User talk:Vanamonde93

Solution for Indic Scripts = apply the same rules as for other scripts

Hullo, I read the different arguments for and against Indic Scripts and I can't see on what basis they reached a consensus, actually the discussion was closed without any true solution to the impeding problem

I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, so isn't there a way to re-open this issue and settle it? I've been on the wikipedia page of Ada Yonath, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and guess what? The name is also in Hebrew, normal as she is Israeli but her ancestors came from Poland, so her native language was more probably Polish or even Yiddish than Hebrew

Still, the reason why Hebrew was chosen is simple, she was in a country where Hebrew is the official language but Arabic is an official language of Israel too, still, they picked Hebrew because she is Jewish and not from a Muslim Background

So for all Indian born individuals, the name should be in Hindi and Devanagari script as the Indian Constitution recognises it and English as the two official languages, and in addition say for someone like Modi, as he is culturally Gujarati, it is befitting to have his name in that language too

What do you say about that?

I can't understand this plain discrimination against Indic script when the same isn't done for others, King Abdullah II of Jordan has his name in arabic too, so why these double standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manish2542: Personally, I agree with you, after looking up the treatment of other languages, although my instinct would be to say that no language should be present in the lead, since it creates clutter. However, I am not a very senior editor, so I am unsure how to change this. I would imagine an appropriate thing to do would be to post on the talk page for India related issues, and also perhaps start an RfC on a popular page (like the Modi page). But, I would first ask a more senior editor for advice. Indopug may have some thoughts on the subject. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manish2542: I've never participated in a official discussion regarding this, but I have a couple of reasons why I fully support the INDICSCRIPT policy. Firstly, I generally do not think foreign-language scripts (no matter what the language—Arabic, Hindi or Hebrew) have any place in the lead. A large majority of English-language readers can't read them, and those who can, what do they gain anyway? So I think no-scripts policy should apply to all articles.

Secondly, the situation becomes particularly awful for India-related articles, due to the diversity of languages. For eg, see how the first line of the Ganges was a while back. How does that help anybody's understanding of the river?—indopug (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As for creating a broader discussion, start a thread at WT:INDIA. But do search the archives, because it is a topic that keeps coming up.—indopug (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend. Just to be clear, I was not so much expressing support for changing the policy, as for making it consistent; sure, Indian languages are diverse, but so are a lot of others. I was suggesting possible avenues to look at this, but I do not have the time or energy to invest substantially in the process. @Manish2542:, I hope that helps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Indopug and @Vanamonde93:

Hullo, Thanks a lot for your answers and sorry for the very late reply Just wanted to point out that again the Indo-script issue is resurfacing

For instance, Modi's page still doesn't have his name in either Hindi in Devanagari script or Gujerati in the corresponding script BUT one of his ministers Nirmala Sitharaman has her name in Tamil...while she was born in Andhra Pradesh, so firstly if your rule was applied to everyone, there shouldn't be any indo-script on her article too and if any indo-script was tolerated then why Tamil and not Telegu, the language of Andhra Pradesh, is it because she is culturally Tamil?

Like before the solution I proposed is either you accept ALL scripts or refuse ALL of them, but not have a policy of refusing Indo-scripts and accepting persian script or arabic one or chinese one at the same time, this amounts to DOUBLE STANDARDS, sorry for writing it in capital, but it's my point since the beginning

I just read the page on Maryam Mirzakhani, who recently won the Fields Medal and her name is in Farsi at the beginning of her page

Actually the ban on Indo-script seems to applie according to the "popularity" of the subject, Modi being very well known, the ban is effective, his minister, Sitharaman being lesser well known, well the ban is ignored....this is far from being coherent!

My solution as always is to stick to NATIONAL language first, for Sitharaman have her name in Hindi in Devanagari script and then in Tamil for the cultural ties and leave out Andhra Pradesh despite it being her state of birth

As for why it matters to have indic-scripts? Well why does it matter to write François Hollande with an "ç"? Why does it matter to write the FRENCH version of Napoléon with the "é" at the start of his page??

No one finds it unusual to write french names with "é", "è" or "ç" on the english version of Wikipedia so why find it unusual to have indic scripts on the same english version?

This debate on whether we have to ban or accept indic scripts is an indo-indian debate with nationalists and anti nationalists fighting each other while others who are writting article for French, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese personalities have already resolved the problem by accepting these non english scripts

In the case of Napoleon, you can't say it was easy...the guy was corsican and guess what? Those writing his page wrote his name in corsican TOO!

So please, this is not an unimportant subject, this is clear double standards applied to indic scripts and shouldn't be dealt lightly by wikipedia

Thanks in advance

@Manish2542:, the fact that a policy is not uniformly enforced is not a reason to end the policy. WP:NPOV is violated frighteningly often; does that mean we get rid of it? Certainly not. Moreover, sticking to the "National language" raises serious NPOV issues as well. In India, for instance, there are 22 "official" languages, and no National language; so which would you use? I agree that for the sake of neutrality, no other scripts should be included in the lead; but this is a larger scale problem, and not one that I have the time or inclination to deal with. I attempt to enforce this myself where I can (I just dealt with Nirmala Sitharaman) but universal enforcement is hardly my obligation. If you wish to have something done about this policy, I suggest you post at WP:INB, or the talk page of the policy, or some such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vadamonde93:

Steven Chu was born in MISSOURI, I repeat, United States Missouri, his name is both in Chinese and in Pinyin but when I'm trying to edit Manjul Bhargava's page to include a name in Hindi, it is being deleted, seriously, why? Is this some form of unspoken racism that everybody seems to enforce blindly?

This double standards would never have been tolerated for any other script, but we are expected to enforce it when it comes to Indic- scripts

As far as national language is concerned, the issue is not that difficult, there are 22 recognised languages but only two national ones, English and Hindi, it is plainly written in the Indian Constitution

There's no official language in Mauritius but the name of Paul Raymond Bérenger a former prime minister is written in FRENCH with an "é" in Bérenger, because he is from the franco-mauritian community, how do you explain that? I thought this was a purely english wikipedia?

I'll try to deal with this issue at WP:INP

Thanks for your answers

Kirkpatrick

I was waiting for an ISBN number to be assigned for that play, Her Excellency. I think it should be out in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.44.157 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

24.189.44.157, the source that you must provide need not be the play itself; it can be a news item, for instance, so long as it satisfies the criteria at WP:RS. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Modi possible GA nom in near future?

Hi. Hope you're well. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic or tempting fate but I've noticed that the Modi article has recently become quite stable since his election. Maybe it's an opportunity to push for GA? Would be nice to have the BJP and the current prime minister articles as GAs. I don't see any major issues currently with it but the article does need a thorough copyedit. Am I crazy? Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cowlibob, I agree that this should be a high priority for turning it into a GA. However, I'm not sure that it's ready right now. I just skimmed it again, and apart from copyediting, here are some of the issues that need fixing IMO;

1) A lot of the article is written in the vein of "X says this, Y says the opposite." This is most noticeable in the riots and development sections, but also elsewhere. Apart from the fact that this raises issues of due weight, it makes the article less readable.

2) The development section, especially, has serious issues; it's currently framed as a debate, which is also problematic, I think. Ideally, it should just describe the actual ground reality, rather than opinion; namely, that growth and Urban infrastructure have been strengthened, HDI and rural areas have suffered, privatisation has again meant growth in some areas and trouble in others, etc.

3) Beyond just very basic copy-editing, a lot of the article is in Indian colloquial English, rather than "normal" Indian English (which is very close to the British version.) Stuff like "Clean chit," "Star performer," etc, etc.

Finally, I think the fact that the article is stable is not so much because it is perfect as because it is nearly impossible to make changes to it. So here is an idea; why don't one of us copy it over into our userspace, where we can work out a lot of these issues in peace (and I'd be more than happy to do it there; its just that virtually any change to the main article ends with an edit war.) When we're happy with some sections, we'd be in a much better position to tweak the original. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, userspace is best. I've moved over a copy of the most recent one I worked on minus protection template. User:Cowlibob/Modidraft. Agreed article in terms of emphasis is small on facts and large on opinions. Cowlibob (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All right then, let's give this a shot! Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Taliban

To add the United States as an ally in the infobox just doesn't make any sense, as the U.S supported the Taliban through Pakistan. They never outright declared their support for the Taliban. The highest degree of U.S approval for the Taliban was to simply do nothing, i.e in 1995 when the Taliban took over Herat.

Adding Pakistan as an ally in the infobox is factually correct, as it is not only indisputable that the Pakistani government supported the Taliban and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (They were one of only three countries who recognized the Taliban regime), but it has been rumored that they still support the Taliban through the ISI and Haqqani network. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87; there are sources in the article documenting US support. It included arms, training, and passive political support. If you wish to dispute this, take it up on the talk; my edit merely made the infobox consistant with the body. Also, you are currently on 4 reverts; self-revert now, else you will be reported to WP:AN3 for breaching WP:3RR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I look at the Taliban article, go to the Sub-heading 'United States' and this is what I read, which I will bold for your convenience, seeing as how you struggle to process English:

"The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools; the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women. In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia."

That's the only section in the entire article that details the U.S and the Taliban relationship pre 2001 invasion. Notice the term "support". That does not mean they allied with them. Where is all the information citing what you said "It included arms, training, and passive political support." ? If there is, then add in yourself provided you have a cited source which explicitly states so. Passive political support is not justifiable enough to make the United State an ally of the Taliban. That is exactly what I stated before "The highest degree of U.S approval for the Taliban was to simply do nothing, i.e in 1995 when the Taliban took over Herat."

The fact that you then report me for vandalism is just hilarious. I've contributed more to that article than you could hope to do within One whole life time inside your parents basement. Argue all you want, doesn't mean that you're right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, I have no intention of reporting you for vandalism; If you do not self-revert within the next few minutes, I will report you for breaching WP:3RR, ie edit-warring. I do not intend to discuss the content while you are sitting on four reverts to keep your version of the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've self-reverted back. Don't expect that U.S flag to be there for too long, hey? :) StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 about bloody time; I had already composed my AN3 report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 also, a glance at the article history shows that your contributions to the article are trivial at best; so what is that last offensive paragraph supposed to mean? Are you asking for an SPI to be filed or what? Furthermore, I suggest you read WP:NPA, and lay off the insults; it will do you no good whatsoever. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you provide a convincing reason not to, I will be filing an SPI at some point. For what it's worth though, here's my rebuttal; the list of "Allies" is not based on any formal definition, it is based on material/political support. Nowhere near all of those organizations formally supported the Taliban, least of all Pakistan. And US material support is well documented in the article itself; see ref 9, for starters. If you wish to extend the period that I have inserted, so that it covers the 1980s, I have no issues with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Within that list of "allies", it is fact that that following organisations/movements support the Taliban or have a mutual relationship with them: The Haqqani network, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Are you serious in saying that Pakistan never "formally supported the Taliban", whereas the United States did? I'm astounded. Pakistan helped train, arm, airlift Taliban fighters, with as you said "passive political support" from the United States, which still doesn't have any justification for saying that the U.S openly allied with the Taliban. Any assistance the U.S happened to have given the Taliban came through Pakistan. It doesn't even make sense to refer to them as an "ally", even during the periods you listed 1994-1996. Unless you made a separate category labeled "puppet", than it should keep the U.S out of it. My reasons for this? The U.S saw no reason to offer support for the Taliban beyond that of Washington's own agenda. An excerpt from the article "The United States supported the Taliban through its ally in Pakistan between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal."' To be an ally, the feeling must be mutual. You can't support someone that has a fundamental dislike for you, (Taliban are mainly rural Pashtun tribesman that have an inherent dislike for all things foreign, Soviet communism and American liberalism/democracy alike) and call them an ally. That's something else entirely. Had the U.S truly been an ally of the Taliban, they would not have launched missiles on the Islamic Emirate in 1998, or have stopped all support by 1996. That's called the U.S playing God in international politics, or imperialism.

Pakistan on the other hand had no qualms over their relationship until 2001, and even in 2014 you still here of Pakistan rumored to support the Taliban to exert their influence in Afghanistan. Taliban leaders today can deny it all they want, the fact is when their movement was fledgling in 1994 during which the Hezb-e Islami under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar attacked the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus shifted support from Gulbuddin to the more successful Taliban.

To add the U.S as an ally even in the 1980's doesn't make any sense, as the Taliban was founded in 1994. The Mujahideen of the 80's were not the successors to the Taliban, as they were culturally, religiously diverse and united over the soviet invasion. In fact many leading Mujahideen fighters from that era went on to found the Northern Alliance in the 1990's which, unlike the Taliban did receive U.S public support and backing, and both had a vested interest in getting help from and helping one another. See Ahmad Shah Massoud StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, please read WP:TLDR and WP:INDENT. Second, your entire thesis is based on a certain definition of "ally," which at this point is purely OR; can you show that the list in that particular infobox is based on this definition? Where does it say that "the Taliban accepts and welcomes the support of all organizations in this list;" you see what I am getting at? I have no interest in extending the period through the 1980s; I merely mentioned it, because that would be the logical conclusion of what you were saying. I am well aware that they were founded in 1994, thank you very much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde, the accusation that the US armed and trained the Taliban is a serious one, not supported by any reliable sources I know of or mentioned in the article text. I assume you are referring to US support for Afghan rebels (some of which the US later supported against the Taliban) resisting the Soviet occupation long before the Taliban existed, but if you have sources that support your specific allegations you should present them. "Who is Responsible for the Taliban?" makes the case that the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda because they needed their help in the fight against mujahidin commanders like Ahmad Shah Masud, who actually received US support and training. (As for the notion that the US supported al Qaeda: "The agency directed around three billion dollars to the Afghan mujahideen during the war against the Soviets, but there is no evidence that any of that money went to the Afghan Arabs, nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle...The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence".) Far from being an ally, the US considered various ways to overthrow the Taliban under Clinton and Bush and finalized a plan to do so unless the Taliban met certain conditions on September 10, 2001. Incidentally, does anyone here know what support the US supposedly provided through Pakistan? I'm curious as to the language used in Rashid's book, as "support" can mean many things.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, sparring partner. I'm rather busy at the moment, but I will read through your post at some point. Really quick, though, the dispute is only about the period 1994-96, when Rashid says the US supported them. Not after that; so all that stuff about 2001 is irrelevant, I know damn well they were sworn enemies then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

El Mozote massacre picture on targeted killing page

I removed the picture because it is about a different subject than the article. According to the targeted killing article - "Targeted killing (also known as Selective assassination) is the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield." The El Mozote massacre was not selective assassination of an individual, it was a massacre. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Edward321 all right, although I disagree. The killing there was premeditated, it was outside judicial procedure, etc. Life would have been a lot easier if you had said this in your edit summary, though.

Also, I agree with the IP that even if this is not the appropriate picture, a picture of an incident of such a killing is far more useful than a picture of the means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The killing at El Mozote was premeditated, but it was not a "selective assassination" or the "premeditated killing of an individual". As noted by myself and another editor on the talk page, the picture makes perfect sense on the massacre article. Other pictures certainly could make sense on the targeted killing article. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Osama pic

That was the only picture I could find that made it clear the person was the subject of a targeted killing. If you feel it is not NPOV, I'm perfectly fine with any other picture of people killed in a targeted killing. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that picture could be a poster child (pun intended) for pro-American POV on that page. It says "GOT HIM" in 6 inch letters, for god's sake. I appreciate the effort you made to find it, but that is only further hurting the case the IP and I were making. I'll try and find something myself, but I've never been very good at finding stuff in commons. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried checking the Lillehammer affair, but found no pics. Edward321 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ABISY

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Do not templatize the regular. You are the one who is keen on reverting me in seconds. I have added content and reference to the article. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you at AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at 25 Cents FC's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello sir. I have respond. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yallapragada Sudharshan Rao

Hi Vanamonde93, I need your help here on BLP Noticeboard. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

made page on the wrong language setting

hi! I intended to make a page on italian care the people but i made a mistake and edit in on the english one. the text was in italian but the title in english because it is an english name. so the page has been translated in english and the title in italian... i made a new page on the italian wiki, but how can i delete the wrong page? or at least attach it at the italian one with the right name? the page is care the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ela caffein (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ela caffein, that is an understandable mistake to make. The easiest way to do this is to place {{Db-g7}} on the top of the page, and create the Italian page in the usual way. See WP:CSD for further details. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

India Development and Relief Fund

I thoought you might be interested to see this special issue on IDRF: [1]. Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram also seems to be a part of this network, and it is somehow related to ABISY. Uday Reddy (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, apologies, caught up elsewhere. Looks interesting; will give it a read. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism Israel section

Hi,

I did explain why Israel was removed. There is a big difference between war and terror. In order for a country to be a state that supports terrorism it should support (financially or military) terror organizations. So Israel isn't "State-sponsored terrorism", regardless if you agree with it or not. Israel is at war but doesn't support private terrorist groups. So writing what somebody said with no basis or knowledge is irrelevant and makes Wikipedia look unbalanced and unscientific.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosard (talk • contribs)

@Leosard: That is not the point. All we are saying is that "King so-and-so has said so-and-so, in which he described Israel as committing state-sponsored terrorism." Removing this because of the reasons you have given would be classic original research. It is sourced; so unless you find a source which says that he didn't say that, the content stays. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

He has been appointed as the governor of Indian state of Rajasthan under the Narendra Modi government. Source- PTI

Dear Vanamonde, I was unaware about the fact that I have to name the source. In the Kalyan Singh edit page, after your mail arrived at my mail box, I re-edited the same and posted on the Wikipedia.... Please have a look. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Hvar

Hello Vanamonde93,

We are local native citizens and we work in local company of this Island and Article was made by my friend Luana B. F. This is unique and it not published anywhere - thats why there is no source.

I added below few neutral external links (we are owner of those sites), but I didnt use any of content because we want unique content on wiki and dont wanna directly involve our bussiness (we made a list of nightclubs, we didnt put just ours).

This is first time we used wiki and we want to contribute to wiki in order to help our town and ofc indirectly our bussiness.

Taliban again.

Because the sex slavery is already explained further down, and certain Taliban commanders didn't sell them just for sex, that is why "slavery" is more appropriate. Sex slavery is too exclusive. I thought I had mentioned my edit in the Human Rights Abuse section? I had two versions of the Taliban opened, so I might have combined the two edits in the one version. As for adding space, does it affect the character length of the edit if I hold down space bar? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, the only place I can find "sex slavery" is in the sentence which you changed and I reverted. If you combined edits accidentally I can understand, but I suggest you discuss the removal first. And yes, the spaces do affect the character length, so far as I am aware. Why do it, in any case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sex slavery is mentioned in the sense that individual Taliban commanders collaborated with the foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda to kidnap women in instances and sell them into some form of slavery. For example, in the article it reads "Officials from relief agencies say, the trail of many of the vanished women leads to Pakistan where they were sold to brothels or into private households to be kept as slaves" The term brothels is synonymous with some form of sexual servitude, which can be easily inferred. Another example, "The more desirable among them were selected and taken away..." they were obviously selected based on their physical traits, implying a certain basis for their slavery. There are other references in the article that point to sex slavery without actually mentioning 'sex slavery'. If you want it left, that's fine. As for the repetitive use of the space bar, that habit, and repeatedly tapping the caps lock, have just entered my daily routine using the keyboard. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not here; discuss it on the talk. If something is sourced, then changing it to a situation where inference is required is likely to be contentious. That particular section only discusses traficking in the context of sex slavery; so there is no problem of generality, because all that first paragraph is required to do is summarize the section below. Also, indent your posts, for goodness sake. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August GOCE blitz

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 891 words during the Guild of Copy Editors blitz! Miniapolis 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at WT:Igloo.
Message added 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The load issue has been fixed. Thanks for reporting it! -- Kangaroopowah 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for my case.

The source does not appear to mention the terms maternal or paternal. Not true you must not understand genetics well and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages

which means that

and the Y chromosome of MA-1 (R*) is basal to modern-day western (R)Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages (Q) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html#supplementary-information 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) and Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014106a.html K2b is not associated with East asia, it is associated with Melanesia do you want to add that also? 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

---

Old data Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.

---

New Data

The bolded text below is an exact quote from Raghavan et al .On a wide scale  14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from a population basal to modern day western Eurasians.  And the western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans. A 24,000 year old sample showed a line (haplogroup R* y-dna desendend of QR y-dna ) that is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.