously absurd. Please, if anyone thinks I am missing something, can you tell me?
For the record, because I think this is now a case of clear disruptive editing I think it is worth making clear the fact that when Ellen Coffman-Levy attended this talk page one thing she did make clear to Causteau and the rest of us reading editing this article at the time was that she had very specific cases in mind which were in the past already one year ago. It was about that time that Causteau finally allowed this implication of recentness to be removed the first time around. So this new edit is quite cynical. It is tit for tat. I at least see no other way to understand it?
I also note that amongst his reverts Causteau has even insisted to go back and change the haplogroup name to E3b again, using an outdated name just because this is how it was referred to in this article many years ago. This is also (believe it or not) something Causteau has fought for before! So this also looks like a tit for tat.
Just in case anyone is wondering User:Wapondaponda, whose blocking apparently triggered Causteau's latest sweep of a bunch haplogroup articles in order to changes references to Africa, had no impact on some of the reverts Causteau is making. They go back well before he appeared.
Actually Andrew, my edit was based on the following comments by Ellen Coffman-Levy herself on her visit to this talk page from just a few months ago, comments which I hadn't paid close enough attention to in the past:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.
I realize that a) you have contacted other editors, b) you believe that you therefore have a captive albeit silent audience, and c) are hoping that I lash out so that d) I may then be consequently reprimanded. Actually, I've been aware of this for quite a few posts now. But I'm afraid you just don't have a leg to stand on. You see, not only do Ellen's own comments above about her own study & world-view belie your own assertions, your entire argument that her comments are dated is based upon your own desire and not the author herself, much less her study. In fact, the passage in the study in question is also very much written in the present tense, just like the author's later talk page comments:
"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
I believe you are a bad faith editor. I am not hiding that. I've explained the case above and I do not make the accusation lightly. Indeed others should please read through the evidence for themselves. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think asking people to stick to topic is not really going off topic in the sense people normally when they raise it as a concern. I was seriously asking you to come back to topic. Can you do so please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Following is moved/copied from inappropriate section, where the discussion continued...
The edit which your SOPHIAN is currently reverting once more for you (though he asks below, after reverting, what the discussion is about) contains more direct quoting and explanations about these details than the particular sentence you want to put in, except of course that I can not accept pretending that the article was not written years ago. BTW you can't cite her words in 2008 on this talkpage as an update, even if they agreed with you. I repeat that you are not giving any justification for the reverts you and Sophian are making. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I never asked SOPHIAN to do anything of the sort, nor did I even notice he did. Unlike some people, I actually like to think before I write, so I don't always have time to mind other people's business for them. I will say, though, that the desperation in your arguments is almost tragic at this point. You're making literally no sense. It makes no difference whether Ellen were to have said that the mistreament of E3b in the media and public is still ongoing in her study or in her Wikipedia talk page posts. The point is, she, the author of both opinions, said it and emphatically. This of course completely debunks your fabricated notion that this mistreatment is no longer in effect, which is something you have then attributed to the author (if not the author, then who exactly? Yourself? Cause we all know what that would be, don't we?: Original research. And once again. More to be found on post 17:27, 23 June 2009. Causteau (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very weak argument (and I hestitate to call it that). Ellen showed up only a few months ago. And when she showed up, she maintained the exact same position she took up in her study from three whole years prior. Your argument tries to pit hope against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. Very doubtful. And certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words. Causteau (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not citing anything because to cite something would imply that there was a legitimate argument extant to begin with that merited address, when in fact, there never was. Nowhere does Ellen testify or even so much as allude to anything of the sort. Neither in her study -- which is written in the present tense, and does not set a time limit of any sort on the mistreatment -- nor in her talk page posts i.e. the two venues where she has testified on this matter. We can't very well fish from thin air that which the author herself never asserts. It's not only wrong, it's like speaking for her but without her consent. Actually, I would argue that it's speaking for her against her consent, since she has already clearly expressed a diametrically opposed view: that the mistreatment of E3b in the media & public is still very much going on. Causteau (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there is any disagreement between me and Ellen, but in any case please remember this is nothing to do with anything. Her article is the source, not her personally. We can talk to her in a common sense way about how to interpret her article, but there is not formal Wikipedia rule that authors can come in and update their arguments, which in any case Ellen did not do.
The real question is, what is your source for specifically wanting to add wording so as to change the meaning away from saying that the article described what was the case up until the time the article was written, and towards saying that it specifically remains true until today? Ellen's 2005 article can not be used as a source for what happened after 2005. Ellen's 2008 comments on this talkpage can not be used as a source at all, and in case do not back you up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you listening to yourself? You write that Ellen's "article is the source, not her personally", yet you have ironically been pushing for a time limit on her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" that the study itself never makes. Here is your edit:
"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005."
Your additions above in bold are not cited in Ellen's study. If you think they are, prove it with a direct quote(s) from her study asserting as much. Didn't think so. I, by contrast, am quoting directly from the study itself -- that is my reliable source (what's yours again?)! Here is my edit:
"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media."
And here is the statement in Ellen's study that it is sourced to:
"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
As can clearly be seen and verified by anyone, my edit is directly drawn from the reliable source in question -- not your edit.
If your argument, then, is that Ellen is instead implying in her study that her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" only applies, as you've written, "at least until the time of writing in 2005", that too is clearly untrue since the author herself indicated in her own talk page posts from just a couple of months ago when she dropped by to shed light on the matter that the problem is still very much ongoing:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. If you don't think it still applies, then you are necessarily hoping against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. That, of course, is very doubtful, and certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words.
And there you have it. Either you are asserting that Ellen directly states in her study what you have attributed to her in this Wikipedia article (she doesn't) or you are implying that she does (she doesn't do that either, as just shown). Either way, your edit is based on neither the author nor her study, but strictly on yourself. Causteau (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for saying that the misimpressions continued past 2005? You should be able to answer in a few words. It can not be an article written in 2005, and it can not be Wikipedia itself, right? So what is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you took a lot of time to process my post above (joke). My edit does not say that "the misimpressions continued past 2005". This is something you have indicated, so you are in effect answering a remark of your own design -- not my words (see strawman argument). Refer to the long post above for what I did actually say. And when you're through with that, answer my questions for a change. Good luck. Causteau (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not take long, because the subject is simple and you write about irrelevant things. You now claim that your edit did not even "say that "the misimpressions continued past 2005". This is amazing. The change we are talking about here is the change from "continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005" to "continues to pervade the public and media". By the way I have told you before that these very long sections are difficult to edit on some computers so I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject were as simple as you claim, then you wouldn't have had any difficulty actually understanding what Ellen's quote meant to begin with, would you? The truth is, it does not take you long to post responses because you are not answering what has been presented before and asked of you (as you still are not). It also does not hurt that more text means more visual confusion on the page, which thus makes it easier to obscure older arguments, as do the new talk page sections you keep starting. This, in turn, allows you to ask questions, post arguments, and make accusations that have already been thoroughly addressed and/or debunked as if they were being leveled for the very first time (which is then, at least in theory, supposed to frustrate the other debating party i.e. me). I know the drill, Andrew. Now quit stalling and answer the questions I put before you in my post above from 19:37, 23 June 2009:
When you "write that "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005", where in Ellen's study does it support the bold part? And where is that passage written in the past tense, as you have rewritten it to?
If your argument is that Ellen doesn't actually write what you've claimed she does in her study but only implies as much, where then in her study or talk page posts does she do this? Again, I wish you the best of luck with answering those points.
Oh, and before I forget, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by "this discussion", "a separate edit" and "this section" in your post above? You see, I'm no good with vague talk. Also, please produce a dif proving that I moved said things you claim I've moved (after having first clarified what you mean by them, of course). Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to bait me into moving whatever talk page section you are talking about back to where it originally was after you promised to move it ("I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject") -- something you would then undoubtedly complain about to an administrator. Diabolical. Causteau (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the mention to Afro-Asiatic language hypothesis as this theory is not widely accepted.
In the passage below
E1b1b and E1b1b1 are quite common amongst populations speaking an Afro-Asiatic language. According to at least some theories on the origins of this linguistic group, such as those advanced by Christopher Ehret, Afro-Asiatic and E1b1b1 may have dispersed amongst the same populations from the same point of origin, making E-M35 a useful tool for speculation into the origins of Afro-Asiatic (Ehret et al. (2004)[9]).
E haplogroup is rather connected to Niger-Kongo and Nilo-Saharan families,and the theory of Ehret is not widely accepted as the few common roots and similar grammar between Semitic and Kushitic languages are merely borrowings and spracbund that are due to different waves of J haplogroup middle-easterners migrations(which is obvious in the presence of J1 haplotype among Berbers,Egyptians,Ethiopian and Somalis whereas it's impossible to think that these J1 haplotypes are due to Berberistaion/Somalisation... of Arabs or Semites)to Africa but these African languages still have heavy African substratum and lexicon.
Have you questionned yourself why the called Afroasiatic words related to numbers,animals,relationship etc.. are so different whereas these basic words are always similar in the widely accepted language families such as Semitic,Turkic,IE,Finno-Ugric etc..?
I’m having a rethink about Afro Asiatic’s origin after having a good look at the reconstructed nouns.
Particularly those dealing with with animals. I had a brief look through the nouns for PAA, and quite striking was the number of words for goats and sheep. Also included were horses and camels. Since goats, horses and sheep and camels were not native to Holocene Africa prior to the neolithic, I’m reconsidering my support of an African origin for proto Afro Asiatic. Although, as has been kindly pointed out, the reconstructions are all pretty hazy for PAA, but still it’s suspicious.
Another factor making me reconsider is the dating suggested for the languages. The presence of goats and sheep (many and varied terms) also gives an oldest possible date to the last node (a languages TMRCA) for Cushitic, which is a pastoral language of sheep, goat and cattle herders. Since Cushitic is sub Saharan, very relevant is the oldest known date for the arrival of ovicaprines in the Sudan, which is about 5,500 years BP ( Esh Shaheinab, Sudan). This would suggest the proposed 10k date for proto Cushitic is off by about 45%- although this may just be it’s last node and the 10k date for it’s seperation may be correct.
Relevant to this is the R1b Y chromosome present in the Ouldeme and the Hausa, both Chadic speaking groups, one in Cameroon and one in the Sudan. The Hausa have R1b ( R-P25* (R1b1*) at about 41%, and Ouldeme at 95%. This is quite a bizarre find for groups in the middle of Africa, as R1b is typically European and West Asian. It would be a logical suggestion that the Ouldeme and Hausa are quite closely related paternally, and may point to an East to West route for Chadic speakers- suggested by Blench in the ‘The Westward wanderings of Cushitic Pastoralists’- although there have been suggestions the Hausa moved from West to east recently, which would make the R1b in Cameroon possibly from a north to south route across the Sahara.
This particular branch of R1b has been dated to an entry of about 4,000 years ago- but bearing in mind the older (2002) papers tend to seriously underestimate the date of the Y chromosomes – a pet peeve- the oldest entry date for it at 8,000 BP would be more reasonable, and a good match for the Neolithic sheep and goat pastoralists arriving in Africa from West Asia. It doesn’t do my older theory of M78/M1 being linked to the spread of Afro Asiatic any good though. Oh well.
The coalescence age of the African haplotype 117, which we estimated as 4,100 years (95% CI 2,400–8,060 years), could thus represent a date for such an expansion and a lower limit for the time of entry into Africa.
From this paper.
This all has some relevance to Ehrets dating of Proto Nilo Saharan (both families dated by glottochronology). He gives the same 15k date for Nilo Saharan as for proto Afro Asiatic.. so I’m thinking 10-9,000 bp for Nilo Saharan too. This also brings proto Northern Sudanic into the outer estimate for the Neolithic in Africa (7,000) although it’s unlikely as they have a dearth of terms for pastoralism and agriculture. His dates seem to vary from 35% to 45% off the possible, which may be due to the difference in geographical points of origin in proto Cushitic and Proto Sahelian, so I’m assuming proto Sahelian is a little more Northerly in origin than proto Cushitic and have adjusted the dates for it for a ‘best fit’. Even if it does give a close date for age of separation fro the sub groups, Ehret never seems to take into account there may have been more recent nodes to account for the pastoralist terms.
This doesn’t really support Omotic as an afro Asiatic language, as it shows no proto words for pastoralism before it’s split. But it has been pointed out by several linguists that it has no more in common with Afro Asiatic than it does with it’s other neighbouring language groups, so it’s AA status is pretty suspect to start with.
Edit:
A little more DNA evidence has come out showing a pre Neolithic population movement into North and East Africa dating to 11-10k ago, involving J1 (Y) and H (mt DNA) which coincide with the IM/Capsian transition in North Africa. This could be the reason for the odd structure of the tree; Cushitic languages are the result of an earlier AA population expansion into East Africa from the near East. This expansion (as far as I can tell) seems to start about 13,500 BP from southern Turkey? I’ll need to dig into it a bit more. This cultural expansion may have been of a food ‘managing’ culture as opposed to food gathering or producing cultures, a proto Neolithic expansion wave of people that kept wild animals (a domestication step) and harvested and planted seeds from the wild. There are domesticated seeds from Syria at 12,500 BP so the people of the Turkey/near East area were definitely doing something along those lines at the right date.
The present text of the Wikipedia article does not say that there is an accepted theory, but actually it could be changed to be a bit more assertive. See my review article about this subject here http://www.jogg.info/51/index.html . Several of the major genetics papers which considered E1b1b suggested a link to Afroasiatic, and my article goes on to show the arguments still look good when considered both in detail and from a multi-disciplinary perspective. The only person who ever questioned this proposal, an Australian archaeologist named Peter Bellwood, effectively really only said that genetic evidence is useless. He did not address any particular evidence as such. The theories you are mentioning come from a blog so you can't use them on Wikipedia. They are very casual and indecisive anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to change what Ellen said
Why whould you LIE about what someone said unless you have an agenda and are an extremist?
Go ahead and debate me: all I have to say is you will not stop twisting what Ellen said.
The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the backhanded compliments. SOPHIAN isn't "reverting for [me]" any more than the user Yom -- someone whom you've just contacted for support in this content dispute -- is reverting for you. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor Causteau have yet explained any way in which I have changed the meaning of Ellen's article. Causteau's main concerns over this long debate has been to try to stop others putting in information from the original article. As part of this effort, Causteau has in fact specifically argued that the crucial words he wants to keep in say exactly the same as words I want, i.e. that it does not imply that E1b1b did not originate in Africa.
How can there be a double argument that (a) Causteau's wording means the same as the counter proposals already, so no change is necessary and (b) the proposed changes will change the meaning? It is ridiculous. It is one or the other.
Rather than writing such rude accusations why not read what has been discussed and make your points clearly about the job at hand which is how to word a Wikipedia article? If your only source of opinion is Causteau then please cease to edit on that basis. Only edit when you have something to say yourself. Go and read the article and the discussions you have suddenly entered. In practice, your current editing appears to be "meat-puppetry". Please read the link and ensure that it is not in future?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your methods are so transparent Andrew, it's not even funny. First of all, you are not attempting to "put in information from the original article". You are, in fact, trying to add quite blatant original research to the article. This has been repeatedly demonstrated above by me (in my post from 05:16, 25 June 2009, for example). Secondly, I have not argued that the crucial words [I want] to keep in say exactly the same as words [you] want." I have shown you the importance of those key words (and therefore what is wrong with your edit in replacing them with your own words) by referring to Ellen's own comments (see my post from post from 19:37, 23 June 2009). Thirdly, my edit bears absolutely no resemblance to yours (the latter of which is presumably what the "counter proposals" you mention above refers to) nor have I indicated or would ever indicate it does. This is a content dispute, remember? We are on different poles on this issue, and only one of us is right (hint: it is not you). When you find the time to stop casting aspersions on other editors, do me a favor and quote from Ellen's study or her own words during her visit to this page the parts you think support your edit. Good luck with that. Causteau (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me, for the first time, which information I have removed or twisted or whatever in my proposed wording? I've asked many times but you refuse to explain your own position. My proposed quote makes it quite clear that Ellen thinks using the word "African" to categorize E1b1b is wrong, and in what particular sense she said it. I did this by adding direct quotations from her article. So what is the change in meaning I am creating? Please just answer. If you and SOPHIAN can not say how I am twisting the words, then please stop all this rude accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer screen, then, because I quite clearly did explain it (in post 13:23, 23 June 2009, for example). Of course, it's much easier to feign incomprehension when one has successfully obscured older text by continuously starting new topic sections. Again, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with what you've previously suggested. It has to do with two things that you are simultaneously omitting in not including said passage:
The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.
Here's where you start a new talk page section to obscure the earlier discussions, and then turn around and act like we haven't been through this song and dance before. Causteau (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No this section is still short enough. I don't see how you can say I've ever acted like this is not all repetition. It is indeed repetition, and I wish it were not. You keep quoting yourself in circles as your own source. I just followed through all the cites, after putting in a proper diff link, and it all just comes down to saying that the words I want removed were in the original article being cited. Why do you need such long and complex postings to say this? But anyway it is not relevant. Yes, this is a wording question, so define what change in MEANING you are concerned about in the proposals I have made. Get the text I wrote, and say which things it gives the wrong message about. That seems like the best way to stop this "song and dance" surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Once again welcome to Wikipedia. I hope we'll laugh about it one day, but we'll see. Please remember this is just a community. If you walk into a group of talking people and start making heavy accusations before you even know them, this can have complex and negative effects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Coffman-Levy a fortune teller (in 2005)? PART 2
Despite my constant requests to try to avoid these discussion sections becoming too long to edit on all servers, User:Causteau has filled up a few more sections with very repetitive and long postings which quote themselves constantly and appear not to stick to the subject. He now demands an explanation about why I asked him to keep separate discussions in separate sections, so despite some concerns I have that this is a distraction, here it is.
Firstly let me reassure Causteau that I did not accuse him of moving any text on the talk page. I stated reasonably clearly, I thought, that I was going to move some text. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but on the other hand please let's not spend time writing about how outrageous it would be IF someone would do something they haven't done yet, such as when Causteau waxed poetic about how "diabolical" it was that I would "undoubtedly complain about [him moving text] to an administrator". I guess we can fill many talk pages with outrage about things that MIGHT happen.
Obviously there are currently two specific discussions about two specific sets of words on this Wikipedia article. Each has its own discussion sections.
One concerns the words "incorrectly described as African" which Causteau proposes need to be given special prominence in the article section about the origins of E1b1b. It was being discussed [here], but I see User:Causteau has just started discussion in two different sections instead ([30], [31]).
The other concerns Causteau's change from "continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005" to "continues to pervade the public and media". This one is the subject in this section, which continues from [the similarly named previous version], although it should be noted that Causteau's last "reply" on that thread was not about this subject anymore.
I believe it is best that we keep these two discussions apart. I think anyone looking at the discussion will see that for this discussion to get anywhere Causteau needs to give clarity about his what his points are, so all of this confusion of different issues, including all the personal stuff, is not helpful.
So to now repeat the question outstanding for this section, what is the source for specifically putting in wording that means that the misinformation continued from 2005 to 2009? The source can not be a 2005 article, and it can not be a Wikipedia talkpage, so what is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new talk page section. Ha! How did I know that was coming! Above, Andrew writes in the third person because, you see, he is no longer looking to resolve the issue with me (not that he ever was) but strictly trying to conceal the damaging text that preceded this one. He is also looking to revise the progression of the discussions that have already taken place, by rewriting a new and utterly fabricated version of what has transpired. For instance, here again is that post of mine where he claims that I "now demand[s] an explanation about why [he] asked [me] to keep separate discussions in separate sections, so despite some concerns I have that this is a distraction, here it is" as well where I apparently "waxed poetic about how "diabolical" it was that [he] would "undoubtedly complain about [him moving text] to an administrator"; see what a different picture it paints:
If the subject were as simple as you claim, then you wouldn't have had any difficulty actually understanding what Ellen's quote meant to begin with, would you? The truth is, it does not take you long to post responses because you are not answering what has been presented before and asked of you (as you still are not). It also does not hurt that more text means more visual confusion on the page, which thus makes it easier to obscure older arguments, as do the new talk page sections you keep starting. This, in turn, allows you to ask questions, post arguments, and make accusations that have already been thoroughly addressed and/or debunked as if they were being leveled for the very first time (which is then, at least in theory, supposed to frustrate the other debating party i.e. me). I know the drill, Andrew. Now quit stalling and answer the questions I put before you in my post above from 19:37, 23 June 2009:
When you "write that "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005", where in Ellen's study does it support the bold part? And where is that passage written in the past tense, as you have rewritten it to?
If your argument is that Ellen doesn't actually write what you've claimed she does in her study but only implies as much, where then in her study or talk page posts does she do this? Again, I wish you the best of luck with answering those points.
Oh, and before I forget, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by "this discussion", "a separate edit" and "this section" in your post above? You see, I'm no good with vague talk. Also, please produce a dif proving that I moved said things you claim I've moved (after having first clarified what you mean by them, of course). Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to bait me into moving whatever talk page section you are talking about back to where it originally was after you promised to move it ("I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject") -- something you would then undoubtedly complain about to an administrator. Diabolical.
See how he completely distorts things? Andrew claims to be big on context, but as can be seen above, he isn't very good at quoting within it.
He is right about one thing, though, and that is that there are two main issues involved here:
1) The first issue involves his deliberate omission of the key term "incorrectly" in the phrase from Ellen Coffman-Levy's study that goes "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"".
2) The second is his deliberate omission of the key term "often" from that same phrase, replacing it instead with a phrase and verbs that refer to the mistreatment of E3b by the public and the media that Ellen speaks of in the past tense.
Both issues have been thoroughly addressed and repeatedly in the sections above. For example, here is the first issue (i.e. the fact that Ellen made a point of indicating that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms) addressed using Ellen Coffman-Levy's own words from when she dropped by a couple of months back to shed light on this same issue:
"But in a larger context, I [am] not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
Note the bold phrase above. Andrew believes that his edit (cited in first blockquote above), which studiously avoids mentioning that it is incorrect to describe E3b as "African" according both Ellen Coffman-Levy's study and her talk page comments (including my analysis of her quote) -- somehow still captures the full meaning of what it is she is trying to say! Absurd!
Regarding the second issue, I already wrote in my post dated that:
Are you listening to yourself? You write that Ellen's "article is the source, not her personally", yet you have ironically been pushing for a time limit on her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" that the study itself never makes. Here is your edit:
"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005."
Your additions above in bold are not cited in Ellen's study. If you think they are, prove it with a direct quote(s) from her study asserting as much. Didn't think so. I, by contrast, am quoting directly from the study itself -- that is my reliable source (what's yours again?)! Here is my edit:
"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media."
And here is the statement in Ellen's study that it is sourced to:
"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
As can clearly be seen and verified by anyone, my edit is directly drawn from the reliable source in question -- not your edit.
If your argument, then, is that Ellen is instead implying in her study that her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" only applies, as you've written, "at least until the time of writing in 2005", that too is clearly untrue since the author herself indicated in her own talk page posts from just a couple of months ago when she dropped by to shed light on the matter that the problem is still very much ongoing:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. If you don't think it still applies, then you are necessarily hoping against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. That, of course, is very doubtful, and certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words.
And there you have it. Either you are asserting that Ellen directly states in her study what you have attributed to her in this Wikipedia article (she doesn't) or you are implying that she does (she doesn't do that either, as just shown). Either way, your edit is based on neither the author nor her study, but strictly on yourself.
As can be seen above, the issue has already long been addressed. Andrew just didn't appreciate the answers (though, ironically, he never bothers providing any of his own, and certainly not in the way of textual evidence -- just idle talk). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I did not see any clear answers in these explanations before, why just repeat the same enormous and repetitive words over and over? Quoting yourself quoting yourself quoting yourself is aimed at what exactly? Achieving a consensus? Just explain your source for the period 2005-2009. What is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you do lots of quoting of quoting of quoting, but you do not ever quote for example my latest proposal and state what is different about the meaning. You just point to how the words are different. So what about those differences? I can also complain that your words are different from mine. Where does that take us?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coffman citation yet again
In the editing I just did of the Coffman-Levy citation I have gone through several steps and explained each change step by step. Please, everyone, take a few breaths and go through the editing history step by step. I have tried to find a wording which actually even keeps the critical words according to Causteau, but properly calls them a "sense" of what could be meant. Concerning the issue of contemporaneity I've taken on board the most sensible critique I could read of Causteau, and shortened the wording, just making it simple. The current version follows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 "arose in East Africa", it is "often incorrectly described as 'African'," in the sense that it creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup". She cites E1b1b as one of several examples of Y haplogroups (including also J1, J2, and G) too simplistically associated with a particular geographical or ethnic background.[8] In particular, she writes that "various branches and sub-branches of haplogroup E had very different evolutionary histories and distinct migration patterns" while, as will be discussed below, "certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years".
While I commend you for actually trying to resolve this thing for a change, your latest edits are still obviously unsatisfactory because you have for some inexplicable reason completely omitted mention of the fact that Coffman-Levy asserts that the "misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media." This is unacceptable and smacks of censorship. I have already demonstrated above that Ellen neither states nor implies that the mistreatment of E3b in the media & public is a thing of the past but quite the opposite actually, so I won't repeat myself here. I've re-added this crucial information to the article. If you object to this addition, you will have to explain how omitting it as you've done still somehow captures what Ellen says. And you'll have to do this not just with your own words, but with those of Ellen per WP:PROVEIT. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inexplicable? That is a little disingenuous. As you know, my concern, and the concern of other editors, is that the wording you insert goes awkwardly out of its way to imply that the time being discussed is 2009, 4 years later than the article was written. No amount of citation of a 2005 article can be a source for this, ever, and in genetics it is absolutely impossible to think of 4 years as a short time - as you show that you know at least when you are arguing in favour of the latest literature concerning mitochondrial haplogroup M, proposing that it did not originate in Africa.
What I mean by saying that the words are fitted in awkwardly and not just as a "natural quote", is that if the words are not intended to imply this then they are simply un-necessary, and certainly not "crucial". "She thought X" and "She thought X at the time" mean the same thing unless there is a specific contrast between periods being made. The new version I've made implies no contrast either way as would be normal. Before you accuse me of always having wanted this, I'll say it myself. That is indeed how I always wanted it, and my addition of the "at least until 2005" was only because of your insistence of adding in words implying dates after 2005, which has always been disputed as wrong. It was an ugly compromise which should never have been necessary, and which you have yourself recently brought back into question when you removed the words accusing them of being unnecessary.
I believe the new version resolves all the problems you admit to having with the section. I understand that you might have other issues, in that your main aim is to de-emphasize any links between E1b1b and Africa, but the reason you don't argue openly about this anymore is because you know that mainstream science is absolutely clear and unanimous about those links.
Anyway, although we can not use it as a source you and I do know more, don't we? The first time we discussed this in 2008 the issue was settled in favour of that compromise when Ellen Coffman-Levy explained on these talk pages that "I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA" and that "It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews is no longer present". In other words she told us what she'd been writing about and she said it clearly it was over. Concerning whether there was still any other similar misinformation around in 2008 she was explicitly non-committal - although she did indeed say in general that "there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history" (who wouldn't agree?), concerning the subject of this Wikipedia article she said "perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b" and "I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups". So even putting the sourcing question aside, you and I as people do know that what you are trying to use Ellen's name to say, is not Ellen's position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "concern of other editors"? Again, do have your eyes examined because it is just you pushing for this preposterously obvious stab at censorship. Your argument that "the wording you insert goes awkwardly out of its way to imply that the time being discussed is 2009, 4 years later than the article was written" is utter rubbish and was exposed as such a long time ago (post from 05:16, 25 June 2009). It's also highly ironic to hear you talk again about me wanting to "de-emphasize any links between E1b1b and Africa", since that is almost word-for-word the same charge you leveled at me months back when I had the audacity to interpret Ellen's quote for her -- only to have the author herself say that it perfectly captured what it is she was talking about! LOL Face it pal: you don't have a leg to stand on, just like you didn't last time. Your disgraceful selective quoting above of what Ellen writes is inexcusable, for she states in no uncertain terms that the mistreatment of E3b in the public and the media is ongoing -- that was her concluding sentence, for cryin' out loud! Here as proof I'll do what you unsurprisingly didn't, and that is quote in full her talk page comments:
"To all, thank you for the warm welcome. Causteau, you have restated my argument quite eloquently. It is precisely what I was trying to convey."
"I do not, however, have any objection at all to removing my statement about public and media bias."
"When I wrote the article, there was an extremely strong bias against acknowledging the diversity and complexity of Jewish DNA results. There was instead a strong urge on the part of many researchers and lay geneticists to find primarily what I would describe as "non-European" origins for all Jewish DNA results. In my opinion, that bias tended to corrupt the research in some cases."
"I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA. I was disturbed by their so-called "analysis" of Jewish autosomal results, which were never published or subject to peer review. One particular section on their website indicated "African" ancestry for Jewish DNA. Another was "Middle Eastern." There was no mention of "European" - that would have undermined what I suspected was their attempt to insure that Jewish ancestry was seen primarily as "non-European" in origin. Although they provided an autosomal test for consumers, no autosomal studies were cited. Instead, the "evidence" presented by AncestrybyDNA was exclusively based on Y chromosome results such as the E3b study from Semino. And because E3b was deemed an "African" haplogroup, then it allegedly supported AncestrybyDNA's assertion that Jews were primarly "African" (as well as "Middle Eastern" and hence "non-European") in their ancestry."
"It was, of course, terribly biased and scientifically unsupportable, but they were able to use these ideas quite effectively to assert "African" ancestry for Jews. Of course, they weren't alleging African ancestry for Europeans with significant E3b frequencies. Instead, they used selective labeling and emphasis."
"This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies. It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews is no longer present."
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
As can be seen in the bold phrases above, Ellen is not just referring to AncestrybyDNA and the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews, as you have attempted to imply. She is talking about a much more widespread mistreatment, a bias which she only concedes is perhaps less widespread as more research is conducted & released (not nonexistent, as you have also attempted to imply). Despite this, she's quick to point out that although the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still much of said bias going on. That, I'm afraid, is not "non-comittal". In case you've forgotten, I also personally analyzed Ellen's quote and made it clear on that occasion that the mistreatment of E3b in the public and the media that she is talking about is current, and that it concerns E3b as a whole and not just in a Jewish context:
"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history"."
"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."
Note that a) I described her as presently believing that "E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media", and that b) the distortions by the media regarding all of the E3b-related things I discuss above (i.e. its genetic diversity, origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade) are not subject to this imaginary "time limit" that you and only you have concocted and have in no way proven no longer exist. Quite the contrary, actually. Ellen described that analysis of mine above as "precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Given all that, I can't believe you'd have the gall to try and distort what she it is she actually wrote and then turn around and project that distortion onto me. That takes serious POV and/or gall. Causteau (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I removed the claim that there is a theory that E1b1b originated in the Near East. I noted the edit as follows...
rmv recently re-added note; these websites are not intended to be cited in this manner and simply need updating; the fossized remarks go back to a time when the phylogeny of DE was simply not known
User:SOPHIAN then added it back in here. I know this has been discussed before, but it is clearly still a point of disagreement.
Info from reliable source
Presumably SOPHIAN must be able to make his own case about this and is not just blindly following Causteau, so I'd like him to explain why my explanation was wrong. I noted that the national genographic has "fossilized" information on its webpage which goes back to a time when E-M35 was not even a known clade. There was just DE which was found in Japan and Africa. Was I wrong? Surely you don't just delete stuff unless you've got some kind of case to make?
The webpages being cited were made when the National Genographic project started so they are by definition both old and also not based on any new research done within that project. So if this is a reliable source it must be information from published research somewhere. So which research is it? If no one can name any, then I think I am right, and this claim has to be removed as unsourced. Let me tell you that amongst normal non-fringe researchers I've looked hard and found no evidence at all that anyone is even thinking about this idea. This is pure internet fringe theory and it gets slipped in every time there is an edit war. So let's remove it again please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, DE was found in 5 Nigerians, 1 person from Guinea Bissau, and 2 Tibetans -- not Japan & "Africa", I'm afraid (note the spurious and telling juxtaposition of a little country by an entire continent). Here's a challenge, Andrew: Try and go two steps without mentioning my name. I know it's catchy, but it's also bordering on the creepy at this point. Causteau (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Causteau, read before you post aggressive nonsense please.
You were being mentioned as the author of an edit being defended for you by the newbie SOPHIAN, who is defending all your old edits for you. That is a clear fact.
Your mention of the latest data on DE* has nothing to do with the 10 year old research I am referring to. There was no such concept as DE* then.
So you did refer to DE rather than DE*; my bad. Nevertheless, the page you mention above quite clearly refers to the clade as "E3b(M35)", thereby undermining the relevancy for this particular source of your claim that "the national genographic has "fossilized" information on its webpage which goes back to a time when E-M35 was not even a known clade." Further, SOPHIAN didn't revert "for me" any more than you reverted for that blocked user (very mature, btw). Causteau (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest accusation
I need to ask for more input from other editors because an accusation has been made. I want my freedom to edit defined, and not to have to defend myself repeatedly in case this builds up further as have other distractions.
I am surprised to see a new indirect attack building up from Causteau, against me personally, and specifically my neutrality. As part of his latest campaign I am now being accused of being a non-neutral editor with a conflict of interest. I think, looking at WP:COI (the reference Causteau pointed me to) that it is best to raise this here.
1. Reference to my review article was deleted at the same time as Causteau made his latest revert on the controversial Coffman-Levy citation which Causteau wants to put in to the section on E1b1b's origins.
The edit comment said, referring to both elements in the edit at once "restored author's assertion that problem is ongoing; rm editor's addition of his own article per WP:COI".
Of course many editors of articles on these subjects see Casteau's specific wording as a veiled attempt to twist some snippets of text from an article about Jewish DNA in order to say that there is scientific doubt about the African origins of E1b1b. If this is not what he intends, then the reasons for including such awkward wording with supposedly the same meaning are mysterious and Causteau can only explain it in terms of defending the original author's words from supposed censorship.
I mentioned that once more because the article reference Causteau has deleted is from the same journal as the Coffman-Levy article, but specifically about E1b1b, not just an article that mentions it as a side subject. It is one of only a few articles which exists which is so specifically about E1b1b, and it is by far the most detailed and most recent. Seems to me it should be referenced here?
If I can't I guess another editor will eventually. And why make such a big point when Causteau might be an author but we just don't know because he posts anonymously?
So, should the article be references or not? Was this deletion of a reference justified?
Further, your charges of "POV" are difficult to take seriously when it's actually you that is a member of the E1b1b public forum and has openly admitted to belonging to the haplogroup in question. That makes you a "neutral" editor on that Wikipedia article? I beg to differ.
So, am I not neutral because I am E1b1b, and don't hide it? As a secondary consideration I'd like to point out that even more in this case, this accusation would not be possible if I were an anonymous editor like Causteau.
Stop playing the "British" card. It is so transparent. Not every Briton obsessively edits the E1b1b Wikipedia article, admits to belonging to said haplogroup, posts regularly on a forum exclusively devoted to that haplogroup, and is also the principal editor on that Project's wiki on the haplogroup as well. The forgoing would be just you. Face it: you have a vested interest in the haplogroup, and far more than any of the other editors you relentlessly bad mouth ever could. Do you even edit other pages???
By the way, I am not British and I also do not say Causteau claimed this would make me non-neutral. Don't ask me to explain why on earth he mentioned a British card though.
But am I non neutral because I have a well known interest in this subject? For example because I participate in online discussions about it, or because I help run a wiki?
Actually, that's not at all why I reverted your edit. I quite clearly explained my reason for removing your own addition of your own paper to this article as follows:
"rm editor's addition of his own article per WP:COI"
I'm not surprised, though, that you should try and make more of it then it is & yet again selectively cite passages from previous completely unrelated conversations we've had out of context and without allowing readers the benefit of seeing for themselves the full extent of those discussions in question. That includes the whole Coffman-Levy issue, which readers can always read up on above and minus your predictable attempt at retelling it without the benefit of actual facts on your side. I also noticed you've spammed a legion of other users' talk pages soliciting comments rather than simply going to the conflict of interest board as an administrator that you already contacted recommended you do (viz. "if a question of COI has arisen, it is best asked at the COI noticeboard. Try to do so concisely and unemotionally"). Again, that whole image of a mountain & a molehill comes to mind. Causteau (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this is all just a concern for dotting the "i"s? Then it is easily fixed and neither deletion nor citing me for COI would seem very appropriate. Causteau, as a fellow editor on this article, you could vouch for the reference and put it in yourself. Then law and order would be maintained. So then, do you think the reference is not an appropriate one for any reason apart from the fact the I inserted it? Sorry, but if you start making a series of strong accusations that imply that I should not be allowed to edit, then you should have a real reason, no? Please decide if your were serious or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I think you know how I generally feel about your paper since I already congratulated you on getting it published. I have no problems if someone else cites your paper, only if you do. Imagine if I were to one day include an article of my own that perhaps contained one or two seriously debatable and/or questionable points (if I recall, for example, you reference Martin Bernal of Black Athena fame for certain parts of it), and then later cite from it myself, you would naturally object, wouldn't you? Well, that's obviously the sort of thing I was guarding against. Now if another editor sees fit to cite your study, then that's obviously not a problem since it is, after all, still a reliable source. So it's not so much a question of citing it that makes it a COI issue, but who is doing the citing: one is kosher, the other is potentially self-serving. That's all. Causteau (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Andrew is non-neutral at all on this subject. I've been impressed in his general ability to appease both sides (those who try to de-Africanize the origin of E1b1b vs. those who over-emphasize its origin) and maintain an accurate article. This is, after all, an individual who has written a rather substantial dissertation on E1b1b published by a peer-reviewed journal. Really, the passage in question from the Coffman-Levy study is peripheral to study of E1b1b in general. Its presence in the article isn't really required; there are much better sources that explain just how E1b1b dispersed and became so widely distributed, rather than just saying E1b1b isn't "African" because it has a distribution outside of that continent (which is how the quote has been twisted and reinterpreted to mean). That would be as silly as saying mtDNA macrohaplogroup M isn't South Asian for not being restricted to the peninsula. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the COI issue has been already been resolved. And it wasn't so much over being non-neutral, but potentially being non-neutral. While your arguments against the inclusion of the Coffman-Levy quote altogether are also well-taken, I'm afraid the veteran editor Hxseek (in addition to myself and the previous editors before him as expressed above) does not share your view. If you'll scroll above, you'll see that the author of the study from which the quote in question was drawn has already affirmed with her own words during her visit to this talk page some months back the importance of the passage in its present context, and the fact that it actually has not at all been misrepresented in the study but rather well presented. The entire issue has already been argued from quite literally every possible angle, and the scope of what Ellen means is much greater than what you've described above. Causteau (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the review a COI, reviews are preferred over primary literature in many regards and this review is loaded with useful information. I would advise AL in the future, when you draft critics give us a better heads up. I finally found your review, the reference was not attached to the text that it was referring from, so I finally did a search for you name in the lengthy citation list. This is another instance were standard wiki-referencing (i.e. footnotes at the end of passages) is helpful.
Everyone please make an effort to wikify this article before inserting controversies that make the article more difficult to understand.PB666yap16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yom, if I understand correctly, Causteau has now accepted, based on HXseek's summary, that the implication of present tense can be adjusted. What I had also very recently got him to accept was including the words "in the sense of" which I think helps the meaning a lot, because Ell Coffman-Levy certainly only intended to make her remark in a very specific sense and context. The bigger question of whether the paragraph is too periphery and should just be removed is one I also have doubts about, but I guess I am 50:50. One thing I have certainly learnt is that E1b1b is a haplogroup that gets debated a lot, and very poorly, in public contexts where haplogroups are not normally discussed. This is of course because of the whole emotional issue which the word Africa seems to raise (on two sides) and therefore to the extent that the paragraph is giving a neutral indication to readers about this unusual characteristic of this haplogroup, I guess it is worthwhile information. She writes in the context of Jewish ethnicity, but the same goes for example for internet comments one sees amongst Arabic genetic genealogists and people in the Balkans. On the other hand see below where the whole article is being criticized for being too detailed. Your thoughts on what I have just written would be very welcome to me!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing battle here is not encyclopedic
I have been asked by AL to mediate a dispute. In fact this is difficult. The current ongoing battle is ruining the main-page in terms of encyclopedic content. This page is probably 3 times longer than it should be given comparison with other Y-haplogroup pages and is not written so a highschool student would understand it, let alone interesting enough that they might read it.
Some ways the article could be improved:
Subpopulation Frequency dropping in text - Put frequencies in table, no less than one table per continent.
References should be at the end of sentences after the period.
References should be in wiki style. (Not Journal of Cell Biology style)PB666yap
In section:Other names, . . .
The current phylogenetic terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed by Karafet et al. (2008). This paper was intended to be an update of the "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC (2002)).The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" (E-M215) and "E3b1" (E-M35) - which is still found widely especially in older literature.
This is not encyclopedic.
The entire section is made of one or two sentence paragraphs. Each paragraph should be no more than one sentence, condensed and wikified, in a paragraphed. References should be at the end of sentences and avoid name dropping midsentence. Unless the author is an official or it is an official nomenclature commisions and that commision needs to have its own wikipage where it credentials are made clear.PB666yap
In Origins:
Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004)[15], Cruciani et al. (2004)[16], (2006)[17], and (2007)[18], ...
The 11th grader who, for whatever reason just clicked on the section head has switched to the article about Britney Spears. This is not the way to write an encyclopedic article.
In Subclades of E1b1b1 (E-M35):
As mentioned above, nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35). Cruciani et al. (2004) found 2 out of 34 Ethiopian Amhara tested, to be M215 positive but M35 negative, and therefore in the paragroup "E-M215*". More recently, Cadenas et al. (2007) found one more E-M215* individual in Yemen, just across the Red Sea from the Amhara, out of 62 people tested there. [New paragraph] Turning to E-M35, the most current phylogeny of E1b1b1 includes the individuals with no known sub-clade mutations (who are therefore said to be in the "ancestral state" referred to as E1b1b1* or E-M35*) plus seven known "derived" branches, which are defined by the following SNPs: M78, M81, M123, M281, V6, P72, and M293, all of which are discussed below.
Yikes! Folks, think about the reader or the encyclopedia, first. If its this complicated make a picture, a star diagram. For situations were you have a subclad and a particular distribution, make a table. I can go on but I am not.PB666yap
The conflict of Interest claim. WP:COI is clearly at play. Wikipedia is not a battleground not even for scientist.
Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.
Please see: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. To simply state this for my fellow scientist: if your edits are not for the improvement of the article as a wikified encyclopedic entry (See WP:MOS) designed for a highschool reading and interest level, then you may have a conflict of interest in what you are editing.
Recommendation: This article is grossly non-encyclopedic. Since deleting it would be a conflict of interest I recommend deleting section by section an moving each section to the talk page. The section should then be criticized on the talk page for content, rewritten, and agreed upon, then returned to the main page in its edited form.
Talkpage recommendation: Talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not for personal attacks and counterattacks. One can discriminate whether a discussion is personal attack or working toward improvements when there is a generally hostile critiques but no offers of compromises toward the improvement. Much of what is on this talk page can be refactored to the bit bucket. This talk page on this obscure Y-sub-sub-sub-haplogroup has 6 archives???!!!! Sheeeeesh.
And since I am supposed to disclose any COI I have: I am an ex-participant in the UseNet group sci.anthropology.paleo since almost its creation, I am the owner and chief moderator of the Yahoo DNAanthro - molecular anthropology newsgroup. I have watched many arguments concerning origins on the UseNet and many have appeared in various other groups.
I have seen my fair share of highly imaginative 'extrapolations' of origins based on the Y-chromosome. Its a shame people don't have the same interest in HLA as they have in Y-chromosome. I would point out that the tMRCA of mtDNA in the two most current papers is 192 kya and 194 ky+/-32kya (Gonder et al 2007), my own estimate based on several techniques is around 230kya. The TMRCA listed in the Y-chromosomal Adam is "37,000–49,000 years ago [7] to 51,000–411,000 years ago [8]". The most recent mtDNA article suggests an exodus from Africa 55 to 75kya when the archaeological evidence from India, china and the Levant suggest human spread from central or south central Africa to be well older than this.[e.g. the dating of liujiang (67-150 kya), the archaeological finds in eastern India dating to 80 kya and LM3 which parsimoniously dates to about 52 kya, the earliest dates for Skhul and Qahfez to 125 kya] Indeed the most recent paper on mtDNA which deals with the issue of selection in the coding region (although by my standard not sufficiently enough) suggests that not long after the SeqMRCA formed that the population within Africa grew significantly. In general, since Vigilante et al established the first TMRCA for mtDNA there has been a recognize understatement of TMRCAs based on a number of assumptions that have proven to be just that - assumptions. These assumptions have been applied across the board and recently came up with a highly erroneous guess of the age of two 'popular' autosomal genes, FoxP2 and MC1R. As a consequence the spread from Africa of Y-chromosome is problematic and inconsistent with two independent sets of facts.
Either the molecular clock of Y is incorrect or subject to change of unknown cause.
Or there is a global pattern social/sexual selection that has been acting for long periods of time.
In either case the datings and the importance of Y-derived migrations needs to be questioned in terms of its relevance to molecular anthropology. Despite the rather critical weaknesses of Y chromosome as settlement or migration markers, in its capability to coordinate with archaeological evidence (i.e. that Roman british migration could have been the Neolithic migration that occurred 5100BC), ...... numerous instances on the Internet by some 'not-so-fact-based'-groups are made ascerting Y chromosomes to various historic and prehistoric migrations. The few papers that I have read on the issue of effective male population sizes suggest a male to female effective population size of 1:2. In the studies recent enough to compare HLA haplotypes, mtDNA, and Y this has been shown to be roughly true. Past this mixing ratio, Y chromosome often undergoes rapid differential selection and within 100s of years can shift frequencies rapidly as a consequence of the popularity of a name or a paternal (ruling) line.
Why am I presenting this? Because the level of information in this article is disproportionately large relative to its certainty in dating and relevance to overall population genetics in humans. This is a guide to which information can be trimmed down by willing editors with some confidence, particularly primary literature which draws an opinion that is not likely to be correct or more importantly (coming from the moderator and long term observer of molecular anthropology - their confidence is overstated, confidence interval is undersized, and conclusions do not account for all possibilities). Be conservative, if there is doubt about a conclusion, present the results, hold the conclusion. I have no better advice to offer on the subject than this, it is my opinion that if all editors agree to re-examine the literature and assume that these confidence intervals are larger than stated, and hold back or remove statements that, from a more distant perspective, could have many interpretations, then this battleground atmosphere can be resolved into a cooperative atmosphere. This allows the editors to create a shorter and more pleasantly read article. This is an encyclopedia, please the interest and reader not the ego.PB666yap14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First an answer to your general point, without going through all the detail. I think you raise a good general point even if I end up disagreeing with some details (I realize Y haplogroups are not your big interest BTW), but the problems you point to arises from the same editing disputes which led to the deletion of a reference that you were called to look at. Every wording must be agreed after long debate, and normally this means long sentences, too many details added in etc. Have a look at recent editing disputes as examples. The source of the problem is known to those who've ever tried editing here. E1b1b gets to much attention from editors who are worried that Afro-centrists, or Euro-centrists will be having too much influence on the wording, and therefore we get a lot of pre-emptive "compensation". Again, have a look at some recent debates. Past experience shows me that these debates are actually quite simple that even a little bit of occasional help from outside editors has been very helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, first off, I did not say anyone had a conflict of interest, in a discussion that needs mediation I will let the admins do that. What I said is that the tone of the article is in COI with the goals of wikipedia, the COI that exists on the main is clearly the composite construction of multiple contributors, has placed the reader at a disadvantage. The point I am making is that the article is not placed first. You probably don't want me as an editor, because when I see what appears to me to be opinion, even opinion from the primary literature I am inclined to delete it, particularly in an article this size. Building concensus is a key word here. Elicit the cooperation of your fellow editors in protecting the page by getting agreement with those editors first what should be on that page. In the page edits I have been in when two priniciple editors of a section become entangled, rather than having an edit war on the main page, the section can be discussed and edited on the talk page, so that these things can be hammered out. I have done major edits on some featured articles, and that edit environment is as tough as one can get.PB666yap
The second issue you brought concerned splits. I have no problem with splits, if they logically uncomplicate material, and I hold to a deviant wiki-philosphophy of inevitability, IOW with the growth of the encyclopedia and links to a group whatever that contains whateverites, that if the interest of whatever increases then inevitably the whateverites will have their own page. However, first we need to test the hypothesis. To do this I look at hits. Your traffic (outside of editwars) is [ http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) 120 hits/day] on this article, therefore it might justify spliting off the largest subgroup and observing traffic in that new split.
The third issue is how much resolution is needed. I have created many HLA pages on wikipedia, I decided to start with the serotype level because there are 1000s of HLA alleles of certain types, >100 for example of HLA-B15. Within the allele group there are serotypes B-62, ....B-76. These can be individually presented if there is enough relevance. Within each allele say B*1501 there can be suballeles such as B*150101, 150102 etc. Ask yourself the basic question. What relevance does it have that invites it into wikipedia, is there a population relevance or is it just a rare allele, is their a functional relevance (for XXXX0N in HLA these are generally synonomous or non-coding mutations). Finally what is the distribution, does it offer anything beyond there 'were 10 cases found in a village in Zimbabwe'. There are lots of villages around the world, we cannot possibly disclose all the deviant genetic markers from every village in the entire world. Is there a way to condense this information? To the right is an example of one HLA allele B*8101, it was one of the rarest I felt comfortable presenting, compared to some of the Y statistics however, is it so rare?
Great points you raise there! I'm glad to see that another editor (and a knowledgeable one at that) understands at least some of my concerns for having cited potential COI issues. Causteau (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way concerning a very specific point, I do believe that with all Y haplogroups, there is a natural evolution whereby they eventually need to be split up as details become more known.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
==Other names, and history of the classification==
The current [[phylogenetic]] terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed by {{Harvcoltxt|Karafet et al.|2008}}. This paper was intended to be an update of the "Y Chromosome Consortium"({{Harvcoltxt|YCC|2002}}). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" (E-M215) and "E3b1" (E-M35) - which is still found widely especially in older literature. It was also the 2002 consortium which proposed guidelines on the mutation nomenclature, "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names have increasingly been used since then because they avoid the confusion which comes from the increasingly frequent discoveries of new SNP mutations - for example when older and newer literature is being compared.
Prior to {{Harvcoltxt|Cruciani et al.|2004}}, both E1b1b and E1b1b1, not yet distinguished at that time, had been referred to as '''Hg21''' ('''Haplogroup 21''') within {{Harvcoltxt|Zerjal et al.|1999}}'s nomenclature, or as '''Eu4''' according to {{Harvcoltxt|Semino et al.|2000}}'s classification. They were also within {{Harvcoltxt|Underhill et al.|2001}}'s "Group III", and in terms of "p49/TaqI" tests, E-M35 came within Haplotype V. (It should be generally be kept in mind that some older haplogroup testing methods could not distinguish between related clades in a way perfectly consistent with more recent findings.) Other older names are referred to in the YCC 2002 report in the referenced articles, but are less common in the literature.
All very well but please say why? You've just deleted a section. Great but why? These old names for E1b1b are extremely important. For example they still appear all over Wikipedia. Frankly if autosomal DNA is your standard you are not going to get any feeling for the enormous public interest and confusion about Y haplogroups. As soon as you deleted this section what happened? Look at the new edits putting the old nomenclature in piecemeal. How is that good? This section you just deleted was created to resolve edit wars because of exactly the type of edits using old nomenclature which have already now started to reappear. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is deleted true, but not because it does not belong on the page, because its entire construction is unencyclopedic. It needs to be rendered 'wikipedia' in its tone, in the grammatical construction. This is not a negative thing but a positive thing, as in how to improve the page by improving section at a time. Here is the first step.
E1b1b and E1b1b1 are the current accepted names by the Y Chromosome Consortium.[10] The nomenclature E3b (E-M215) and E3b1 (E-M35), respectively[?] is used to designate the same haplogroups within the older literature.[11] Prior to 2004 both haplogroups were referred to collectively as Haplogroup 21 (HG21) or Eu4.[citation needed] Prior to this the two haplgroups tested as "Group III" with "p49/TaqI" and E1b1b1 was identified within HaplotypeV.[citation needed]
Note you'll need to build the page for the Ycc. BTW if you are not already using this tool, this tool makes referencing easy for wiki and also adds identifyer tags, all you need is a pubmed ID or similar ID tag.Wikipedia template filling
I'm not sure I follow yet. Are your proposing to reinsert a section, just with clearer wording? Seems a bit harsh to fully delete before we have a new version ready? Even though I certainly agree that the language and construction of this article are tortured, I've explained the reason why. So I'm happy to work with someone to try to redevelop sections, but frankly if you are going to just delete and then walk away I think editing here is going to be a nightmare.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic sentence structure is better, but going through it a bit more closely I'd propose:
'==Current and previous names==
E1b1b and E1b1b1 are the currently accepted names found in the proposals of the Y Chromosome Consortium(YCC).[10] The nomenclature E3b (E-M215) and E3b1 (E-M35) respectively were the YCC defined names used to designate the same haplogroups in older literature with E-M35 branching as a separate subclade of E-M215 in 2004.[11][12] Prior to 2002 these haplogroups were not designated in a consistent way, and nor was their relationship to other related clades within haplogroup E and haplogroup DE.[citation needed]
In the spirit of trying to simplify I've left out discussion of pre-2002 nomenclature, because it requires a lot of discussion. The clades being named were not even understood in the same way by all the different authors previously. This is sumarized however in the 2002 YCC paper which is cited. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have exchanged your reference for a more suitable style. I thought it over after I rewrote the first bit, and questioned why we are mentioning a PCR kit when we are not describing that kit, so that removing it is a good idea. Yes, it is easier to read, now come up with a simplified title and place it back on the main page and move onto the next section.
E1b1b?
The article is almost exclusively devoted to the discussion of the E1b1b1 subclade and descendant clades. Why is nothing on E1b1b presented in this article, does it represent the state of the literature? Is there a branch diagram available that can be used as a guide to all the E1b1b1 variants.PB666yap14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the paraclade E1b1b1*? In fact every individual ever tested is mentioned. Amharan and Yemeni only and very few seen so far.
Here is how I think the phylogeny should be displayed.PB666yap
At first sight this looks like a handy picture either for this article of for the E haplogroup article or both. There was once a debate whereby Causteau objected to too much concerning parent and sibling clades of E1b1b in the E1b1b article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions
In the article E1b1b is described as having arisen in or near the Horn of Africa. However the sources cited use different naming conventions.
Cruciani et al 2004 mention "Sub-Saharan Africa" and "East Africa".
Cruciani 2007 refer to East Africa
Underhill et al refer to Sub-Saharan Africa
Semino et al refer to East Africa
None of these scholars use the term "Horn of Africa". Though parsimony indicates that E1b1b most likely did emerge in Ethiopia because M215 with ancestral M35 was found in ethiopia. It should be noted that E1b1b is a sibling of E1b1a and thus have a direct common ancestor E1b, E1b1a dispersed from West Africa. So where this common ancestor lived may have important implications for the origins of E1b1b. It could be that E1b1a also originated in East Africa but spread west accross the Sahel. Another complication is that E1b1a seems to have swamped all pre-existing lineages with the Bantu Expansion. Blench speculates for instance that Cushitic speakers may have had a much more southerly distribution prior to the Bantu Expansion.[32]
The area Cruciani et al. define as East Africa is the Horn of Africa plus Kenya. This is clear from reading the articles, and looking at which countries they include in which of their designations. The reason for homing in on the Horn of Africa has been the need in Wikipedia to use standardized geographical terms, something which a researcher breaking up their data does not need to do. (You might want to look up the WP references to the debate on Gdansk or Danzig.) This is important when we deal with the Cruciani et al. articles, for example their northeastern Africa is pretty much by their own definition. I suppose that what you are saying should be taken seriously because our current wording ignores Kenya in the implied meaning of Cruciani et al. Here is the Wikipedia article on East Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa. It is not too far off from what Cruciani et al. us, and so I guess I see no problem with replacing Horn of Africa with East Africa or eastern Africa. I guess it depends upon how close it is to "original research" to say that Cruciani et al's argument seems to apply mostly to their Ethiopian data only.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Origins and Coffman
The section on the origins is dominated by a large paragraph devoted to quotes by Ellen Levy Coffman. However she is a family lawyer, should her quotes be given such prominence. This has been previously discussed here Talk:Khazars#DNA_EvidenceXavier Bolton (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with being a family lawyer? I think the more important question is whether the passage is clear, relevant, mainstream etc. I am not a strong defender of the presence of this passage, but it is true that there have been issues with the way haplogroups such as E1b1b have led to strange ethnic generalizations, and although her article is very specific about the Jewish experience in this, to me it does seem to be part of what people might want to know about E1b1b.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its great to be a family lawyer, must be a lucrative job. However being a family lawyer isn't the same as being a geneticist. Because of this, her personal opinion should not be considered reliable or as reliable as a qualified geneticist. If her statement is referring to a scientific observation that has been published, its okay to user her as a source, but if it is her own personal opinion then it is unreliable. According to WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". The article is published by Journal of Genetic Genealogy, JOGG, however JOGG may have different standards than the most scientific publishers. In any case, it should be made clear the Levy Coffman is not an "Expert" herself in genetics. Xavier Bolton (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The JOGG seems to be widely accepted as a reasonable source. It's specialization is obviously not cutting edge lab techniques but rather more about genetic genealogy, which is of course exactly what the cited passage is about. The JOGG certainly is not a form of self publication. See their webpage. Have a look at some of their volumes ([33]). I have a conflict of interests issue in commenting on this because this is where my review article was also published. Also, I have been corresponding with Ellen Coffman-Levy quite a lot over the years (since long before I did anything on Wikipedia I think). I consider her to be a very experienced and respected genetic genealogist. (Specifically in her case this means she has a lot of experience interacting between scientists and Jewish genealogists, which is exactly the expertise called for in this case.) I am also a genetic genealogist by the way. This is not a paid profession of course, but so what? Being paid for something can cause bias in itself and has nothing to do with being a reliable source. I think you can take my comments seriously just based on the logic and ethics on this case:- I have not been one of the people fighting to keep this passage in, but I think that trying to make VAGUE accusations about someone or somethings reputation only because you want them out of an article (this is the latest in a long line of arguments) is not good practice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of dates and confidence
Just to extend one thought AL made on his talk page. There are aspects, probably many on the X-chromosome that have undergone no significant recombination in the last 2.5 million years. PDHA1 is one example. These particular sites paint a much more complex picture of human evolution than do Y, in fact I did a comparison between expected fixation times versus observed fixation times in 22 X-linked loci and they pretty much agreed with a fixation time of about 500ky, of course made the assumption the constriction that caused fixation in many of these loci ended about 150+kya. That has to be contrasted to the Y-chromosome which has only a ploidy of 3 fold lower than X and its fixation time occurs after the putative constriction and is one 10th the age, even if we assume effective ploidy of 1.66 (X) vs. .33 (Y) that is a ratio of 5, still 2 fold lower and occurring after the constriction ended when the population was larger. I would discuss median population sizes versus ages but the fact is that the last fixation event for a given haplotype makes further backward analysis impossible . . . . Y-chromosome may be haploid and the picture may be simple, but the unfortunately it lives in its own self-explained genetic universe.
"E1b1b (E-M215) and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) are believed to have first appeared in or near the Horn of Africa[18] about 22,400 years ago."
Without a confidence range this cannot be accurate past the first decimal place. In fact I would say greater than 20,000 years ago and leave it at that.
Here is another one (again I don't know who wrote these)
"The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".
The second episode has a credible confidence (at 1SD equalling their range) but the first 17.3-23.9 is less than the calibration error, it would not even consider random factors associated with the sequences evolution, not withstanding the issue of that pertain to Y descrepancies. The other thing is what do we care what the authors 'believe', what does their data suggest are the limits of the argument what can a consensus generate. This is why wiki likes reviews as sources of information, it is supposed to be up to a reviewer to digests beliefs, look at results and formulate a structure that meshes various sorts of information together into something better. If there are papers that handle confidence carefully then we can probably include those dates, but if their tightly unrealistic, I would say these are two much opinion and too little objectivity.PB666yap03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with all of this. Approximate dates are normally better than confidence intervals, because then they are obviously approximate, which however an accurate rendition of what most authors intend. Cruciani et al. are actually quite careful on this, giving many remarks about the contingencies involved, and even showing alternative calculations. When in correspondence I tend to say things like E-M35 is approximately 20,000 or more years old, and E-M78 is between 10,000 and 20,000 years old. Once we get within 10,000 years some clade look more accurate to date because they appear to result from a simple "star shaped" network. Remember by the way that very few age estimates for Y chromosomes are done with polymorphisms. I think this is something we'll see more of soon though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing thanks to User:Pdeitiker for his efforts here. I hope won't mind my ignorant question about the subject of changing the referencing system.
Most haplogroup articles I've worked on or looked at have a horrible mixture of referencing styles which makes it very difficult to edit them without loosing the references, or doubling them up several times. Most, unlike E1b1b, are full of broken links, and incompletely referenced end-notes. Often editors don't have time, and hope someone will fix it all up later.
Therefore some time ago I started using Harvard style references (e.g. Lancaster (2009)) in E1b1b. There is a template for this on Wikipedia which I find works really well in conjunction with a nice neat bibliography. So I built that up.
Frankly (call this a COI if you want to) I now sometimes come to the E1b1b article in order to get my references right when working on other articles. This is the only one where you can find the references quickly and easily.
What I understand now is that the Harvard style is not seen as appropriate. I wanted to make sure I understand if that is really the case, because changing all the references over is going to be a massive job, and I believe it is at least arguable that (a) it is not easier to read in the sense that lots of footnotes scare people just as much as abbreviations like "et al."; (b) I fear that on-going editing is going to get messier.
If we are changing all referencing I suppose it means eventually moving every item in the present bibliography (reflist) up to a ref footnote somewhere where it is will become the basis of a ref name= footnote? And then we all hope no one ever deletes that particular footnote? And every time we recite an article we'll have to remember the right name (e.g. "cruciani2004" or "Cruciani2004" or "Crucianietal04").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be careful. I think the wiki standard is to use the [#]. It is particularly handy in medical/science articles because of the Pubmed linking style and the autoreference generator that I mentioned. In addition we also have the ability to create footnotes. This does not preclude the other references since they can be placed in a section called additional reading in which, for example a book or review, has a broader context than a few sentences of text mentioned in the article.
I am not going to eliminate any references already given to point, and if you want to be careful place all you harvard references on one of your subpages. The disadvantage of the current referencing system in the article is that one has to hunt though a 90kb size article and have the whole article loaded at once to follow references. If one uses the autorefname generator in the ref generator even if a full reference is given a second time it will not be duplicated e.g. <ref name="pmid12345678">{{cite journal |author= |title=Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development |journal=Integration |volume= |issue=40 |pages=27–9 |year=1994 |month=June |pmid=12345678 |doi= |url=}}</ref> refname generator from PMID, PMCID, URLs
I would support Andrew on this. Seems to me that PB666 is being far too prescriptive (particularly in his opening "ongoing battle" comment), both as regards referencing style, and as regards prose style, in ways that go far beyond the specifics that are actually in the style guide.
Templates for Harvard referencing are made available so that they can be used. It may not be the most popular referencing style on Wikipedia, but nor is it deprecated.
It is especially useful in articles like this one, where there is a considerable volume technical literature being cited, and where additionally the subject matter has recently been moving very fast, so that it makes a real difference to know whether a reference is a 2008 paper or a 2004 paper. This in addition to the practical points Andrew makes above.
Finally, certainly it is very important to make articles accessible, but it is also sought to make them comprehensive. WP is not just pitched at highschool student level. The aim is to be a ready source for whatever information people are looking to find, at whatever level. Yes, adopt a pyramid approach if necessary, and present only the most broad-brush outlines first and up-front; but that doesn't mean eliminate nuance and complexity and history from the article, if they are a relevant part of the story that needs to be told. Jheald (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the best summary of my thoughts on this is "doubt". I did not intend to take a strong position. But the thing is that if we start flipping over, we should do it the right way. I mentioned all the work I did but that is not the point. A bigger concern is my concern about a future article that might be hard to keep well referenced. I am into low maintenance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph in the intro, would it not be easier to just cite Semino 2004 and Cruciani 2004 at the end of the list of regions? I believe they cover all of these areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to unclutter the page and make it more user friendly, the page was difficult for even myself to read, if there where only a few references of this type it would not be bad, but one is stumbling over them. In regards to the critique, that statement would be true, however, if it were not for the fact this article badly needs to be simplified. Many of the references are not needed, for example there is no need to discuss J1 lineages in Ashkenazi Jews in the lead paragraph. Alot of information borders on trivia and makes the article unreadable.
Here is an clear example of unneccesarily cluttering up the page, this is the figure legend for the Africa distribution of M35 . . .
The ancient dispersals of the major E1b1b1 (E-M35) lineages. The map seeks to show the standard theory based upon the most recent articles: Cruciani et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2007), Henn et al. (2008) and Hassan et al. (2008).
Replace with:
A proposed dispersal pattern for E-M35.[1][2][3][4]
I was hoping to use this thread to discuss just the formatting of references. It is a very specific question where a choice needs to be made. Concerning simplifying sentences as a general issue that can never really be a bad thing. But are footnotes simplifications in any straightforward way? I am not sure everyone would agree and I am not sure this is a matter of Wikipedia policy in any simple way.
Concerning the specific sentence you mention, it is not complex English that you are removing. So this is more about removing explanation which you think might not be necessary. I don't like the word "proposed" because it makes it unclear that this is simply the consensus as based on the latest articles. It is not OR, for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki make no preference in the referencing system, however having written a great many articles on wiki, the Pubmed based reference generation system provides major advantage or hand generation of references.
A condensed foot note, if you so desire you can use the name [13] which appears at the bottom of the screen when you mouse over it.
The ability to use endnotes to separate information such as worded text.
A much more condensed format in the text, and references at the end of the sentence, not scattered about.
Much more compatible for use in infoboxes, figure legends and tables.(An area which we are going to delve into pretty soon as this page has major problems with meaningful descriptions of tables and figures).
Attenuating name dropping. This is a major problem in this article, 'Such and such says . . . ' If you look at Harris and Hey and then Hey and Harris they say almost the opposite thing in subsequent years. Paabo says Neandertals contributed to human population in mostly out of Africa scenario, now he is saying no evidence of Neandertal contribution. These are examples where authors have changed their mind. Even the last publication may not reflect the authors view, he might say something at the next seminar that contradicts what he says in his last paper which is at odds with his last review. This article has more name dropping than any other article I have seen in wikipedia. This also goes back to the issue of confidence, there are so many opinions out there one cannot possibly reflect every opinion, yes I understand one has to rely on the cited literature, but given the huge problems in confidence that have not be resolved, error should be made on the side of less opinion, and more about ranges, less about who said what when and more about the various opinions establishing a range.PB666yap17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very important statements need to be quoted in text, less important statements can be resolved in notes and this can be a good thing, it helps to clean trivia and tangential material out of the main body of text.
If you are for simplifying, then start simplifying, lol. I can bow backwards out of this, I have many articles I need to create. Here are the major problems with the article:
Rambling disscussions. Start with "origins", right of the bat we talk about the horn of africa and wandering around in the highlands. Much of africa is above 3000 foot elevation. So what. Just delete this unreferenced speculation, thats it, they may leave a nasty note on your page, if you need support leave a note on my page. There is little discussion of how we got from E mentioned in the Lead to E1b1b. I provided an image to work from. Even an intermediate ancestral clade is not wikilinked.
The map of Africa, what do all those arrows mean, it looks like a bowl of spagetti to me, is that figure explained adequately, could it be simplified. V12/V13/V65, are those defined anywhere in the text previous to that map, I made a graphic and place it in the nomenclature section, but if you are going to have a map as such you need more graphics in from of the map, otherwise that map needs to be simplified.
Those tables with tandem repeats (which BTW still are not that useful in clocking anything), someone tell me that an 8th grade high school student is going to figure this out by the material on the table. Wikipedia gives folks the ability to create legends on tables. If you need to know how I can show you.
Cluttered text (referencing style, unsimplified information, intermixing of trivial or tangential facts with facts pertinent to the E1b1b clade.
I would actually like to see more tables where the population frequencies are listed for specific genetic types. I may be spoiled because 10 million people have been HLA typed, but that has the most meaning to me, I have no idea what those density lines on those maps mean. Could be 10% or 0.1% depending on what the author wants to emphasize.
Given that this article already has a very long list of pre-made citations, what is the advantage? The one you generated so far just doubled up a reference which already existed? (I deleted it and connected to the one that was already made.) Trying to learn here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a lot to your original comment since I posted the reply making it look a little lost. Still the basic point about those pmid refs, if I may try to focus in on something: do average wikipedians know how to use these or are we going to get dozens of slightly different versions of references to the same article. Yes, this articles references can be simplified, because a small number of articles are very crtical. But then wikipedians who drop need to know how to reference to citations that already exist. The subject matter does not have big changes of mind yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an example please see footnotes 11-15. All the refs here already existed, so this series doubles up and splits the referencing. A hybrid system where different parts of the article work different ways is a poor system.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source
My source is Semino et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSemino_et_al.2004 (help) I do not mind saying east africa other then the fact that east africa contains areas as far south as Mozambique and Zimbabwe places where no one says E3B began.
Sincerely De The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out, and I just checked again, Semino et al. (2004) does not mention the Horn of Africa. Also, none of the potential sources make any sort of definition which excludes Tanzania and Mozambique, so who says that these authors did not think these were possible places of origin? Please double check and confirm. None of us want edit wars. Let's work together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example, because of the rate of displacement of Y chromosome as a consequence of migrations, it is not possible by genetic methods to place. Even if one cannot find examples to the south or west, this does not mean it did not originate in those places and later displaced. Consider the confidence of the conclusion. One could say east of the White Nile.PB666yap
All we can do is cite the literature. East of the White Nile would not define the same area as is consistently defined in the literature. It implies a different area.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALthough true their appears to be a contradiction between East Africa and Horn of Africa, since East Africa is less likely to be incorrect then you should use East Africa.PB666yap12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been moving, or allowing the move, to "East Africa". Causteau seems to be doing the same. SOPHIAN has some sort of issue with it but he is explaining it in the language of reverts so far. It seems to be a simple sourcing issue. The sources are relatively clear and although we might guess about the meaning, that's not what Wikipedia is about. A review might be a good source for educated interpretations of a bundle of articles, but I'm avoiding citing my own review.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The studies indicate E1b1b originated in East Africa, but they really mean the Horn of Africa. We know this because of the criteria they lay out. For instance, Cruciani et al. (2004) write that:
"Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup.""
With the discovery of the M293 mutation in southern African chromosomes formerly labeled E3b*, it would appear that E-M215* has only really so far been found in Ethiopia and Yemen. And if we look at the sheer diversity and frequency of the E1b1b sub-clades in the Horn, it is obvious that that is the region Cruciani was referring to above, not to Kenya, Tanzania, etc. -- areas where E1b1b's presence exists at a much lower frequency & diversity, and is attributed to individuals or groups that migrated down from the Horn (which is indeed consistent with both historical & linguistic records). Causteau (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I'm not proposing we put the Horn of Africa as the place of origin for E1b1b. All I'm saying is that this is what Cruciani, Semino and all of the other researchers that refer to "Eastern Africa" or "East Africa" in their studies as the clade's place of origin really mean. Semino, for instance, indicates that Ethiopia has the highest frequency of E-P2*, while several linguists have proposed a link between the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum and E1b1b. The forgoing obviously also rules out the areas of eastern Africa south of the Horn. My comment was just trying to clarify this one point, especially since you seemed serious when you proposed that researchers could've actually been referring to Mozambique of all places (I sincerely doubt that). Causteau (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts about that too, but it would not be a shock if they might have Kenya in mind. Anyway, your comments are reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. However, you're forgetting one thing about Kenya, and that is that the Borana are, in fact, not originally from the area. They migrated down from Ethiopia in the sixteenth century or thereabouts. The Borana are actually just a very large sub-group of the Oromo Cushitic speakers. Many Borana in the Kenya area also aren't actually ethnically Oromo, but simply former subjects that have adopted the Oromo language (Oromos have very intricate clan systems, with certain clans having descended from foreign groups). Actually, just about all of northern Kenya is inhabited by Cushitic speakers (some ethnic, some not), not unlike neighboring Ethiopia. And this is the part of Kenya where E1b1b exists in high frequencies, not below it. By the way, I don't know if you've noticed or anything, but the Borana sample that Cruciani et al. (2004) used which reported a very high frequency of over 80% actually only numbers seven individuals. That makes for very doubtful extrapolation. It also runs counter to other studies, which report a significantly lower frequency of the clade in this particular population. Causteau (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but see Sanchez et al. Anyway, I think your remarks are fine but it is common for language groups to expand over related families. You probably know more than me about this but I think Somali and Borana represent a relatively new expansion in the greater scheme of things in these region, and after the expansion of E-M35. Concerning what languages were in and around this area before, I think it is "clear that it is unclear"? Of course there does seem to be a sharp "cline" in genotypic populations in Northern Kenya, Uganda, Southern Sudan, to the South of Lake Chad etc, but could this all be post-Bantu expansion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as how you wrote a decent review article on the subject, I think you already know plenty as it is. I'm looking at the Sanchez et al. study you're presumably referring to, but I don't see any frequencies for the Borana cited there. Was this the study you were referring to or another one? Causteau (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wow, OK, guys let me reiterate the point, its not about arguing ad-nauseum a point where there is relatively good agreement, it is about cleaning up synthesis and original research on the main-page. I would do it myself but I think you 2 (or 3) need to sit down, go over the rules of wikipedia and decide what is clearly referencable and clearly parsimonious, and what is speculative. I understand that PMRCAs and TMRCAs are not factoids but derivations of facts, given that stick to what is least likely to be wrong. While the horn of africa may be more probable than the western Sahel or the southern part of east Africa, certainly one does not need perfect overlay of probabilities, after all this is an encyclopedia. The time for the debate here is over, its time to clean up the main. BTW, if I start cutting, just remember, I think the literature itself is highly speculative, I'm of the Bandelt camp of molecular anthropologists myself so . . . . .128.249.96.252 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, Context Provision, Clarity, Topicworthiness
[begin referencing - building a better article]
Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.
Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the metalanguage, are appropriate.
Evaluating context
Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context:
* Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? (Special:Random)
* Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?
* Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?
* Would a reader want to follow some of the links?
State the obvious
State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:
Stay on topic
The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them.
[End referencing building a better article]
Many things in this article can be directly deleted, there is alot of Jargon, individuals switch from using M35 to E1b1b1 and the like, you've got figures with labels that are not explained. The article does not take a basic up approach, instead it takes a top down approach. Wikipedia can present complex topics, but they have to be explained in a way that someone following the leads can figure these things out. If the links do not explain the background then that is a priority for presentation in the article first. What I have noticed is that the combatives here are more interested in getting their point across than actually making the article understandable, and we are now having an argument about references. There are references scattered all about the article, but in terms of clarity, they don't add a bit. Before you guys get into your next big dispute read WP:TONE and the other and see if the article manages to meet the basic criteria.PB666yap17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong. The article definitely has a lot of wordiness issues and growths of various sorts. Citations was a very specific issue because it is a choice of system.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Cite error: The named reference Chandrasekar2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
^Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
^Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005) A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33. From pp.22-23: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
^Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
^Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005) A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33. From pp.22-23: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
^Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
^Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
![[3]](http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/157/boranatp2.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/4519/somaliansfr2.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/329/facejd9.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/kids-mogadishu-seaport-market-november-22-2007small.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hadraawi.jpg){kind=link}
