Jump to content

Talk:Haplogroup F-M89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Centrum99 (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 27 March 2011 (→has someone checked to see if apples are being compared with apples?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconHuman Genetic History (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Template:Wikiproject MCB

confusing claims

The article contains a lot of confusing claims. First, Y-haplogroup F (and its female counterpart, mtDNA haplogroup N) probably didn't leave Africa earlier than 50 000 years ago, because they bear Upper Paleolithic technologies that got to East Africa as late as at that time. By 47 000 years BP, maternal lineages UK coming from N are present in the Levant and shortly after radiate to North Africa, Europe and South-Western Asia. However, their presence in the Levant may rather be a result of a secondary migration. This can be indirectly supported by the fact that the maternal N-lineages present in the Near East mostly belong to one lineage (R: UK, JT, HV) that is only a subset of many lineages stemming from N. Moreover, a later expansion of F+N that started 45 000 years BP and headed to Central Asia and India/South-Eastern Asia, is accompanied by far more diverse composition of N-lineages and suggests that the original migration center of the whole F+N group may have been somewhere in the Middle East (Iran?). In general, the course of F+N's migration rather followed the Arabian coast, similarly like in the case C+M.

The origin of Afro-Asiatic languages lies almost certainly in the Horn of Africa 8000 years BP. The African lineage of R1 has nothing to do with it, because it is present only in few West African groups. J1 is a signature of the spread of Semitic tribes. K2 got to East Africa through Arabia probably as early as during the Paleolithic. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the "Babel haplogroup" confuses others too ,-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.118.115 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jogg website

The jogg website is a hobby site run by non-professionals. It may style itself as a peer-reviewed journal, but the editors and authors do not have degrees in genetics. Instead they are family lawyers, economists, etc. Please explain why you think this website complies with WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:
  • I was also discussing JOGG concerning another case on Jayjg's talk page when he posted the above: [1].
  • The JOGG as a source has been discussed at RS/N and Jayjg should have mentioned that because he was involved: [2].
  • The end result of that discussion is that only two Wikipedians apparently stayed with positions clearly opposed to the consensus at the end of the discussion, one was Jayjg and the other was the party who questioned JOGG on RS/N in the first place (during a content dispute about whether he should be allowed to cherry-pick sources, not only JOGG-related, on R1a). The position agreed upon by others was that JOGG can be used with caution for some things. It basically means context needs to be looked at in each case.
  • The proposing party's talk page postings show that he realized consensus had gone against him[3]. (I would say it also shows that his true concern was not an RS concern with JOGG in the first place; it was just part of a bigger issue for him.)
  • Also note that the Proposing party actually specifically appeared to accept that Whit Athey, the author being cited here, is a cited author in "professional" literature.
  • End result is that Jayjg is a minority of one here, both in terms of ignoring the community consensus generally by treating JOGG as if it is on some non-existent black list, and more specifically concerning Whit Athey.
  • The more basic problem appears to me to be that Jayjg is practicing a policy of deleting things without making any attempt to understand what he is deleting. That can never work, and is against both the spirit and the letter of core WP policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew. Every source has its own value. --Maulucioni (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at RS/N was that jogg.info failed WP:RS, and my "involvement" consisted of being one of the regular evaluators of sources at WP:RS/N, and my actions are completely in line with policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not correct. Please actually read the RS/N case, and read what I have written above. If you have constructive answers please give them. Otherwise please do not delete sourced materials against consensus, and please do not delete bits of articles you have apparently made no attempt to understand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your comment is simply not correct. Please actually read the RS/N case, and read what I have written above. If you have constructive comments please make them. Otherwise please do not insert materials sourced to unreliable sources, please do not defend their insertions on Talk: pages, and please do not make inaccurate Talk: page comments about other editors' edits. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I now repeat the trick by copying and pasting your words back so that we can keep the circle going? How about this: if you have time to read anything on this subject one day, and you have a response to all or any of the facts I have posted, then instead of deleting them from your talk page, and then trying to make up stories about what has been said, make constructive answers. Otherwise I see no reason to take your deletions seriously. It has been demonstrated on E1b1b and your talkpage that you have been doing these deletions with no idea what you are deleting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it should be noted that Jayjg's format of writing my words back has introduced a description of events which is fundamentally wrong. I did not insert any of the materials he has been deleting on several articles and calling poorly sourced. This is absolutely not a disagreement between two mirror image arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article Talk: pages are for discussing changes to article content. Are there any changes you would like to make to this article's content? Jayjg (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the above discussion not about changed in the article? Please explain your point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing any new changes? Jayjg (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've re-instated the Athey citation and left the ISOGG one as well. Apart from the above disagreement about JOGG in a general and abstract sense...

  • This minor observation is not redflag material anyway.
  • Whit Athey was specifically discussed in the RS/N case mentioned above as an exceptional case. He is reasonably widely cited and published outside of JOGG in the subject of Y haplogroup prediction. To delete mention of a minor comment by someone like that because of association with JOGG is illogical no matter what particular individuals here think about the JOGG in general.
  • ISOGG's phylogeny webpages, while made very carefully concerning the summarizing of phylogeny updates, and widely cited and respected for that (this hobbyist webpage is now the standard citation used in major peer reviewed Y haplogroup articles in recent years) are not ideal for many other purposes. The texts at the bottom of each page just contain quick summaries from other sources and not frequently updated. Those notes are not cited in peer reviewed literature that way (and I happen to know they aren't intended to be).

A more up-to-date study of F* would be great of course. I don't recall seeing any. Does Chiaroni et al discuss it? Cheers--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, since we already have a reliable source verifying the statement. If, as you say, it is only a "minor observation", then we hardly need a second source to confirm it. Adding an unnecessary second source that is at best disputed (and in fact, one that fails WP:RS), is disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, adding a stronger source is "disruptive"? Anyway can you show that you have read and considered my comments about the ISOGG source being the weaker of the two for this type of purpose? Did you see that I wrote that? ISOGG sourcing of this type has generally not been accepted on haplogroup articles and if one source needs to be selected then I've stated the basic facts above which lead to a simple conclusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you claim, it is only a "minor observation", then why would you need a "stronger" source? And particularly a source that you know has been removed specifically because it is not reliable? If it's a "minor observation", then it should be easy to find plenty of sources for it, or alternatively, a "weaker" source will do. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your only concern? If that is your only concern I can see no reason for objection to replacing ISOGG with Athey, because there can be nothing wrong with making any sourcing better? Am I missing something? As far as I can see, we should judge by what the sources are checked for and cited for outside WP: ISOGG is not intended for use this way. It is very good for other things, as shown by the way it is used by "professionals". Athey's article on F* went through a fact checking process and is in fact presumably the source of the ISOGG sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a source to which no-one objects, backing a statment that is merely a "minor observation". Why would you then insist on adding a second source, to which there are obvious, strong objections? A source which other editors have stated quite clearly is not reliable? Adding it is an obvious example of WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer the question as to whether this was your only concern please? Yes/no would be fine. Concerning the rest:
  • I have objected to ISOGG being used this way and it has generally not been accepted for this type of sourcing on WP. Did you read that I wrote that?
  • Also, of the two editors of this article here, there is a consensus that the Athey reference is fine. No strong objections have been raised except that you called Athey a hobbyist, and two people have explained why that objection is not appropriate. You have not responded to either of us. Do you have a response?
  • Can you refrain from throwing around loose accusations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a case where one editor, normally uninvolved in this article or similar ones, taking a minority position, but also apparently unable or unwilling to respond to concerns raised, and the responses given to his concerns. (Repeating the same opinion over and over and trying to loop discussions is not responding, obviously.) As we know, WP is not a democracy: editors visiting articles just to argue about a single pet issue (and this is only one of the genetics articles Jayjg has made similar JOGG-related edits on during a single purpose sweep) and unwilling to show signs of understanding either the content of the article or the issues raised by editors working on them is generally considered something which can be ignored if it becomes necessary.

That only leaves the one argument Jayjg has which is that he claims he is acting on the basis of community consensus during an RS/N case. So, concerning that one single claim I should just comment that:-

(a) this claim of consensus is obvious nonsense if you simply read the case (sorry: it seems my previous descriptions were not clear enough, so I make it as clear as possible) and
(b) On Jayjg's talkpage, I've now spent >2 weeks trying to give Jayjg to make a case and the open questions remain open or indeed build up. Discussion has been circular like the above. I think now it is clear I've given a very fair chance. In such a situation I think normal accepted WP practice is clear, which is that we have to assume Jayjg has no responses to give.

Obviously in such cases it is even a bit weird to be bothering to state the case at such length but I do this out of respect of the fact that Jayjg is an experienced Wikipedian (more experienced than me) who knows very well how to cite WP policies and make accusations. We don't want any confusions between old fashioned content disagreements and policy violations.

Therefore I will improve the article as suggested above, having not received any response to the justifications I gave, even after giving several chances.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please Comment on content, not on the contributor. The jogg website is not a reliable source, as explained at length in a number of places. If the information is not contentious, then you hardly need a powerhouse source, and in any event it should be easy to source from some actually reliable source. Insisting on the jogg website and only the jogg website under these circumstances is tendentious. We'll keep the better source for now, but I wouldn't object to a different reliable source being used if you don't like ISOGG, but please don't restore jogg without consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you can answer the points above, please do. If you have no point, please stop pretending you have one, and also please go out and learn how to distinguish ad hominem criticisms from criticisms of an argument, which mention the person. You should see it as a basic requirement for throwing around such accusations willy nilly that you at least understand them. See WP:CLUE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to mention the person at all; only discuss edits without any reference to individuals, individual characteristics etc. Also, please respond to issues raised. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me out and tell me which points you raised which I have not already answered! Are you joking? Also please respond to the issues I raised? All of the following are open from my side:-
  • The two editors here who know what they are talking about like the Athey reference. So you can not claim consensus, and nor can you claim I am working against consensus.
  • Your only intelligible concern about JOGG is that it is "hobbyist". But so is ISOGG. Just to make sure you did not miss it: due to the laws of logic being what they are, that's a death blow to your whole case as you have stated it so far.
  • ISOGG comments on the bottom of their phylogeny webpages are not intended to be authoritative and are not subject to the same level of checking. They have been rejected for this type of use before on Wikipedia. BTW I am a member of ISOGG and I know what I am talking about. The focus of those webpages is the phylogenetic information and that is also how academics cite them.
  • The ISOGG comments being cited are apparently just based on Athey to begin with.
  • The argument that if the point is minor we should use a worse source is not even an argument. It is just nonsense. Again, logic itself seems to be getting in your way.
As far as I can see, the above list of points already made and never responded to, in fact ignored, basically leave nothing worthwhile of any points you ever made? You have no points open for me to answer. So like I said, if you have an answer, post it in clear and straightforward words. Otherwise I feel fully justified in saying that you have been shown not to have a point. I am not just assuming bad faith. I am seeing it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I feel you are ignoring the points and questions raised here. You claim that this is a "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can you not either find an uncontested source for it, or accept the ISOGG source in this case (given that no-one has objected to it)? Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it contested? See above. Please state what your contestation is if you claim to have one I have not answered. It is not enough to just say you have one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to ask if it is contested, when it has been removed several times, and strong objections to its use have been voiced on the Talk: page. These objections have been responded to, but not yet addressed. Athey is a retired physicist, whose working career was at the FDA in its medical device labs; he also taught Electrical Engineering courses at Tufts. None of that had anything to do with genetics. His "paper" was effectively self-published on the jogg website, which he helps run as an "editor". It is not enough to respond to an objection, one must also address it. You claim that this is a "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can you not either find an uncontested source for it, or accept the ISOGG source in this case (given that no-one has objected to it)? Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can not answer objections that you never mentioned before can I? Suddenly the JOGG is self-publication? Please explain your brand new position and any others you are keeping to yourself. JOGG has a board, not one editor, and articles go through a peer review process. It is cited as reliable by geneticists, and so is Whit Athey personally. Wince when does WP say that people are not just writers but also editors are "self published"? I would think such people due a bit more respect than average, not less?
  • Previously, for example on your talk page over and over, you insisted on calling JOGG "hobbyist" and leaving it at that. Are you saying that those previous explanations were not quite right now that you want to allow the ISOGG? I bet you won't answer.
  • Your last point is addressed above: The argument that if the point is minor we should deliberately use a worse source is not even an argument. It is just nonsense. Again, logic itself seems to be getting in your way. What was your answer to that? I bet I never get one.
  • This is the umpteenth time you've said that no-one objects to ISOGG. Are you joking? What are we talking about? Am I no-one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my objection, so I'll repeat it. You claim that this is a "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can you not either find an uncontested source for it, or accept the ISOGG source in this case (given that no-one has objected to it)? To quote you, I bet you won't answer. You have not stated that you object to ISOGG yourself, merely that it has been rejected on other pages. Your claim that we should deliberately use a worse source is not even an argument is a straw man argument - no-one has stated "we should deliberately use a worse source". In fact, they have explained several times that we should use the better source (ISOGG). And just claiming it is "nonsense" is not an answer either. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise! You did not answer. Let's summarize once more the answers to you though:-
  • There are two contested sources. One contested by you, and one contested by me.
  • You have no defense of my point concerning ISOGG. You make not even a show of answering that.
  • Above is the first time you have openly claimed that you think ISOGG is the better source. Please explain why you think that. What are the key differences between JOGG and ISOGG which make the difference for you?
  • You've not given any clear reason for arguing that JOGG is a worse source than ISOGG. You said it was hobbyist, but so is ISOGG for example.
  • It is not true that "no-one has stated "we should deliberately use a worse source"". Above you wrote that "If, as you claim, it is only a "minor observation", then why would you need a "stronger" source? And particularly a source that you know has been removed specifically because it is not reliable? If it's a "minor observation", then it should be easy to find plenty of sources for it, or alternatively, a "weaker" source will do." It is interesting to me that you frequently see your own words cited back to you as straw man arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A reliable source is always superior to an unreliable one.
  2. Posing a question based on your claim is not the same as making an argument for that point. It is your claim that jogg is a stronger than ISOGG, not mine. I've said all along that jogg is not reliable. Funny how you attribute your own arguments to me in order to refute them; please review straw man.
  3. You still haven't answered my objection, so I'll repeat it. You claim that this is a "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can you not either find an uncontested source for it, or accept the ISOGG source in this case (given that no-one has objected to it)? To quote you, I bet you won't answer.
Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Good to hear you agree.
2. I never said otherwise. What you attribute to me is wrong. Fact is you won't say what your argument is.
3. I have answered. ISOGG is contested, and no response has been given to that. JOGG is not contested by anyone who can explain their point. What are you talking about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've been very clear about my arguments all along. Claiming I haven't is unhelpful and untrue rhetoric; I don't plan to respond to it again.
  2. Athey's posting on the jogg.info website has been contested far more clearly and justifiably than the ISOGG paper has. Claiming it hasn't is unhelpful and untrue rhetoric; I don't plan to respond to it again.
  3. I'll repeat the unanswered question and simplify it: You claim that this "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can't you find an uncontested source for it?
Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure nonsense does not become convincing by repeating it over and over and pretending you can not read. Discussion done here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat the unanswered question and simplify it: You claim that this "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can't you find an uncontested source for it? Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whit Athey's work is the most important compilation on patrilineal genetics (Y-chromosome) that I've ever known. No other work that you call reliable source could ever replace what he has done on ISOGG. I respect him very much. Disregarding it would be as if we criticized Leeuwenhoek, the man who discovered microorganisms for his belonging to the Royal Society just because he had no academic degree in Biology. The reliability of his work is the most important thing.--Maulucioni (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Whit's work is widely cited in reliable sources and he is a respected figure in genetic genealogy and genetics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leeuwenhoek? You're seriously comparing Athey to him? He was the father of microbiology, and did his main work in the 17th century, when science was in its infancy. Genetics has been around for a long time now. Where has the jogg posting of Athey's been cited? Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any on-topic questions or comments? Please stop trying to create artificial conflict as a way of causing distraction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that this web-posting of Athey's on the jogg site complies with WP:RS in any way, and no evidence has been brought forward to support it here. Please do not remove the tag until reliable sources are provided. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all the previous discussion again? I want to just note the following:
Just for the record here: Jayjg and I occasionally share interests and I stalk him/her from time to time. I don't always agree with Jayjg, but I have read this discussion and I find myself agreeing with JG on most of his points. The consensus at that RS/N was not in favor or using JOGG postings in general, and nothing said here has overcome that presumption|.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, that's not a correct summary of the RS/N discussion unless you only read the first couple of posts before anyone was allowed to respond. The first few people to respond had all been involved in arguments about JOGG sourcing previously, including Jayjg. Even putting that aside, Jayjg actually appeared to make allowance for cases like Whit Athey who is a cited author in the field of Y haplogroups. Please read what he wrote "I suppose, if pushed, one could treat articles on it as self-published sources; that is to say, if a real geneticist published an article there".
Second, if you claim to be watching this case carefully, please explain why Jayjg was arguing that we should use the ISOGG (hobbyist) website instead which quotes from Whit Athey's paper but is not even an article as such?
Third, you really should not be dropping by and doing reverts like this unless you are able to discuss this subject fully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the questions raised regarding this source. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, what is the question about this source? I don't see one? Are you claiming Whit Athey is not a cited author in this field? Are you claiming JOGG is just his personal website? Those are the only types of accusations I've seen you make and they are obviously based on nothing. Do you have any real on-topic questions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Athey is a retired physicist, whose working career was at the FDA in its medical device labs; he also taught Electrical Engineering courses at Tufts. None of that had anything to do with genetics. The citation you are using is something Athey has posted about genetic genealogy. There is not indication that this posting meets the requirements of WP:RS.

Repeating the previous unanswered questions:

  1. Where has the jogg posting of Athey's been cited?
  2. You claim that this "minor observation is not redflag material anyway". If so, why can't you find an uncontested source for it?

Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I'll try again...
  • Concerning your point 1, I don't remember anyone claiming that this particular sentence from this particular article has been cited? Frankly, I have not even checked that specifically. That is not necessary. It is good enough to point out, as has been pointed out, that Whit Athey as an author on the subject of Y haplogroups, including material he published in JOGG, has been cited in peer reviewed genetics articles.
  • Concerning your point 2, there is only one person claiming to have an objection, and that person won't explain what their objection is, neither here nor on your talk page where there is a big list of questions you refuse to answer which are relevant to this case and other similar ones, even after quite a few chances. So that objection is just a "vote" without any attached argument. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote does not count unless you can explain your case and convince others.
I hope this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the questions, which remain unanswered. If you claim the jogg posting is cited, then list which reliable sources have cited it. If you claim the observation is "minor", then explain why you cannot find a second source for it. And two editors claiming one thing, while two editors saying the opposite, is not "consensus". Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These "questions" are not based on anything anyone argues or needs to argue?
  • It is not necessary to argue that every particular set of words has been cited somewhere, surely? The author and the journal, have been cited.
  • There is no logical connection between an observation (such as that Portugal has links with India) needs to have multiple sources. Do you honestly dispute that India and Portugal have historical links?
  • On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean counting votes of all people regardless of whether they have no reasoned argument.

Below I paste just some results from a Google Scholar search for "Athey" and "haplogroup".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing your DNA database: Issues with determining ancestral Y haplotypes in a Y-Filer database DA Taylor, RJ Mitchell, R van Oorschot, N … - Forensic Science …, 2009 - Elsevier ... 37–48. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (911). [5] TW Athey, Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using a Bayesian-allele frequency approach, J. Genet. Geneal. 2 (2006), pp. 34–39. Corresponding Author Contact Information Corresponding author. ... Related articles - All 2 versions

[PDF] Assembly of a large Y-STR haplotype database for the Czech population and investigation of its substructure yhrd.org [PDF]J Zastera, L Roewer, S Willuweit, P Sekerka, L … - Forensic Science …, 2009 - yhrd.org ... of Central Italy by SNP and STR analysis, Int. J. Legal Med. 121 (2007) 234–237. [14] TW Athey, Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using an allele-frequency approach, J. Gen. Geneal. 1 (2005) 1–7. [15] F. Luca, F. Di ... Related articles - View as HTML - All 5 versions

The Most Ancient Democracy in the World Is a Genetic Isolate: An Autosomal and Y-Chromosome Study of the Hermit Village of Malana (Himachal Pradesh, India) 130.102.44.247 [PDF]R Giroti, I Talwar - Human Biology, 2010 - muse.jhu.edu ... [End Page 127] Prediction of Y-chromosome haplogroups from Y-chromosome STR haplotypes was performed using Athey's Haplogroup Predictor program, version 5, which is based on a Bayesian allele-frequency approach (Athey 2006). Results. Autosomal STR Diversity. ...

Software for Y-haplogroup predictions: a word of caution M Muzzio, V Ramallo, JMB Motti, MR Santos, JS … - International journal of … - Springer ... Hum Genet 114:354– 365 3. Athey WT (2005) Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using an allele-frequency approach. J Genet Geneal 1:1–7 4. Athey WT (2006) Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using a Bayesian-allele-frequency approach. ... Related articles - All 4 versions

The genetic structure of the Slovak population revealed by Y-chromosome polymorphisms … PETREJCÍKOVÁ, M SOTÁK, J BERNASOVSKÁ, I … - Anthropological …, 2010 - J-STAGE ... Slovak males, who were typed for 12 Y-short tandem repeats (STRs) (DYS391, DYS389I, DYS439, DYS389II, DYS438, DYS437, DYS19, DYS392, DYS393, DYS390, DYS385a/b). The corresponding Y-haplogroups were deduced using Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor. ... Related articles

[HTML] Evaluation of 14 Y-chromosomal Short Tandem Repeat Haplotype with Focus on DYS449, DYS456, and DYS458: Czech Population Sample nih.gov [HTML]E Ehler, R Marvan, D Vanek - 2010 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ... [PubMed]. 17. Athey TW. Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using an allele-frequency approach. Journal of Genetic Genealogy. 2005;1:1–7. 18. Athey TW. Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using a Bayesian-allele frequency approach. ... Related articles - All 3 versions

[CITATION] A Likelihood Based Approach Using Y-Chromosomal STRs for Metapopulation Determination G Mertens, G Leijnen, E Jelmes, S Rand, … - Population genetics …, 2008 - Nova Biomedical Related articles - All 2 versions

Sorry, I find the formatting very confusing. Which of these sources explicitly cite this jogg posting by Athey? Also, if the observation is "minor", why is it apparently impossible to find any other source that supports it? And finally, it's at best highly subjective to claim that one is the only editor with a "reasoned argument", so we'll just stick to the objective point that there's no consensus that the Athey posting is reliable. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just please run me through what you are claiming here?
1. Are you claiming that to be used in WP, the exact words being cited need to be not only from a reliable source, but also to have been re-cited but ANOTHER reliable source? Can you please direct me to anything on WP which backs up your implied demand?
2. Are you claiming that the proof of something being a minor point would be that it can be sourced in multiple sources?
3. Are you honestly objecting to the claim that the point is minor? Do you honestly claim that it is hard to source the fact that India and Portugal have an historical connection?
4. You've stated above that ISOGG is a stronger source for this comment than JOGG on the basis that JOGG is a hobbyist source, while ISOGG is also one. I have asked you to explain the key differences which make one a strong source for you and the other not. Please explain.
5. You've stated above that you do not want 2 sources where one would do the job (arguing that we should just use ISOGG, which you therefore apparently consider a separate and satisfactory source on in its own. How does this position fit with the apparent position you have of claiming I can not name a second source for the minor point? The position you are taking seems cynical and hypocritical. (These are words which describe types of argument BTW. Please do not edit my posts.)
I also want to point out that making up frivolous demands, hoops for other editors to jump through, is clearly tendentious behavior of a kind you've been accused of on numerous occasions in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, you're asserting that the Athey posting about genetic genealogy on the jogg website meets the requirements of WP:RS. I've pointed out that Athey is a retired physicist, whose working career was at the FDA in its medical device labs; he also taught Electrical Engineering courses at Tufts. None of that had anything to do with genetics. I've also asked two simple questions in response:
  1. You claim Athey's posting on the jogg website is reliable because it has been cited: which reliable sources have cited it?
  2. You claim that the statement Athey's posting supports is "minor" and not a WP:REDFLAG; why, then, can you not find any other source supporting it?
These are entirely reasonable questions, given that it is you who wants to include the statement (and supporting citation), not me. WP:BURDEN (which is policy) states quite clearly "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The bolding is in the policy itself. Now please answer. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please allow to me start (again) with point 1 because it is more critical. Concerning Athey as an RS, I have above (I thought) already accepted the task of giving the burden of evidence. So now I need some guidance in trying to work out how to satisfy you, as it is not clear to me what if anything can satisfy you. It has been stated to you by two people (as indeed it was stated by someone during the RS/N case who was strongly opposed to the JOGG more generally) that he is frequently cited as an expert in the field of Y haplogroups in various peer-reviewed genetics journals. Before I go further, do you accept that if true this makes him an RS for this field in WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't make him satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. WP:SPS is quite explicit on this point: it defines an "established expert" not as someone who has merely been cited by others, but someone "on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The bold text is in the original, and it sets a higher bar than the one you are proposing. Now, I've answered your latest question, could you please answer my two simple questions:
  1. You claim Athey's posting on the jogg website is reliable because it has been cited: which reliable sources have cited it?
  2. You claim that the statement Athey's posting supports is "minor" and not a WP:REDFLAG; why, then, can you not find any other source supporting it? Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew. A reading of this discussion seems to demonstrate that you are avoiding any questions raised to you by responding with other irrelevant points and semi-personal attacks. At one point you really have to realize that it's time to back off the dead horse. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Brewcrewer welcome to the discussion. But I can not respond if you do not tell me which question I have not answered. Can you please name one? Please also note that not only do I argue that I have answered every clear and relevant question I can, but Jayjg is clearly refusing to answer me on many points above.
2. Jayjg, I have never claimed anything about "Athey's posting"? Those are your words I believe and what I have been asking you is how you define this term. How can I satisfy you if you won't define what you demand in a clear way (also see all the open questions you refuse to answer on your talk page)? I asked you whether you are demanding that "the exact words being cited ... have been re-cited [by] ANOTHER reliable source?" Please advise.
3. Jayjg, it is true I have claimed that the sentence being cited is not "redflag" with respect to genetics. Please see WP:REDFLAG to see what that means. It does not imply that multiple sources are available. It does imply that the comment is not surprising or in conflict with better sources. Do you say the comment being cited is surprising or in conflict with better sources? (In any case, this is only important if it is accepted that Athey is not a strong reliable source, which is clearly wrong. If you insist on keeping it in the discussion then, as you seem to be doing, I hope I will not be accused of writing too much!)
4. Jayjg, above you demand that Athey's extremely highly respected and widely cited haplogroup prediction article fulfill the requirements of WP:SPS. This is a new argument in our discussion which you mentioned for the first time not long ago after almost a month of attempted discussion initiated by me. However, at least on the first occasion you made this remark and then refused to explain further. Again I therefore have a problem of knowing how to satisfy you. Why would WP:SPS be relevant for JOGG, which is a journal with an editorial board, a peer review process, and (whatever else you think of it personally) is not a personal website? BTW in previous arguments you've made over the years on WP you have claimed that JOGG is the personal webspace of Ellen Coffman-Levy. (Which is of course also not true.) Are you now claiming something else? How can it be the "personal" webspace of several un-related people?
5. Anyway, if SPS were relevant, Athey is still an RS because it is not only his work on JOGG which is widely cited. He has other work which is also cited. His (co-authored) 2006 "Cluster analysis of extended Y-STR haplotypes leads to discovery of a large and widespread sub-clade of Y Haplogroup J2 pathway", a paper presented to the Annual Meeting of The American Society of Human Genetics, is cited by King et al in "Differential Y‐chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic" and Di Gaetano et al (2008) "Differential Greek and northern African migrations to Sicily are supported by genetic evidence from the Y chromosome" (in EJHG). Does that not resolve the issue according to the "high bar" you set?
6. Another point if SPS were relevant is that I do not see how the requirement you mention can possibly be read to apply to SPS websites that are themselves very highly cited, which is a still higher bar perhaps not envisioned there (because let's face it, the wording makes it clear that a highly cited source can't be an SPS). (I am not sure if you realize just how widely cited Athey is?) SPS might for example be more arguably relevant for citing Whit's haplogroup predictor webpage, because this is itself extremely widely cited in a wide range of the best peer reviewed journals in this field we are discussing. But would you really claim that this website is good enough for the best peer-reviews in this field but not good enough for WP? Please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is Athey's posting on the jogg website: http://www.jogg.info/12/Pitfalls.pdf It's the one you keep citing. Have any reliable sources cited it?
  2. If a claim is "minor" and "not surprising", then it should be easy to find other sources that support it. Why can you not provide any?
  3. Athey apparently co-authored one paper that was presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Society of Human Genetics in 2006. Are you suggesting that he meets the bar for an "established expert" as defined by WP:SPS? Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses.
1. Not that I am aware of. I have not even spent time on it. It is certainly not his most cited work in this field. Athey's most cited works in this field are obviously (a) his JOGG journal article on haplogroup prediction and (b) his personal website's haplogroup predictor. Please now explain what the relevance of that is, as requested above.
2. According to you above in this same thread, the ISOGG is another source for this. At a particular point in history you said that having two sources was a bad thing though, and you wanted to delete one. That is why we now show only one. So apparently you should know of an alternative source?
3. If the question is about WP rules, I and Maulucioni know Athey is an RS and "established expert" on many counts. The rationale is: As an author+publication combination Athey+JOGG is one of the most cited sources in the whole field of Y haplogroups, in peer reviewed journals. That would normally close the case, of course. And SPS is not written to explain cases which are widely cited as authorities in the strongest sources, because they do not normally need SPS special considerations. But putting WP rules aside, what is hard to determine for us is what satisfies you personally. So I can not claim to know whether the citation I found is enough for you. Could you please explain if it is enough or not, and on what rationale?
Let's hope this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If Athey's posting itself were cited by reliable sources, that might be an indication that that specific posting had a degree of reliability. However, it's moot, since it hasn't been.
  2. If a claim is "minor" and "not surprising", then it should be easy to find other sources that support it. Why can you not provide any?
  3. As explained, Athey's education was as a physicist and his profession was as an engineer, nothing to do with genetics. The material in question was posted on a website run by him and other non-geneticists (family lawyers, economists, university students, etc.) What satisfies me "personally" is something that complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Neither of them mention anything about being cited in reliable sources, they talk instead about being published in reliable sources. Athey apparently co-authored one paper that was presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Society of Human Genetics in 2006. Are you suggesting that he meets the bar for an "established expert" as defined by WP:SPS? Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. OK so you are arguing that even if an Author+journal is one of the most cited sources in a field, on several articles, each article by that Author+journal needs to be considered separately? That seems an amazing argument. I see no justification for it in any WP policies or norms?
2. Apparently you are choosing to criticize a hypothetical person who argues a hypocritical mixture between what you argue and what I argue. That is not helpful. Let's summarize our two quite different positions:-
  • You say that JOGG would be acceptable if there was another source for the sentence, and you also say that ISOGG is a reliable source for the exact same sentence. No problem to use JOGG then right?
  • I say that JOGG is a reliable source for this sentence and ISOGG is not. So also no problem to use JOGG.
3. Three aspects to your response:
  • WP rules. The way I read it, the distinction you are making whereby a widely and strongly cited source (author + journal) can also not be a reliable source, is simply not possible to begin with. That's the reason the possibility is not mentioned surely?
  • The "one paper presented" was mentioned by me because you were asking for examples of Athey being published in other publications than JOGG. Of course it is not his only widely cited publication though, and so there is no point talking about a hypothetical world in which it is. Why did you ask the question?
  • However, if that paper were the only thing he'd published in the field, on what grounds would you say it was irrelevant in determining whether he is an expert? Looking forward to your answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADDED. I just realized I can give another piece of information which should be relevant to you. You have noted your satisfaction that the www.isogg.org page for Haplogroup as an RS. If you look you'll note that Whit Athey is the designated team member for that specific page and several others (his e-mail address is at the bottom of the page) and he is one of the "content experts group" for the tree site as a whole. See http://www.isogg.org/tree/

    Current ISOGG members who work with the tree are: Coordinator: Alice Fairhurst. Design team: Bill Bailey, Richard Kenyon, Sasson Margaliot, Doug McDonald. Content experts: Whit Athey, Katherine Hope Borges, Rebekah Canada, Phil Goff, Gareth Henson, Charles Moore, Ana Oquendo Pabon, David F. Reynolds, Bonnie Schrack, Ann Turner, Victor Villarreal, Vincent Vizachero, David Wilson. Content experts liaison with experts from various DNA labs to determine what information is needed to amend the tree.

    Presumably that is relevant in terms of showing Athey working as an expert outside JOGG?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for a reply, I think the article can be improved slightly if we look for opportunities to find consensus, out of discussions so far...

As a practical step, for the time being I propose to go back to having two sources, in which case the tag can be removed. Having two sources seems neater than having a tag and a source. My rationale for saying two sources should stop all discussion of this case, and allow the tag to be removed, is based on the following syllogism, built upon on the arguments of Jayjg himself, posted on this talk page. It has already been pointed out above, but I'll separate it out here as a rationale for the edit I will then perform:-

  • Jayjg has argued to the effect that JOGG would be acceptable for the sentence, if there was another source which he considered reliable for the exact same sentence
  • Jayjg has said that ISOGG's F haplogroup page is such a reliable source for the exact same sentence.
  • ergo, Jayjg can not logically reject the JOGG sourcing for this sentence

If anyone can see any fault in this logic, please say so.

In the meantime it remains true that Jayjg's method of separating out one article for different sourcing status than other articles by the same author in the same journal, appears at least to me to be illogical and un-connected to any WP norms at all, and so I've requested neutral feedback on it at WP:RS/N.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took it on good faith that ISOGG was a reliable source, because other editors implied it was, by using it.[5] I haven't examined it personally to see whether or not it satisfies WP:RS, but I assumed good faith when others used it. If you say it doesn't satisfy WP:RS either, then I'm fine with that too; that's why I haven't restored ISOGG since you last removed it, though it's rather bizarre that you have restored it when you insist it's not reliable. What I do know is that the JOGG website fails WP:RS. Also, please do not attempt to "summarize" my arguments, since you don't seem to be able to do it correctly. For example, I don't argue that "JOGG would be acceptable if there was another source for the sentence". In fact, I've stated quite clearly that the JOGG website should not be used, full stop. I've summarized my points quite clearly, they don't need imaginative re-workings by you. My questions still remain unanswered:
  1. If a claim is "minor" and "not surprising", then it should be easy to find other sources that support it. Why can you not provide any?
  2. As explained, Athey's education was as a physicist and his profession was as an engineer, nothing to do with genetics. The material in question was posted on a website run by him and other non-geneticists (family lawyers, economists, university students, etc.). Neither WP:V nor WP:RS mention anything about being cited in reliable sources, they talk instead about being published in reliable sources. Athey apparently co-authored one paper that was presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Society of Human Genetics in 2006. Are you suggesting that he meets the bar for an "established expert" as defined by WP:SPS? Has he authored other papers in reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made the discussion circular again. As usual you blatantly ignore logic, ignore counter arguments you don't want to deal with, and move the goals. For example compare:
  • I don't argue that "JOGG would be acceptable if there was another source for the sentence". In fact, I've stated quite clearly that the JOGG website should not be used, full stop.
  • If Athey's posting itself were cited by reliable sources, that might be an indication that that specific posting had a degree of reliability. However, it's moot, since it hasn't been.
That sentence was not compatible with stating "quite clearly that the JOGG website should not be used, full stop", was it?
Given that you've closed another circle above I want to re-state on the main point. Quite aside from whatever your mission is concerning JOGG, which apparently goes back to a long history of edit warring on Khazars concerning the Coffman-Levy article, Athey in the JOGG is clearly citeable in the field of Y haplogroup studies whether it be genetics or genetic genealogy. You don't get many stronger sources in this field. This is certainly what the professional academic geneticists think, as can be shown by their frequent citations of him as an authority for maybe a half dozen JOGG articles and his personal website. How can Jayjg on WP claim to know better than them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, if Athey's posting on the JOGG website was cited elsewhere, then someone might have made the argument that it was reliable even though the JOGG website is not reliable. However, my consistent point has been that the JOGG website should not be used, as it fails WP:RS. Regarding the rest, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any "circularity" in the discussion here results from the continued failure to answer two simple questions, one of which has been asked at least a dozen times without adequate response.
  1. If a claim is "minor" and "not surprising", then it should be easy to find other sources that support it. Why can you not provide any? The fact that you cannot is a strong indication that it is, in fact, the opposite of what you have claimed.
  2. As explained, Athey's education was as a physicist and his profession was as an engineer, nothing to do with genetics. The material in question was posted on a website run by him and other non-geneticists (family lawyers, economists, university students, etc.). Wikipedia has specific and explicit sourcing and content requirements that do not match those used by other sources. These include WP:V and WP:RS. Neither WP:V nor WP:RS mention anything about being cited in reliable sources, they talk instead about being published in reliable sources. Athey apparently co-authored one paper that was presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Society of Human Genetics in 2006. Are you suggesting that he meets the bar for an "established expert" as defined by WP:SPS? Has he authored other papers in reliable sources?
Wikipedia's own sourcing requirements must be met here. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just bring things to basics:
  • JOGG is a reliable source, as per the RS/N that was already had. You were an involved party on the "loosing side" and your attempts to pretend that never happened are beneath you.[6]
  • Whit Athey is a reliable source of the highest caliber in anything to do with Y haplogroup studies. And no, not only because of one co-authored paper. Simple.
  • In the month long failed discussion on your talk page, wherein you have repeatedly edited my postings, you referred to the following question as a straw man question which you would not defend:

    When you refer to acceptable sources (individual or publication) as "professional" in the subject of genetics, are you literally referring to salaries and degrees or would you (as per my understanding of WP policy) mean anyone published or cited seriously in peer-reviewed literature?

    .
Obviously your refusal to defend or associate with this position, or indeed any other position (see all the open questions you refused to answer there[7]), means you can not now claim that you have a "rationale" based entirely on salaries or degrees? What am I missing? As soon as you admit salaries and degrees are your best argument against JOGG and you have no other, let's take it to RS/N and that will hopefully finish the discussion. Until now you would not admit to your precise argument at all. Your talk page shows very clearly that you have no case you are willing to stand by.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=390216884&oldid=390183345 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi Maulucioni, I see you made a new map. This means the article now has two quite similar but conflicting maps. One effectively implies that F originated in the Middle East, and the other implies it originated in India. Both maps show no source for these implied assertions. I am thinking some people might argue concerning yours that it more controversial because:

  • by using clear rather than fuzzy colours, implies more strongly?
  • India as a point of origin for F is probably harder to source than the Middle East?

Anyway can I suggest you consider the following source as probably the most recent to do anything equivalent (it contains a sort of map which implies migration routes in a way):- Chiaroni, J; Underhill, P; Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (2009), "Y chromosome diversity, human expansion, drift and cultural evolution", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (48): 20174:20179 Let me know what you think? I certainly do not want to discourage people making maps for genetics articles because we could do with some more, but we do have to be careful not to make maps say things which can not be sourced. In a genetics context a map can be WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. OK, I take the source you're giving me. Chiaroni et al 2009 literally says: ...The F* and P* haplogroups are paraphyletic and often rare, except for F* in India, which codistributes with H,.. And we know that H mainly distributes in Indian subcontinent. That's only an example, there are many of them and they are sourced in the article itself. I will try to support my map with several of the references I based on. --Maulucioni (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just trying to foresee possible controversy. I do see why your point also of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol

Serious contributions would be welcome. Do you have a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm not trying to dismiss any theories but it seems evident that Haplogroup F orginated in India. Why then is there so much focus on the Out of Africa theory. At least help people distinguish between what are facts and theories because this article doesn't show any evidence for an African origin of Haplogroup. I understand this is the mainstream view but it doesn't really fit in with this article. All i'm just asking for is a simple explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.56 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern humans have an African origin, we know, but past year user Wapondaponda said to us that the whole region between Africa and India has not revealed any ancestral lineages that could be associated with the Out of Africa migration. The Arabian peninsula and the Middle East would be expected to have a very high level of genetic diversity being in proximity to Africa, but instead India has the second highest level of genetic diversity. There seems to have been a major extinction of lineages in the Arabian peninsula because even y-chromosome haplogroup DE has a disjointed distribution, being found in Africa and East Asia but not in between. Also in human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, we see that between Africa and India has not revealed any ancestral lineages, as indicated by Abu-Amero 2008. --Maulucioni (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am saying the same thing another way if I say that there is no necessary conflict between an F "out of India" theory and a more general out of Africa theory. All the haplogroups start in Africa if you go back far enough. It is just a question of how they dispersed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has someone checked to see if apples are being compared with apples?

Especially in the F* section I have my doubts about whether all these article cited actually tested for all known sub-clades of F and therefore whether they are all using the same definition of F*.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same doubts. Especially the sentence that "A 2004 study showed that 92% of Svans tested had it, as well as 58% of Rutuls, 58% of Lezgins in Azerbaijan..." is really shameful. Everybody with some idea about population genetics just knows that these "F*s" are "Gs"!!!Centrum99 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I'd believe that these "F*s" are J1s. Gs are M201 in this source. Maybe we can see this: Yunusbayev 2006, it says that by Al-Zahery et al. (2003) and Cinnioglu et al. (2004) showed that haplogroups frequently found in Iraq and Anatolia-namely, J, E, G, together with haplogroup J (xM172), are also common in the Caucasus. --Mauricio (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite irrelevat. F*s in Georgians are Gs, F*s in Dagestanis are J1s. Anyway, they are not F*s. 89.235.44.18 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused about that, but I added just what was in the source to avoid SYNTH. In the case of Lezgins, F* may have been actually J1 (I think? I'm not sure how exactly we would know...), but in other populations, that's much less likely... like, it's not really believable that Svans would be 92% J1. As for corresponding to G, that is impassable also, because F* appears next to G for the Georgian genotype in the 2004 study (Georgians appeared 31% G and 14% F*). Is there any way to tell which one (G, J1, or nothing at all) they are mistaking for "F*"...? I would say, for right now, we should keep it in but with a note of some sort saying that its doubtful that it is actually F* rather than another subgroup of Haplogroup F. --Yalens (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One could also note that according to the page, at least one of the places Nasidze found F*, Armenia, has had F* detected in it in at least one other unaffiliated study as well...--Yalens (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not a problem to distinguish real F*s from fake F*s. It must be listed in the article. By listing these "fake" data, you devalue the whole Wikipedia article. Centrum99 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_F-M89&oldid=421026428"