Talk:Haplogroup E-M215

Starting fresh

All previous threads on this page have been moved to Archive 2. Now, with a clean slate, can we please try again? My recommendations are:

• Read WP:CIVIL, and keep the discussions polite
• Keep posts very short (300 words, max)
• Focus on one specific part of the article. How about we pick one paragraph, or even just one sentence, and go from there?

--Elonka 05:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to raise some concerns...

1. The basic problem with this article is not about anything that would bare any level of constructive work, but rather that no one can edit it without being reverted or without seeing one's work get mangled by someone who sees himself as the guardian of this article, but who is not a constructive contributor himself, nor a person who knows the subject matter well, nor a person who writes well. This can only be shown with reference to what is in the archives - not just the new one, but also the older one.

2. Trying to make sure there was no other problem, I spent a lot of time on the weekend writing detailed explanations about any particular words and sentences which Causteau has been referring to as concerns in order to justify his control of the article, and the emergency situation that it is in. He wants the situation to remain controversial, because in such a situation he can claim that edits are inappropriate until things cool down. I put in this effort because nothing else has worked. Now those explanations are all in the archives, and Elonka is implying that writing at length on the talk page is part of the problem, which is what was suggested to her on her talk page by Causteau.

3. Elonka also knows that Causteau's revert stands as the current article, having reverted 5 edits which do not necessarily have anything to do with anything Causteau has said on the archived talk page. Causteau believes that he may revert any edits for the time being based on his interpretation of Elonka. I have asked Elonka to make a clear statement about whether Causteau really should interpret her that way several times.

So when can people other than Causteau start editing Elonka? I realize it was not your intention but you are in the middle of this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A practical question also: there is no longer a contents box on this page. I am not sure how to get it back in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

The previous RfC attempt didn't work, so let's try again. To start with, could you each suggest a one- or two-sentence description of the dispute? For ideas, check how other RfCs list things: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. --Elonka 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should first try one more time to address some issues that you could already have responded on Elonka...

The problem is that my edits are being deleted, which is also what other editors experience on this article. It is not really about any details we can discuss. Most recently, Causteau deleted five edits on the weekend, claiming to be doing Elonka's bidding, and not claiming anything specific about any of those edits. So Causteau is working on a general principle. Here's what Causteau was writing just before the open discussions were cut off by being archived...

What I would really like is for Lancaster to quit playing so loose with sourcing and just stick to what the studies actually say. I realize doing so is a lot more challenging than just dreaming up what a study one apparently never even had full access to until now says, but that's the only way of ensuring encyclopedicity.

I think when pushed Causteau's entire justification for full reverts etc all comes down to something like the quote above: an accusation of loose sourcing in general requiring severe reverts in general and an understanding by Causteau that this is what Elonka demands, and what Wikipedia norms demand.

But even taking this argument seriously, there are two problems with it: first many of the reverts being made have nothing to do with anything claimed by Causteau to be un-sourced, all edits are deleted if there is any part of an edit Causteau does not like, which is nearly always, and that is even if the offending part itself gets changed; and secondly, the claims of poor sourcing, used as a justification for all types of reverts and edits, are frankly petty and wrong, and have been for months.

Here are just two current examples of the types of cases used to claim that the problem involves something to do with sourcing...

1. Causteau equates the putting an geographical adjective (eg Russian) next to a category name (eg cars) in any part of a sentence to actually making a statement that in all the category share the characteristic. In other words, to use the words "Russian cars" in a sentence means that a person is making a claim that all cars are Russian. Here is the sentence. For anyone who can read English, please someone comment...

The fourth major sub-clade of E-M35 to be announced is E-M293, in Henn et. al. (2008) which is claimed to include a majority of sub-Saharan E-M35.

As evidence of Causteau's remarks on this sentence, it is now difficult to cite Causteau's comments because they are archived. But in his talk page entries of 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) he wrote:

Like most people, I'm not a mind reader. If Lancaster puts the term "sub-Saharan" beside the clade E-M35 so that his edit reads "sub-Saharan E-M35" as it indeed does, I'm afraid it is not obvious to non-psychics that what he actually means is "sub-Saharan M293"

...and...

Umm, that quote quite clearly says "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa". It does not describe E-M35 as sub-Saharan ("sub-Saharan E-M35") like Lancaster has in his actual edit. The problem with Lancaster's edit is that he described an entire clade (E-M35) as sub-Saharan while that quote he just produced only ever describes one SNP (namely, M293 -- not even M35) as "only found in sub-Saharan Africa". It doesn't describe the M293 mutation as "sub-Saharan", but its distribution area as sub-Saharan Africa. What's most disturbing about all of this, however, is that Lancaster still refuses to admit that he is wrong and that the study in no way, shape or form describes the E1b1b1/E-M35 clade as "sub-Saharan" like he has very clearly written.

I am sorry to write at length on this, but this is what is important evidence to Causteau of my bad sourcing, and is being used to justify reverts of edits which do not even have anything to do with the above language, which by the way is no longer in the article.

2. Causteau claims that to use the Y clade terminology E-"x" where "x" is an SNP name is "synthesis" unless an editor can cite a source where someone has already used the exact combination before, even if we are talking about a new SNP. I have addressed that, and tried to get discussion about it, in my entry, now archived, of 12:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC), and here and here.

Apart from the above 2 cases, many more examples can be given, going back to May, a lot of which is archived in the first archive. The problems of this article can not be understood properly without seeing that this situation has repeated over some months, every time that editing occurs. When editing is not happening, that is because no one dares.

By the way, May, in the first archive, it can be seen that indeed we eventually went through the whole article line by line. I did all that work. I am the person who always tried to initiate discussion on the talk page. (Of course all that work meant long posts on the talk page Elonka!) But it will also be seen that the conversation was at least as awkward and silly as the present one. It was not a success by any means. Causteau clearly felt bitter about having to reply to things on a factual basis like that, rather than in terms of general reverts and general accusations of bad sourcing. Here is one of the posts he made within that segment of discussion...

If you'll be honest with yourself for a minute, you'll admit that the page that exists now is almost 100% of your creation. That, in and of itself, should satisfy you. But yet here you appear to want me of all people to make more concessions, and after today's barrage of edits.

To me, this attitude puts it in a nutshell.

As shown by Causteau's reactions to attempts at discussion in both archives, wherever possible Causteau refuses to reply constructively to calls for yes/no answers about particular facts, or particular calls for new wordings he could accept, and continues to defend the current situation, the general situation of stalemate where no-one may edit, and not any particular edit.

So, given the types of cases being used to justify the accusation of loose sourcing, the article now has no way forward. To repeat: my last 5 edits were deleted, and I've been told by Causteau and Elonka that to reinstate them or to do any editing at all might draw consequences. Elonka has therefore, whether deliberately or not, locked me out of the article without following normal procedures for such an action, and she has also given Causteau a special status in practice as a person who may revert this article, but not be reverted.

Elonka has not responded to any attempts by me to communicate about this problem.

To even start to move ahead, we first need Elonka to state whether she intended to stop me from being allowed to edit. Do I really need Causteau's permission to edit (in other words may Causteau really revert any edit without any comment on the principle that Elonka supposedly said that for now no one should edit without prior agreement)? If so, when does this stop?

If we presume that Elonka can confirm that I may still edit, then the next question is Causteau should be allowed to do reverts without explanations on the talk page such as I do? As mentioned, my last 5 edits are reverted, and Causteau has never made any attempt to explain that except by reference to Elonka. Can they be reinstated or at least have their problems explained on the talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted

Here are just some examples of things which need fixing, but which can (apparently) not be worked on now. Feel free everyone to add more proposals...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Apparently as part of a reaction to what he calls my arrogance etc because I edit the article too much without his express permission (see his posts on Elonka's talkpage, archives of this talk page etc) Causteau made an edit whereby he introduced new wording into the opening sentence which is already in the second paragraph. This is simple redundancy. Anything missing in the second paragraph at the appropriate place can of course be added in there, but it makes no sense to have two places for listing old names with a few words of each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL I never once used the word "arrogance" in reference to Lancaster's edits, though considering the above, I'm thinking that perhaps I should have. In that link above that Lancaster included, I added the former names for haplogroup E1b1b, as I've very clearly explained in my edit summary. It's baffling why Lancaster would want us to get rid of the names by which E1b1b was known as recently as a few years ago! He states that the article proper already mentions that E1b1b used to be known as Haplogroup 21. That's terrific. However, that information belongs in bold in the introduction alongside the other names for the haplogroup so that visitors to the page realize right off the bat that E1b1b is E3b/Hg21(Haplogroup 21)/Eu4. Most other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia also list the alternative names for the haplogroup right away in the intro (e.g. haplogroups J, R1b, S, etc.), so this is hardly unreasonable or without precedent. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, the question here is concerning the fact that the old names are mentioned in two places. Please read again and respond to that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see #7 below. Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even better let's work on the draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2. In that same sentence, there should be a reference to the second standard name of this clade, the subject of this article, which is E-M215.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. If you'll notice, the info box already cites E-M215. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Any examination of edits over the last week, and also last month, will show that you have a tendency to remove these. That's why I'm trying to make sure there is clarity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have no dispute, then let's include it in the starting sentence as well. Causteau, do you have a problem with naming other haplogroups by their SNPs (e.g. E-M35, E-M81, etc.)? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include a mention of E-M215 in the intro and in bold just like E1b1b. However, this should be in its habitual context vis-a-vis E1b1b i.e. in parentheses: "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215)...". Along those lines. Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See my proposal in the draft below, which rearranges things. They were getting messy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3. The sentence "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East". The new article now out is all about a sub-clade which is Southern and Eastern Africa. I see 2 alternative ways to cover this: "E1b1b is found in various forms in Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East". "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost but not quite. The first quote implies that E1b1b is widespread in Africa when it is virtually absent in West and Central Africa. E1b1b also enjoys a small-to-moderate presence in only a handful of Southern and Eastern African groups that have mixed either directly or indirectly with the Horn African groups it originated with. For this reason, the second quote is preferable but ought to be modified to reflect the real nature of E1b1b's distribution in Africa. Here's how it should read: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East". Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and was working on a draft below in a similar direction. If I can get the edit to stay you should see it soon, but something went wrong the first time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the second sentence is preferable, but there's a lot of overlap and ambiguity. "Middle East," e.g. is a political term of unclear denomination that should be avoided. Moreover, we should avoid saying "the Mediterranean" - we already noted its presence in N. Africa & S. Europe. Instead, we should note its frequency in North Africa and South and Southeastern Europe. As you noted, E1b1b is virtually absent in West & Central Africa, as it is in Eastern and Northern Europe, so we should be clear in the regions that it is present. How about this sentence: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Southern and Southeastern Europe."? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b is found quite literally all over Europe, albeit in smaller frequencies outside of the Mediterranean and the Balkans. The Middle East is indeed also a large area, and E1b1b enjoys a significant presence in many places there save a few. I therefore think we should amend the intro to read something like "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)." Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yom please comment on Western Asia. Instead of "mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)" what about "especially Southern Europe"? There might be a way to do this with some dynamics implied by saying things like "Southern Europe spreading into the rest of Europe" and "the Near East spreading into Asia". Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "Northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, and the Near East, spreading into Europe, Asia, and Eastern and Southern Africa"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not fair on the Balkans perhaps, and maybe Southern Europe generally? This implies "Northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Near East, and Southern Europe, spreading into Western Eurasia, and Eastern and Southern Africa"??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards Causteau's version, if only because we don't have to describe its history (where it spread to from where) in the same sentence that we use to describe its distribution. It's not as if it didn't spread into West Asia and North Africa, too. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you have a look at his new version below?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

4. "E1b1b (M215)" nomenclature should in all cases be standardized to "E1b1b (E-M215)", "E-M215", or E1b1b wherever a clade is being referred to. Most importantly M35 type nomenclature should never refer to a clade. But there are two guidelines I strongly suggest: it should not be the result that E-M35 nomenclature is fully removed from the article, and secondly, E-M35 nomenclature should be the preferred nomenclature where the running text makes it important to remind the reader of the SNP name. As a rough guide these were the places where older versions of the article used "E1b1b (M215)" or "M215" as a clade name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The E-M215 type nomenclature can be included in parentheses in the titles of each section for each sub-clade. For example, the section in the article currently titled "E1b1b1b (M81); formerly E3b1b, E3b2" would be re-labeled "E1b1b1b (E-M81); formerly E3b1b, E3b2". The E-M215 type nomenclature can also be included in parentheses alongside the primary name for the clade/sub-clade during the first mention of the clade/sub-clade in the introduction and the clade/sub-clade's respective section, though many other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia including R1b do not observe this. When the text calls for the mentioning of the SNP name, however, we should do just that and mention the SNP name -- not the clade. M35 is what we would then write instead of the clade E-M35. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK. I've thought before that we had agreement and then still been reverted, but it sounds OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we have a principle, but we'll have to see how it works in practice. Hence, on to drafts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

5. This sentence: "(As with other haplogroup names, the speed of new discoveries is leading many writers to use simpler names which simply refer to the SNP being considered, for example M215 or M35)". I would like to suggest that with all the efforts I made to defend this yet again in the last day, someone could make a proper footnote with references. I've already done all the work. See the archive. Another alternative might be to link to a more general article about Y haplogroups, and to make sure such a discussion exists in that article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a link to an external website is necessary. There was a quote from an article that Lancaster finally posted yesterday which makes this point clear and which would fit in well as a footnote after the above phrase. Here it is again:

Alternatively, haplogroups can be named by the mutations that define lineages rather than by the lineages themselves. Thus, we propose a second nomenclature that retains the major haplogroup information (i.e., 19 capital letters) followed by the name of the terminal mutation that defines a given haplogroup. We distinguish haplogroup names identified "by mutation" from those identified "by lineage" by including a dash between the capital letter and the mutation name. For example, haplogroup H1a would be called H-M36 (Figure 2). When multiple phylogenetically equivalent markers define a haplogroup, the one typed is used. For example, if M39 but not M138 were typed within haplogroup H1, then H1c becomes H-M39. If multiple equivalent markers were typed, this notation system omits some marker information, and a statement of which additional markers were typed should be included in the Methods section. Note that the mutation-based nomenclature has the important property of being more robust to changes in topology (Figure 2).

I could add a reference to the above study as a footnote after the phrase, no problem. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Although note, this reference and link were always on the article. I put them there and referred to them in the text quite a while back.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That source will cover the dual names well. I thought this dispute had a lot to do with Causteau not liking the use of names defined by their SNPs, but if he accepts using them as he's said above, we shouldn't have many problems working this out. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Does Causteau only mean to allow that M-215 can be mentioned one time for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean that the above source justifies our inclusion of the phrase "As with other haplogroup names, the speed of new discoveries is leading many writers to use simpler names which simply refer to the SNP being considered, for example M215 or M35)". Here's the reference I said I'd create: When we've settled on a final draft, I'll add it after the above phrase. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

6. This sentence worried Elonka because it looks un-sourced: "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35)". Adding an "as already mentioned above" might make things more clear. To make it even more clear, the last two paragraphs of the intro could perhaps be joined to make it clear that the discussion of Cruciani's article spans across more than one sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple footnote that identifies the source from which that information was gleaned should cover it. It also gives readers the opportunity to verify the information. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Of course, as already explained to death: "E3b1f (M293)" is an inappropriate heading within this wikipedia article. The article has already defined (using the same nomenclature system) that E3b1f is defined by the SNP P72. If the article should try to be hyper neutral then we could consider also placing a question on the validity of P72's clade name, and treat the question of which sub clade is "f" as undecided. In any case the article clearly can not be taking a strong position in favor of Henn. To insist on using Henn's "f" would be to take the side of someone who has not yet even raised any debate in public, and that would not be neutral. Very likely Henn's claim on "f" will just be dropped once everyone realizes P72 was first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty clear on cases such as this. Content must be verifiable and sourced, and our source is the Henn et. al 2008 study. Henn quite clearly names the sub-clade E3b1f-M293. In the interests of consistency, however, we should probably include a mention of the E-M215 type nomenclature if we are also to include it in parentheses in the previous section headings. This would mean that the heading for the E3b1f-M293 section would change from simply "E3b1f (M293)" to "E3b1f (E-M293)". This is our most optimal compromise given the preceding text and especially the Henn source. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a case where we definitely disagree. I don't see that as a compromise at all, and I do not see any verifiability problem or synthesis either. The YCC quote above explain how anyone can make their own mutation based clade name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is how I see it. Henn named it E3b1f-M293, so we should note that when discussing the clade, but there's no reason why we shouldn't refer to it by its SNP, given that E3b1f is based on the old nomenclature. As for the header, however, I have no problem in naming it "E3b1f (E-M293)," since it hasn't been renamed under the new nomenclature. We should make a note of this at the beginning of the section. @Andrew, I'm not sure exactly where the disagreement you have here is. Do you want to simply not mention (or just mention once at the beginning of the section) the name "E3b1f"? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-sign Yom. How about you Lancaster? Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we will have 2 "f" clades. That implies that we are also questioning the "f" status of P72. See the article. If we are really doing that, then we should make that explicit too. In that case we should make the title of the two last M-35 sub-clades as follows: "E1b1bf?" (sic.) (M-P72) and "E1b1bf?" (sic.) (M-M293). That seems pretty obtuse to me, but I could accept it. I can not understand why any listing of clades in any serious reference work or webpage, would ever list clades using conflicting phylogenetic system though: E3b has been updated to E1b1b and there is no doubt about that. E3 would be a brother of E1. If we give that impression we are misleading people pure and simple and there is no need to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, nowhere does Henn call it "E1b1b1f" in his paper, so we would be erroneous to assign it that name. I was suggesting that we only call it "E3b1f" twice - once in the header, and then in the first sentence of the section explaining that he used the old terminology and that it hasn't been given a new name yet. We could also note that there was already an "E3b1f" ("E1b1b1f") that (Im' assuming here) his study was unaware of. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Henn quite clearly labels the sub-clade "E3b1f" and not "E1b1b1f". A simple reference in the text to Henn using the old E3b nomenclature should cover it. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can use E3b throughout the phylogenetic listing in the article, which would be silly, or we can use E1b1b throughout that section. Of course there is nothing stopping us referring to the exact wording which the authors used, but in the up-to-date phylogenetic system used now in the article, E3b would not even be within E-M215. These names have a meaning: they explain a family tree. E3b is a sub-clade of E3, and E3 is a sibling of E1, and E1 is an ancestral clade to E1b1b, etc. That is the whole point of these names. You can refer to different systems in an article, but you can not put them together in a listing used for reference purposes. If anyone can find any article or strong reference which does such a thing, I'd be very surprised. EVery single article in the literature has to take account of the fact that past articles used different systems, and yet none mix and match like this. The reason is because the names are the systems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there's a perfect solution to this situation. Henn et al was submitted for publication review in February 2008, and they correctly (at the time) used 2007 nomenclature. Karafet et al then published the updated nomenclature in April 2008. Henn's article was finally published in August 2008, and by then the E3b nomenclature was outdated.

The unfortunate situation is that the Y chromosome tree is in a constant state of flux with no central naming authority to assign names to new SNPs. So authors just choose the next available branch name for their new SNP. When multiple studies on the same section of the tree are published so close to each other, conflicts like those being discussed here can and do arise. In the past, ISOGG has generally chosen to handle such conflicts by allowing the first SNP published to keep its given name, and then giving the newer SNP the next branch name. So I would expect ISOGG to eventually update their tree to show E1b1b1g as the new name for M293, once they confirm that M293 and P72 are not phylogenetically equivalent. However, this has not been done yet, so this article should not assume any E1b1b1 name for M293.

Something else to keep in mind is that old articles aren't updated when nomenclature changes, so there will always be outdated articles that use old hierarchical nomenclature. The mutation-based nomenclature using only the capital letter and the mutation is the one least likely to become outdated (though it's still possible, as evidenced by K2 becoming T!). So why Henn chose to use E3b1f-M293 is beyond me, but its use in the Henn publication doesn't mean it needs to be used in the Wikipedia article.

So given all this, we need an appropriate way to reference this new subclade in a factual way, while also trying to avoid confusion and ambiguity. So may I recommend simply writing the section header as "E3b1f (M293)" (in quotes for emphasis) and then explain the situation in the text of the article? If shorthand needs to be used in the article, use E-M293, since that is an accepted and unambiguous nomenclature standard per YCC recommendations. Avoid writing E3b1f-M293 unless in a direct quote from the Henn article. Then when ISOGG or another authority posts or publishes an updated tree that incorporates M293, the section header can be updated accordingly with the new nomenclature. Efweb (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

8. I am not sure how to do this, but perhaps the article should have one of those little remarks at the top to say something like "this article not only covers E1b1b (E-M215) but also E1b1b1 (E-M35)". The reasoning is that many people would searching for information E-M35 which is a more well-known clade than E-M215. As mentioned in the article, the two clades are almost, but not quite, the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but not really necessary. I think it's safe to assume that most people that are aware of both E1b1b (E-M215) and E1b1b1 (E-M35) realize that the E1b1b page likely discusses both. For the rest, we could re-direct all queries for E1b1b1 to this page. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. If we need to, in the (probably far) future, we can split the articles into two and make a note that they're covered in different articles, but right now, I don't think anyone's going to come here not looking for E-M35 data, given how few non-M35-carrying individuals there are with the M215 SNP. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there will ever be a need to have an article for every phylogenetic level. Anyway, in this particular case the point is that many people searching for M-35 will need to be directed here. I have created some more re-directs today with that in mind. Also see that way I proposed the draft, which I think covers this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just created a re-direct page for E1b1b1 to this article. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

new draft of introductory section

Here is a draft Please comment...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (using phylogenetic nomenclature) or E-M215 (using mutation-based nomenclature) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

In nearly all discussion, E1b1b is equivalent to it's sub-clade, E1b1b1, or E-M35, which contains nearly all of E1b1b. It was only in Cruciani et. al.'s 2004 article[REF MISSING] that M215 was shown to be prior to M35, because there are some lineages which have the M215 mutation, but not M35. On that basis this article covers both clades, but is named after the slightly larger one.

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b and E1b1b1 male lines are found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, Northern,Eastern,Southern Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean, from which it spreads into Europe.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This intro draft is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

1)In its very first line, it introduces the notion of "phylogenetic nomenclature" vs. "mutation-based nomenclature" that literally no other haplogroup page on Wikipedia bothers to delve into. This is both unprecedented and unnecessary. To remedy this, a simple intro phrase along the lines of "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) (formerly known as E3b, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4)"... will suffice. This way, readers are afforded the opportunity to see in bold and right away that E1b1b is the same thing as E3b/Hg21(Haplogroup 21)/Eu4 just like many other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia allow readers to see the alternate names for the clades in question (e.g. haplogroups J, R1b, S, etc.).

So we should make the article worse than it needs to be? :( Here is my counter proposal. Step 1. We make this article better than what is currently normal. The WikiProject Human Genetic History, and also you and I in May, and anyone who knows this subject, are all on record as saying this is the direction of things. Step 2. We can make sure any articles that need to be updated in order to help this article should be up to date. In other words, if there is nothing on Wikipedia about these two concepts then there should be surely? The Wikipedia terminology is being bold.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no problem with citing the phylogenetic vs. the mutatation-based nomenclatures, but just not in the intro. This dichotomy is already discussed in detail further down the page:

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

I still think the intro line should read: "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) (formerly known as E3b, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4)...", which is in line with other Wiki pages and not confusing. Causteau (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical words are confusing but we can create articles or edit articles to cover that. So what is your real concern? You have to give a reason. There really are two types of terminology. Wikipedia should reflect that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My reason stated above is that the two different nomenclature systems are already mentioned in detail further down the page in the paragraph I've quoted above. Causteau (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want to remove the parentheses? Or something else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have to since E-M215 is auxiliary to E1b1b. Causteau (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In reality it certainly is not a lesser nomenclature (for example in the YCC, and JOGG) and I'd prefer not to have to treat it that way, but I think the consensus is that this article will use E1b1b as the main term for the time being. I think that practice so far shows that though we agree on this principle, our interpretations are quite far apart. I see the two terms as almost equal. You see including M-215 as a concession, or at least you did originally. Anyway the question is what to write, and we maybe there is a way. My first draft was...

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (using phylogenetic nomenclature) or E-M215 (using mutation-based nomenclature) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

...and my point was that on the basis of what you argued so far, I can understand why we should perhaps change it to...

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b or E-M215 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

...this being because your reasoning stated so far was concerning the fact that the terminology distinction is mentioned below, which is true. But I sense that something is is wrong? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This implies we should strengthen the second reference which must now support itself...

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

...should possibly become (I am still thinking by the way)...

The current "phylogenetic" terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. This 2008 article was intended to be an update of the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC) [REF]. The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" and "E3b1". It also blessed the "mutation nomenclature", "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since then, because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations (an increasingly frequent occurrence) for example when older and newer literature is being compared. Prior to 2002 both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4.

Please comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You've left out again the other haplogroup names. If you'll recall, this is what I last proposed as an intro phrase: "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) (formerly known as E3b, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4)...". All the names are covered there where they should be, in the intro. There they are instantly identifiable by all who visit the page, just as on other haplogroup pages e.g. J, S. This includes E-M215, which is placed in its habitual position alongside E1b1b in the lead-in albeit in parentheses. Causteau (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2)This proposed intro misrepresents the true extent of the distribution area of E1b1b in Eastern and Southern Africa as explained earlier by me. Again, E1b1b enjoys a small-to-moderate presence in only a handful of Southern and Eastern African groups that have mixed either directly or indirectly with the Horn African groups it originated with. Stating that it is found in "Eastern, Southern Africa" gives the impression that it is widespread there when it is not; frequencies in those areas aren't even that high to begin with. Also, North Africa deserves independent mention from Eastern and Southern Africa since the sub-clade most prevalent there (E1b1b1b (M81) i.e. the "Berber marker") is different from the one most prevalent in those other two regions.

I see your point, but can you find the right wording? I know you were already working on it above. But here is a solid draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I propose instead: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)." It's the same as discussed in the section above because the frequencies in the Mediterranean and the Balkans are both quite significant, as those were the areas in Europe where E1b1b was first introduced. Causteau (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I kept replying above and my last suggestion was in a similar direction "Northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Near East, and Southern Europe, spreading into Western Eurasia, and Eastern and Southern Africa". Both are pretty clunky. Both contain some geographical terms which might raise questions with at least some people. Wording suggestions and comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit still does not make it clear that E1b1b enjoys a limited distribution in parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, and that it's highest concentration in Europe is in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. Causteau (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you get all that information into one sentence though? I was trying to imply that the "spreading into areas" had a lower concentration. Did that fail? I am not sure your sentence does better in this regard? I note how you bring in the Mediterranean to help explain. Perhaps that word helps?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Yom said earlier, there's no need to go into all that detail in the lead-in. The text is there for that. To be honest, I still think my original proposal of "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)" is the best and simplest option. But if you want to include Western Eurasia and Near East (though they kinda overlap), I'm open to that too. Causteau (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have big issues with this but I sense it is not the best possible. I base this in fact on your own criticisms: looking at overlap, and looking at whether the wording gives a correct feeling about which of the areas has the most E1b1b. Do you see what I mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No clue. Causteau (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3)Unless we can get a source that states outright that "The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations", that is original research and shouldn't and can't, in fact, be included. Causteau (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been informed during this that, just to name an example, this is now JOGG editing policy. JOGG is the online journal of the ISOGG. Does that count? I've asked if the policy is online. Also see the comments on the WikiProject Human Genetic History talk page where an editor mentions that this is specifically urgent for a clade like E1b1b because it turns out in current research that E is quite far down the human Y phylogenetic tree. Right! I am sure I can find other justifications, but the key thing, for better or worse, is convincing you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep us posted on what you find. Causteau (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yom's comments

Andrew asked me to take a look at this dispute, so I'll post my response to him from his talk page here:

Hello Andrew. Yes, I had noticed that it had grown substantially longer and better from when I used to edit it. Can you clarify the dilemma for me? Is this all really over whether we should say E1b1b1 (and other haplogroups) is "defined by M35" or state that E-M35 is an alternative name for it? Couldn't we do both, given that they are both correct? E.g., "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly known as E3b, E-M215, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a subgroup of haplogroup E. It is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215[2]" and "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1, also known as E-M35 by its defining mutation (M35)."

As for the rest of your points (under "Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted"), I generally agree with you. We should be using names like E-M215 and E-M35 because they are unchanging and always referred to as such, while terms like E3b and E1b1b can change (as they already have) and get confusing when comparing articles from different years. That said, we should also use the E1b1b nomenclature given it's becoming/has become the standard. I'm not sure what Casteau's talking about on points 3 (in your edit wishlist) and 1 (in your RFC). Sub-Saharan modifies E-M35, defining the type of E-M35. It's true that it can be read to mean "the sub-Saharan E-M35," indicating that all lineages are sub-Saharan, but since it's late in the article where its origins have already been explained, there shouldn't be any problem. Besides, E-M35 did originate in sub-Saharan Africa (the Horn of Africa, to be exact). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)