Talk:Haplogroup R1a

Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

The new Edit

I have edited the South Asian origin section in the light of this paper and its conclusions on R1a1a in afghanistan and India. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288

please talk before making any edit. Have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Renaming this article

I have reservations about the renaming of this piece, without any discussion on the talk pages or consensus. While the editor cites Dr. Hammer and the recent conference, if she looks at any page on nearly any genetics discussion board on the internet, she'll see this haplogroup is still referred to by nearly everyone as R1a. While I applaud editors who are bold and those who want to get out in front of events, in this case I consider this move ill-advised. Most of the public (and indeed many genetics hobbyists) don't call this haplogroup by the renamed title here. Not to mention that the page of its twin (R1B) apparently cannot be renamed, which makes for rather an awkward situation. More forethought and discussion for consensus would have been advisable, in my book at least. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a reasonable point, but some counter points for consideration:

• This is going to have to happen eventually. So your point comes down to timing.
• i think your remark about what is most common, while not unreasonable, is already debateable. Actually the terms R-M17 and R-M198 have been used a lot for a long time and both are titles covered by this article as their mian article.
• Many subjects have multiple names and problems can be avoided by making good redirects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

With the kindest regards, the page move has a good redirect built in and Wikipedia is very good at getting people who go looking for the old "R1a" to the right place. The topic was raised over a year ago without objections.--RebekahThorn (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The "R1B" article will in due time be addressed.--RebekahThorn (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as per discussion on your talk page I can see that R1b has maybe a slightly bigger claim to the problem Marmaduke mentions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be completely in line with that MarmadukePercy says. R1a is the most appropriate name and it has not changed since 2002. Initially R1a was defined as R1a (SRY10831.2), then in 2008 R1a (L62, L63), in 2009 M420 appears, and currently its definition is more complex. This means that although knowledge advances, the R1a name has proved much more stable, recognizable, understandable and with a phylogenetic value that R-M420 does not have. Haplogroup R1a remains typical of Eastern Europe and South Asia to date. Also the case with T for example, it was first T (M70), then T (L206) and we won't be surprised that in the future it is found that M184 was just a subclade of T, since there is T*.--Maulucioni (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As an update on my position, I am for phylogenetic naming (but in the case of R1a and R1b I would certainly not insist on it), but the combination of the following combinations of editing tendencies in the recent surge of work of RebekahThorn gives me concern:

• Not only changing the title name, but also often removing mention of the most commonly used names except in esoteric tables embedded far down in the article, which give equal treatment to all kinds of old names. (The R-M17 article basically had no lead at all. What can a non expert reader think of such an article?)
• The splitting up of articles so that clades such as R1a which are discussed using different exact definitions in the literature, are now discussed in different articles. This means even fairly well informed readers now need to flick between two articles to understand how Wikipedia somehow connects to the published literature.
• I fear RebekahThorn is in many cases trying to make WP more up to date than the most important literature, turning WP into a place where the latest news is synthesized in a way that it makes it hard to say we are just summarizing what the most important sources say.

To be clear: I remain supportive of the edits being done in an overall way, but I am a bit neutral about the new name of this particular article, especially given that it has now also been split. In general, the concerns I mention above are not black and white, but rather points to keep in mind. I know RT is taking at least some care on these points and is still at work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I personally deplore unsourced material which I am finding throughout the Y-Chromosome related stories. Thus, I find the extrapolation of my intent done by Andrew Lancaster defamatory. I know that the R and some E stories were better managed, but I am looking at all Y-DNA related articles.
• I am concerned that Andrew Lancaster has his own opinion of which academic sources are important WP should have a NPOV toward all publications. In terms of notability, if the Y-Chromosome Consortium felt that they needed to be included in their work, that is enough for me.
• I am also concerned by the harsh tone of Andrew Lancaster's recent comments in edits. I know that he has strong opinions. I usually agree with them or at least enjoy a different strong perspective apart from my own. However, this may come across wrong to tender new editors joining WP.
• Yes, activity is up. I do not think that is me. It is the DTC part of the industry. I am sure that WP is one of the first stops a new DTC tested person makes after receiving results. Some will be thinkers and some will have narrow world views that need hmmmm a slower introduction to the way population history works.--RebekahThorn (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I want to support you for the most part, so with regards to how things might "come across to tender new editors" can I suggest we try to avoid words like deplore and defame? :)

Anyway, I think there is one point to address and this is that in fact it is not correct that WP has a WP:NPOV position about the relative importance of different sources. In fact the WP community can be pretty harsh in the opposite direction and you may not realize how much argument there has been concerning disallowing ISOGG, or even trying to get rid of all articles like this one. WP policy insists that when a position or source is more commonly cited or mentioned it is the one we should prefer and tend to treat as mainstream. Consider my comments for example about E-M35 versus E-M35.1 on the E-M215 page. This is not just policy, but also precisely the point the two other editors who raised concerns here are making. Keep in mind that:

• I am supporting your position, but raising concerns, and suggesting ways to make sure that you can avoid making other editors concerned.
• I have not suggested removing your YCC based tables, only that I am concerned at the removal from leads of very obviously widely used and relatively stable terms such as E1b1b, or R1a or R1b. From your replies to me in the past I understand that this is an oversight, but I think I am still allowed to say that it is a worry, and that trying to avoid problems like that might help convince more people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Supposed Origin of R1a1a from Eurasian Steppe mentioned yet unsubstantiated nor discussed

I'd like to bring the following to the attention of the admins of this article: The following line is presented at the beginning of this article:

But on the other hand, as will be discussed below, some researchers continue to treat modern Indian R-M420 as being largely due to immigration from the Central Eurasian steppes or Southwestern Asia.

Yet the above assertion is not "discussed below" as claimed ("as will be discussed below"). It just left dangling in the introduction. I suggest that this line, in the introduction, regarding the supposed Central Eurasian steppes origin for r1a1a be removed until text discussing this theory is provided later in the article as is being claimed. I.e. where is the supporting explanation? It looks odd and unprofessional to mention something in the introduction that is supposed to be elaborated further in the article and then to find no reference to it at all. In addition, this sentence is poorly written, obtuse or awkward at best. An attempt should be made to explain the point being made here later in the article, but no explanation is provided. An oblique mention of a linkage between M17 in Slavic and Indian men is made yet not clearly identified as being related to the point mentioned in the introduction regarding "immigration from the Central Eurasian steppes". Wikipedia is supposed to be usable by lay and expert readers alike; the lack of clarity of this particular statement does not meet that goal. At a minimum can the phrase "as will be discussed below" either be removed or made more precise by specifying exactly where "below" (i.e. what section) it will be "discussed".

Given the current obtuse way in which this sentence is written one hope's this isn't somebody's attempt to sneak in their own pet theory or nationalist propaganda but rather, just an erroneous or incomplete edit--70.81.66.126 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)--70.81.66.126 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is not discussed below, then this is likely due to the recent splitting of the article (discussed above on this talk page), with most of the article now in a new place: R-M17. That split definitely did cause some problems like this that need to be tidied up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a patchwork edit to at least explain that this is discussed in another article, but that is not an orthodox Wikipedia format of cross reference. A concern I have always had about splitting this article was and is that actually most published literature on this subject is really about R-M17. Maybe in fact this part of the lead should simply be moved to the new article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now done what I suggested and changed the leads of both articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, now it's clearer, also I added a minor edit to your change, placing a link R-M17 at the end of the sentence for those who wish to get further info on proposed origins and latest studies.--70.81.66.126 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why has the origins sections on all R1a R1 been erased?

It seems very dubious and very suspicious that the Origins on M17, R1, R1a origins has been erased. Especially considering the implication of Aryan theory is involved. When every other article on DNA has remained the same, i dont know whether its related to the Aryan theory, as not one but many studies have proven the credibility of R1a being from India having far more weight that any central asia, west asian or european proposal. So is there a reason why the whole section has been edited to less than a quarter of what it was? As a person that uses the internet and especially Wikipedia i would like to know what the understanding, and reason was for removing large chunks of the article? Is this a political agenda? IF so, is Wikipedia not meant to be neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianScience (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

it has not been erased, but moved to a new article for R-M17 which is in effect the new article about what most publications and people call R1a. That means this article is now mainly about the parent clade of R1a which a subject that has hardly been published about. This split is still new and being discussed. See above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So what your saying is that, the previous information that was referenced, linked with scholarly material and studies was not good enough? Can you explain why? OR give a reason WHY its gone to a discussion? All the previous edits that you have changed not one was breaking any rules, or guidelines. In fact wikipedia has a rule about deleting large chunks of material. In fact, most if not all articles are more usefell with greater material backed by scholary references, as it was in the previous edits. SO my only understanding and conclusion is that, someone has a personal agenda, maybe you to dilute the information, and the numbers of studies that has concluded that R1a is of South Asian origin. It seems that the greater number of studies proving south asian origins has far less weight that one study that alleges possible central asian, european origins. What is the reason for that? What is the reason for deleting large chunks of information, when such actions are forbidden by most editors? I just dont understand why anyone would delete whole pages, UNLESS its a personal view? Surely as a source of information, wikiepdia should give greater references, links rather than a narrow field of information, which i think is what you are doing. Go over the previous edits, which i have done, i cannot see any reason for such drastic changes. I dont think any editor should be able to blanket erase vast sections without some reason? Its just seems very dubious, especially since the implication for human migration are concerned. It does seem like a political agenda. In the previous edit, there where over six carried out suggesting South Asian origins, far greater evidence against any other proposal, yet you and another have deemed this inaccurate, on what BASIS can you undermine the studies carried out?IndianScience (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read again. It is has not been removed. This article has now been split. Most of the material is now at the new article. Some doubts have been raised about the wisdom of this split above (because it can lead to misunderstandings such as yours I think) and it can certainly be discussed. The reasons for the split are on the other hand all straight forward and logical. Please note that I did not do the split and nor have I been strongly opposed or for it. See above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to move this article to Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)

I agree with the comments by user:MarmadukePercy, user:Maulucioni and others above who said the most appropriate name for this article is Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA).
Why was the content moved from the original article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to this name without a consensus? Khestwol (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there were many attempts to get discussion about this type of name change both on article pages and at WP:HGH (because this type of article name is standardized to some extent). Anyway, it would be good if you could give some specific arguments or reasoning about problems with the change. In some cases maybe other solutions can help. My own concern is more with the split of the article into R-M420 and R-M17 (which one should a reader hit if they search for R1a?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

This must be one of the ugliest and hard to read pages in wikipedia. I have no idea what possess people to use parenthetical referencing, while it is common in scientific literature (although it seems to be used less often now), wikipedia is not a journal or thesis, and is meant to be read by general users. Having so many brackets make it hard to read, especially when there are many citations, and it is confusing. The old page looked and read better. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agre, but it will take quite some time to get it back in order without introducing more problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

R-SRY1532.2 (R1a1)

it says among other things that is present in greek macedonians. well macedonians from northern greece, and macedonians from republic of macedonia have more or less the same genetic makeup. while E2B2b is predominant among greeks and albanians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.129.186 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Find in Karelia 5500-5000 BCE Oleni Ostrov > "Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 Sagi2007 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading graphic

The map used in this article is of R1a1a, not R1a, which has a very different distribution. Unless consensus is for keeping the map of R1a1a instead of R1a, I will substitute the correct map pretty soon. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Poindexter Propellerhead Just how different are R1a and R1a1a distributions? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Replacement map

Over the last few days, I noticed that one edit replaced the map with an R1a map of Europe, which was already featured later in the article, and maybe not the best choice, then another switched to an R1a map of Eurasia, which I thought seemed fine. Now there is no map there at all. I realize that there is a lot of argument about where the mutation originated, but I don't think that should relate particularly to the map, which is based on evidence rather than theories, and which can never tell us where R1a started, only where it ended up. I'm going to put the (non-redundant) Eurasian map back into place, and if other editors feels that it harms the article in some way, I hope that they'll post their thoughts on that subject here. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New source

This is big news for this subject. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 . By the way, I believe that the re-merging of R-M420 and R-M17 should also be considered, for example if it is found that the two are still nearly always being referred to in the same discussions in the same sources (which I think they are).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How important is it? Most people can only read the abstract. Khazar (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Haplogroup R-M420 → Haplogroup R1a – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Haplogroup R-M420" is used extremely rarely. Google Books search gets about 277 results for "Haplogroup R1a", but only about 4 results for "Haplogroup R-M420". Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY of "Haplogroup R1a" due to its common usage. Per WP:CONCISE. Per WP:CONSISTENCY. "Haplogroup R1a" is more consistent with the title pattern used for its closely associated article, "Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)".--Relisted. Mdann52 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per above. Khestwol (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Against, the so called long designations (like R1a) are subject to being moved around in the phylotree. R-M420 is the proper designation that defines a subclade. Since the move to using only SNPs when defining subclades (and not designations like R1a) is a fairly recent one, most (if not all) of the currently published material includes R1a designation in addition to R-M420 designation, while the older publications would only include R1a designation = vote by Google should be avoided. The same argument for keeping Haplogroup R-M17 and Haplogroup R-M207. R1a could be a short article with the explanation of the nomenclature issues and a pointer to R-M420. R1b article could be treated in the similar manner. Absolwent (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment, no, "R-M420" has extremely low recognizability. It is used rarely. The article won't be searchable under that title. On Wikipedia it is preferable to use a WP:COMMONNAME like "R1a", not a rare name with extremely low recognizability like "R-M420". As for your proposal about renaming Haplogroup R1b, that proposal has been already rejected by a consensus on Haplogroup R1b's talk page here. Khestwol (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. The objection that this could be (in the real world) reclassified at some point is irrelevant to the WP:COMMONNAME analysis. If this haplogroup is renamed by "being moved around" in the phylotree, our article will be too renamed, when a preponderance of reliable sources tell us the name has changed. It's a fact of life for Wikipedia as a tertiary source that it will not be on the bleeding edge of nomenclature. I'm sympathetic to, and understand, the view that a more precise, but more technical and infrequently used, name is available; but it doesn't get past COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy. WP:PRECISION is policy, too, but it doesn't trump all other concerns, and we generally give COMMONNAME the most weight because this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized work. See also WP:NOT#JOURNAL: We don't have to mirror every preference of particular journals, and I don't see any evidence presented here that journals in genetics and physical anthropology prefer the SNPs, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and per SMcCandlish. Jbeans (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note about move discussions

• Similar move discussions are open at Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)'s talk page, Haplogroup R-M207's talk page, and Haplogroup R-M17's talk page. Khestwol (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2014 study by Underhill on R1a

I've edited the article to include conclusions from the latest study by Underhill (2014), which has curiously been excluded. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html 2601:882:100:D7B0:965:C8D2:1B3D:3B2C (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not change edits including the Iranian origin. It is the latest large-scale study which presents a strong case for an origin for R1a. 2601:882:100:D7B0:10B1:A066:9615:D4D1 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're free to add mention of the study, but don't treat it as the new orthodoxy just yet and don't erase any other text or formatting. It's only a single study and cannot overturn the usual thinking on its own, especially before we know the reactions of the scholarly community. Even if its conclusion is correct, it doesn't necessarily have any far-reaching implications especially on the problem of Indo-European origins – in fact I think it does not, because R1a originated many millennia before the likely start of the Indo-European expansion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the 'usual thinking' - and more importantly what recent evidence is that based on? There is no need to exclude the conclusions drawn from over 20 authors, in this very recent meta-study. With a sample size of over 16,000, over 126 populations, and extensive haplotypes, it pretty much puts the nail the coffin when it comes to the origin of R1a. This article does not relate to IE orgins, so that point is irrelevant - though in some proper place and time, I certainly would have suggested that Underhill 2014, as well as Grungi 2012, do support an Iranian IE hypothesis. 71.41.122.130 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the conclusion should be excluded, I said it can be mentioned, but the result of the study still needs to be reported as fact by textbooks or other authoritative compilation-like sources reflecting the general consensus in the field before Wikipedia can report it as fact. We do not have evidence yet that the conclusion of the study is accepted by the consensus of the experts. There may well be some criticism of the conclusion. Saying "it pretty much puts the nail [in] the coffin" is a premature verdict.

Even if the conclusion of the study that R1a originated in the Iranian Highland is eventually accepted as consensus, that does not mean that it supports an Iranian IE hypothesis. This is like saying the homeland of the Ibero-Romance languages (and the people who spoke Proto-Ibero-Romance) is in Italy – no, the homeland of the Romance languages (and the Proto-Romance-speaking people) is. The Iranian Highland could be the homeland of distant ancestors of Proto-Indo-Europeans. (Where the Proto-Indo-Europeans came from is a bit mysterious partly because Indo-European is not known to have been part of a larger group; at least its affiliations have never been conclusively demonstrated, despite many attempts.) Again, the origins of R1a are deep in the past; it is a very old clade, much older than the Indo-European migrations appear to have been according to the best (linguistic) evidence we have. Nor is the Iranian Highland among the homelands proposed academically; therefore the idea of an Indo-European homeland in the Iranian Highland must be treated as a completely new and marginal hypothesis which needs a lot more evidence for it to be even established as a viable alternative hypothesis (that is accepted in academia, among linguists, not geneticists). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with the IE hypothesis, which you keep bringing forward in your rebuttals with me. Though I must say you are quite wrong on the assertion that, "the idea of an IE homeland in the Iranian highland must be treated as completely new..." (Vyacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze urheimat hypothesis included an area spanning between the Lower Caucuses and Lake Urmia, in Iran). Population genetics, like the many other sciences, is about gathering data, which can be used as evidence towards some hypothesis. Newer studies, with more samples, using higher resolution, are naturally going to allow for more accurate inferences - such can be generalized in some way for many scientific inquiries. The purpose of such a meta-study as Underhill, 2014: "The Phylogenetic and Geographic Structure of Y-chromosome Haplogroup R1a" , is to gather more data, from a broader range of samples, to improve on the inferences that have been made in the past. The fact that many older studies, lacking such quality, may have made different conclusions, is therefore, irrelevant. And furthermore, there is no determined body which acts as a decision maker here, which one can conveniently turn to, for an answer. At present, I am not aware of any new studies that propose a serious objection to the conclusions of Underhill, et al, 2014, so it's only proper to leave the Iranian origin hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:F90F:3871:6232:83DF (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ivanov/Gamkrelidze placed the Indo-European Urheimat in the Armenian Highland (aka Eastern Anatolia), not the Iranian Highland; these are quite distinct geographical regions, even if they may overlap at the margins due to not having precisely defined boundaries. As for Underhill (2014) and the assumption of an origin on the Iranian Highland, you say correctly that it's a hypothesis, not a fact, and there is indeed a mechanism to determine scientific consensus for the purposes of Wikipedia, namely secondary and tertiary sources, see WP:SCICON. It is true that meta-studies are better than primary studies, but they still reflect an individual researcher's POV that the expert community at large may not agree with. If you simply revert the article again instead of adding text, I'll have to report you for vandalism. I'll say this for the last time: You're free to add a mention of Underhill (2014). No dumb reverts and no POV-pushing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. Ivanov's "Armenian Highland" definition, in fact, included parts of Northwest Iran, including the area of Lake Urmia. And as for Underhill 2014, it is the more recent comprehensive study of R1a, which happens to support an Iranian origin - a hypothesis, which you are apparently not pleased with. But there is no reason to make changes to this (Iranian) inclusion, especially based on some arbitrary, and outdated hypothesis, which one can easily find scattered around the web. 2601:882:100:D7B0:4885:E49E:FC20:253E (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change that it's still not a fact or widely accepted consensus, just one hypothesis of several. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

R1a in Iran who is writing this crap. http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html

http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html This is taken from Iran's own website for DNA. Notice the small amounts of R1a and equal amount of R1b. Your history is wrong. Language has no effect on DNA. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. Germans in this DNA haplogroup test had R1a1 M-17 and showed 38.9% out of 1215 people. Please tell me because from what I know Germany does not have a DNA project. Would you be trying to change history?. So many British people do claim Germanic ancestry but most have no evidence, maybe when you say Saxon you mean the little town called Saxon north of the opening of the river Elbe and the ocean taken from Ptolemaeus map 2nd century AD. See Manga Germania, Germania Slavica http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ptolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg . Your mass migration theory is far exaggerated as people of the British Isles average 85% and have R1b ( See stephen oppenheimer dna). Quote me but don't the 95% of the Spanish Basque people have R1b. I do also know that all people have many different types of Haplogroups and not just one. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. http://dna.scangen.se/index.php?soktyp=include&fnamn_sel=&enamn_sel=&fort_sel=&lan_sel=&fodd_sel=&haplo_sel=r1a&haplospec_sel=&lang=en&show=search Swedish R1a Hapolgroup http://dna.scangen.se/index.php?soktyp=include&fnamn_sel=&enamn_sel=&fort_sel=&lan_sel=&fodd_sel=&haplo_sel=I&haplospec_sel=&lang=en&show=search Hold Swedish have more R1a than Haplogroup I why is that who is telling the truth???. https://sweden.se/society/history-of-sweden/ Swedish history from there own goverment website. What the Vikings went east towards Russia, Ukraine, Turkey. Where is this mas migration to the UK???. Sami https://sweden.se/society/sami-in-sweden/ Read and learn https://www.docdroid.net/5yJP41W/428-443.pdf.html Erasmus University medicial Centre Rotterdam https://www.docdroid.net/Il3qmAy/journalpone0041252pdf-plosoneorg-p1.pdf.html R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a http://docdro.id/Il3qmAy http://postimg.org/image/vskfk1k5l/ R1a in Europe http://postimg.org/image/qnvxukqed/ R1b in Europe http://postimg.org/image/bq0i2lvzh/ Germany R1a1 (M17) Average 38.9% http://postimg.org/image/wgha45x3b/ Gugarat Bhils Brahmins India R1a1.png http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html http://postimg.org/image/66kafwjax/ Iranian DNA Project as above http://postimg.org/image/a0fxec1ul/ Iran has more R1b than R1a "History is wrong?. http://postimg.org/image/m8mewd8kr/ Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b.

http://postimg.org/image/66tgipqup/ R1a 27% R1b11.1% Uzbeks, Afghanistan. Chuvash Russia R1a 27.9% R1b 2.3%

http://postimg.org/image/72ocenohx/ Kazakhstan R1a 15% R1b 7% http://postimg.org/image/7uh2tx3h3/ Tuymazinsky Tatars Russia Note R1b 16%, R1a 14%. Kazan Tatars Tatarstan Russia R1a 20.%, R1b 1.9% http://postimg.org/image/adn65ad15/ Lithuanian Tatars R1a 54%. Hazara Afghanistan R1a 6.6% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M217 Mongolians have highest C-M217 not R1a http://www.welcome2mongolia.com/archives/matching-genghis-khan/ Haplogroup C3 Mongolian http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/11/ancient-dna-from-malta-and-afontova-gora-a-full-account/ Prior to as in before R1a/r1b just maybe there was the Ma-1 an ancestral haplogroup of the R. Malta boy in Russia carbon dated 24,000 years http://mehriran.tv/article_read.php?a=481 Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present). This haplogroup has been identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the so-called "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013) http://www.donsmaps.com/dolnivi.html Note Dolni Vestonice Carbon datings in artical. Also at least one piece of irovy that was hand carved was also dated in America 1988 at 26,0000+years same as Czech number and note they found two isotopes carbon C-14 and local uranium was also found and this very hard to fake.

Very had to understand what the point being made is. There are many comments above which are written as if replies to something in the article, but they don't seem to match anything in the article. Remember Wikipedia only aims to summarize what the best sources are, which for this subject means academic publications (for better or worse), and not amateur DNA projects (no matter how good they are), unless these are somehow moderated or peer reviewed in a strong enough way. So nothing in the article should be anyone's personal theories, so if you present yourself as arguing against Wikipedia editors you'll find none of them will even feel like you are writing to them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Read and learn A large, 2014 study by Underhill . An American psychiatrist . this Peter A Underhill who calls his self a false and misleading European agency is no DNA expert,. Note this company is in the news in Australia for posting misleading material. Read this link : https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Macmillan+Publishers+Limited&oq=Macmillan+Publishers+Limited&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Macmillan+Publishers+Limited+scam+false . Note all Underhill and Macmillan Publishers of these Journals lead back to an Indian company called Imex allegedly * https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mCecVqrSKsHu8weAyai4Aw&gws_rd=cr&fg=1#q=imex+journal+publishers . * https://www.google.com.au/#q=European+Journal+of+Human+Genetics+(2015)+23%2C+124%E2%80%93131+%26+2015+Macmillan+Publishers+Limited+All+rights+reserved+1018-4813%2F15+www.nature.com%2Fejhg . There * https://www.google.com.au/#q=what+is++phylogeographic+ using phylogeographic resolution to screen an invisible alleged 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia Where are the facts and figures?? but where is the evidence maybe did he used a teleporter from star trek , concluded there was compelling evidence, that R1a-M420 originated in Iran. The facts are clear is that Iranian.com is an Iranian website and its own DNA project that is very clear and precise and they name and number every Haplogroup and they have M-417 not m-420 so once again fabricated information. Also they claim they have carbon/phylogenetic dated a person DNA and this person is still alive what a load of dishonest Shit!. Also the facts show Iran has an equal amount of R1a and R1b DNA haplogrouping's so this forged thesis is wrong. And in places like Tehran Iran's captial they have more R1b 29.2% than average 8% of R1a, see link below. If all people where dum enough to think a few lone words from farsi iran languages that are simlar to Slavic languages. mean that if you speak a language then you are that race of people. So if you speak English then you must be English, Americians are English is that what your telling the world. What about your really intelligent and speak 5 languages. What are you then you racist piece who needs to go and change there DNA. . Use your favorite search engine for "malta boys siberia dna haplogroup R" as this was found in the permafrost and they Russia have the oldest known host * http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/24000-year-old-boy-from-lake-baikal-is-scientific-sensation/ in the world for the Haplogroup R= R1a= R1b!. * http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html

• http://postimg.org/image/66kafwjax/ Iranian DNA Project as above
• https://www.docdroid.net/Il3qmAy/journalpone0041252pdf-plosoneorg-p1.pdf.html R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a

* http://postimg.org/image/m8mewd8kr/ Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b *
* https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian [1]

Peter A Underhill is a Stanford geneticist. See https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/SWApp/lookup?search=Peter%20Underhill. The article being cited is a peer reviewed one from a very well known journal. It is not really based on languages or any of the other things you are mentioning, but is mainly a pretty dry DNA survey. Very hard to understand what your point is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am quoting you these journals that your using are fake and fabriacited. Also in your own link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf " Your fabricated evidence shows 82.5 % of Mongolians have R1a. But I have read your link only one is working out of two, many times but there is noting about Mongolia having R1a Haplogroup are you having delusions?.. Google "Genghis khan had haplogroup C-M217". Stop deleting what I write and removing my links proving you wrong Mr. Your link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf Where auote is 82.5 Ria in Mongolia. Peter A Underhill is a Biological Anthropology. biological and behavioral aspects of human beings, their related non-human primates and their extinct human ancestors. Every body knows americans know everything. But I think you should contact this Dr Peter A Underhill if he can verify his name is used willing. He must prove is unseen results. Also Iran's people do not have his named Haplogroup his research is false and therefore wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Underhill/publications/2 My links are below and prove that this journal is named and shamed in Australia's media. Quote me , www.nature.com , Macmillan Publishers Limited, maybe related to a the Indian company OMICS.

• http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/predatory-publishers-criticised-unethical-unprincipled-tactics/6997120
• https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgJr7a3BZ6?play=true Full ABC radio story on this Journal OMICS predatory Publishers Limited, fast forward to 10%of program as radio show is almost one hour.
• http://www.nature.com/omics/index.html -Journal Macmillan Publishers Limited
• http://richardpoynder.co.uk/OMICSb.pd MacMillan Publishers and OMICS and Stanford University are all next to each other?. Why we all wonder why.

http://cabbagesofdoom.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/omics-group-conferences-sham-or-scam.html https://www.google.com.au/#q=European+Journal+of+Human+Genetics+predatory+publisher+scam+misleading+OMICS http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/30/most-predatory-publishing-occurs-in-asia-africa-report/ https://www.yandex.com/search/?msid=20952.13264.1453684355.42029&text=Macmillan%20Publishers%20Limited%20journals%20predatory%20scam%20false Note I have taken a screen shot as I will need this information to report you.

Note: The former, English, French, Spanish and so on colonies. "USA" Your Underhill said I qoute" R1a-M420 originated in Iran" but the worl know Iran hates a nameless country. How did you get there DNA results use magic.

http://dnaarab.com/printthread.php?t=231 note:R1a*-M420 - 2.2% (1/46) Bakhtiari of SW Iran. Look only one person in 259 had the haplogroup you claim from Iran. You can not stop the lies. http://www.dnaarab.com/imgcache/2/350alsh3er.png So people know where to look on Map of Iran. http://www.dnaarab.com/imgcache/2/350alsh3er.png I repeat again. R haplogroup was prior to R1a and R1b and the oldest known carbon dated proof is in Siberia around 24,000 years old malta boy. http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/24000-year-old-boy-from-lake-baikal-is-scientific-sensation/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.191.134.227 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Underhill said I qoute" R1a-M420 originated in Iran" but the worl know Iran hates a nameless country. How did you get there DNA results use magic.

Or how about using one's brains? LOL! Unless Iran has magically been able to prevent all emigration (I know it has not), geneticists can easily test immigrants from Iran in Western countries. No need to travel to Iran. (Although Westerners travel to Iran all the time, even regular people who aren't scientists or scholars.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Poltavka

Poltavka culture aDNA http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-poltavka-outlier.html --Sagi2007 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Haber et al. (2012), R1a-M458 and the Indo-European case

Dear users, as Andrew Lancaster has expressed the edit in concern requires a overview. The Ip is already blocked from editing for 1,5 days because of disruptive editing and edit warring with multiple Ip's. We need expert users on this. Do you know some users which can help us in the issue?

Here is what the paper states: "R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." (Haber et al. (2012), Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events)

--Gushtasp (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! So what in concrete should we say on the article? Let's try to define whatever disagreement there might be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The basic objection is to define the R1a-mutation type which was responsible for the introduction of Indo-European languages from the Pontic Steppes to Central Asia and India. Since at least 15 years this mutation was many times called the M17-mutation. But in 2012 the study in concern revealed that the M17 mutation could not be connected with the Indo-European migrations of the R1a-route toward Central Asia and India, resulting from the absence of the M458 mutation in Afghanistan and surrounding populations. This is the basic point. --Gushtasp (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

From the quote given, "could not be" is at least arguably a too strong choice of word? I think what you are saying is that there is evidence pointing in other directions? Anyway a good way to move forward is to propose a new draft wording (if you have any).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Compared to what the published source says it is a too strong choice, true. In a simple and plainly way the source uses "does not support". The implication is that there must have been other directions of migrations resulting in a Indo-Europeanization of South Asia. But to which haplogroups this Indo-Europeanization is attributed is currently not known. This is the last stand of evidence. --Gushtasp (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "might have been" is more accurate than "must have been"? I am not even looking at it in detail, but that is how I read it. My impression is that he is saying "we used to be reasonably happy with theory A, and now we have reason to doubt it". Short version: there is uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. But I have invited user Slovenski Volk to this discussion as representant of a counter argument. Maybe he can tell us more. Sincerly --Gushtasp (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

l overlooked the paragraph mentioned above. ln that case, there is nothing against WP:SYNTH policy here. However, there are still some problems regarding the statement of Haber et al. lt was discussed a few years ago and counter arguments were expressed. See: Talk:Haplogroup R1a1#New source? Haber et al. 176.219.169.59 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC) PS: l probably won't be active here for a few weeks, since l am busy in real life. Nathless, the source should not be readded before discussing it thoroughly. 176.219.169.59 (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah Ok I see there was a discussion. I will invite the other user (Slevenski Volk) to this discussion board. Maybe we can have then a good constructive conclusion of the matter. See you, bye. --Gushtasp (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The more interesting point seems to be the 'Dravidian migration'. The "Ancestral North Indians" seem to have been Dravidian R1a carrying lactose-resistant farmers from Iran/the Levant, who created the Harappan Civilisation, and at ca. 2,200 BCE started to coloinialise southern India, mixing with the local population. A millennium later a new Sanskrit culture, which rose from Harappan people and Indo-European language & religion, added a second wave of admixture. Much more interesting! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. The Indo-European migrations are certainly, whatever model you subscribe to (unless you believe in the extremely fringe Paleolithic Continuity "Theory"), much more recent than the divergence of R1a, which Underhill 2014 dates to ~25,000 years ago, into the last glacial period, even before the Last Glacial Maximum (!) or the settlement of the Americas (or, that said, much of Northern Europe). So Underhill 2014 is just not relevant to Indo-European origins, despite his claim of having dealt a striking blow to the Pontic (i. e., Kurgan) hypothesis. I don't see that the possibility of Bronze Age (!) gene flow from Eastern Europe to South Asia has been impacted in any way by the analysis. Even if it had, there is no necessity for significant gene flow for the Kurgan scenario to capture the prehistoric reality because languages can also be spread by small élites which don't leave much in the way of a genetic footprint, and the Kurgan scenario is entirely compatible with the possibility of spread by élite dominance. Personally, I wouldn't expect that Kurgan immigrants significantly altered the South Asian gene pool; they certainly didn't displace – let alone eradicate – the natives: pre-Indo-European substrata are well-attested in Indic languages as far back as Vedic Sanskrit. I was actually surprised by the suggestion that Kurgan Indo-European migrations could have left such a highly significant genetic signal, especially in South Asia: even I as a staunch supporter of the Kurgan model did not expect that, and I don't think other supporters did, either.

As for the Ancestral North Indians, I'd avoid identifying them with any particular language family. The longstanding suggestion that the language of the Harappan civilisation was Dravidian is highly dubious and I've never seen a compelling case for it. Michael Witzel believes that Dravidian speakers entered South Asia only about 2000 BC, roughly at the same time as Indo-Iranian speakers, and might only have taken part in the Harappan civilisation marginally (in the south, in Sindh), while the main language was prefixal (and remains unidentified – a relationship to Austroasiatic, let alone Munda or Khasic, seems implausible, not least because of the required time-depth: according to Paul Sidwell, Austroasiatic spread from the middle Mekong area not much earlier than 2000 BC). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: according to Lazaridis et al. (2016), the Yamna-culture contained a strong (43%) component from Iranian chalcolithis farmers; this group in turn was "a mixture of the Neolithic people of western Iran, the Levant, and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers." According to Jones (2015), the CHG split-off ca. 25,000 years ago. See Indo-European migrations#Root populations and Yamna culture#Origins for references. So, Lazaridis (2016) seems to make perfect sense of Underhill (2014), and of this nice chart of the distribution of R1a. Just one more hypothesis: given the divergence at ~25,000 years ago, why not suppose that R1a originated with the Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible that that is correct, but this has no bearing on the question of the Indo-European homeland. It's about the origins of the people of the Yamna culture itself (which is the prime candidate for the source of the Indo-European languages, remember). The homeland, under the Kurgan hypothesis which even Lazaridis seems to accept, was in Eastern Europe, not Iran, which is frequently confused here. When academics discuss Indo-European origins, they do not (usually) talk about a time 25,000 years ago, because the language family is patently nowhere as old. Similarly, the immediate origins of the Polynesian languages are not in East Asia, only much more remote origins. It's vital to distinguish this, because otherwise you can just state that every language family's origins are ultimately in Africa and be done with it, which is obviously not very interesting. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, so Lazaridis's conclusion is that Chalcolithic farmers from Iran contributed to the Yamna gene pool, so he's not talking about a migration more than 20,000 years ago. However, this admixture could still easily precede the eventual breakup of Indo-European by many centuries at least.

By the way, the Allentoft et al. (2015) study mentioned in Blond#Asia rather seems to indicate an origin of Indo-Europeans (including Indo-Iranians, Greeks and even Anatolians!) in the Bronze-Age Corded Ware culture, which would resurrect the old idea of a northern European homeland – although it is compatible with Gimbutas' original hypothesis as well, as she posited a third and final wave of migration beyond the steppes in the early 3rd millennium that encompassed the Corded Ware culture. Klingenschmitt (mentioned in de:Anatolische Sprachen#Herkunft und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen) also argues that from a linguistic point of view, such a late date for the breakup of Proto-Indo-European is perfectly reasonable. Gimbutas also dates Kurgan IV, the late Yamna culture, to the first half of the 3rd millennium, and equates it with Late PIE. So it's entirely possible that the beginning of the Indo-European expansion into Central Asia, Central and Southern Europe and Anatolia only took place in 3000–2500 BC, with earlier waves of migration being absorbed linguistically so that all the attested language groups descend from that most recent wave. For a few centuries, an essentially unitary Proto-Indo-European may still have been spoken as a lingua franca throughout the vast region covered by the Corded Ware and late Yamna cultures, and attested dialectal differences may only have appeared from c. 2500 BC, which is already deep in the Bronze Age in the Aegean and at least around the beginning of the Bronze Age in the steppes.

In this case, the Chalcolithic admixture Lazaridis is talking about, even if his dating is correct, is definitely not relevant for the eventual Indo-European expansion far beyond the steppes, which happened near or after the end of the Chalcolithic. In fact, he talks about "a population related to the people of the Iran Chalcolithic", which could be arbitrarily older – he does not precisely date the genetic inflow, so it could have happened anytime between c. 20,000 and c. 3000 BC. Where the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Yamna and Corded Ware people themselves ultimately came from is still an interesting question, but that's not what the Indo-European homeland discussion is about.

Moreover, while the Yamna themselves may (per Haak et al. 2015) not originally have been fair-haired, Allentoft et al. seems to say that the influx of (presumably non-IE-speaking) hunter-gatherers in the Baltic region, as they were assimilated into the (presumably IE-speaking) Corded Ware culture (or alternatively, the Corded Ware may have been the result of the assimilation of Northern European hunter-gatherers to the incoming steppe culture). If Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek and Italo-Celtic all originate from migrations of fair-haired people from the Baltic region, then they and not the Yamna people from the steppes are effectively the Proto-Indo-Europeans, which explains why fair-haired people eventually (from the Bronze Age on) appear in Greece, Italy and Central Asia too, especially in the upper classes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haplogroup R1a/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

--Internal Critique only-- Remaining comments about this page. Info box description in "defining mutations" should be reduced. Articles should be properly represented, neutrality of sections is questionable. PB666 yap 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Haplogroup R1a1a and Haplogroup R1a1 into Haplogroup R1a

• WP:FORK
• All three articles have basically the same content
• The emphasis is on R1a1a, c.q. Z282 & Z93, which is repeated in all three articles
• R1a1/R1a1a/R1a1a1 is the main sublineage, and may as well be described within R1a
• R1a is the best-known name

So, let's get rid of all these confusing subarticles, and merge them into R1a.

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support even if they are not same subject, research and researchers have produced same content. Lorstaking (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree with nominator's rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

R1a1a = Serbian genes

According to this study there is high level of paleolithic genes in Serbian population: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310393  ! Why there is no mention in your writings ?