Talk:Western hunter-gatherer
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veracity
"EHGs and WHGs displayed lower allele frequences of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5, which cause depigmentation, and OCA/Herc2, which causes light eye color, than SHGs.[9]". - According to prof. Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute, the Western Hunter Gatherers didn't have the derived SLC24a5 or SLC45A2 allele at all. They also universally had the derived OCA/Herc2 blue eye gene, and are the origin of the blue eye gene. CARTA: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution – Johannes Krause: Ancient European Population History 83.84.100.133 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This section has been collapsed because talk pages are not a forum. WHAT????Quote: "In archaeogenetics, the term Western Hunter-Gatherer, West European Hunter-Gatherer or Western European Hunter-Gatherer, is the name given to a distinct ancestral component that represents descent from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Western, Southern and Central Europe." Who is writing this nonsense? "Western Hunter-Gatherer" is NOT a name given to . . . It's not a name given to anything. Of all the sources cited in this article, only four of them actually contain the phrase "Western Hunter-Gatherer", and in one of those sources it's only by coincidence, and another one of the sources only uses the term as reference toward another one of the sources cited. SO . . this entire article only cites two actual sources in which the term "Western Hunter-Gatherer" is used, and they both contain legends explaining that term is only a reference within that individual paper. Often abbreviated "WHG"? By whom? It's not a term that's often used. How could it be a term that's often abbreviated, when it's not a term that's often used? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have a degree in anthropology with minors in archaeology and GIS. I've been around the world on archaeology digs. I've contributed to peer-reviewed papers. I've spent the last 15 years of life working in this field. Know where I first learned of the term "Western Hunter-Gatherers" and it's abbreviation "WHG"? WIKIPEDIA! HURRAY! Just because a couple of research teams coined a term in a couple of peer-reviewed papers, does not make that term an established academic idea. I JUST DID A GOOGLE SCHOLAR SEARCH FOR "WESTERN HUNTER-GATHERERS". KNOW HOW MANY PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS HAVE THIS TERM WITHIN THE TITLE? Z E R O. This is not an established concept in the fields of anthropology or archaeology. The fact that someone managed to locate 2 peer-reviewed papers which happened to use this term does not establish it as a widely accepted concept in these fields. AND . . I promise, it is not a widely accepted concept in these fields, because I've spent my entire professional career in these fields, and I had never heard this term before reading about it in this article. AND I GUARANTEE MY PROFESSIONAL PEERS ARE ALL UNIFORMLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS TERM AS WELL, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HEARD ONE OF THEM UTTER THIS TERM BEFORE, AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TITLE OF A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE SCHOLAR, WHICH MEANS NO ONE HAS EVER CONDUCTED RESEARCH ON "WESTERN HUNTER-GATHERERS". This is just a term some people used is a couple of papers to add definition to the groups they were discussing. They could have named them "Western Banana-Snappers" and the term would be equally relevant because the term doesn't exist outside of the boundaries of those two papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Notability of Title
An IP editor is concerned that the term "Western Hunter-Gatherers" is not found in any peer reviewed papers that he/she could find. Are we able to show the term has breadth of coverage and is not just used in cited sources? Per policy, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, as this avoids bias to any one paper/researcher, so I think we should be looking to cite some secondary sources. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- The term is meanwhile broadly copied, though, for every systematic table, HG-W, HG_S, HG_C would lead to a better chronological sequence.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:4988:2F74:9934:376F (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, it's broadly copied, because when you search for the term "Western Hunter-Gatherer" on JSTOR, after subtracting results for "Jones", you get a return of 6 total results, and the only reason those results appear, is because they don't list their bibliographies in the search results. Using Google Scholar, once you remove the 5 primary sources cited in this Wikipedia article: Kashuba/Mathieson (which are the same paper), Lazaridis (who simply cites Haak and is already cited in this article and the Kashuba/Mathieson paper already cited in this article), Jones, who is simply a contributor on the Lazaridis paper (already cited in this article), and Anthony, who seems to be the primary source for the majority of this material, you're left with a whopping 5 pages of results on Google Scholar! Congratulations! Unless you remove the search results for the Schweitzer book, which was written in 2004 (a decade before all of the other cited references) and in which the terms "Western" "Hunter" and "Gatherer" were simply written once, in tandem with one another, but were clearly not meant to suggest that "Western Hunter-Gatherer" is a widely-used/recognized concept within anthropology and archaeology- well anyway, after removing Schweitzer, you're left with 4 total results which do not correlate to the spiders-web of 5 primary sources you've already cited which all simply cite one-another. They are all simply research papers, NOT PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS, whose bibliography isn't visible on Google Scholar, but obviously includes the 5 sources mentioned above. Yup, this is a well-researched and thought-out Wikipedia article in which the contributors aren't making huge leaps of faith and adding their own "academic" opinions.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:3168:3E10:525E:7846 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- "An IP editor is concerned that the term "Western Hunter-Gatherers" is not found in any peer reviewed papers that he/she could find." There are several mentions of the term Western Hunter Gatherer in peer reviewed publications. Nature. Peer reviews are included with the articles. 2001:1C00:1E31:5F00:9897:701D:119A:5468 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: Really? Because when you search for the term "Western Hunter-Gatherer" on JSTOR, you get a total of 13 results, only one of which actually has the term in the title, with the remaining 12 simply citing the same 2 Anthony and Jones papers, or simply having those 3 terms in tandem with one another, but which are not referencing the specific term "Western Hunter-Gatherer". It's genuinely bewildering to me that you are still trying to push this concept when it is flagrantly not yet widely accepted by the anthropology academic community. Again, you have a total of 9 sources, which all cite one another in cyclic fashion, with only 2 of the teams having actually conducted the research:
- The citations for the "Kashuba" paper, and the "Mathieson" paper, are the same paper.
- The same "Anthony" paper is cited twice (edit: by other papers you've already cited).
- The "Lazaridis" paper simply cites two of the other papers referenced, the "Haak" paper and ::::the "Kashuba/Matieson" paper mentioned above.
- "Jones" is simply a co-contributor on the "Lazaridis" paper mentioned immediately :::above.
- "Saag" cites "Haak".
- "Mittnik" simply cites "Anthony, Lazaridis, Jones, and Saag", all mentioned above.
The following content was removed for a variety of reasons, namely failing WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE:
"In 2020, a large study titled "Genetic variation related to the adaptation of humans to an agriculturalist lifestyle" was carried out by researchers at the University of Mainz.[15] The genomes of over 100 ancient individuals were sequenced and analyzed. Close analysis of the pigmentation of 14 Western-Hunter-Gatherers from Central Europe was carried out. The study found that phenotypic traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes were present in WHGs, but not in EHGs. WHGs were found to have a skin colour that was slightly darker than that of Early European farmers and EHGs.
The researchers concluded that blonde-haired and blue-eyed phenotypes most likely originated in Central European WHGs:
Phenotypic reconstructions based on ancient DNA suggested that some of the hunter-gatherers of Central Europe had a unique appearance as a result of a dark skin tone in combination with light eyes and a light hair color. Blonde-haired and blue-eyed phenotypes originated in Europe before the onset of the Neolithic and rose in frequency over time. Derived alleles in related genes such as TYRP1, HERC2 and OCA2 can be found in the Central European Western-Hunter-Gatherers at elevated frequencies, in contrast to the Eastern European/Russian hunter-gatherers."
This so-called "large study" is not in fact a study, but a non-reviewed personal dissertation placed in an online library:
It is also contradicted by academic consensus. I will quote a few sources that are not self-published:
From David Reich, Who We Are and How Ae Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, page 96:
Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that Western European hunter-gatherers around eight-thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today.³³
[...]
The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago.³⁵. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive migrstion of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, an event that is related in the next chapter.³⁶.
From Gavin Evans, Skin Deep: Dispelling the Science of Race, page 138:
When it comes to skin color, full genome DNA analysis suggests there were at least three variants in the Europe of 5,000 plus years ago: the dark skins, dark curly hair and blue eyes of the Western European hunter gatherers such as Cheddar Man, the lighter skins, brown eyes and dark hair of the first European farmers who migrated from Anatolia, and the pale skins, brown eyes and mainly dark (but also blond) hair of the pastoralists from the Russian steppe.
Continuing on page 139:
Japanese research in 2006 found that the genetic mutation that prompted the evolution of blond hair dates to the ice age that happened around 11,000 years ago. Since then, the 17,000-year-old remains of a blond- haired North Eurasian hunter-gatherer have been found in eastern Siberia, suggesting an earlier origin.
[...]
But whatever the evolutionary causes of blond and red hair, their spread in Europe had little to do with their possible innate attractiveness and much to do with the success of the all-conquering herders from the steppes who carried these genes.
From Carlberg, et al., Skin colour and vitamin D: An update:
Interestingly, ancient North Eurasian derived populations, such as eastern hunter‐gatherers and Yamnayas, carried the blond hair allele rs12821256 of the KITLG gene to Europe.[66]
[...]
Differences in the relative admixture of ancient hunter‐gatherers, Anatolian farmers, Yamnaya pastoralists and Siberians explain the variations in skin and hair pigmentation, eye colour, body stature and many other traits of present Europeans.[60, 74, 78, 79] The rapid increase in population size due to the Neolithic revolution,[64, 80] such as the use of milk products as food source for adults and the rise of agriculture,[81] as well as the massive spread of Yamnaya pastoralists likely caused the rapid selective sweep in European populations towards light skin and hair.
As you can see from the seven quotes, the Blöchar essay flies in the face of the establiahed academic consensus, which is that Western Hunter Gatherers were dark haired, and that it was Eastern Hunter Gatherers (and the related Steppe pastoralists) who spread blond hair genetic material across Europe, rather than an autocthonous "gradual" or "sexual" selection in Western or central Europe. It therefore fails WP:SCIRS, and also WP:RS, since it's not a real study, but an essay in an online repository. Hunan201p (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have commented on this here:[1] –Austronesier (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Mittnik 2018 -- fails to verify, primary source
I recently removed the following content, which fails to verify:
However, Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the eastern Baltic, who were mostly of WHG ancestry, display high frequencies of the derived alleles for SLC45A2 and SLC24A5, which code for light skin.[b]
The attached quote in note [b], as rendered on Wikipedia:
"Despite their geographical vicinity to EHG, the two Eastern Baltic individuals associated with the Mesolithic Kunda Culture show a very close affinity to WHG in all our analyses... Similar to other European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, our Baltic foragers carry a high frequency of the derived HERC2 allele which codes for light iris colour, and like SHG and EHG they already possess an increased frequency of the derived alleles for SLC45A2 and SLC24A5, coding for lighter skin colour."[10]
This appears to be a deliberate botching of Mittnik 2018. See the full quote from the article:
"Despite their geographical vicinity to EHG, the two Eastern Baltic individuals associated with the Mesolithic Kunda Culture show a very close affinity to WHG in all our analyses (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2), with a significant contribution from ANE, as revealed by negative admixture f3 results involving a Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer from Switzerland, most closely related to WHG, and populations containing ANE ancestry (Supplementary Table 1)."
"This is additionally confirmed by D-statistics of the form D for populations X with ANE ancestry, which are significant and among the highest in EHG. Using the qpWave/qpAdm framework, we modelled the Baltic Mesolithic hunter-gatherers as a two-way mixture between EHG and WHG, which reveals a difference in mixture proportions between the more northern individuals from the Latvian site21 (65–76% WHG with 24–35% EHG; Supplementary Table 3) and the samples from the Lithuanian sites to the south (88–100% WHG with 0–12% EHG)"
Hence, the Baltic HGs in this paper are a mixed population with Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, a fact omitted from the Wiki note [b].
Note that there's a discrepancy between the Wiki passage and the paper itself. The Wiki passage states that there is a "high frequency" of these alleles in the later Baltic HG individuals, but the paper itself mentions only an "increased" frequency.
Moreover, the later Baltic HG populions were actually more Eastern Hunter Gatherer than Western:
"The later individuals attributed to the Baltic MN CCC exhibit a significantly higher affinity to EHG with the ancestry proportion estimated at 68–99% EHG and 1–32% WHG (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 3)."
In addition to failing to verify, this paper is a primary source which does not even claim any Western Hunter Gatherers had light skin. It would appear to be tendentious to use it as a counter to the idea that Western Hunter Gatherers were dark skinned and dark haired, when the academic consensus is that they were.Hunan201p (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Western Hunter Gatherer genes in Nature
The following study from Fu, Reich et al has genetic data for the Western Hunter Gatherers in Table 5. The genetic history of Ice Age Europe. Listed are: LCT (lactose tolerance), SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 (skin depigmentation), EDAR (tooth and hairshape) and HERC2/OCA2 (blue eyes). For clarification: "the observation of a low rate of derived alleles does not prove that the individual carried the allele, and instead may reflect sequencing error or ancient DNA damage." 2001:1C00:1E31:5F00:2102:A195:3614:91F (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Concerning Self-Promotion On Wikipedia
Extended content
|
---|
Here’s the Amazon summary for the source material of the “Anthony” book/research: This series offers a new venue for high-quality original studies in Indo-European linguistics, from both a comparative and historical perspective, including relevant works on the prehistory/early history of the oldest descendant languages. It will also welcome studies in poetics and comparative mythology that include a significant linguistic and philological component.” It’s a book about linguistics focusing on oral tradition. There is absolutely no genetic or archaeological component.
Lazaridis et. al. never make any mention of “Western Hunter Gatherers” in their paper. Again, you all have simply claimed that this data is relevant because it suits your interest in self-promotion.
Haak et. al. never make any mention of “Western Hunter Gatherers” in their paper. Again, you all have simply claimed that this data is relevant because it suits your interest in self-promotion.
MATHIESON ACTUALLY DOES USE THE TERM “WESTERN HUNTER GATHERER” IN HIS 2015 PAPER! HALLELUJAH!
Unfortunately, as I’m sure we’re all aware at this point, this is where the term originated, and every other source you all have linked to this topic are either extremely dubious, or simply cite Mathieson. AND, in that entire Mathieson paper, “Western Hunter Gatherers” were mentioned a total of three times, because even in the sole paper in which this term was coined, it was nothing more than a secondary concept among a dozen different terms the authors coined in that paper. The total coverage Mathieson et. al. dedicated toward “Western Hunter Gatherers” in that paper was 3 sentences.
“Western Hunter Gatherer” was also mentioned in the Jones et. al. paper as well- a total of one (1) times.
The problem, is that Jones was attributed as a member of Mathieson’s research team (mentioned immediately above), so I’m gonna guess that I don’t have to explain to you the problem with this citation. Alright, I will anyway: people who have worked on the same research together, cannot be attributed separately as unique citations when they expound upon that research individually. Again, this is redundant citation. Saag actually mentions “Western Hunter Gatherers” also. Saag et al Mentions "Western Hunter Gatherers" a total of 3 times in their 2,800 word (5 page) paper. Unfortunately, Saag again cites Haak, Lazaridis, Mittnik, Jones, and Gunther. Of the ten sources cited in this Wikipedia article, Saag literally cites half of them. Again, this is called “redundant citation”.
Look geniuses, if a bunch of 6 year-olds are in the school yard during recess, and one of them tells you “Billy punched Jimmy!” And then you ask another student, “Did Billy punch Jimmy?” and the student tells you “Yes, Billy punched Jimmy,” and then you ask that student, “How do you know this?” and the student replies, “Suzy told me,” and then you ask 10 more students how they know that Billy punched Jimmy, and they all reply that SUZY TOLD THEM Billy punched Jimmy, does that make the story any more credible? If you have 10 sources who all give you the same original source, “Suzy told me”, does that make the information any more credible? The answer, geniuses, is “no, it does not make the story more credible,” because all of your sources simply rely upon the same original source, and if Suzy is wrong, then all of the other 10 sources who relied upon Suzy are wrong as well. THIS IS WHY YOU CAN’T CITE REDUNDANT SOURCES. They’re all reliant upon the same source material. It bewilders me that you all need to have this explained to you.
The Mittnik paper is 8,300 words long (17 pages). Know how many times the term “Western Hunter Gatherer” is used during those 17 pages? TWICE. TWICE. TWICE. TWICE. TWICE. TWICE. In 17 pages.
And guess where those mentions originate? Do I even have to write it out for you? Lazaridis, Haak, Mathieson, Jones, Saag, Gunther, and Anthony. This paper literally cites 7 of the 9 other papers cited in this Wikipedia article. Add the author, Mittnik, to that list, and this list of contributors to that paper is almost identical to list of sources for this article. Know how many times the term “Western Hunter Gatherer” is mentioned in the 2018 Mathieson paper? I’ll give you 3 seconds to think about it . . . 3 . . 2 . . 1 . . ONCE.
Again, in a 6,100 word paper (12 pages) the term “Western Hunter Gatherers” appears a total of one (1) times. And can you guess who the paper cites? Anthony, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Jones, Saag, and Mittnik. Add this paper’s author’s to that list, Mathieson et. al., and that paper’s citations are almost identical to this article’s source list.
At this point it’s fairly obvious that you all are doing this deliberately. You’re simply citing research teams who have worked with one another and cyclically cite one another in an attempt to add self-promoting credibility to their research, when anyone with any background in this field would immediately recognize what this is.
I said before in a comment I left in the talk section of a related Wikipedia article that I wasn’t going to waste time investigating this, but you’re very deliberately misleading people, especially students, in the interest of shameless self-promotion. And yes, it is very obvious that the people creating this series of articles are simply people associated with these papers who want to gain credibility for their work. I am now going to report this series of articles to the Wikipedia admins. Good luck.
Look, my man: Go to the reference section for the "Ancient North Eurasian" Wikipedia page. How many of the papers in the reference section of that Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. Go to the reference section for the "Caucasus Hunter Gatherer" Wikipedia page. How many of the papers in the reference section for that Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. Go to the reference section for the "Eastern Hunter Gatherer" Wikipedia page. How many of the papers in the reference section for that Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. Look at the reference section for this Wikipedia page (Western Hunter Gatherer). How many of the papers in the reference section for this Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. The Wikipedia article for "Anatolian Hunter Gatherer" shouldn't even exist because it cites a single source, but guess who's included as an author of that paper? Haak. Guess who that paper cites? Lazaridis, Jones, Mathieson, and an earlier Haak paper. Go to the reference section for the "Basal Burasian" Wikipedia page. Again, it's just stupid that a page like this is even on Wikipedia. It cites 13 sources, and half of them are simply Lazaridis. Are you kidding me? Someone coins a term in a peer-reviewed paper, and now Wikipedia is presenting it like it's part of the established anthropological canon? Go to the reference section for the "Early European Farmers" Wikipedia page. Again, the majority of the papers in the reference section were written by Lazaridis, Jones, Haak, Mathieson, and Saag. And gee golly whiz, I wonder who those papers cite? Go to the Wikipedia page for "Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer". Who does that article cite? Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Haak, and Mittnik. And I wonder who those papers cite? Go to the Wikipedia page for "Western Steppe Herders". Who does that article cite? Haak, Anthony, Jones and Lazaridis. And I wonder who they cite? Literally, you all have no idea what you're doing. A bunch of research teams have all worked in conjunction with one another, cite another, and have written this insular universe of research which is still brand-new and hasn't gained acceptance anywhere else in the field of anthropology, and now you all have written 9 Wikipedia articles about it. And when I try to point-out how backward your reasoning is, you all literally say, "but look, there are 8 other Wikipedia articles about this." It literally bewilders me tat you all don't see how off-kilter your reasoning is. @AnthropologyAye-Whole - sorry, it was supposed to be a joke...Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) @AnthropologyAye-Whole - did you read David Reich's book "Who We Are and How We Got Here"? It's a very good introduction to the recent archaeogenetics revolution, a field which you appear to be unfamiliar with...Tewdar (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
"The Mittnik paper" might only use the term "Western Hunter-Gatherer" TWICE TWICE TWICE, but it uses "WHG" THIRTY THIRTY THIRTY times. Perhaps you should spend more time reading these articles.Tewdar (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC) And ditto, the Mathieson(2018) paper, in which the abbreviation "WHG" appears an incredible TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE times!!!Tewdar (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It would take a very long time to point out all the errors in @AnthropologyAye-Whole's hilarious posts (are you guys certain he is being serious?), so I think I'll stop for this evening. Tewdar (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Please show me the AfD discussion for "Arabid Race" - or by "nominated" do you mean "blathered on endlessly on the article's talk page"? Tewdar (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Can't seem to find any matching AfD discussions... Tewdar (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Please nominate the article(s) for deletion through the procedure described in the link. Enjoy the rest of your day. Tewdar (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Avoidance, me?! You say you want the article deleted, and are literally avoiding the only possible way of doing this! Tewdar (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Like I say, the ****only**** way to delete this article is to nominate it for deletion and attract consensus. Let's say that I can't give you any reason why we should keep this article. You ****still**** need to go through the AfD process. So nominate it for deletion. It's quick, simple, and you can invite all your alleged anthropologist supporters to join in. Tewdar (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, you win. You're right. The article doesn't meet notability criteria. The concept comes from amateurs like Reich, Anthony, Mallory, Haak, and Wang, and received coverage from the fringe broadcaster, the BBC. I suggest you nominate it for deletion. Tewdar (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Great. Nominate for deletion, then. Tewdar (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC) I bet all of them there folks was mingling heaps during that there last glacial maximum, eh what?! Tewdar (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Archaeogenetics is the devil's work I 'spect... Tewdar (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Did you contact reich@genetics.med.harvard.edu to ask him if we can have this article yet? Tewdar (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Article exists! Onus on you! Simple simple removal process! Hooray for Wikipedia!!!! Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
You tell me earlier I have no clue about peer review process?! Tewdar (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Also you tell me I have no science degree, except I have science degree, and you say I is pensioner but I is young WTF?!?! Tewdar (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't reply because I live in Cornwall and I am in a different timezone to you, so I went to bed. I got bored talking proper English with you. Feel free to have my account investigated for sock puppetry. Did you nominate for deletion yet? I promise to answer your famous question if you do. Tewdar (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Me think you has bad paranoid lockdown syndrome. "It's all that Fu's fault! It was Fu all along! Fu students outside my house! In my fridge! Aaargh! Fuuuuuuuuu!!!" Tewdar (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) The Wiki was rigged! By Fu! And her students! WHG is fake news! I'm a high-IQ very stable genius! Not like that Fu and her students! I teach students in a highly educated university! Someone build a wall! Tewdar (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Perhaps you might like to read this article, unless of course you don't want to read anything. You can probably access it through the supposed institution that you allegedly teach at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2 You should probably read the supplementary material too: If you "can't" access it through your "institution" (LOL!), you can probably find it somewhere else. Remember now, *read* the article. And even more importantly, *read the supplementary material*. Don't just search for "Western hunter-gatherer" or "WHG". Tewdar (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Earlier, you claimed: "And let's be honest, you know as well as I do, you're not going to find 5 archaeologists who have cited "Western Hunter Gatherers"" Okay, here's what a random search of my laptop revealed for archaeologists and anthropologists who use the term "Western hunter gatherer" and/or WHG in the same way it is used in modern aDNA studies.If you want help finding out who these people are, just ask: M Furholt, S Shennan (FBA!), D Anthony, J Mallory, K Kristiansen, G Catalano, DM Fernandes, DR Brown, L Cassidy, A Linderholm, TJ Booth, T Ekholm, RA Mounier, G Brandt, S Charlton. That's FIFTEEN! On my little laptop! Don't quit the day job. Oh actually, wait a minute, are you an anthropology teacher? Oh dear, those poor students... Tewdar (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Would you like the list of geneticists too? Only it's rather a long list. How about linguists? They're a little behind the times, much like the anthropology department at your university it seems, so the list is shorter... Tewdar (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC) I mean, what is it you want? Do you want the article to delete itself?! If you want the article deleted, someone has to nominate it for deletion. I'm certainly not going to nominate it for you! Tewdar (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC) And would you look at that - the terms "Western hunter-gatherer" and "Eastern hunter-gatherer" even appear in the "Handbook Of Forensic Genetics" (Amorim and Budowle). The authors cite Haak, Lazaridis, and Raghavan! LOL LOL LOL! Chance of this article being removed = 0.000000% Tewdar (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Here's a list of some of the geneticists who use the term Western hunter-gatherer/WHG in their articles and books (again, as the term is used in modern aDNA studies): D Reich W Haak K Wang A Templeton N Kashiba M Rivollat S Brunel A Mittnik O Balanovsky Q Fu M Lipson M Haber L Saag I Mathieson CB Ruff A Raveane J Marcus K Tambets D Damgaard ER Jones I Lazaridis I Olalde ME Allentoft VJ Schuenemann M Unterländer N Rascovan S Brace T Günther V Narasimhan GM Kilinc H Malmström M Raghavan I really don't know what your problem is with this series of articles. Do we have to wait until your university department starts teaching its students these concepts? Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I probably won't be responding again, because it is obvious that this article describes a scientifically valid concept, is well sourced, and meets the notability guidelines. Consequently it has no chance of being removed, though it could certainly be improved. Tewdar (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Just take the win and let's leave. I can't spend another minute on this. JUST TAKE THE WIN AND LET'S WALK AWAY. PLEASE DELETE EVERY COMMENT i'VE MADE. I CANNOT DO THIS FOR ANOTHER MOMENT. THIS IS DRIVING ME INSANE. PLEASE JUST TAKE THE WIN AND LET'S WALK AWAY AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC) ^ LOL Tewdar (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC) |
Weird
Is it just me, or is it really weird that all of the research for this article was published in peer-reviewed papers dated between 2015 and 2018, and all of those peer-reviewed papers were used as the primary sources for the ensuing book concerning these hypotheses, and now that potential book sales have slowed, no new peer-reviewed data has been added to this topic for more than 2 years.
It just seems weird that if this were a genuine topic of anthropological significance, the amount of data available for peer-review would amount to something extremely more significant than a total of 10-15 research projects published between 2015 and 2018, which were all used as the resource materials for a book published for-profit. But as always, Wikipedia contributors are the experts in the articles to which they're contributing, and I have complete faith that this series of articles isn't misleading to students who have faith in Wikipedia as a reliable resource. I have complete faith that Wikipedia contributors have extensive knowledge about the fields in which they're writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:6199:7CA5:A013:FE0F (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: - Hmm. Sounds a little familiar to an old friend, no? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I too suspect that the above was added by the person behind the banned vandalism-only account User:AnthropologyAye-Whole; in any case it appears to be a continuation of the unhelpful contributions in the preceding section. Added to collapse section accordingly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |}
Style
Although my English is not at all perfect, we should never have written in such an extremely long-winded, often multiple redundant and passive style as all these genetics articles in en.wikipedia. Example, "Mathieson et al. (2018) included an analysis of a large number of individuals of prehistoric Europe. The DNA of eleven WHGs from the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Western Europe, Central Europe and the Balkans was analyzed, with regards to their Y-DNA haplogroups and mtDNA haplogroups." - Nevertheless, we have to thank the author for his tremendous work.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:54B:A124:AA96:4633 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Connection to "Old Europe"
Please see Old Europe. These two articles are connected and appear to be candidates for a merge. --💬KaerbaqianRen 22:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
It is SYNTH
It is SYNTH to entwine statements from a paper that only serves to explain the method used (NB Walsh et al. (2017) obviously only use contemporary samples with know phenotype) with results of second study that applies this method to ancient specimens. It is good to have Walsh et al. (2017) for background information, but it is not good to make it appear as if they have touched any aDNA. –Austronesier (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Thanks, and happy festive season! There's a similar problem over at Cheddar man if you're in the fixin' mood... Tewdar (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Tewdar: Nadelik Lowen! And well, maybe later, but I'm oh so lazy know, after all it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Nadelik lowen dhiso, ynwedh! Yeah, I'm feeling a bit lazy too - way too much food and drink in my house at this time of year! 🍻🍗🍰👍 Tewdar (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- nb for Hunan - the Brace 2019 and Günther 2018 studies are not SYNTH - mixing Walsh 2017 with these studies (which we fixed) would be synth. Tewdar 10:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Research Section
I have copy edited the research section to attempt to turn it into something resembling prose. Removing inline paranthetical citation is in line with policy which deprecates such citations. I have attempted to join up the studies that support each other. No references are lost, and the authors are all cited in the references. I removed a little extra detail but at this point have left in, in my opinion, too much detail. The details of alleles, haplotypes and such like is detail that can mostly sit in the cited papers. The prose really just needs to draw out what the papers show. We could put some of the detail in efn notes though. In any case I will leave it at that and see how the changes sit with other editors before attempting any further improvement. What I haven't done at this point is include any useful secondary sources that would help ensure that our presentation here is properly balanced. The section is still too reliant on primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- This was a good first step, but many parts are still nightmarishly repetitive and over-detailed (especially the usual haplogroup-combing of sources). –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Validity of pigmentation predictions
So we have now a SYNTH-concoction of hand-picked statements (well, less synthish now) to express our unease about the validity of pigmentation predictions. Why do I not see this unease added to Yamnaya culture and Eastern Hunter-Gatherer? Is it because for these popuplations, light skin is predicted? Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't checked all of those sources, and may not get a chance today, but in general I do not think we should be adding 'concerns' about the 'validity' of pigmentation predictions to an article about WHGs using sources that aren't really talking about the pigmentation of WHGs. Tewdar 09:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- At most, I would support a very short sentence somewhere in the physical appearance section stating that these predictions are limited by aDNA quality, lack of knowledge, etc. This certainly doesn't need its own (sub)section in this article. Tewdar 09:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, a fairly simple mention about general "caution" regarding DnA analysis and phenotype deductions should suffice, per available sources. I also agree it sounds a bit biased to only use such a "disclaimer" for the "dark-skinned" WHGs. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind similar disclaimers getting added to other ancient population articles as long as this can be done without improper synthesis i.e. sourced to an article describing phenotype predictions of specific groups. Tewdar 12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Graphs for periods BC/BP
It is a pity with good scholars not grasping that their plotter naturally plots data ascending from left to right, however, cannot read "BC" or "BP", which SIMPLY has to be told him by multplying the x-axis data by "-1! This sloppy procedure leads to the completely unnecessarily cruelly confusing result that dates from in each case only B.C. or A.D.. Chr. run contrary. Thanks, this probably was not the mistake of the provider of this particular graph.HJJHolm (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Even Weirder
It’s a good thing this article exists on Wikipedia, because otherwise, this concept would be virtually unknown. A search on JSTOR for the term “western hunter gatherers” returns a grand total of 2 papers published in peer-reviewed journals during the last 4 years: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. Since this concept is definitely not fringe, obscure, junk science, it’s a good thing that it’s been written about so extensively on Wikipedia, because apparently it isn’t being pursued at all in the scientific community. In fact, the Wikipedia articles written about “eastern hunter gatherers”, “central hunter gatherers” , “western . .”, etc, comprise more pages than all of the papers published in peer-reviewed journals about these topics during the last 4 years. Thank goodness the authors of these Wikipedia articles have so much experience working with peer-reviewed research, and were able to recognize the importance of these topics, when apparently the scientific community hasn’t. Let’s hope that 3 papers about "western hunter gatherers" are published in peer-reviewed journals during 2025, so that the average can be brought-up to one peer-reviewed paper per year for 5 consecutive years, because I’m concerned that at the current rate, this concept will likely be extinct by 2030, and this definitely isn't fringe, obscure, junk science, so we definitely don't want this topic to go extinct. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:FD9B:40B6:A183:8B19 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- Mid-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Archaeology articles
- Mid-importance Archaeology articles
- C-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
- C-Class Genetics articles
- Mid-importance Genetics articles
- WikiProject Genetics articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages