Talk:Haplogroup E-M215

Mediator comments

My apologies if anything finds these comments a bit lacking, as I have no desire to rehash some of the fine points of a dispute that (even by Wikipedia standards) is overly concerned with semantics and hypercorrectness.

Before I begin, I want to reiterate some facts about genetic genealogy:

1. This is a very young field. The "state of the art" in the field changes very rapidly, which means that nomenclature and prevailing opinion also changes very rapidly, and it means that scholarly articles can have a very short shelf life before their methods and analysis become outdated.
2. Much of the raw data and, for that matter, some of the advances in the field have been made by private industry and the hobbyist community. This presents a problem that does not affect most of Wikipedia; much of the data out there has not been subject to any form of verification (i.e., time and place of origin of the ancestral line has not been verified, analysis and interpretation hasn't been updated to reflect new information, etc.)
3. The relative dominance or absence of a haplogroup in a given area does little to indicate its age or whether or not it is indigenous to an area; to the extent that we can currently measure these things, this sort of information is usually inferred from haplotype diversity and by the presence or absence of parent and/or sibling haplogroups. Until SNP and STR analysis of exhumed bodies becomes commonplace, this is the best approach we have.
4. Any information in the article other than listing the location and prevalence of a haplogroup invariably leads to speculation that will someday be challenged by other editors, precisely because of the first three facts listed. Therefore, it's probably better to err on the side of being vague (but less likely to be disproved) than being "precise" (but very likely to be contested).

Finding common ground

I'm sure we can find some common ground here, as what we all want is a better article, and there doesn't seem to be a substantive disagreement on the content of the article. What are things everyone can agree on? I'll start with a few things:

• The mutation M215 defines the haplogroup that is the subject of this page.
• It is found in varying levels in Africa and Eurasia.

Suggested course of action

1. Many of the discussion points here pertain to similar articles; I ask that interested parties take up their concerns at WikiProject Human Genetic History so that a consensus and guidelines can be developed for all human haplogroup articles in order to avoid future disputes.
2. Encourage everyone to read (or revisit) the following Wikipedia guidelines: WP:OWN, WP:NAM, WP:PSTS and WP:COOL.
3. Encourage the editors at the heart of this dispute to take a cool-down period; this would be helpful for those editors to find a sense of perspective (To be blunt - Ask yourself: do you REALLY have nothing more important in your life right now than to argue with strangers about something very trivial on the Internet?) and this would give other editors a period of time to take a look at the article without being drawn into an edit war themselves.

I see no reason why an amicable solution cannot be found; all I ask is that everyone involved check their hostility at the door and are willing to reconsider their own views and opinions. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points as a first response from Andrew Lancaster:

Concerning WikiProject Human Genetic History see [1]. I would like as many editors as possible, including any editors who have worked on this article or similar ones before, and I have contacted potential editors wherever I see them but I think, from messages I have had, that many potential editors with a lot of knowledge in this area are put off from entering the discussion.

I personally think this has a lot to do with what you mention above: the discussion being "overly concerned with semantics and hypercorrectness" and more specifically the way in which edits are reverted and deleted in the style of the above "silly" reverts as I described it in a section, with "hypercorrect" criticisms being used as an explanation. As can be seen there, I got angry responses about even pointing to the details of the silly revert, even though the reverter admitted that at least most of the reverts were just a result of not looking at what he deleted. I would add that many of the seemingly "hypercorrect" concerns seem artificial and/or superficial, and all with a tendency towards one editor, Causteau, trying to avoid too many changes being made by another editor, me. For a flavour of this you should really look at the discussion in more detail, including the debates in May which included, for example, a long debate and many reverts concerning the "controversy" of including mention of the parent clade in E1b1b in this article. And you might want to look at [2] , [3] , [4] , [5].

I believe that concerning matters of fact there is indeed no reason to think that this subject should be so difficult. To the extent that editors are allowed to work on this article, it can be improved further in ways which are pretty non-controversial, or at least should be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You may get the wrong point, so perhaps it is better to refer to your suggestion about finding common ground and ask why we don't just do that better. The problem is not finding common ground. For example...

• There is no debate about what Cruciani's 2004 and 2006 articles, clearly the primary and up-to-date reference for everyone, describe as the likely homeland of E1b1b and E1b1b1. The "problem" comes from the fact that although both Causteau and I, and I think anyone who reads those articles, can see that the answer is "the Horn of Africa" (and this is what the Wikipedia article says at first) in one paragraph which is currently quoted or paraphrased in the wikipedia article as an explanation about how this conclusion was reached, the words "Eastern Africa" are used. Causteau will not let anyone change that because, as I understand it, he believes that would be "original research". Hence all the reverts. The direction is now pushing for is to pretend that we are not referring to Cruciani 2004 by referring to secondary sources.
• There was no debate in May about what the parent clade was of E1b1b, but it took many reverts and a lot of debate before anyone was allowed to actually mention it in the article. Apparently mentioning the parent clade in an article about a clade, was considered irrelevant by Causteau, and once again it was bad enough in his mind to be the subject of reverts etc. (See Archives 1 for this talk page.)
• There was no debate about the status of M293 in Henn's new article which is where we started last week. And yet also concerning this subject, we had multiple reverts and silliness. I was accused of working for some sort of Afro-centric secret society because I used the word "sub-saharan" just for example. It was argued that writing a clade name for the new SNP as E-M293 was "original research" for another. Causteau edited the article repeatedly to show the name of the clade as E3bf-M293, which does not fit in the more up-to-date nomenclature of the article. He argued long and hard that this was necessary in order to avoid "original research". Finally he backed down when he was forced to read one of the references which was already being referred to that explained how "official" the mutation based nomenclature for clade names is since 2002.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: A new moderator comes in and correctly indicates that the discussion has moved in a negative, unproductive direction. He also accurately points out that there is too much emphasis on pedantic minutiae that no one gives two hoots about instead of the article itself, as well as absurd levels of ad hominem (viz. the "self-interested fraud" debacle above). As a remedy, he then quite sensibly proposes, like the administrator Elonka before him, that we start afresh, perhaps even take a break from the article before resuming actual discussions. And what does Andrew do? Bring up old discussions from not even days but months ago that were long-resolved and moderated. He also once again engages in the petty finger-pointing and baseless recrimination already visited ad nauseam in the preceding paragraphs -- the very sophomoric behavior both Swid and Elonka specifically instructed us not to engage in! In essence, Andrew was again given the opportunity to demonstrate good faith and a genuine desire to resolve this issue, but chose instead to continue as before, commenting on the contributor rather than the content although Wiki policies expressly discourage this. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly to find an amicable solution to this issue when the other party seems dead-set on avoiding just that. Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the best way to show good faith for either of us is to work on the article itself rather than reverting, deleting, wikilawyering etc. But I am being stopped. My finger pointing is not about the past but about problems I am having with editing, and therefore all attempts to "find common ground" or "start afresh" - here and now. Your finger pointing, even in this above scold, is different. You make it very hard to see that you shares the aims of the greater community, especially a good article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

References

This section is so that references will display properly, with WP:POPUPS

3rd biggest haplogroup?

There is (or has been) a sentence in the article as follows...

E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there.

It has a footnote which refers or referred to a Genealogical webpage for the study of surnames such as Britton. This Surname project lists the main haplotypes of its participants in the usual way for such projects, at least some years ago, by listing R1b as the most common type, and I1a as the second most common (these are very commonly the most common haplotypes for British surnames, but actually most people now divide R1b up more), and then it lists E3b (which is actually a haplotype which often does not appear at all in British Surname Projects). The project has one haplotype of this type, and notes in a very brief way that "HAPLOGROUP E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe and reaches its highest frequency (about 47%) in the Balkans." There is no source information given.

There is a problem with this way of describing how common E3b is in that there are no logical definitions of "levels" in the phylogeny of Y haplogroups. For example, if you say "apples are the most common fruit in Europe" then the relationship between "apple" and "fruit" as categories is clear: fruit is on a well known level known as "species". So you can in fact compare apples and pears, because both are species, but you would never say apples are more common than fruit.

In Y chromosome phylogeny things are not so clear. All levels of the phylogeny are simply known as haplogroups. So if we can say that E3b is third most common, then we can also say it is second most common, if we decide to lump all the more common haplotypes in a different way. For example you can say that "F is the most common haplogroup in Europe and E is second". You could also name three different subclades of R as being the three most common, and push E down the rankings. So making such comparisons is meaningless without more explanation.

What is true is that E3b is the approximately third most common of the major haplogroups used in recent years by genealogists: R1b, I1a, R1a, E3b etc. (However even this is possibly not correct. As more Eastern European families get studied we may well find that R1a is more common. So there really should be a better citation than a surname project.)

Will all of the above in mind, on this edit on the 1st October I added some words to a footnote as follows...

The comparison in this source is to the more common haplogroups R1b and I1a.

I mention this now on the talkpage because a few hours later this small edit was reverted by Causteau with the following remark:

replaced unnecessary and inaccurate amendment of citation; source quite clearly says "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe" -- not just in comparison to haplogroups R1b and I1a

...as explained above, this is in fact exactly what the sourced webpage does, and removing this extra comment actually makes the whole footnote and sentence meaningless.

A second change which has also apparently not been understood concerns the wording itself. "Prevalent" implies that something is dominant or most common, and is therefore simply wrong English. Given this as well as my doubts about the fact and the source, I also changed, on 3rd October, from ...From...

E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there.

...To...

E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean.

This was also reverted. Note that all of my edits had explanations attached also, but here are the problems that need to be solved in summary...

1. The formal meaning of haplogroup imples no possibility of comparing sizes. If you name the haplogroups being compared you can do it, but the point of such an exercise is questionable. It is more common an more logical to simply say what % of male lines a haplogroup represents in a particular area or ethnic group, and this is the method already followed in the rest of the article.
2. Even if it were clear which clades were being compared to make this remark (R1b and I1a), the statistics need a better source. It is clear that most surname projects base their remarks upon the traditions within the "genetic genealogy" community which is dominated by British families. R1a is more common than E3b is a very big part of Europe. IF E3b is not clearly bigger I feel the wording should be less "certain sounding". Surely that is not unreasonable?
3. The word "prevalent" is incorrect if you want to say something is the third most common type of some category.
4. It is also worth mentioning that this sentence is in an arguably inappropriate section, concerning a sub-branch of E3b, and not E3b as a whole - albeit a section about a sub-clade which is most common in Europe. There is an earlier discussion about the areas where E3b is found, and surely this comment belongs near there if anywhere.

To be honest, if the text can not be improved (because attempts to edit keep getting reverted) then the article is wrong and the simplest solution is deletion. In my opinion the sentence and footnote add nothing to the article, but if they must be included then they have to be improved. Otherwise, the two changes I have had reverted seem extremely minor and reasonable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing unclear about what the source says. It does not state that "E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean." as you've written above. It states that "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe", and not just relative to R1b or I1a either, but to all haplogroups. Moreover, the fact that E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe is a fairly well-known fact that other folks in the genetic genealogy community are well aware of (viz. 1, 2). What's more, E3b is common throughout Europe -- not just the Mediterranean. Per Firasat et al. (2007): "E3b is common in Europe". Cruciani et al. 2006 with regard to E-M78: "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, the word prevalent is just being used wrongly, and the word throughout makes the problem worse. Please fix it. The sentence now means that E3b is the most common haplogroup is all parts of Europe. Is that really what you mean to say?? Perhaps you have not really looked carefully at the blocks of edits you are reverting or the explanations being given? It would seem so, because I notice you even reverted punctuation changes etc, which is a frequent characteristic of your edits. Concerning the rest I am surprised by how important you now view "folks in the genetic genealogy community". You've always taken the position that such comments are irrelevant to you. I administer several projects as you know, and am pretty well informed about such things. I really think this type of sourcing is not good enough, but it also seems clear that you normally don't either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing "wrong" with the way the sentence is worded. It clearly states that "E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there", which is what the sources say ("E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1") -- they don't say in parts of Europe. I also don't want to have to ask you again not to talk about me. Causteau (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am clearly talking about the edits, and talking to you about your edits, nothing else. But you clearly are not reading what you edit or respond to. Please instead of rushing to find reasons to get angry, look up "prevalent" in a dictionary. It does not just mean "common". It means "most common" or more exactly it means "dominant". Please read what I wrote. Take your time more. Your source does not say "most common" or "prevalent". It says "third most common". Is it "most common" or "third most common"? Please make your wording consistent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, please see what I said above about the necessity of naming which haplogroups are being compared if you want to give haplogroups relative rankings in terms of how common they are. (If you don't do that then you can give E3b any ranking you like: 2nd compared to F, or a much lower ranking if you compare to equally valid "haplogroups" such as R-S116, R-S21, etc, or whatever.) Again, your own source does do this. It names R1b and I1a, which is what I tried to mention in the edits I made, but which you reverted. Please read what I wrote, take your time, and explain your reasoning about the points I've made. Maybe you just didn't understand the point I was making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the word throughout, which is again something you add and that is not in your own source, surely you realize that there are large areas in Europe where E1b1b can hardly be found, and other haplogroups like R1a are very common (sometimes even more common than R1b)? I can't see how you justify this misleading word, which implies a homogeneous "third most common" ranking all over Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the whole remark is very questionable. In recent times, after your sources were written, many new haplogroup defining SNPs have been discovered, and data about non Western countries has started to become available. So citing old Surname projects is not very convincing at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, you are not at all addressing my request to make sure that we put discussion about ALL of E1b1b into sections which are clearly about ALL of the clade, rather into "asides" within explanations about sub-clades. E1b1b is found in many forms around Europe and amongst Jewish populations. By discussing all E1b1b in Europe under one sub-clade and all Jewish E1b1b under another you are giving a very incorrect impression which could be easily fixed in ways which seem very uncontroversial. Why may no one fix this? You might not think it is important, but then why would you think it important to revert people who try to make the article slightly better unless you think they are actually making the article wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All that writing, and for what? The sources (1, 2) clearly state that "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe" and "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1". They, again, do not state that "E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean" as you've written above. Heck, there are places in Europe where even R1b doesn't have such a high frequency (e.g. in Finland, Belarus, Bosnia)... but that still doesn't stop it from being the most prevalent haplogroup in Europe. E3b, likewise, is the third most common haplogroup in Europe. There is also I'm afraid nothing wrong, misleading or bizarre about quoting the fact that E1b1b/E3b is the second most prevalent haplogroup among Jews in the very section where Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are actually discussed. Causteau (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: all that writing for what? Just read it and read what you revert, before you revert, then you'll see. You are defending things which having nothing to do with the edits you are reverting. The words "prevalent" and "throughout" (at least being used together like you do) are not defensible from any of the sources or arguments you are using. The edits, sorry you call them manipulations, which you've been reverting fit your sources and explanations better than the wording you are insisting upon. Your wording and lack of explanation given the contexts in the article, is not something which you get from your sources. Please slow down and stop doing full reverts without first considering what other people are trying to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop manipulating the source's assertion that "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1" -- it does not need any additional "qualifying" from you. What's more, the word "prevalent" in terms of frequency in population genetics more often than not is used interchangeably with the words "common" or "frequent". Working geneticists use them interchangeably all the time in their work, including Elise Friedman of the Jewish E3b Project (viz: "The E3b haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups world wide. It is considered to be the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population. "). Causteau (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Prevalent without the "second most" means "most common". That would be wrong wouldn't it? So the qualifier is necessary there, just as it in the text I keep trying to change to say things meaning "third most common" instead of "most common". This is simply a point of English. Concerning the other qualification you find so bad, can you now please explain to me how I would be wrong (see above) if I said that E3b is the second most common haplogroup after F in Europe? Or what if I said that it was the lower than third because it less common than R1b-S116, R1b-S21, and several other R clades as well? Of course all of these comments are equally correct and therefore to some extent misleading unless you explain how you are grouping the haplogroups. Just please keep yourself to answering this point of logic and nothing else. I am afraid you simply aren't reading what you think you are replying to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you, Lancaster. You've just completely removed an entire sourced paragraph with direct quotes in it from the source, and replaced it instead with a bogus failed verification tag. There's absolutely no justification for that! Causteau (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, how can I explain my point about a wording issue if I can't discuss "semantics"?? Concerning the Jewish E1b1b case, I started a new section below. Please address it there. In that case also, you simply are not reading before reverting. Please slow down with the reverts? Please show that you at least read and understand the "semantic" problem I explained above. Maybe I'll learn something from your explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So looking at the article as it now stands may I take it there is no argument against adding a couple of words to explain which explain how European lineages are being split up when we say E1b1b is 3rd biggest?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The direct paraphrase from not one but two sources (1, 2) to the effect that E1b1b/E3b is the third most common (not "biggest") haplogroup in Europe does not need any clarification, especially since direct quotes have been added to the footnotes. Causteau (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So any attempt to make the wording more clear, even if you have no argument to say it makes the article worse, will be reverted by you, right? And your defense for this revolves only around the fact that you could find (when called upon, in order to defend the article from editing) 2 of the most generic looking surname project webpages I've ever seen which use similar wording? If I refer to more complex sources, real ones, even more substantial genealogical projects, you'll start on about semantics again, which you think you don't have to address, and do your reverts with the same lack of thought and surplus of emotion? Just trying to get things clear before I continue trying to make this article better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw man argument. FYI, this "most generic looking surname project" is, in fact, a genetic genealogy company run by actual working geneticists (a designation which the Project Administrators also share), much like Family Tree DNA. And their plainly-stated assertion of the established fact that E1b1b/E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, again, does not need any "clarification" whatsoever, especially since direct quotes from them have been added to the footnotes. This is also the second time I'm asking you not to talk about me, or what you have the temerity to describe as my "lack of thought and surplus of emotion." Mocking or otherwise taunting me in an effort to elicit a negative reaction only does you a disservice. From WP:CIV:

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

Causteau (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, genetic genealogy surname projects are NOT run by "working geneticists" -- they are run by volunteers! Most of us are amateur/hobbyist genealogists who use genetic genealogy as a tool for our genealogy research and have taken it upon ourselves to coordinate genetic genealogy studies for surnames, geographical regions and even haplogroups that we're interested in. Many of our projects are hosted on the genetic genealogy companies' websites, but they are not run in any way by the companies or by the geneticists who work for those companies.

Neither the Britton nor the Straub surname projects are authoritative sources for E3b/E1b1b information. Any information on these or other surname project websites regarding any haplogroup was either extracted from a published scientific study, obtained from discussion on genetic genealogy mailing lists or discussion boards, or is original and unofficial research done by the surname project administrator. Whether the information about E3b/E1b1b on these websites happens to be correct or not, I object to these websites being used as sources for this article. Find the original source and quote that instead.

And finally... I am the project administrator for the Jewish E3b Project. I am not a geneticist; just another hobbyist and volunteer. The Jewish E3b Project website is a work in progress. Most of the text on the site was written by the previous project administrator, and I still need to verify and source what he wrote. The text being quoted in this Wikipedia article is certainly not research done by the Jewish E3b Project -- the project website simply attempts to summarize studies for the benefit of project members and any casual researchers who visit the project. The information there is definitely not intended to be quoted in Wikipedia as though the project is the primary source. So again, identify and cite the original source instead.

-- Efweb (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, Efweb? I will do what you didn't do for me below, and give you the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that you are telling the truth when you profess to be the new project manager of the Jewish E3b Project. I will even take you at your word that the genealogists at DNA Heritage and the folks over at the Straub and Britton Surname Projects don't know what they're talking about when they assert that E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe. But what I won't go for is any more unwarranted personal attacks from you (see my response to your charges below). Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, please understand that no one is saying that those two project admins "don't know what they are talking about" just the same as no-one ever said that ISOGG and the National Genographic don't know what they are talking about. Elise and I were commenting on how such webpages are made, which is now I think shown to be something you had misunderstandings about. So you should be happy this is cleared up. There are projects which try hard to put up "the latest thinking" on their public webpages but most do not come under this category. Anyway, in my opinion you should also feel free to also write to surname project admins if you think they might have something to add to this discussion. Why not? So (if there is any real concern) there's also no need to give Efweb "the benefit of the doubt" about who she is. You can write to the contact address (or mine). Most project's are reasonably easy to contact, as is ISOGG, JOGG, DNA Heritage etc. Finally, I want to say that I see no sign of personal attacks in Efweb's posting. Perhaps that is also a misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Elise's comments on the sourcing question are perfectly correct. Concerning the other question Causteau, I see you still won't address it. What is you objection to naming the haplogroups to which E1b1b is being compared when people make any remarks about it being 2nd or 3rd or 4th most common in a particular area? And you also won't allow me to put in words explaining what type of source you insist on citing. Is it just that you don't think it is necessary because you think it should be obvious and because people can look up the source? If so then what possible objection can you have to someone putting in a few words of explanation in the article??? Adding a few extra words won't make the article worse at least, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, Andrew. I've removed the assertions. I also appreciate your attempt at changing your tone. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish E1b1b

We have another series of reverts concerning this paragraph:

E1b1b1c (E-M123) is quite common among both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. E1b1b as a whole has, in fact, "been observed in all Jewish groups world wide", is "the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population", and is considered to be the second highest, next to haplogroup J, for "Founding Jewish Lineages" in Europe.

1. I had removed all except the second sentence, based upon the fact that looking up the source shows that Elise Friedman clearly writes "E-M35" and not "E-M34" which is also how I explained myself when removing it. Unless I made an error, which could be explained to me no doubt, there seems no doubt this is wrong. Causteau has not addressed the editing remark which was made. It seems clear he just hasn't looked. His revert was minutes after the edit being reverted.
2. I put in a marker after the first sentence, because the Semino et al article being cited does not contain any words starting with "Jew-", "Ashken-", or "Sephard-" except in the title of one reference it gives. So this sourcing is wrong also, and again it seem the revert which happened within minutes of the edit, was not considered at all.

Does anyone want to tell me if I am missing something here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. You removed the ALL the direct quotes from one of the sources, as well as all three of the sources! Then, having gutted the paragraph of all of its direct quotes and sources, you then placed a bogus failed verification tag after it! Furthermore, the Semino source does cite the exact frequencies of E1b1b in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews; its in Table 1. Causteau (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the enormous effort of telling me to look at Table 1. Next time you can just remove the citation flag and put in a reference to Table 1, which is exactly what these flags are for. If you still have some more energy can you also check the other aspect of this subject? Does your source say E-M35 like I said? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it now stands, a simple question: why is the composition of all E1b1b clades within the Jewish population being discussed in a sub-section concerning a sub-clade? If it is important to discuss Jewish E1b1b separately (which makes some sense given their roots in many places) then why not up in the Introduction near the section which discusses the spread of E1b1b generally? I ask this after having several attempts to do this, or to find other ways of making the article more logical have been reverted, without any explanation other than defenses of the text being moved itself which is of course not the point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already very clearly explained why: it's to address "the fact that E1b1b/E3b is the second most prevalent haplogroup among Jews in the very section where Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are actually discussed". Causteau (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have guessed (you certainly never clearly explained anything unless you count reversions as a form of communication). So the answer to why the subject is discussed in that section is that it is in that section already? OK. Can I ask whether it might be better to give it another section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not in any way, shape or form "better" or even necessary to ghettoize the Jewish component of E1b1b/E3b in its own section when Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are already addressed in the M123 section that principally concerns them. Causteau (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously object to your highly offensive terminology -- and Andrew has done no such thing! You are the one who is trying to pigeonhole the discussion of Jewish E1b1b to only the M123 section, while Jews are in ALL subclades of E1b1b and should be acknowledged as such.

I agree with Andrew that any general discussion about Jewish E1b1b needs to be somewhere at the top of the page before the subclade sections start. Information about Jewish membership in individual E1b1b subclades can be discussed under each subclade section, but you cannot limit the discussion about Jewish E1b1b to only the M123 section. The reason Jews are only mentioned in the M123 section currently is probably because it appears to be the most common subclade of E-M35 among Jews, but it's by no means the only subclade, nor the only one worth mentioning.

Andrew, please propose your edits regarding Jewish E1b1b, keeping in mind that the Jewish E3b project website shouldn't be used as a source for information that was extracted from published studies, as I advised in the section above. Efweb (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, calm the hell down. I'm not "trying" to do anything and I don't believe I accused Andrew of doing that either or even you for that matter. You, on the other hand, have come out of nowhere and quite literally gone off the deep end, accusing me of trying to pigeonhole the discussion of E1b1b in Jewish groups to only the M123 section... when I was the one that added all of the info on Jews in the article in the first place -- the M-81 section included! Next time you address me, make sure it's civil and in good faith, or don't even bother. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To Causteau: Please cease using inflammatory (and silly) language. Please just explain WHY you think M123 is the section which should "principally concern" Jewish E1b1b haplotypes. There must be a reason you think this is so important? Do you think most E-M123 is Jewish, or that E-M123 is the most common Jewish E1b1b type, or somehow culturally important, or what? If your only argument is that you think the move is not necessary because the current text does not confuse you, then you really shouldn't be reverting people's edits if they are not making the article worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew: I admit that the word "ghettoize" was a poor choice of terms. "Pigeonhole" is obviously what I meant. However, if one were to go over my exchanges with you, it's very clear who has relied more often than not on "inflammatory (and silly) language" (viz.: "lack of thought and surplus of emotion"). At any rate, I say E-M123 "principally concerns" Jews because that is the sub-clade with the highest frequencies among Jewish groups. It's not about being "evil" or "mean" -- Ellen Levy-Coffman herself admits as much in her study. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Efweb's proposal to draft a paragraph about Jewish E-M35, here are my comments, which reflect what I have said before, and also the types of edits I've tried to make. First a problem: if we make a section for one ethnic group, does this mean we have to do it for all, and if so is the article not going to get extremely long and repetitive, with all information covered twice? Proposed answer: no, the Introduction already has a quick summary about the geographical spread of E1b1b and E1b1b1 which gives a satisfactory lead-in for most ethnic groups, because the haplogroups of most ethnic groups are very connected to the geographical spread explain in that paragraph. What makes the Jewish lineages a bit different is that they are less easy to understand in terms of geography given the long term movements of the Jewish peoples over history. So to start with we could just add a final paragraph to the Introduction. Here is a first proposal which tries to take Causteau's text, from the M123 section and adapt it to this purpose, this time including (as per your remarks) the removal of citations from the FT DNA webpage for the Jewish E3b project...

A signficant proportion of Jewish male lines are made up of a wide variety of E1b1b1 (E-M35) sub-clades. Behar et al. found only haplogroup J lineages in higher numbers amongst Ashkenazim. E1b1b is observed in over 22.8% of Ashkenazis and 30% of Sephardim.

I also wonder if this quote would be interesting to insert in the E-M123 section...

In fact, the best candidate for possible E3b Israelite ancestry among Jews is E-M123. This sub-clade occurs in almost the same proportions (approximately 10-12%) among both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Semino et al. 2004). According to Cruciani (2004), E-M123 probably originated in the Middle East, since it is found in a large majority of the populations from that area, and then back migrated to Ethiopia. He further notes that this sub-clade may have been spread to Europe during the Neolithic agricultural expansion out of the Middle East. However, because E-M123 is also found in low percentages (1-3%) in many southern European and Balkan populations, its origin among Jewish groups remains uncertain (Semino et al. 2004). Yet the fact that both Sephardim and Ashkenazim possess this sub-clade in similar high frequency supports an Israelite/Middle Eastern origin.

This is from Ellen's 2005 article on JOGG, which I'll also add to the article references already.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote is much too lengthy for the article and is more suited to the Y-chromosomal Aaron page, which is exclusively devoted to the study of patrilineal ancestry among Jewish groups. This article is more suited to pithy, cogent assertions about E1b1b sub-clades and the populations that carry them, as already featured in the text. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The M123 section is still shorter than some other sections? Please note that this quote is not only about the Jewish component of E-M123, but rather more general. Concerning the pithiness point of principle, I would think that each sub-clade might eventually have a little bit more explanation attached than they currently do. Not that they need to become article length, but I don't think a couple of paragraphs is over-doing surely? Look at the V13 section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nevermind. LOL I wrote the above quite literally moments before posting and in a hurry. The quote works fine given the importance of E1b1b/E3b as a major founding lineage among Jewish populations. Causteau (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Somalian E1b1b

Sanchez et al. 2005:

E1b1b-M35: 3/201 = 1.5% E1b1b-M78: 156/201 = 77.6% E1b1b-M81: 3/201 = 1.5% E1b1b-M123: 1/201 = 0.5%

Total E1b1b: 81.1%Reviewzy (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the direct quote from Cruciani et al. (2004) that you partially misquoted. I realize you just joined Wikipedia yesterday, but in future, please do not manipulate sourced material. Causteau (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Reviewzy is trying to include new information from an article not already in the list? If Reviewzy is reading this, can you please explain here on this talk page, so we can sort it out? What is the title of the article, and do you (ideally) know if there is a copy on the internet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have it: High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males. I'll add this into the wiki article references to make it easier to use. Just to make sure it is clear what the problem so far was: the text edited was a direct quote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime perhaps it is worth considering whether a table of population statistics from academic papers might be a good way to collapse a lot of information on such things one day. Some haplogroup articles already have such tables, but I must point out that they are often messy and hard to edit and as a result sometimes perhaps end up making the article worse?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed a messy, bad idea, and completely unnecessary since there is already a page on Wikipedia that lists all of the Y DNA by ethnic group. Causteau (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But of course there is no such article listing all the sub-clades of E1b1b? Still, I don't see any need to rush to make such a table.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005)

I just finished reading (2005) A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE Journal of Genetic Genealogy. It seems that Ellen Coffman-Levy agrees with the East African origin of E3b. He disagrees with the blanket term for E3b being "African." The main reason is that their are downstream mutations of M35 that happen outside Africa. Specifically "Certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of Years." - Ellen Coffman-Levy

He then goes on to agree and quote different Cruciani et al. studies repeatedly. He doesn't argue at all about the Origin. I dont really know how wiki works as far as edits, but i have read the long conversations about references regarding this subject. I dont think Ellen Coffman-Levy is a good reference for the Middle Eastern Origin of E3b. He actually agrees with Cruciani. - AkB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.195.227 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ellen is a "she", actually. Jheald (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the quote twists the meaning of the Levy-Coffman article, in the same way implied by the comment above - i.e. that the original context was all about public comments which oversimplify and make people think that E-M35 in Jews is "African" (i.e. more African than Jewish) whereas indeed the story is more complex even if this clade did technically begin in Africa. The way the quote is made in the current version of the Wikipedia article implies something which I think Ellen would agree is an over-simplification in the other direction, i.e. that Ellen was arguing that it is more Jewish than African so to speak, which is not really the point. But I do not think everyone who edits this article agrees! Perhaps the unsigned writer above thinks there might be a better source for such a point of view, but in fact as I think I've argued I do not think there is. The theory that E1b1b started in North Eastern African is the only really orthodox one in recent years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "SHE" That was my mistake. I DO think she was speaking of the oversimplification. The MAIN issue I have with the reference (from reading the comments of 2 main editors) is that the quote from Ellen's article in the ORIGIN section of the WIkI article doesn't really reference nor have an opinion ON THE ORIGIN. She doesn't have an Adverse opinion to the East African Origin of M35 but she DOES does address the generalization of all M35 mutations as "African." Her quote in the "ORIGIN" section of the Wiki Article would be better placed in sections describing the downstream mutations(Where her comment has actual meaning) or removed all together. I am with ALancaster on the issue and I dont think there are any peer reviewed sources anywhere that would advocate a Middle Eastern origin. If there ARE then "Ellen Coffman-Levy" would NOT be one of them.

Main points. -There was an argument on finding a source for Mid East Origin. -The article was recently edited with a reference that attempts to give users the impression that Ellen Coffman-Levy places the origin of M35 in the Middle East. -Ellen Coffman-Levy does NOT put the origin of M35 in the Middle East, but East Africa. -Ellen Coffman-Levy comments that some downstream mutations of M35 have been in the Middle East and Asia for "Thousands of years"

• Ellen Coffman-Levy's Comments should be REMOVED from the origin sections as it gives the impression that She does NOT agree with Cruciani et al. when she actually does.
• The quote from (Coffman 2005) is simply her opinion based on semantics. Regarding the Origin, she actually agrees with Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007)

No information in her article reads contrary to the above geneticists. Her article does not satisfy the request of a source for the Middle Eastern Origin of (M35) E3b. - AkB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.195.227 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions in order to help your opinions count on the crazy democracy that is Wikipedia: 1. Can you please "sign" your comments. When you are editing you will see some buttons above the box and one of them looks loosely like a signature. Just press this when you have your cursor at the end of the comment you are typing. This means everyone will be able to see that various comments all come from the same person. 2. Even better, can you create an editing account in Wikipedia? I think you'll see A "LOG-IN/CREATE ACCOUNT" link up in the top right corner of the page whenever your are in Wikipedia. If you click on this you will see what to do next. This particular option means people will always be able to see at a glance that you are a serious editor (Wikipedia unfortunately has some less serious editors). Your editing name can of course be anonymous. This article and similar ones could certainly do with more interested people to help. Concerning your points above, you know I basically agree, but the question will be how to find a compromise that all editors can accept. There is clearly at least one person out there who thinks there is or might be a Middle East theory concerning the origins of E-M35. The quote from Ellen is technically accurate and only the context changes what you and I read to be the implications. Now that you've raised this though, I think I'll write to her and ask her what she thinks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone said Coffman-Levy puts the origin of M35 in the Middle East. The E1b1b article certainly does not. What it does say is that:

E1b1b is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup". A lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media."

This is both a quote and a direct paraphrase of what Coffman-Levy herself writes in her study:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.

The Levy-Coffman quote is not at all difficult to understand when one actually reads the rest of the paragraph:

Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against. Causteau (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

- Trying to edit this reference so that it is less open to being described (accurately in my opinion) as a quotation that is twisting the meaning of the author has turned out to be quote difficult. Anyone interested in all the details can have a look at the editing history one edit of which was revert number 4 in a 3RR alert I have placed in the appropriate place on Wikipedia. I want to address the situation after the latest revert by Causteau.

The edit which was reverted was in the following context. There are three paragraphs or sentences, which I had changed the sequence of, moving one ("As E1b1b dispersed...") into the middle, with the editing remark of moving the discussions about there being something non African in a complex way, i.e. the sub-clades, which are also what Coffman-Levy is talking about, together...

1. Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.
2. As E1b1b1 dispersed, all major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Western Asia. E-V13 and E-M123, both found in Europe and amongst Jewish populations, are two major sub-clades of E-M78 which originated outside of Africa, both in the Near East.
3. According to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.

Please note that the text in bold is text which Causteau has defended tooth and nail. If I don't mention this people will wonder why I did not just take it out.

My change was purely in order to avoid the very wrong impression being given otherwise:

First, there is a very vague remark being sourced from Coffman-Levy without any explanation about what the author was talking about. I believe by the way that it is not an appropriate comment without further explanation: "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media".

A reader following on from this and wondering what misinformation was intended, would have next found a paragraph, which is highly controversial as anyone can confirm by looking at the history of edits and discussions about this article, implying that there is a scientific debate in the literature about whether E1b1b may have originated in the Near East. I believe there is no such debate anywhere. But much worse, the clear implication, as pointed out by another editor also, is that Coffman-Levy is a protagonist in this argument taking the side of the Near East theory. After all, it has just been mentioned that she also wrote that E1b1b is "often incorrectly described as “African.” This is clearly not true, and this possible interpretation of the text must be removed. (I also added a quote to prove this: Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". So note, this was not even there before.)

So what to do with the first paragraph which leaves the reader hanging? What was Coffman-Levy writing about? What is complex and non African about E1b1b? And what do the public and media get wrong? Of course the answer is that lineages of E1b1b moved away from Africa where they founded some quite distinct sub-lineages. That this is what she intended is absolutely clear from reading the article.

Causteau's revert nevertheless states "moved discussion of origin of E1b1b1 sub-clades down and origin of E1b1b1 up; it's still a personal interpretation that Coffman-Levy means that because she never actually mentions E3b's sub-clades".

So let's see what she wrote:

Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example...

The Wikipedian public may judge if it is correct to say that Coffman-Levy "never actually mentions E3b's sub-clades".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing this direct paraphrase (viz. that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") of the Coffman-Levy study is that she is strictly referring to the fact that certain sub-clades of E1b1b (e.g. E-V13 and E-M34) arose outside of Africa. You write: "the answer is that lineages of E1b1b moved away from Africa where they founded some quite distinct sub-lineages. That this is what she intended is absolutely clear from reading the article." You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example...". However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b. The actual paragraph in question goes like this:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

I've already demonstrated above in my close analysis of this complete paragraph what Coffman-Levy is actually talking about. However, I have not attempted to insert into the E1b1b article this personal interpretation of mine, nor have I reduced her actual statements to simply the fact that she is talking about sub-clades of E3b that originated outside of Africa and nothing more (a close reading of the paragraph above does not bear this out; she means a great deal more than that as I've already shown). The notion that people will get the "wrong impression" about where Coffman-Levy believes E3b originated likewise does not hold water since we state point-blank in the E1b1b article that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". There is therefore still no valid reason for removing that valuable second (or any) part of Coffman-Levy's quote. Causteau (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing this direct paraphrase (viz. that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") of the Coffman-Levy study is that she is strictly referring to the fact that certain sub-clades of E1b1b (e.g. E-V13 and E-M34) arose outside of Africa. You write: "the answer is that lineages of E1b1b moved away from Africa where they founded some quite distinct sub-lineages. That this is what she intended is absolutely clear from reading the article." You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example...".

Actually this is not my rationale for removing the vague accusation that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". As I explained already my rationale for that is that this is a vague accusation. It should be either made clear what the accusation is, or else the accusation should not be included in the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, if the accusation towards the public and media is simply that "Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" then this does not need to be said, because it is already fully quoted. To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East. That whole section should of course be removed and you are still searching for a source. It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet. Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what? There is no other way to read her as far as I can tell than the way I explained it, and you certainly have not offered any credible alternative reading. And she certainly does mention sub-clades.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b. The actual paragraph in question goes like this:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

I've already demonstrated above in my close analysis of this complete paragraph what Coffman-Levy is actually talking about.

Close analysis?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is not my rationale for removing the vague accusation that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". As I explained already my rationale for that is that this is a vague accusation. It should be either made clear what the accusation is, or else the accusation should not be included in the Wikipedia article.

The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes. Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the accusation towards the public and media is simply that "Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" then this does not need to be said, because it is already fully quoted.

If Coffman-Levy believed that her assertion that a lot of misinformation about E3b also continues to pervade the public and media did "not need to be said", she simply wouldn't have written it. However, the fact remains that she did write it, and since she did write it, it clearly did need to be said. Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East.

Again, the notion that people will get the "wrong impression" about where Coffman-Levy believes E3b originated does not hold water since we state point-blank in the E1b1b article that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That whole section should of course be removed and you are still searching for a source.

Since the Coffman-Levy quote is a reliable source, I don't believe you have any choice in the matter as to whether it stays or goes. Again, per WP:VER:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet.

No... it's Coffman-Levy's view. And you've really lost it this time. Per WP:PA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Per WP:AGF:

Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what?

Coffmany-Levy's discussion of the controversy surrounding E3b is not "spread over a few paragraphs". It is discussed in only one paragraph, which I've already quoted for you above. Here it is again, for good measure:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no other way to read her as far as I can tell than the way I explained it, and you certainly have not offered any credible alternative reading. And she certainly does mention sub-clades.

There is perhaps no other way to read her as far as you can tell. However, my reading of what she writes is infinitely more credible than yours because it actually pertains to the topic at hand i.e. the controversy surrounding E3b -- not to some entirely separate discussion one page removed from the actual paragraph in question. Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- I think your extended responses give a good summary of the reasons why the extra words you want to leave in, that you admit can be interpreted different ways, are not needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello to all. I'm Ellen Coffman. I was contacted by a poster here who I am acquainted with from a genetic discussion list. Please be patient, however, with my postings, as I've never posted to Wikipedia before and am still getting the hang of it. I'd be happy to try to address any questions or concerns about my article. Also, I can try to clarify my thinking as reflected in my article.

Regarding E-M35 among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish groups, I should probably clarify that I was not attempting in my article to contradict Semino or Cruciani regarding the ultimate origins of haplogroup E3b in Africa. I was merely pointing out that to continue to think and write about haplogroup E3b and, in particular, certain sub-clades of E3b as African in origin was simplistic and potentially misleading. It is rather like saying that haplogroup R1b is Middle Eastern/Transcaucasian merely because the haplogroup originated in Anatolia tens of thousands of years ago. And it was clear to me even many years ago when I wrote the article that some clades of E3b did not arise in Africa, but elsewhere in the world. Thus, to refer to clades like E-M78 as "African" because the UEP that defines the parental haplogroup originated in Africa gives the wrong impression about the origins, history and distribution of many of the sub-clades, some of which may occur in greater population frequency than the original parental haplogroup itself.

When exploring and writing about Jewish Y DNA results, the ultimate question that people generally want answered is whether the clade among the various Jewish populations originated in the Middle East and thus, a Levantine/Israelite origin is likely or at least a possibility, or whether the group is likely the result of European ancestry. When examining the E3b results between Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations as presented by various researchers like Semino, my analysis was that E-M35 stood a good chance, based on frequency similarity and relative rarity in European populations, of being a candidate for Levantine ancestry among contemporary Jewish groups. However, as E-M35 did occur in very low frequency in southern Europe, I could not completely rule out the possibility of European origins either. Of course, it could also be that the European E-M35 originated primarily with Jewish and Arab E-M35 traders. Not enough was known at that time to really say.11jcc (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)11jcc (Ellen Coffman), 31 October 2008.

- Welcome Ellen! I had better say right up front that no one is saying (in a straight out way) that you would claim to support (in a straight out way) a theory that E1b1b originated in the Near East. Specifically, there is a piece of text in the article which paraphrases you, and there is a dispute about what impression it should give, and indeed whether it should be giving vague impression or just sticking to basics. The section, which I think deserves a general review, is called Origins, and it currently looks like this:

Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001)[16], Semino et al. (2004)[6][17], Cruciani et al. (2004[1][18], 2006[19], and 2007[20]), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both its parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago.[4] There are different techniques available for such estimates, and a considerable range of possibilities, but the most recent estimates of Cruciani et al. (2007) are around 24,000 years ago for E-M215[21] or E-M35.[22]

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.[23]

According to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.[3][24]

All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, or the Near East.

As I have discussed here on this discussion page, I believe that this should read something like this...

Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001)[16], Semino et al. (2004)[6][17], Cruciani et al. (2004[1][18], 2006[19], and 2007[20]), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both its parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago.[4] There are different techniques available for such estimates, and a considerable range of possibilities, but the most recent estimates of Cruciani et al. (2007) are around 24,000 years ago for E-M215[21] or E-M35.[22]

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".

[Removing a paraphrased unclear accusation about the media which I say needs either making explicit or removal.]

All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, or the Near East.

[Removing the whole section about a supposed theory in the literature about East African origins; or if it must stay then that earlier in the Origins sections to be directly contrasted with the standard theories of Semino and Cruciani.]

I understand that Causteau's position is that...

1. Because your article is a verifiable and good source, as per all rules and regulations, etc, and you wrote so as to make an unclear accusation, leave it in. This is perhaps more a question of Wiki-rules, although indeed there is none to support such an argument.

2. Following on from the seemingly unclear accusation with discussion of sub-clades is not faithful to your intentions because when you made your unclear accusation you could not have been talking about sub-clades because you only talk about sub-clades on another page of your article.

3. Following on from the unclear accusation with discussion about African origins is more according to the context of your article, even if you state yourself in agreement with the normal theories about an African origin.

Of course Causteau should make his own position clear if he thinks there is any error in my rendition.

The thing is that you are free to re-write this Origins section how you like. Others are also of course - please expect it to change continually - but I think it would be very interesting to see how you think it should look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First, let me welcome you to Wikipedia, Ellen. Your presence here is most timely and needed, believe me! LOL

Basically, the situation is that I have included in the Origins section of this E1b1b article a paraphrase from your 2005 study that goes:

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"".

Here is the passage from the study that the paragraph above references:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

I've very closely analyzed and explained to the other editor the exact meaning of your quote above, which I think is largely corroborated by the post you've just made. Here is how I explained to the other editor the passage in your study:

From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against.

Please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written. Best, Causteau (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To all, thank you for the warm welcome. Causteau, you have restated my argument quite eloquently. It is precisely what I was trying to convey.

I do not, however, have any objection at all to removing my statement about public and media bias.

When I wrote the article, there was an extremely strong bias against acknowledging the diversity and complexity of Jewish DNA results. There was instead a strong urge on the part of many researchers and lay geneticists to find primarily what I would describe as "non-European" origins for all Jewish DNA results. In my opinion, that bias tended to corrupt the research in some cases.

I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA. I was disturbed by their so-called "analysis" of Jewish autosomal results, which were never published or subject to peer review. One particular section on their website indicated "African" ancestry for Jewish DNA. Another was "Middle Eastern." There was no mention of "European" - that would have undermined what I suspected was their attempt to insure that Jewish ancestry was seen primarily as "non-European" in origin. Although they provided an autosomal test for consumers, no autosomal studies were cited. Instead, the "evidence" presented by AncestrybyDNA was exclusively based on Y chromosome results such as the E3b study from Semino. And because E3b was deemed an "African" haplogroup, then it allegedly supported AncestrybyDNA's assertion that Jews were primarly "African" (as well as "Middle Eastern" and hence "non-European") in their ancestry.

It was, of course, terribly biased and scientifically unsupportable, but they were able to use these ideas quite effectively to assert "African" ancestry for Jews. Of course, they weren't alleging African ancestry for Europeans with significant E3b frequencies. Instead, they used selective labeling and emphasis.

This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies. It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews is no longer present.

It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.11jcc (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)11jcc, 31 October 2008 (Ellen Coffman).

Thanks Ellen, so what you were referring to principally at the time were comments which ignored that clades such as the one now known as E-V13 are as European as anything else, so to speak? In other words, the complexity being ignored was concerning sub-clades of E-M78, some of which are certainly not African except in the sense in which all clades are African? Is that a reasonable summary that we can use to guide our judgement on what is intended?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for the question asking for clarification. Sometimes my thoughts do wander.

I think the motivations and biases was more complicated in the AncestrybyDNA case cited above than simply ignoring origins of sub-clades. I think there was an intentional misuse of genetic information and labels such as "African" to mislead the public. They attempted to create a particular picture of genetic ancestry and misused labels like "African" and DNA studies on E3b to do so.

But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole.

On a completely different note, I'd be interested in what the E3b Wikipedia article has to say about V12, a group of E3b's that in my opinion generally receive very scant attention in DNA studies, particularly as the group exists among European populations. 11jcc (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)11jcc, 1 November 2008 (Ellen Coffman)

Thank you for sharing your experience and insight, Ellen. It certainly helps shed light on the matter. Needless to say, I agree with everything you've written, particularly the fact that, while the public is indeed much better informed on genetic groups than it was in the past, there is still unfortunately much lingering misinformation that needs to be redressed one way or another. I think disseminators of information continue to play a large role in this, especially Wikipedia. For instance, if one Googles the terms "E1b1b" or "E3b", the first entry to appear at the top of the page is invariably this very article. It's therefore imperative that we "get it right", so to speak. In that spirit, I think it would be terrific if you were to regularly check back in just to make sure that all the facts here are accurately presented. This article could certainly benefit from your expertise in the field. For my part, I'll see what I can come up with regarding the distribution of V12 among European populations. Please feel free to share other areas of concern that you feel perhaps haven't been addressed enough or have otherwise been neglected. Kind regards, Causteau (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So everyone, what should the sentence say? I do not think I disagree with any of the above, but my only point still is that the present sentence does not give all of the above explanation, and to insert it all would be a major digression. We currently have...

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

Personally, though I'd be happy to try to understand and find a way to word any other content that needs to be in the article, I think that "this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"" already covers "that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" - which was apparently intended to convey a similar idea, but now can imply just about anything. My question is really: what will a reader who does not know the history understand? What is it we are trying to get across?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The paraphrase that "this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" does not already cover the same ground as the assertion that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". The first part identifies the problem, and the second part identifies who among others is behind the problem. I've already thoroughly explained this and more in my close analysis above (dated 19:51, 31 October 2008), a post which Ellen has said is precisely what she was trying to convey. Ellen likewise has provided concrete examples in her two previous posts of the issue at hand (e.g.: "But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa... By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."). Causteau (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that you've tried to explain this before, but let's try to move on. What I now understand you to be saying is that the second part of the sentence is about the exact same misunderstanding, but what it adds is information about how the misunderstanding was spread? OK. This is not clear in the wording though, and I think we could make it so. How about (taking Ellen's other comments into account):

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) agreed that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa" but expressed concern that the media and some other public sources of information had come to describe E1b1b, a very large and diverse clade, as simply “African” - a designation which could technically be applied to any Y clade.

Is this getting the point across better? By the way I can agree that this would be a good point to make. I just don't think we were doing it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that does not get the point across better. It reduces the potency of Ellen's argument to a hugely understated "a designation which could technically be applied to any Y clade", when Ellen has already made it clear in her own posts (and in her assertion that my analysis of her quote fully captures what it is she was trying to convey) that she means a great deal more than that. What does get the point across is the direct paraphrase and quote from Ellen's study that is already featured in the article:

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

The statement above does not need any rewriting of any kind since it already fully captures (and largely in her own words) what it is Ellen is actually talking about. And what she is talking about I've already explained in my post dated 19:51, 31 October 2008; Ellen likewise has done the same and more in her own two posts. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your longer summary made on the talk page, but the only question being discussed is whether that is what the present text says. You have already admitted that the present text does not explain all this at all. Indeed despite your frequent claim to have made a close analysis of this, you've never once gone beyond saying that the text should not be changed - you even stated that it should not be made clear (15:17, 29 October 2008) - because it is based on what the original article says, which is of course not an argument at all. You are simply not willing to discuss it, it seems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your longer summary made on the talk page, but the only question being discussed is whether that is what the present text says.

Firstly, I have not made a "longer summary" on the talk page. In my post dated 19:51, 31 October 2008, I have recapitulated for Ellen the situation at hand, including my close analysis of the paragraph in her study. She in turn has indicated that this close analysis fully captures what it is she was trying to convey. Secondly, of course the text that's in the E1b1b article represents what Ellen actually means since it is a direct paraphrase and quote of what she herself has written. Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You have already admitted that the present text does not explain all this at all.

Not quite. What I have done is explain to you in my post dated 15:17, 29 October 2008 that we cannot insert into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Ellen actually means because that personal interpretation is just that: an unsourced, personal interpretation not explicity asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes. And since your personal interpretation of what Ellen actually means has already been demonstrated by her as inaccurate and mine as accurate, this makes the forgoing all the more poignant. Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed despite your frequent claim to have made a close analysis of this, you've never once gone beyond saying that the text should not be changed - you even stated that it should not be made clear (15:17, 29 October 2008) - because it is based on what the original article says, which is of course not an argument at all.

That's not true. I never stated in my posted dated 15:17, 29 October 2008 that "it should not be made clear" or anything of the sort. I stated that the statement in the E1b1b article "cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."

Just a point of logic:- X can not be done, because doing so would cause a bad thing Y = X should not be done. Your argument was/is quite clearly concerning whether the text should be changed or not, in order to make it more clear; not whether it could be changed or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also never "claimed" to have made a close analysis of the paragraph in Ellen's study. I have made one, period. And Ellen herself has indicated that this close analysis -- which you've ridiculed and described as my "POV" -- actually fully captures what it is she was trying to convey. Here's an especially pertinent section of it:

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against.

Note how it parallels what Ellen herself has indicated in her posts:

• Thus, to refer to clades like E-M78 as "African" because the UEP that defines the parental haplogroup originated in Africa gives the wrong impression about the origins, history and distribution of many of the sub-clades, some of which may occur in greater population frequency than the original parental haplogroup itself.

• But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole.

  Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

None of what you have written attempts to discuss the wording of the article, which is the only thing you need to address. The vague accusation as it stands in the article now does not include any of the extra explanation above, and is not helped by it, because it is on the talk page. (You also don't succeed in showing what your real point is. You say that there is a difference between our interpretations. What? That comment only made sense when you insisted that Ellen did not have sub-clades in mind, which was clearly wrong. You seem to be exaggerating differences rather than seeking to do anything constructive.) Anyway, the wording in the article needs to have a clear meaning, which is additional to what other wording in the article already says, or else if it "can not be made more clear" then it should be removed, shouldn't it? Just address that subject, please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

None of what you have written attempts to discuss the wording of the article, which is the only thing you need to address.

Your post above presupposes that there is something inherently "wrong" with the wording of the article that warrants discussion. However, this notion doesn't hold water since the wording of the paragraph in question is comprised almost entirely of words taken directly from Ellen's study i.e. the reliable source's own words -- not the personal interpretations of lowly Wiki editors, which aren't even allowed anyway per WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that we are only talking about your wording in the Wikipedia article:- not the original article, but the way it is paraphrased in the context of the Wikipedia article. It has been said, that your wording, looking also at the context, gives a new implied meaning that is not in the original article. It is a not a response to this to argue that you know what you are talking about or that you made a citation. This is a wording question. Please treat it that way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the first part of the statement in question is made up of direct quotes from Ellen herself, you are obviously only referring to the second part of the assertion:

...a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

However, note that the "wording" of this second part does not and, in fact, cannot give "a new implied meaning that is not in the original article", when it is a virtual word-for-word copy of what Ellen herself writes in her study:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media.

As can quite clearly be seen above, the statements above mean the exact same thing -- the only difference is that Ellen pluralizes "haplogroup" in her study because she believes that haplogroup J2 is likewise also mishandled by the media and public institutions. That's it. Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The vague accusation as it stands in the article now does not include any of the extra explanation above, and is not helped by it, because it is on the talk page.

Of course the E1b1b article does not include my/Ellen's explanations cited above because those explanations are not sourced, and Wikipedia goes on reliable sources only (which Ellen's study definitely qualifies as). It is also strictly your own opinion that the statement that "misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" is vague. It's certainly not my view nor is it Ellen's, the actual author of the passage the statement both directly paraphrases and quotes from. Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The author did not take a position concerning the wording in the Wikipedia article. Also, I am not saying we should replace sourced with unsourced material. I am saying the wording should be improved. You may recall that this is not just my opinion, but that this whole discussion was actually started by another editor. In any case, if readers who know this subject matter find the wording vague and misleading, that is a good reason to look at the wording, not "just someone's opinion". But you refuse to discuss it, just covering yourself in the flag of having quoted from an article. No one is saying we should not quote from the article. People are telling you that the way you (just you) demand that the paraphrase should be worded, twists the meaning. If you have no response to that except to say that the sentence does not confuse you, then let people who do see a problem try to remove any ambiguity please. On what basis can you refuse that request?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that Ellen took "a position concerning the wording in the Wikipedia article." I wrote that "it's certainly not my view nor is it Ellen's" that "the statement that "misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" is vague". I know this from a) Ellen's own explanation of her position in her posts on this talk page, b) her approval of my own close analysis of her writing (including the phrase above), and c) the fact that the assertion in the E1b1b article is identical to the one in Ellen's study except for a one word adjustment for plurality, as I've already explained. Furthermore, the anonymous IP that started this whole discussion repeatedly complained that "Ellen Coffman-Levy's Comments should be REMOVED from the origin sections as it gives the impression that She does NOT agree with Cruciani et al. when she actually does" -- a position which has no substance or relevance, especially now since we state point blank in the E1b1b article that "citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"." He also suggested that Coffman-Levy isn't even talking about the origin of E3b in the quote above so it therefore shouldn't be included: "The MAIN issue I have with the reference (from reading the comments of 2 main editors) is that the quote from Ellen's article in the ORIGIN section of the WIkI article doesn't really reference nor have an opinion ON THE ORIGIN." This of course absurd and has been proven completely wrong by Ellen's own posts, which show that she's actually specifically talking about the origin of E3b (as I've already explained in my close analysis, which Ellen also fully agrees with). So that's the other reader who finds "the wording vague and misleading": someone whose initial concerns have since been completely invalidated and by no less than the study's author herself. This leaves just you that somehow sees "ambiguity" in that direct paraphrase of Coffman-Levy's study (which, again, differs only in a one word adjustment for plurality, as I've explained in my previous post above). Funny how Ellen herself didn't see any such ambiguity or anything approaching it in her response to my post (dated 19:51, 31 October 2008) where I asked her outright "if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what [she has] written". Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You also don't succeed in showing what your real point is. You say that there is a difference between our interpretations. What?

Well, for one thing, you've stated that placing the phrase in question in the Origins section of the article suggests that "Coffman-Levy is a protagonist in this argument taking the side of the Near East theory", which is of course absurd since we state point-blank in the article that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". You also wrote to Ellen in your post dated 17:40, 1 November 2008 that:

...so what you were referring to principally at the time were comments which ignored that clades such as the one now known as E-V13 are as European as anything else, so to speak? In other words, the complexity being ignored was concerning sub-clades of E-M78, some of which are certainly not African except in the sense in which all clades are African? Is that a reasonable summary that we can use to guide our judgement on what is intended?.

However, in her response to that post, she made it clear that she actually meant a great deal more than that:

I think the motivations and biases was more complicated in the AncestrybyDNA case cited above than simply ignoring origins of sub-clades. I think there was an intentional misuse of genetic information and labels such as "African" to mislead the public. They attempted to create a particular picture of genetic ancestry and misused labels like "African" and DNA studies on E3b to do so.

But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole.

Further, you quite clearly labeled my close analysis of the quote from Ellen's study as "POV", suggested that I wanted "to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects", and that "Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of [mine]" -- all of which is ironic in that Ellen herself has intimated that my close analysis "is precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We should be talking about the text in the Wikipedia article and not you or me. Does the current wording say all of the above? No, it certainly does not. Would it even be relevant to a general article to include such specific material? I don't think so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This point, as with every other one, has already been thoroughly addressed elsewhere. For one thing, my previous post isn't about you or me. It's entirely about your posts and Ellen's response to one of the latter. Secondly, your question asking whether it would "even be relevant to a general article to include such specific material" harkens back to the old argument as to whether the passage from Ellen's study should even be included at all in the E1b1b article -- an argument which has been entirely invalidated by my close analysis of the passage in question, and by Ellen's complete agreement with and subsequent echoing of that close analysis:

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against.

Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On one occasion, she said that a summary you made on this discussion page was correct. The impression giving by the current wording in the Wikipedia article (vague accusation, followed - you insisted by reverts - by comments implying that there is a Middle Eastern Origins theory somewhere in the literature) is perhaps debatable, but I am not the only one on this discussion page who has mentioned that it looks like a vague way of implying something which would be incorrect. Why not just get rid of that vagueness then if you are not trying to create an impression?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In her post dated (06:04, 1 November 2008), Ellen stated outright that my close analysis "is precisely what [she] was trying to convey". In the rest of that post and all of her posts since, she has further demonstrated through concrete explanations and examples that we share the exact same view -- it's not just a case of "on one occasion, she said that a summary [I] made on this discussion was correct." Every part of her posts agree with what I've written. Furthermore, the anonymous IP's main gripe with the paragraph in the E1b1b article taken from Ellen's study didn't have to do with any hypothetical vagueness in the wording. It principally had to do with his mistaken belief that the passage "gives the impression that She does NOT agree with Cruciani et al. when she actually does" -- a concern which, again, does not hold water (especially now) since the E1b1b article states outright that "citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"." Nothing vague about that. Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That comment only made sense when you insisted that Ellen did not have sub-clades in mind, which was clearly wrong.

I never insisted that Ellen did not have sub-clades in mind. What I quite clearly wrote was that "I have not attempted to insert into the E1b1b article this personal interpretation of mine, nor have I reduced her actual statements to simply the fact that she is talking about sub-clades of E3b that originated outside of Africa and nothing more (a close reading of the paragraph above does not bear this out; she means a great deal more than that as I've already shown)." Kindly stop quoting me out of context; it's very annoying and verboten per WP:CIV. Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be exaggerating differences rather than seeking to do anything constructive.

Nothing exaggerated about the above, I'm afraid. If constructive is what you're after, then perhaps you should stop attributing statements to me that I have not made. Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly disagree with you about this. I tried to clarify the sentence mentioning sub-clades, and you reverted it saying that there was no mention of sub-clades in the original context of the article. Both the article and the author's explanation on this discussion page make it clear you were wrong about that. If I misunderstand you, please explain it to me, but the misunderstanding is based on my understanding of all the correspondence. One thing which I think makes discussion very difficult with you is that you never try to explain what you are thinking, but instead you rather answer in a legalistic way by accusing people of poor form for having questioned you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you have misunderstood what I've written. In this edit summary, I wrote that "it's still a personal interpretation that Coffman-Levy means that because she never actually mentions E3b's sub-clades". However, this was strictly a reference to the paragraph in question where Ellen actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b -- not to a separate discussion one page removed from it -- and where she indeed never explicitly mention's E3b's sub-clades:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics of problem editors. You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them. Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all... You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

— WP:TE

Anyway, the wording in the article needs to have a clear meaning, which is additional to what other wording in the article already says, or else if it "can not be made more clear" then it should be removed, shouldn't it? Just address that subject, please.

This subject has already been discussed to death. There's nothing even remotely unclear about the wording. If there were, Ellen would've indicated as much when I asked her if I was misinterpreting what she had written. But of course she indicated the exact opposite of that i.e. that I was spot on. You also have no right to remove this sourced statement since it is easily verifiable and properly attributed to a reliable source -- a reliable source whose own author has already indicated that her words are not being misinterpreted. From WP:VER:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

A direct quote of the entire paragraph in question from the Coffman-Levy study was also provided in the E1b1b article's footnotes so that readers may verify the information for themselves. From WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ellen agreed with a summary you made on this discussion page, which is not the subject under discussion. She went to lengths to avoid making a comment on the wording question, but mentioned that the media/public misinformation she had in mind were very specific cases at a specific time. The wording currently in the Wikipedia article gives a very different impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's, again, an understatement. In her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008, Ellen did not just agree with a summary I made on this discussion page; she also agreed with my close analysis that was included in that summary. And all of her posts since have demonstrated through vivid explanations and examples that we share the exact same view (as can readily be seen, for example, in the juxtaposition of some of our previous posts in my own post dated 01:06, 4 November 2008). Ellen also did not go "to lengths to avoid making a comment on the wording question". To state that is to suggest that she is somehow "dodging" the non-issue of whether "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" means the same thing as "misinformation about these haplogroups [E3b and J] continues to pervade the public and media". Of course they do (afore-explained plurality issue notwithstanding), and she ought to know since she wrote the study to begin with. Moreover, while Ellen did indeed cite as an example specific cases of media/public misinformation from the time when she was writing the study (e.g. AncestrybyDNA), she still made it clear that:

As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.

Lastly, the wording gives the exact impression its author intended, which is why she never took exception to it when it was specifically presented before her by me for appraisal (in my post dated 19:51, 31 October 2008). Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the spririt of assuming good faith, may I ask you to take a different direction and just explain the difference in meaning which the disputed words give to the article, which are not already given by other words, and which can not be worded less ambiguously. Such an approach must surely be more effective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, such an approach is not more effective because there was nothing ambiguous about the direct paraphrase of and quote from the Coffman-Levy study to begin with. The different direction you propose we take likewise is actually a 180 degree turn backwards since I've already explained this very point in my post dated 17:00, 2 November 2008:

The paraphrase that "this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" does not already cover the same ground as the assertion that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". The first part identifies the problem, and the second part identifies who among others is behind the problem.

Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a reader myself, and so if I say that I do not see the meaning, how can you possibly just keep over-ruling me about that? The second part of the sentence does not make it clear whether the misinformation being spread is the same misinformation discussed in the first part. Can you at least make that more clear? Please remember that readers of this article should be able to understand this sentence without having to look up the article or this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not over-ruling you about the fact that you do not see the meaning in the assertion that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media." I am simply stating that this is your opinion, not fact. Both Ellen -- who wrote the original assertion to begin with (viz. "unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media") -- and I have no trouble understanding it. If there were something unclear about what Ellen were writing about, she would've indicated as much in her study, but of course she did not because it is as plain as day for any reader to understand: "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". I've already explained that we can't enumerate all the instances of said misinformation or point fingers at specific "culprits", as it were, because doing so would entail original research on our part since the reliable source in question does not specify these things -- Ellen only went into detail here on this talk page. However, what her study does specify is what is already in the text of the E1b1b article and what readers deserve to know: namely, that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for starting a new section, but the size of the old one seems to be straining the upload possibilities. Anyway, here is a fresh start, trying to take a partial step back. Current text...

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

We should only be talking here about something very specific. The defense against my wordiness and vagueness concerns is very specifically that in the words "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" (the vague part, in my opinion) the word "misinformation" can be easily understood to be referring to those "who among others is behind the problem" (Causteau's words) mentioned just before.

In other words, the misinformation being spread is supposed to exactly the same incorrect (actually, given Ellen's own explanation a better word would be "over-simplified") descriptions of E1b1b as “African,” "leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" which was mentioned just before - not that the origin itself isn't Africa, but that this is an inaccurate way to describe it for other reasons. I believe that this is not at all clear, and that any normal reader will look at the next words to try to guess the meaning.

All of this is only a point about clear wording in the paraphrase which is made. (Yes, I have other concerns too.) When it comes to clear wording, having a few well-informed readers say that something is confusing is very important. For example, could the paragraph read as follows, which would give the meaning I think everyone wants, without the possible misinterpretations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup has been often described in the public and media simply as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the complex history of this haplogroup.

Please if possible just limit answers to clearly defining any difference anyone sees in the meaning between the new version, and what Causteau has explained should be the correct interpretation of the current version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We should only be talking here about something very specific. The defense against my wordiness and vagueness concerns is very specifically that in the words "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" (the vague part, in my opinion) the word "misinformation" can be easily understood to be referring to those "who among others is behind the problem" (Causteau's words) mentioned just before.

Your statement that "the word "misinformation" can be easily understood to be referring to those "who among others is behind the problem"" does not make any sense whatsoever. For starters, it misrepresents what I've written. When I wrote (in my post dated 17:00, 2 November 2008) that "the second part identifies who among others is behind the problem", I was obviously referring to the media and the public, among others, as being "behind the problem" -- no different than what the study's actual author has herself stated several times in her own posts on this talk page (e.g. "This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies."). Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the misinformation being spread is supposed to exactly the same incorrect (actually, given Ellen's own explanation a better word would be "over-simplified") descriptions of E1b1b as “African,” "leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" which was mentioned just before - not that the origin itself isn't Africa, but that this is an inaccurate way to describe it for other reasons. I believe that this is not at all clear, and that any normal reader will look at the next words to try to guess the meaning.

As demonstrated above, your entire argument here is based on an incorrect interpretation of what both Ellen and I have written, so your point is off-base, to put it mildly. Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All of this is only a point about clear wording in the paraphrase which is made. (Yes, I have other concerns too.) When it comes to clear wording, having a few well-informed readers say that something is confusing is very important. For example, could the paragraph read as follows, which would give the meaning I think everyone wants, without the possible misinterpretations?

If you want honest opinions from readers, you'll have to start quoting me accurately, or I will just keep doing as I've been doing and continue to correct your misrepresentations of what I've actually written and mean. Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please if possible just limit answers to clearly defining any difference anyone sees in the meaning between the new version, and what Causteau has explained should be the correct interpretation of the current version.

Sure. You've removed all reference to the "misimpression regarding the origin" of E3b. You've only retained a reference to the "misimpression regarding... the complex history of this haplogroup" -- only half of what Ellen actually mentions in the paragraph in question. You've also misquoted her as saying that "this haplogroup has been often described in the public and media simply as “African,”" when she has stated in no uncertain terms (in her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008) that this misinformation plagues a lot more than just the public and the media:

This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies.

So again, kindly stop needlessly distorting Ellen's words when the paragraph that's already in the E1b1b article:

However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

...is already an almost word-for-word paraphrase of and direct quote from what she actually writes in her study:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.

Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement about whether to paraphrase or not in this case, but as to how to say something clearly without risk of misunderstanding. Next suggestion:

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup has often been described, for example in the public and media, as simply “African” - leaving a misimpression regarding the complex origins and history of the people in this haplogroup.

Do you still see any misrepresentations? Please feel free to make suggestions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This new draft is but a less satisfactory and equally unnecessary rephrasing of the direct quotes from Ellen's study that are already featured in the article:

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

However, this time it somehow fails to mention the huge fact that Ellen clearly states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African" (your previous draft omitted this sentence-defining term as well; I just never noticed)! The draft also describes the origins of E3b as "complex" when Ellen clearly labels the clade's history as such:

You've also completely done away with the second part of the phrase to the effect that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media," which won't do because this misinformation is still going on (as Ellen has already pointed out in her posts) and readers interested in the clade deserve to know this. Causteau (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to really want bad style as a principle! :) If something is a misimpression, which is a horrible word to begin with, then it is not correct. The version right now has to many mis- words and negatives. Both these style problems come under the category of standard and objective - not just someone's opinion. Next proposal:

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup has often been misleadingly described, for example in the public and media, as simply “African” - giving a wrong impression about the complex origins and history of the peoples in this haplogroup.

Let me know the verdict in terms of meaning differences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This latest draft is yet another unsatisfactory and equally unnecessary rephrasing of the direct quotes from Ellen's study that are already featured in the article:

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

Only this time you replaced the key term "incorrectly described" with "misleadingly described". Ellen did not write that E3b was misleadingly described, but that it was incorrectly described -- a much more powerful statement.

You've also once again completely done away with the second part of the phrase to the effect that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media," which still won't do because this misinformation is still going on (as Ellen has already pointed out in her posts) and readers interested in the clade still deserve to know this. Causteau (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think now that you are going in a drection explictly different from Ellen's. [Here] is the diff.

• The misinformation had to do with under-stating complexity, and so calling it purely incorrect is not in the spirit of what she meant, nor something the Wikipedia article can spend as much time explaining or putting in context.
• The text was definitely describing something specific which is probably in the past, even if the temptation to over simplify remains always.

Please from your side propose any way you can which gives impressions which are wrong. We do not want people to get the wrong impression do we?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange post. For starters, I never called the statement "purely incorrect". I quite clearly wrote that "you replaced the key term "incorrectly described" with "misleadingly described". Ellen did not write that E3b was misleadingly described, but that it was incorrectly described -- a much more powerful statement." If one searches this talk page for the term "misleadingly" (or even "misleading"), one quickly sees that Ellen never used it in any of her posts let alone in the relevant paragraph in her study. The term she did actually use was the much more powerful incorrectly because the term "incorrectly" implies that the way that E3b is often described as "African" is not just misleading, but flat-out wrong i.e. not correct.

From my side, I propose you stop misquoting Ellen. Her own words are good enough. They, for a change, fully capture what it is that she is actually talking about and do so better than those of any other person that doesn't happen to be her (though in her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008, she did seem to think I had a good handle on what she actually meant). If you're genuinely concerned about the reading public, then you will avoid censoring what Ellen has actually written and let people see it for themselves, as it is, without attempting to dilute the potency or, indeed, the breadth of her plainly-stated message. Causteau (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about Ellen's words. We are talking about your very specific paraphrase. Please only discuss that. Ellen has never given any seal of approval to that (and nor has she really directly commented on either your wording or mine). She agreed with a much longer summary you made on this discussion page, and at the same time she never said she disagreed with me which is why it pointless discussing who she agrees with the most. As far as I can tell there is no disagreement about her article between us, only about the wording. If you continue so doggedly trying to imply otherwise then discussion here can't work, and I have to try to edit on the article without your comments. See WP:TE...

• You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts.”
• Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
• You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

Please look at the diff I directed you to, then tell me what meaning difference you see in my words versus your words, which is compatible with the explanation in that diff. Remember that that diff was Ellen's main comment about the discussion concerning the question at hand and not whether or not you could write a summary fit for a discussion page. For example if you say that my rewrite is wrong because it implies that the problem was in the past when the article was written, Ellen confirmed this also. (And this is not something we can look to the article itself for help in.) If you say that it is wrong because it implies that what was incorrect in the misinformation was that it was misleading, rather than that E1b1b did not originate in Africa, which is the strong implication of your current wording, then such meaning differences seem quite acceptable because neither you nor Ellen believe otherwise? Is there anything else? Please note that even if Ellen's own wording is the source of the implication that Africa is not the origin place of E1b1b, we know with absolute certainty that such an implication is not her intention. Therefore anything leading to this implication must be removed. How can you argue otherwise? Are you again going to tell me that I am wrong to say that the several people including myself who read this in the current wording do not understand their own thoughts on this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about Ellen's words. We are talking about your very specific paraphrase. Please only discuss that.

No... we are talking about both Ellen's words and my specific direct quote and paraphrase of her words because the two are virtually identical.

Here is my edit that is featured in the E1b1b article:

However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

The statement above is an almost word-for-word paraphrase of and direct quote from what Ellen actually writes in her study:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.

Ellen has never given any seal of approval to that (and nor has she really directly commented on either your wording or mine). She agreed with a much longer summary you made on this discussion page, and at the same time she never said she disagreed with me which is why it pointless discussing who she agrees with the most.

That's, again, an understatement. In her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008, Ellen did not just agree with a summary I made on this discussion page; she also agreed with my close analysis that was included in that summary, and tellingly never took exception to my direct quote from and paraphrase of her study when the latter was specifically presented before her by me for appraisal. Ellen may not have explicitly told you "I disagree with you", but she did indicate that my close analysis -- which you've ridiculed and described as my "POV" -- actually fully captures what it is she was trying to convey. Further, all of her posts since have demonstrated through vivid explanations and examples that she and I share the exact same view (as can readily be seen, for example, in the juxtaposition of some of our previous posts in my own post dated 01:06, 4 November 2008), whereas her response to your post dated 17:40, 1 November 2008 shows that you do not fully understand what she has written.

As far as I can tell there is no disagreement about her article between us, only about the wording.

This is about a lot more than "wording"; it's about meaning. For instance, in two of your recent drafts dated you completely ommitted the huge fact that Ellen clearly asserts that "E3b is incorrectly described as "African"". Instead you simply asserted that "this haplogroup has been often described in the public and media simply as “African,”" and that "she adds that this haplogroup has often been described, for example in the public and media, as simply “African”" -- neither of which mention the pivotal fact that describing E3b in such a way is incorrect (not just "misleading" as you later modified it to). In your draft dated 16:22, 7 November 2008, you also removed all reference to the "misimpression regarding the origin" of E3b -- you only retained a reference to the "misimpression regarding... the complex history of this haplogroup", which is only half of what Ellen actually mentions in her study. My point is, with each and everyone of your drafts, there has always been some sort of distortion and/or ommission of information -- this is what I mean by "censoring what Ellen has actually written". It's not opinion; it's empirical, readily observable, and constantly repeated fact.

Please look at the diff I directed you to, then tell me what meaning difference you see in my words versus your words, which is compatible with the explanation in that diff. Remember that that diff was Ellen's main comment about the discussion concerning the question at hand and not whether or not you could write a summary fit for a discussion page. For example if you say that my rewrite is wrong because it implies that the problem was in the past when the article was written, Ellen confirmed this also.

I've already explained to you exactly what was wrong with each and every one your rewrites (which are more properly termed distortions) of the direct paraphrase from and quote of Ellen's own words. Please stop insinuating that I did not do this when a simple glance up the page proves otherwise. Further, Ellen didn't just complain that "the problem was in the past" -- it's still going on! We've already been through this too, remember? My response to you then (as now) was that:

Moreover, while Ellen did indeed cite as an example specific cases of media/public misinformation from the time when she was writing the study (e.g. AncestrybyDNA), she still made it clear that:

As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.

If you say that it is wrong because it implies that what was incorrect in the misinformation was that it was misleading, rather than that E1b1b did not originate in Africa, which is the strong implication of your current wording, then such meaning differences seem quite acceptable because neither you nor Ellen believe otherwise?

First of all, the "implication of my current wording" is the exact same implication as that of Ellen herself since this part of the statement consists of a direct quote from Ellen's study -- i.e. her own words:

However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"

Secondly, Ellen's own words -- which, like it or not, the statement above is -- don't imply that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. This is the same hollow charge you keep leveling, when not one sentence earlier, we state point blank in the E1b1b article that "citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"!

Please note that even if Ellen's own wording is the source of the implication that Africa is not the origin place of E1b1b, we know with absolute certainty that such an implication is not her intention. Therefore anything leading to this implication must be removed. How can you argue otherwise?

Ellen's own wording is not "the source of the implication that Africa is not the origin place of E1b1b" because she never implies this -- it's you that has, as I've shown above and repeatedly elsewhere. Moreover, since the Coffman-Levy quote is a reliable source, I don't believe you have any choice in the matter as to whether it stays or goes. Again, per WP:VER:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

A direct quote of the entire paragraph in question from the Coffman-Levy study was also provided in the E1b1b article's footnotes so that readers may verify the information for themselves. From WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

I also included this choice paragraph in my close analysis (dated 19:51, 31 October 2008) explaining the importance of this assertion:

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against.

And Ellen's response (dated 06:04, 1 November 2008) to that post was of course to indicate that what I wrote was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey".

So kindly give it a rest already; stop setting the template to zero as if we haven't already been through all this absurdity before. Causteau (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is only one question you need to discuss and you are avoiding it studiously. The sentence as it now stands, that which you should be discussing, certainly implies that Ellen Coffman-Levy thinks that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. Whether that is her fault or not (I say it is your choice to put those words in the context of the Wikipedia article) does not even matter because you have stated quite clearly that you agree with me that Ellen Coffman-Levy does not believe this. This is a scientific subject, not a poem, so the original author's wording is less important that the facts and figures she was reciting, and we know those. So how do you therefore defend knowingly making the wording misleading? Just following orders?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

V32 Section

Eritreans have been reinserted into the text as a population with "prevalent" levels of V32. I tried using the sources given but can not see it. Can someone help me out? All I see is a contour map in Cruciani 2007 which of course is no substitute map for real figures, as shown also by the more careful wording of the authors themselves. (Yes, V32 is found in high levels in some parts of the Horn of Africa, and that is all the contour map can show. But there are clearly big differences between sub-populations.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Unlike the term "Somali" which refers to a specific ethnic group, the terms "Ethiopian" and "Eritrean" actually refer to several different and sometimes quite disparate ethnic groups (e.g. the Bantu minority in southern Ethiopia). I've therefore replaced the phrase "it is prevalent in the Horn of Africa among Somalis, Ethiopians, and Eritreans" with a generic "it is prevalent in the Horn of Africa". Causteau (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the article currently says that Cruciani et al. (2007) suggest E-V32 originated in North Africa. Surely this is an error? Perhaps I made it. But does anyone see any reason not to remove this comment? The Cruciani article implies that V32 is from Northeastern Africa, because it writes of a back migration from there to Eastern Africa, where it is also found, and in the same passage mentions that E-M35 as a whole probably expanded from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not an error. While Cruciani et al. (2007) do write of a back migration of E-V32 from Northeastern Africa to Eastern Africa, the term "Northeastern Africa" in their study specifically refers to the eastern part of North Africa (i.e. Egypt and Libya) as opposed to the Horn of Africa (see Table 1). Causteau (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't know if we can say that the text clearly claims anything quite so precise, but in any case the present wording of the Wikipedia article is clearly implying a link to areas further west such as the Maghreb and that is certainly wrong surely? Can you find a text to take away that implication?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Causteau (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Third, I am not sure why there is now a reference to Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears specifically concerning E-V32.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a reason not to remove this? Remember this article has been through some debates which have pushed people to cite things. No problem with that, but there is a risk that referencing can get silly, which means it will become harder to look things up unless references are treated with as much strictness and caution as the text itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed it. Causteau (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another questionable reference?

Can anyone see any reason why this article about Pakistan should be the reference for "E3b is common in Europe". Surely there are other articles which deal with that subject far more directly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not a questionable reference. The study states outright that "E3b is common in Europe". I even included a footnote that mentions this. And again, this is from a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia goes by. Causteau (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is not questionable in that sense. Indeed no-one was debating that E3b is not "common" in Europe although of course this is a vague word. (Which also by the way means that it hard to ever make it very controversial, nor to take all controversy away.) But given that the reference is not about the subject of E1b1b in Europe, but rather about Pakistan, and only indirectly referring to the same literature about that subject which the Wikipedia article already refers to directly, is this reference not unnecessary? Surely there has to be some "common sense" concerning the number of references per sentence especially if, when looked up, they all refer to each back to the same small number of articles such as those by Cruciani et al? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:RS. It specifies that material should come from a reliable source (which the study above is) and that the latter should directly support the material that's actually included in the article:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

In this case, the material that's actually included/presented in the article is the assertion that E3b is common in Europe, which of course the study states outright as I've demonstrated above. Causteau (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what misunderstanding you think I am making. I never claimed that the sentence was incorrect, or was not reflected in the reference. Are you arguing that any sentence in a Wikipedia article which can be referenced to one or more suitable sources, should be referenced to all of the ones available, even ones which refer all refer to the same original source, and that no such reference can should ever be questioned or edited out? There is obviously always a common sense element to editing Wikipedia. These "rules" are not intended to be taken to such extremes, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "extreme" about stating in the article that E3b is common is Europe, provided that that assertion is backed by a reliable source which directly supports it -- which it indeed is. Viz.: "E3b is common in Europe", from this study published in the European Journal of Human Genetics i.e. people qualified to know what they are talking about. Causteau (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I never questioned the statement that E3b is "common" in Europe to begin with (although I did say the word was vague) it would indeed be odd if I then went on to say that the statement is extreme. How could something be vague be extreme? I also, to say it once more, do not question that the referenced source about Pakistan might indeed have said that "E3b is common in Europe" though referring to what we can also read in articles about more specifically about Europe. So I am questioning the type of referencing in the Wikipedia of which this is a discussion page, which seems extreme. Nothing else. Please address that. I have also explained specifically why I think this. Please read what I wrote again and respond to what I really wrote? The way I understand it, an article on Pakistan is being used simply in order to justify the word "common", whereas the articles about Europe, which both the Wikipedia article and the Pakistan E3b article must refer to, perhaps do not use that exact word, but rather give more detailed and less vague numbers and comments? If this is so, then maybe that is the way we should go - less vague?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question and repeatedly, so kindly stop shouting. The study is not "on Pakistan"; it is on the Y chromosomal contribution of Greeks to the Pathan population of Pakistan. It therefore naturally discusses E1b1b/E3b since its E3b1 (E-M78) sub-clade is very common in Greeks. The study was also written by professionals in the field, and was in turn published in the reputable European Journal of Human Genetics, which is per WP:RS a reliable source. Again, this is what Wikipedia goes by, reliable sources. From WP:VER:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Causteau (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked up your "shouting" link and saw nothing to explain it except that I used formatting. Anyway, it does not matter: sorry if I shouted. I don't know how to defer more than I have above, listing out all the things I agree with (which you seem to ignore) except let me add one more statement I don't want to disagree with: I don't disagree that the article referred to has a valid interest in European E1b1b and discusses it as part of its subject matter (referring though to other studies). Good article. Great to have it in the references. But I still don't understand the justification for the reference in order to use a vague word like "common" about a subject which, for that article, is something for references to other articles. Being true, or dare I say it even correctly referenced, is not enough to mean "worth putting in an article". The problem is that what is worth putting in an article is of course what the punters get to decide - Wikipedia is terribly democratic. Cite any "rule" you like. So the reference might be deleted one day, and I would not know how to defend it. If this true comment (sorry, I dare to format) can be made less vague, rather than simply referenced, it might survive better. I'd think it better to take a less "artificial" approach: don't worry too much about wikilawyering, and just make true comments more convincingly and less vaguely put. I'd like to remind you once more that we rarely disagree on the facts. So in the most important way possible, IMHO, we are on the same "side"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Since that is, after all, what Wiki actually goes on: verifiability -- not the idiosyncratic whims of any of its many users (thankfully). There's also nothing "vague" about the statement that "E3b is common in Europe"; it's actually pretty straightforward. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That approach you've just described as your own is called edit warring. No editor of Wikipedia has any special right to repeatedly revert any correctly verified and true edit just because the edit being reverted to is also true or correctly verified. That's why if another Wikipedian has a concern that a wording might need improving, you can't just resolve the issue by assuring them you'll defend the current wording by edit warring. (Surprisingly, some people might even take such a reaction a bit negatively!) You actually should consider the remark. 99% of the time, the wording can be fixed in a way which achieves everyone's aims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote the relevant Wiki article...

Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

...

Edit warring features a confrontational attitude. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism.

Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

...

A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly. Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

Your quote above is quite ironic in that it actually proves my point, not yours:

A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly. Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source -- such as this study from the European Journal of Human Genetics, which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe" -- from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". This is especially true when one considers the fact that I have not only provided a direct paraphrase of what the study actually says, I've also provided a direct quote of it in the article's footnotes. No... this is actually a quite transparent attempt at trying not to include material into the text which for whatever reason personally does not sit well with one. But unfortunately, again, per WP:VS:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please check my summary of your position. I said basically that the text right now looks like it can be improved and asked you to justify how it is. I never it was wrong or that the sourcing was wrong. Your responses do not in any way address this, but only in effect say that the text now is itself a "good faith", and correctly sourced text, as if that was the only answer necessary. When I raised the issue more directly by saying that someone who thinks the text can be improved can change it, i.e. with a new edit which is also a good faith correctly sourced edit, you said you would simply revert any such attempt to make a good faith edit - not therefore on the basis of it being incorrect or wrongly sourced or a deletion of material etc (because no specific example was discussed), but only because the edit being changed is a good faith correct edit, with sourcing. Am I right? If so then this position is the definition of the "confrontational attitude" which is called "edit warring". If my description of your position is not correct, then please clear the difference up for me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, do not quote me out of context. In your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008, you very clearly wrote that "the reference might be deleted one day, and I would not know how to defend it". My response to you (dated 20:51, 23 October 2008) was logically then that removing a reliable source for no valid reason is a big no-no, and I would therefore re-insert it since Wikipedia thankfully functions on the sound principle of "verifiability -- not the idiosyncratic whims of any of its many users".

What's more, in this particular case, it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase of a study ostensibly because the word "common" is "vague" when that's the very word the study itself uses! In this instance, since what is actually included in the article is virtually a verbatim paraphrase of what is written in the reliable source it was taken from -- and since a direct quote from the study was already included in the footnotes of the article -- the only way that the statement in the article could conceivably be improved upon without losing its meaning is by quoting directly from the actual reliable source (i.e. the study itself), which again states outright that "E3b is common in Europe". Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim to be quoting you, so it is perhaps I who should now complain :). I indeed even explicitly asked you if I was summarising your meaning. As usual, you do not like direct questions like that but as far as I can see, I was describing your position correctly based on what you have now written. This time I will quote you in order to demonstrate the point: "it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase of a study ostensibly because the word "common" is "vague" when that's the very word the study itself uses". In other words, if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by your own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked. That is of course also what your actions say louder than your words. Basically you are saying that this would be vandalism, which is of course ridiculous. I repeat: this attitude is the definition of edit warring. I have to remind you that if anyone thinks they can improve a Wikipedia article, they may try. And it is possible to improve something which is correct and properly sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're grasping for straws, Andrew. I never said that "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by [my] own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked" -- you did. And your interpretation is an absurd caricature of what I did actually say and what I did and do actually mean. I very clearly wrote that:

• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe is a direct paraphrase of what the study in question actually says. It's not just "properly sourced", but an almost verbatim reproduction of what the study asserts.
• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe which is included in the E1b1b article is further supported in the article's footnotes by a direct quote from the study which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe".

In other words, the edit in this particular case -- an expression I very clearly also employed in my previous post -- can't be improved upon without it losing its meaning because it is already as close to what the study already states without actually being a direct quote of the study.

Furthermore, I never once used the term "vandalism", so I don't see why you felt the need to introduce that term into the discussion. What I did actually say is that it is bad faith editing to remove a direct paraphrase of a reliable source (backed with a direct quote, to boot) solely on the basis that a word in that paraphrase is "vague" when that is the very word the reliable source itself employs!

You can also twist my words all you want and keep trying to link me to what you label "edit-warring" (no edit war has taken place, so what's your point exactly?), but unless I explicitly tell you what my intentions are, do not even bother trying to deduce them. It is not only a textbook exercise in futility, it's also explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia. So kindly, for the umpteenth time, per WP:PA:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Causteau (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The implication that you are judging edits you revert as vandalism is given by the fact that you already announced that you'd revert any change to the sentence even though we had not discussed any proposed text yet. Or to put it your way: you believe that an edit of that good faith and sourced text can never really be "good faith". The problem still is that this is not correct. And the problem is concerning content: the word common is vague if you compare to the similar opening lines of Cruciani 2007 concerning V13, for example. That fact that I've raised the question on the talk page first is just good manners, and does not make this a theoretical discussion. If someone, for example me, inserts a direct quote from Cruciani, instead of a reference from an article about Pakistan for the single word "common" then you would revert it without further thought, right? Not on the basis of the new content, but rather in defense of the older version of the Wikipedia article. That is what you say you'd do right? If you want to clear things up, you can surely do it. Just to remind you of the definition I quoted: edit warring is defined by the attitude to reverting of edits. You are saying you'll start an edit way as soon as anyone tries to improve that sentence, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again: I never said that I "would revert any change to the sentence even though we had not discussed any proposed text". I was reacting (in my post dated 20:51, 23 October 2008) to your assertion (in your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008) that my properly sourced phrase "might be deleted one day" when I wrote that "should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Since that is, after all, what Wiki actually goes on: verifiability -- not the idiosyncratic whims of any of its many users (thankfully)". I wasn't speaking in tongues there; it's very clear what I meant and what I mean. Further, I never qualified even that putative removal as "vandalism", for one thing, because it is more properly termed "bad-faith editing" since there is no valid reason for removing my reliable source (as my previous post very clearly demonstrates) or for replacing it with Cruciani's as you've just alluded to. None whatsoever. Let me requote for you WP:VER in case you forgot:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

That's what I mean by the study isn't going anywhere. As a reliable source, Wiki policy ensures its inclusion.

And now for what an edit-war actually is:

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing.

Causteau (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see "bad faith" editing and "vandalism" are pretty much the same thing, and you are still saying that anyone who prefers a Cruciani quote over the present vague sentence would be guilty of "bad faith editing". (This is despite the fact that Cruciani is "the" article which all the others refer to.) You are still insisting that you already know this despite not having seen any proposed text change in detail. It is a rule for you (which you still argue to be a Wikipedia rule) that any attempt to improve an edit that was already correct and properly sourced, can be reverted without discussion, like vandalism. I have already cited the relevant WP text to demonstrate that your attitude is the definition of an edit warring attitude. It is Wikipedia itself which defines edit warring as defined by this attitude, and only as a rough practical measure by the number of reverts a person does.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So let's talk about a real edit I propose. The present text in the E-V13 section is like this:

E1b1b is common throughout Europe. Its E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade is the most prevalent clade of E-M78 among Europeans, especially in the Balkans...

The first sentence is not even about E-V13, but about E-M35, which is the parent clade and the subject of the overall article. So in fact it could be argued that it belongs in a more general section, and indeed, if you look in the introduction the exact same comment is there, without the same reference. We could therefore delete the sentence here, and if necessary insert the reference in the Introduction, without the Wikipedia article loosing anything.

Instead I think we can restructure this section around what is presently the standard article on this subject, the 2007 article by Cruciani et al. On p.1307 they write the following, which extremely clear and informative, and just the kind of thing we need...

Haplogroup E-V13 is the only E-M78 lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to Western Europe (2.5%).

The percentages and explanation about the clinal pattern are much more meaningful than a vague word "common". The quote also keeps the E-M35 comparison without making the confusing step of starting the E-V13 paragraph with a sentence about E-M35. (Remember many people reading this article will miss things like that because all these clade names look the same and are just letters and numbers.) My only concern is that the exact percentages given might not be the latest and best information available. For example the E-M35 phylogeny project finds a percentage less than 85%, and some studies have found small areas with local concentrations much greater than 19.6%. However, I think this can be worked around by ensuring there is some further discussion - which indeed there already is concerning the high concentration areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, bad faith editing is not the same thing as vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and commonly consists of things like "the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles". Bad faith editing, as I've very clearly already explained, involves things like seeing that a reliable source such as this study is "deleted one day" on the flimsy pretext that one word in it is "vague" when that is the very word the professionals that wrote it themselves employ.

Moreover, while the study for that one passage (viz. "E3b is common in Europe") briefly references another study -- as do, incidentally, most other studies -- namely, Cruciani et al. (2004), this isn't you or even me interpreting Cruciani's findings. It is an actual reliable source, an authority in relation to the subject at hand, and therefore a source that's here to stay per both WP:VER and WP:RS:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Furthermore, it is not "a rule for [me]... that any attempt to improve an edit that was already correct and properly sourced, can be reverted without discussion, like vandalism." I've already very thoroughly addressed this quite blatant misrepresentation of what I actually believe in my post dated 19:58, 24 October 2008. Since this is but a rehashing of the same hollow charge from earlier (the one that went "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by your own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked"), I shall give you the exact same response as before:

You're grasping for straws, Andrew. I never said that "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by [my] own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked" -- you did. And your interpretation is an absurd caricature of what I did actually say and what I did and do actually mean. I very clearly wrote that:

• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe is a direct paraphrase of what the study in question actually says. It's not just "properly sourced", but an almost verbatim reproduction of what the study asserts.
• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe which is included in the E1b1b article is further supported in the article's footnotes by a direct quote from the study which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe".

In other words, the edit in this particular case -- an expression I very clearly also employed in my previous post -- can't be improved upon without it losing its meaning because it is already as close to what the study already states without actually being a direct quote of the study.

You still likewise do not appear to understand just what an edit war is. The edit-warring "attitude" described here refers to an actual edit-war, not to a talk page discussion. This is why it talks about things like the 3RR rule. Again, here is what an actual edit-war is:

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing.

Causteau (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The E-V13 quote above from Cruciani et al. (2007) likewise only references the fact that E-V13 reaches its highest frequencies in Europe, a fact which we've already asserted in the article (viz. "Its E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade is the most prevalent clade of E-M78 among Europeans"). It does not address the fact that E3b at large is common in Europe the way Firasat et al. (2005) does, nor does it address the fact that E-M78 is commonly distributed in Europe. From Cruciani et al. (2006):

The human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe.

Causteau (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the identifiable points...

1. There is a definite confusion about terminology. Bad faith editing is not "bad faith" because "flimsy" but "bad faith" because the intentions are wrong. Calling an argument flimsy means that you think it's quality is not good in your opinion. It does not mean that the argument is a fake ("bad faith") argument. In other words, this is just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. When you suggested in your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008 that the direct paraphrase of the reliable source (namely, this study) I inserted into the text "might be deleted one day" based solely on the fact that the word "common" in it is "vague", you were also alluding to a textbook bad-faith edit since my assertion is a direct paraphrase of what the study actually says (namely, that "E3b is common in Europe" -- note the usage of the word common; nothing "vague" about that). My assertion is also backed by a direct quote from the study included in the E1b1b article's footnotes to the effect that "E3b is common in Europe", thereby rendering the hypothetical scenario that it "might be deleted one day" all the more indefensible. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2. There is a confusion in the defense you give of your position. You keep citing the quote about the "threshold for inclusion", but it is irrelevant to this discussion. The threshold for inclusion tells us nothing about the threshold for whether someone can edit a thing, concerning which there is not hard and fast rule in Wikipedia, by the very nature of a Wiki. It just means that if you say something not verifiable, you can expect to be challenged by other editors who'll feel justified to remove your work. This tells us nothing about what to do when there are two competing "good faith" edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. Your proposal was first to delete one day the reliable source in question -- not to modify it. And that is most certainly not a "good faith" edit. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3. You also mischaracterize the edit being proposed. A sentence saying that E1b1b is common in Europe is already in the introductory section of the article. So no-one is talking about removing the factoid. What we are talking about is making the detailed sub-section about E-V13, more detailed and specifically about E-V13.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. You very clearly wrote in your post dated 20:22, 23 October 2008 that this reliable source "might be deleted one day". Let's try and stick with the facts. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

4. You are being rather dissembling when trying to dismiss the whole discussion because there is not yet an edit war. Your thinking is extremely well defined now. The fact is that you are saying that in principle, you will start an edit war immediately should anyone try to change the sentence under discussion which removes the word "common". This is something you said you'd do before there was any discussion of any particular proposal. So the only reason there is no edit war is because I have not yet made any edit. I am trying to seek agreement first. But your position is that no agreement is possible if it involves removing the word "common".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. So there is no edit war after all, just like I had suspected all along. Since the rest of your paragraph above is yet another rehashing of the same hollow charge leveled earlier (the one that went "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by your own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked"), I shall again give you the exact same response as before:

You're grasping for straws, Andrew. I never said that "if something is properly sourced and not wrong, it can not by [my] own definition ever be good faith to claim that the passage can be improved and so anybody who edits on that basis can and should be reverted, no questions asked" -- you did. And your interpretation is an absurd caricature of what I did actually say and what I did and do actually mean. I very clearly wrote that:

• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe is a direct paraphrase of what the study in question actually says. It's not just "properly sourced", but an almost verbatim reproduction of what the study asserts.
• The assertion that E3b is common in Europe which is included in the E1b1b article is further supported in the article's footnotes by a direct quote from the study which states outright that "E3b is common in Europe".

In other words, the edit in this particular case -- an expression I very clearly also employed in my previous post -- can't be improved upon without it losing its meaning because it is already as close to what the study already states without actually being a direct quote of the study.

5. As you'll no doubt soon be complaining about the length of this discussion, as you have done in the past when people attempt to discuss things with you, can you please avoid quoting large chunks of text over and over within the space of a few lines? To me I have to say that this pattern of events happens so often with you that it is starting to look like a "bad faith" strategy: make the discussion ridiculous, and then start complaining about the discussion itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Stop leveling the same hollow, empty charges, and you won't get the same responses. Also, if length bothers you, perhaps you should reconsider starting all of these pointless "new sections" as has already been suggested. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Concerning the Cruciani quote, which by the way, if it were inserted would be a verifiable source meeting the "threshold for inclusion"...

6a. It does not "only" reference "the fact that E-V13 reaches its highest frequencies in Europe". Any reader of the English language can see this.

Just so things are clear, you are referring to the quote from Cruciani et al. (2007) that you cited which goes:

Haplogroup E-V13 is the only E-M78 lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to Western Europe (2.5%).

The quote essentially talks about two things:

1) That E-V13 is the only sub-clade of E-M78 that reaches its highest frequencies outside of Africa.

2) E-V13 represents a large fraction of the E-M78 chromosomes in Europe. This part of the assertion is already cited in the article in the form of the phrase "its E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade is the most prevalent clade of E-M78 among Europeans". Nowhere, however, does the assertion mention the fact that E3b at large is common in Europe the way Firasat et al. (2005) does, nor that E1b1b "occurs commonly and is distributed in... all of Europe" like Cruciani et al. (2006) does. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6b. It does "address the fact that E-M78 is commonly distributed in Europe" although it clearly focuses upon E-V13 more, which is indeed my intention, as I explained, because this is the E-V13 sub-sub-section of the article. Other types of E-M35 and E-M78 in Europe can and should be discussed where appropriate.

No, it does not address the fact that E-M78 is commonly distributed in Europe. It only states that E-V13 "reaches its highest frequencies outside of Africa", and that E-V13 represents a large fraction of the E-M78 chromosomes in Europe. This is not equivalent to saying that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in all of Europe because Y DNA haplogroup T, for example, reaches its highest reported frequency among the Fulbe admixed peoples in the Sahel. However, in the rest of Africa, it is restricted to only them and a handful of North African and Horn African populations -- it is observed nowhere else on the continent. It does, however, enjoy a greater presence in Asia -- just not at the highest frequencies. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6c. Furthermore to accuse the Cruciani quote of being redundant seems odd given that the sentence being proposed for removal is certainly redundant, compared to the Introduction to both the article as a whole and the introduction to the E-M78 section. We are hear talking about the E-V13 sub-sub section of the E-M78 sub-section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cruciani et al. (2007) quote, save the assertion that E-V13 is the only sub-clade of E-M78 that reaches its highest frequencies outside of Africa, is definitely redundant. It's the Cruciani et al. (2006) quote that isn't. The intro paragraph in the E1b1b article also talks about where E1b1b is "found", not where it's "common". Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it comes down to this: I honestly (in good faith) think "common in Europe" is not only vague terminology, but also a point now made, to the extent that it means anything (because the way it is being used to refer to a presence in approx 2% of most of Europe, and never >50%, it only means something like "not rare" or "is found"), in several parts of the article. So I think the article can be improved by removing the word "common" from this particular section, even though "common in Europe" is neither wrong nor badly sourced. Anything that needs saving would be easy to save. So this is nothing to do with any "rules" about sourcing, or good/bad faith, or removal of valid material etc etc. It just has to do with working with Wikipedia being a collaboration.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, E1b1b is indeed common in Europe just like Firasat et al. (2005) assert. By way of analogy, R1b, which is often described as the most common Y DNA haplogroup in Europe, has an incidence of <5% in places like Finland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Bosnia. Nevertheless, that still doesn't prevent it from being the most common Y DNA haplogroup in Europe. Causteau (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy shows the problem pretty well. If you use the word "common" it makes no distinction between how common R1b is and how common E1b is in Europe. That language implies they are the same. That's exactly why most of these articles, rightly, do not use words like "commonly", at least for the subjects they are focusing on at the time. They use percentages, and they specify geographic patterns. Unless we are absolutely forced to be vague I see no reason to do so. A person who does not know the literature themselves, reading the sentence I am questioning, is certainly going to be surprised to hear that in the overall population of Europe E-M35 makes up <10% of male lines, if it is not <5%, and in the biggest geographical part makes up <5%, if it is not <2.5%, don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Firasat et al. (2005) phrase to the effect that "E3b is common in Europe" does not imply that E3b is on the same plane as R1b. It's just a statement on its prevalence in the region, a statement which Cruciani et al. 2006 themselves echo with regard to the prevalence of E-M78 in Europe: "The human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in... all of Europe."

OK it does not necessarily imply, it but it can and will be read that way. And giving more exact comments would remove the problem without causing any new problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it since E3b is common in Europe. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Because common can mean almost anything between 1% and 99%. This wording makes no distinction. It is not necessary to write vaguely.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing vague about the word "common". Again, it's just a statement on E1b1b's prevalence in the region. The word "common" is, as it so happens, commonly used in population genetics to denote a sizable prevalence. For example, Alonso et al. 2005 describe R1*(xR1a,R1b3f)-M173 as the "most common haplogroup" among Europeans. Arredi et al. 2004 likewise describe E3b2 as "the most common haplogroup in North Africa". And Ghezzi et al. 2005 similarly use the term not once but twice in their study to describe, first, mtDNA haplogroup M as the "the most common haplogroup in Asia", then mtDNA haplogroup H as "the most common mtDNA haplogroup in Europe". It's, again (and no pun intended), a very common usage. There's nothing vague, wrong or misleading about it when geneticists regularly use it in their work, and also since we already cite in the article's very next few sentences examples of some of the higher frequencies observed in Europe. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The word you are inserting might be used in articles, but it clearly is vague, and it is clearly being chosen for this reason to replace more exact words. The literature might occasionally use the word common, for example in abstracts, but never to mean "prevalent" or "most common" (both of which are precise terms that mean something very different!) and always in conjunction with much more detailed tables of data, and discussions about those tables. To revert good edits giving those details, and replace them with vague wording can not be justified just by saying that the word common was used somewhere in the literature. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The word is only vague in your personal estimation. It certainly is not in the minds of researchers like Cruciani et al., Firasat et al., and others who use it in their work. Moreover, the word "common" is frequently used by researchers in their work to describe the presence of not only haplogroups, but alleles, mutations, etc. in a given region or population. It is not just restricted to abstracts as you have suggested above, but features prominently in the body of their respective studies as well. Besides the links showing use of the word "common" by researchers (and even repeated use over the length of a single study in the case of Ghezzi et al. 2005) that I've already supplied in my previous post, here are two more similar examples: Tolk et al. 2001 (regarding mtDNA haplogroup F): "This haplogroup, initially defined by the loss of HincII site at nucleotide position (np) 12406,4,16 is common in populations of Central3 and eastern Asia4,13,14,16 ± 18 and to the best of our knowledge has never been reported in Europe."; Gresham et al. 2001: "the male VI-68A lineage was shared by Roma from all populations, and two pairs of closely related mtDNA lineages, of haplogroups M and H, were common to 13 and 8 Romani populations respectively" (this study actually uses the word "common" repeatedly). Again, there's nothing out of place about the word "common" when geneticists regularly use it in their work, and especially since we already cite in the E1b1b article's very next few sentences examples of some of the higher frequencies observed in Europe. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly it is becoming clear that you have some sort of agenda about E1b1b and Africa, because apart from your general theme of reverting new edits by other people in favor of old edits by other people, the one type of content you ever seem to insist on personally always seems to of this nature. You are clearly taking quotes from the literature out of context as was also pointed out to you recently by another editor here concerning your use of Ellen Coffman-Levy's article, which you have inserted in order to imply something I feel certain she would not agree with. If you want me to give more examples I can, but the first one that obviously comes to mind is the case where you actually insisted upon changing a direct quote from the literature so that the adjectives "sub Saharan" would not come out next to "E-M35". You described your intentions at the time quite clearly and many times, as making sure no one would ever get the impression that E-M35 was sub-Saharan overall instead of just in a branch. During that discussion you actually accused me of being part of some sort of Afrocentrist conspiracy, so it was a big issue for you. You also went out of your way to seek old webpages saying that E1b1b might not have originated in the Middle East, and then presented it in the Wikipedia article as if there is a debate in the scientific community on this subject, which you know is not true. The types of wording you keep rejecting are clearly the most accurate reflection of what is in the latest literature on the subject - including direct quotes. What's the big issue here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay Andrew, you've stooped back again to your habitual personal attacks. You're now also outright lying. I've already thoroughly addressed the Coffman-Levy issue, and it has nothing to do with what you "feel certain about" knowing. You write that I've "insisted upon changing a direct quote from the literature so that the adjectives "sub Saharan" would not come out next to "E-M35"". Well guess what? That might be because the source in question -- this study -- never once describes E-M35 as sub-Saharan! How on Earth is that then correct let alone a "direct quote"?

Just as a side comment on this accusation. I've told you before what the article says, and I've asked you several times if you have a copy, or want a copy from me. I've also typed out quotations from the article including these words which worry you so much. The last time you edited this wording out, you must have seen the quotation marks. Frankly therefore, I think you know very well that the article has these words in them. In any case, if you don't have a copy of the article, then your opinion about what is in the article is not worth much. The real point is though, why do the words worry you so much?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You write that I "went out of [my] way to seek old webpages saying that E1b1b might not have originated in the Middle East, and then presented it in the Wikipedia article as if there is a debate in the scientific community on this subject, which [I] know is not true". Well guess what? Whether you like it or not, there is a debate in the scientific community regarding the origins of E1b1b. If there weren't, ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project among others wouldn't cite the Near East/Middle East as a possible place of origin for E1b1b/E3b.

And to cover this other distraction. Just name any person who supports this position and is involved in this debate? I've asked around quite a lot and found no one, including both the present and former editors of the ISOGG webpage you quote, who say they don't know where the remark comes from. Of course I've told you all this before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Before you return with another pointlessly histrionic, illogical, untrue, and belligerent response, let me quote for you several important parts of Wiki policy you have just quite blatantly violated (and for God knows what reason); from WP:PA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

From WP:CIV:

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

And from WP:AGF:

Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle

Also have a look at the directives laid out at the top of this talk page and over at WP:TALK regarding how an editor ought to behave. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection I'd like to give extra commentary about my above remark, in order to try to avoid any misunderstanding that might lead to an emotive escalation of discussion away from discussion of the content of the E1b1b Wikipedia article. When I used the word "agenda" it is not my intention to claim that Causteau has any agenda which is pro or anti any particular race or culture or geographic region, which might be implied by the context. I only use the term in the sense of a non-neutral approach to the facts. For example, it is possible that Causteau believes that there are a lot of people with racial or similar agendas who might twist certain facts to the benefit of their own ideas, if we (Wikipedia editors) are not careful to first twist our citations in order to avoid this. (I know it is not good practice to guess at someone's motivations, but this is one way to understand various comments made on the E1b1b article discussion pages over time.) In this case, my dispute is with the means, not necessarily the ends. If we are worried about providing fodder for propaganda then we should write more clearly, and not less clearly. That at least is the only approach tenable on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for trying to engage you in discussion trying to understand the very distinct pattern in your edits. Causteau, I deny that addressing you by name or trying to dissect the comments you make yourself about your supposed intentions, in order to work out how to progress, is any violation of anything. If you want to do wikilawyering, and to try to escalate every discussion into a shouting match which you can then complain about, you go do that like you've done before on this article or others. I believe it does not work, even though the idea of pasting large passages of Wikipedia policy into every discussion page in order to scare of admins from looking at what you are really doing does seem to slow things down terrible. It is a "loose-loose" strategy. For my own part I'll keep trying to make this article better if I am permitted.

Concerning the word "common", I've made my point and you have not responded at all. I think that like so many other silly wordings you've defended over time, you don't have any real point. That people use the word "common" sometimes tells us nothing at all about when it should be used. You also, still, do not understand the meaning of "prevalent".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

E-M293

I believe ISOGG is about to announce as per FT DNA's customer information that E-M293 is the "g" clade of E-M35. Whoever notices a good safe way of referencing this first should of course adjust the wikipedia article accordingly. Do it carefully though so as to avoid being reverted. No rush, but I mention this early, to give everyone warning, because this has been an emotional subject here on Wikipedia. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. And until that fateful day when ISOGG does actually anounce the new name change (thereby rendering it verifiable), it shall remain an interesting talking point. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is has happened already. See the ISOGG webpage. But on the other hand, other information might have been found somewhere before it was changed. I think the YCC must have made the critical decision. I know FT DNA was proposing it some time ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If ISOGG published a new name for E-M293, then I don't think you are wrong in updating it here. Causteau (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE. The webpage of ISOGG made several expected changes, all of which are incorporated into the Wikipedia article now. Like I am doing here, ISOGG waited to see who would publish something first and the first news came via Family Tree DNA, who was known to have been comparing notes with the YCC. The YCC itself tends to be slow in picking up new things, and then publishing it, which is one reason that ISOGG set up the webpage like it did. More changes have been expected for some time, and indeed some of the YCC/FTDNA testing histories are a little unclear to the extent that there is a bit of doubt around about some of the positions the YCC currently has, and so the text of the Wikipedia currently mentions the "as of" dates in order to avoid any confusion later if confusing new announcements come out in future. "Watch this space".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Intro to the E-M78 section

The Intro to the E-M78 section has some problems because of the way it has evolved. The quote which a reader will at first think is holding together the core of the discussion actually turns out to not be about what it is said to be about. In other words it is introduced as the latest estimate for the age of E-M78, but it is actually about the probable timing of various E-M78 populations, after E-M78 came into being.

Here is the section as it stands right now...

Estimations of age are difficult and vary greatly, but E-M78's age has been estimated at about 18,600 years ago. This clade is thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, around Egypt and Libya (Cruciani et al. 2007).[23] Sanchez et al. (2005) found that 77.6% of 201 male Somalis tested in Denmark were in E-M78.

The most recent estimates are as follows:

The geographic and quantitative analyses of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a northeastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago), trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky), and flow from northeastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago. (Cruciani et. al. 2007)

It should be noted that the migrations to Europe mentioned above are the ones which are basically localized to Iberia and Southern Italy. Concerning the far more important part of E-M78 in Europe, see below concerning sub-clade E-V13.

E1b1b1a has been further divided into subclades by Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, 2007), on the basis of the following SNP mutations, and this is the basis of the updated phylogenies found in Karafet 2008, and ISOGG, as follows...

The last paragraph is probably a keeper. The rest needs work. The place to start is Cruciani et al. (2007) p.1305. As Curciani has rightly pointed out before though, these authors tend to use geographical terms like Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa in ways which might mislead readers, and if necessary we might have to avoid direct quotes for those terms (or else add a lot of extra explanation).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The section does not require a rewrite. Cruciani et al. (2007) estimate E-M78's age at 18,600 years ago (17,300 - 20,000 years ago) in Figure 1 of their study, just like the E1b1b article already affirms. They specify other dates for each sub-clade of E-M78 in the same Figure. Cruciani et al. (2007) also use the term "Northeastern Africa" to refer specifically to Egypt and Libya as opposed to the Horn of Africa, as can be seen in Table 1 of that same study and as already indicated in the footnotes of the E1b1b article. Causteau (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not the section that's wrong, but the phrase that introduces the Cruciani et al. 2007 quote since it alludes to the most recent age estimates for E-M78, yet it indeed does not mention a date for E-M78. A simple substitution of the phrase "The most recent estimates are as follows" with "Regarding the origin and dispersal of this sub-clade of E1b1b, Cruciani et al. assert that:" or something of that nature should then cover it. Causteau (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite. Please give it a fair reading and comment on anything you think needs comment. In editing this section I do not claim that there is/was anything "wrong" except perhaps the description of the quote. But fixing errors is not the only way of improving an article and it is permitted and indeed encouraged to improve Wikipedia articles - even if that means changing materials which were both correct and correctly sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your edits of the new version. I'd like to comment on each of them...

1. "the area of Egypt and Libya," reverted to "Northeast Africa (around Egypt and Libya)"

It was you who pointed out to me that the article defines Northeast Africa as roughly Egypt and Libya. If we use the same term in Wikipedia, we can create unnecessary confusion which is not in the spirit of the article being cited, because this term is often used to refer to the Horn of Africa, which is indeed precisely a region Cruciani is contrasting with. Your solution of making the text say "Northeast" and yet link to "North" is only going to help people who click on the link and in a sense admits itself to be confusing. Furthermore, it creates a new problem, because North Africa implies the Maghreb, which is yet another region. I see no reason to stick to the Cruciani article terminology, given that, as you yourself pointed out, the article shows us precisely what is intended in the table of raw data. So I'd like you to consider keeping my edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've since changed the article to read North Africa. However, I specified Egypt and Libya in parentheses so that people know which exact part of North Africa Cruciani et al. 2007 refer to. I'd like to use their "Northeastern Africa" terminology, but that only leads to confusion with the Horn of Africa. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include words just because they are in a source article, if they are potentially confusing? It is not like removing them from the Wikipedia article would be changing the intended meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I already removed the term "Northeast Africa" some time ago. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2. "Lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from the Maghreb to Somalia. E-M78 lineages, including several distinctive sub-lineages, dispersed to the Maghreb, Europe, Western Asia, but especially southwards towards the Horn of Africa. For example," ...replaced by... "E1b1b1a (E-M78) occurs commonly and is distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe."

This is clearly a removal of information. The higher diversity and frequency from the Maghreb to Somalia (or whatever terminology would be better, this is again an attempt to choose clear words based upon the meaning of Cruciani 2007) is an important fact, mentioned in the discussion in Cruciani 2007 as such, and should remain in the article, surely?

The phrase above wasn't sourced when I replaced it with the statement from Cruciani et al. 2006. The Cruciani et al. 2006 phrase also specifies that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in all of those regions, which the phrase I replaced didn't do. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this response addresses the reason for removing an important bit of information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I said the phrase above wasn't sourced nor did it specify the fact that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in all of the aforementioned regions. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the reference was to Cruciani 2007. You keep pushing towards a situation where every word will have a reference attached. Anyway, I can put a note on this, but I can not understand the importance of the words "occurs commonly and is distributed" in opposition to any other verb "to be". It sounds like bad writing style to me and nothing else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't clear. The assertion that "lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from the Maghreb to Somalia" is also flat out wrong, as it gives the wrong impression that all the Sahelian countries (e.g. Mali, Niger, Chad) standing between North Africa and the Horn of Africa are areas where E1b1b is observed in high quantities when it is virtually absent there and its small presence in those countries is usually attributed to Berber admixture. The whole phrase just does not work and is inaccurate, whereas the direct paraphrase from Cruciani et al. 2006 that I have replaced it with does work and is of course accurate. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not addressing the latest proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because this part of our discussion isn't about the proposal, but about the erroneousness of the initial edit that I replaced with my direct paraphrase from Cruciani et al. 2006. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, changing the wording so that it now vaguely implies that Western Asia and Europe have a similar diversity and frequency is in my opinion highly misleading.

Proposal: "Lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from Libya and Egypt to the Horn of Africa. E-M78 lineages, including several distinctive sub-lineages, dispersed to Northwest Africa, Europe, and Western Asia, where they are common, but especially significant dispersals occurred southwards into the Horn of Africa. For example,"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about the phrase since it is a direct paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. 2006 themselves assert. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal above is also unsatisfactory because Cruciani et al. 2006 clearly state that E-M78 "occurs commonly and is distributed" in all the aforementioned regions including Western Asia and "all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this addresses my concerns. You have to explain how your edit is better than the previous edit. The previous edit said the same things, but more clearly, so why did you change it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better because the previous edit neglects to mention that E-M78 "occurs commonly and is distributed" in all the aforementioned regions including all of Europe -- a key phrase. The sentence is also a direct paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. 2006 themselves wrote, so it's accurate. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about one sourced text versus another. Don't try to turn every discussion into Wikilawyering. As far as I can see you are trying to manipulate the quotes out of context so that they imply that the E1b1b population in Europe is the same as in North Africa. Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So "occurs commonly and is distributed" is a "key phrase" and a "direct paraphrase"? What is the significance of a "direct paraphrase? I guess we are comparing to the "direct paraphrase" which says "are still found in high diversity and frequency from ... to ... including several distinct sub-lineages...etc". So I do not understand what you are talking about. The words aren't a direct quote in either case, and the ones you think so important say a lot less in a lot vaguer way. I must be missing something, but it looks like a defense of a poor style by trying to find a way of saying that it is demanded by some sort of good form.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, "occurs commonly and is distributed" is a key phrase with regard to the distribution of E-M78 in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe. However, what I actually referred to above as a "key phrase" was all of Europe. I even italicized it so that there was no mistaking what I was talking about. And you are mistaken: Your statement is not a direct paraphrase; mine, on the other hand, most certainly is a direct paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. 2006 assert in the very first few lines of their study. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the difference in geographical terms, this is something I already stated, and we can try to perfect them. Trying to use consistent standard geographical terms is a Wikipedia policy. But "high diversity and frequency" are words from Cruciani 2007, the newer article, which you removed. The section I refer to is a section which explains this subject, and not one of the opening lines summarising what will be written in detail elsewhere. If you read any of the Cruciani et al articles, you get a lot of information about the details of where these lineages are found. Nothing you inserted replaces this properly. It is obviously ridiculous to imply that such detail should be deleted because the opening lines of articles in the literature are less exact.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not chop up my posts like that. I had to resign the part above to let people know that I'd written it. At any rate, please see the section below for more on why this proposal is unsatisfactory and even somewhat misleading. Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Chop up? You refer me to somewhere vague where no such explanation exists. Please stop chopping up your own discussions! I stand by what I wrote, and I add now that you are clearly playing a game of avoiding directly explaining your edits or positions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal above is also somewhat misleading in that it states that "lineages of this type are still found in high diversity and frequency from Libya and Egypt to the Horn of Africa", which gives the impression that E1b1b is common throughout Sudan and Chad (which stand between Libya, Egypt, and the Horn of Africa) when it is virtually absent in the hundreds of different Nilotic groups in those countries except for a handful that have experienced admixture. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how Chad is implied, and Sudan does have a high E1b1b presence. What you say about it being scattered is probably true for several of the countries in the area. This can be adapted in the text without cutting out everything and trying to imply that Europe has the same levels of presence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Sudan does not have a high E1b1b presence. That is a sweeping statement which gives the impression that that country's hundreds of Nilotic groups -- who are concentrated heavily in the South -- are E1b1b carriers when it's absent in virtually every single Nilotic group except for literally a handful in whom it was introduced from the North during the Neolithic. Haplogroups B and, especially, haplogroup A define Sudan's Nilotic majority (see this). I also don't write that E1b1b is "scattered" among the Sudanese and Chadian Nilotic majority. I write that it is "virtually absent in the hundreds of different Nilotic groups in those countries except for a handful that have experienced admixture", wheras Firasat et al. 2005 make it clear that "E3b is common in Europe", and Cruciani et al. 2006 for their part ensure that "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in... all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are seriously claiming that E1b1b is less common in Sudan than in Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm stating established fact. Sudan's Nilotic majority are defined by the ancient Y DNA haplogroup A just like the Khoisan, not E1b1b/E3b. This is common knowledge. The presence of E3b in Sudan is considerable only in the Northern Afro-Asiatic groups and literally a handful of Nilotic groups based chiefly in the Western part of the country (the latter of whom acquired it through admixture from the North). It's almost completely absent in the South where the country's Nilotic majority are heavily concentrated. I've already directed you to a hap map showing the actual genetic makeup of Sudan at large. There are others out there like it that assert more or less the same thing. Causteau (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are not claiming anything then please do. Otherwise you are just playing a game. How do you defend your inconsistency? You insist, for whatever secret reason, on calling European E1b1b "common" even insisting that you'll revert anyone who tries to replace the word with more exact terminology. You deny that you can understand that this word is vague, and ignores large differences between important regions, using a wikilawyering manner of responding by saying that the word "common" is used in scientific literature and trying to describe this as a verification question(!). And yet in Sudan, you take the exact opposite position, extremely concerned that people might not realize there is local variation. The pattern, need I say it, becomes increasingly clear: at every possible opportunity you seek to de-emphasize the African aspects of E1b1b and emphasize its European aspects. Why? What's your issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I could've sworn I already directed you to Wikipedia's assume good faith policy and its directive to comment on the content and not on the contributor. However, for some inexplicable reason, it still obviously has not sunken in yet since you persist in your unfounded, unwarranted, and, frankly, offensive accusations. Look here: it's not my problem if you are not already aware that a)Sudan is predominantly inhabited by Nilotic peoples (see this), most of whom are concentrated in the South; b)E3b in Sudan is found at sizable frequencies only in the Afro-Asiatic groups in the North (such as the Beja) as well as a handful of admixed Nilotic groups (such as the Masalit) in the West; c)E3b is near absent in the South where, again, the country's Nilotic majority are concentrated; d)Sudan's Nilotic majority are overwhelimingly defined by haplogroup A followed by haplogroup B; e)Sudan's Northerners also have considerable frequencies of haplogroups J and, in the case of the Fulani and Hausa, R1b -- not just E3b. See, it's not a question of being "extremely concerned that people might not realize there is local variation". It's about being aware of other studies on other haplogroups and other populations (and the actual size of each of those populations), such as the frequency of haplogroup A in Sudan's Nilotic majority and J/R in its Afro-Asiatic Northern minority. So kindly stop with your mean-spirited, baseless accusations, and just admit to what you don't know. Causteau (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed stop directing me to Wikipedia policies and address the clear issue concerning the content. Are you implying, in the above non-answer, that you are not aware of the much bigger variations of E3b presence and frequency in Europe than in Sudan? Hassan et al. seem to say quite clearly that E1b1b is present in significant levels in all Sudanese populations, even if it is not most common in all of them. On the other hand it is almost entirely absent in large parts of Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Hassan et al. 2008 neither state nor imply that "E1b1b is present in significant levels in all Sudanese populations". They only state that E1b1b chromosomes are "widely distributed" in Sudan, and they're right. They also state the obvious, which I've already mentioned above and which seems to have escaped you for some reason: That this "haplogroup has exceptionally high frequencies among populations like those of Western Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern Sudan". In other words, that it's concentrated in a few Afro-Asiatic groups (like the Beja) "as well as a handful of admixed Nilotic groups (such as the Masalit) in the West". Take a look at Figure 2: It demonstrates exactly what I've been saying about the low frequencies of E1b1b in the Nilotic majority concentrated in the South (viz. the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, etc.). Hassan et al. (2008) also mention that E1b1b sub-clades were "brought to Sudan from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago" and that "it seems that gene flow is not only recent (Holocene onward) but also largely of focal [as opposed to clinal] nature". However, they're quick to add that the Nilo-Saharan groups were for the most part not affected by this gene flow: "Most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja." All the forgoing is very easy to see in the frequencies listed in Figure 2, as well as in previous studies on the Y DNA profile of Sudan, which have likewise already established the importance and overwhelming presence of haplogroups A and B in that country's Nilotic majority. By contrast, E1b1b/E3b's importance both in occurence and sizable frequency throughout Europe as well as the clinal (as opposed to focal) nature of its distribution there has already been established by Rosser et al. (2000) and Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, 2007) among others. Causteau (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hassan article you mention says: E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

On the other hand, the sources we both refer to for Europe say that over the largest part in either geographical or population terms E1b1b is present in amounts which do not even show up in studies as small as the Hassan one. Cruciani 2007 calls it "2.5%" in Western Europe. The Hassan article for Sudan on the other hand shows a stronger presence than this in every Sudanese sub-population even if it is not the most common in every group.

Anyway, as you can see, a "verifiable source" says that E1b1b is "common" (yes, that exact word) in Sudan, and it is clear that it is more common there than in Europe. Can you therefore agree that sometimes common is a vague word, and that it is not a bad thing to sometimes replace it with more exact wording?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hassan et al. 2008 study does indeed state that "E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese." However, this is only a reference to the percentage of the observed E-M78 chromosomes among the sampled Sudanese that belong to the E-V32 sub-clade of E-M78 as opposed to other sub-clades of E-M78 (i.e. 59/114 -- see the bottom of Table 2). It's not a statement on the percentage of Sudanese Y chromosomes at large that are represented by E-V32. The statement that "E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese" also refers to the figures in Table 2 (viz.: "The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2."). Table 2 for its part shows 0% of E-V32 in the Nilotic Dinka (who alone represent over 40% of the population in South Sudan), Shilluk, and Nuer who are all based in the South. It shows what I affirmed earlier and what is mentioned in the study's very next sentence, namely, that E-M78 sub-clades are focused in the Northern Afro-Asiatic groups (such as the Beja who live along the Red Sea Hills in the Northeast) and the Western admixed Nilotic groups (such as the Masalit and the Fur). Similarly, E-V22 accounts for 27.2% of the sub-clades of E-M78 in the Sudanese that actually have E-M78. And just how many Sudanese have E-M78 in this study? About 28% in total (114/413). About 34% of Sudanese were E3b carriers in this study: (27+114)/413; that's roughly the same as depicted on the hap map I linked you to earlier. Which begs the question as to what is exactly is signicant or new about this study? What is significant is that, according to Hassan et al. 2008:

• E-M78 chromosomes were introduced into Sudan from the North
• This gene flow was recent (Holocene onward)
• This gene flow is focally as opposed to clinally distributed
• Nilo-Saharan groups were for the most part not affected by this gene flow ("most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja").

By contrast, E1b1b in Europe, though indeed also "common" there, is clinally distributed (per Cruciani, Rosser and others), with relatively smooth gradations in frequency from region to region versus the focal distribution evident in Sudan. The average European ethnic group is also exponentially more populous than the average Sudanese ethnic group, which obviously has implications for the absolute number of E1b1b/E3b carriers per region. Causteau (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand and understood all that extra stuff. We were only discussing the word "common" - and not because I found it very important, but because you did. I notice that another interlocutor of yours once made a remark that one problem trying to work with you is that you never like to admit when an agreement or partial agreement has been reached. Can you please now state whether there is agreement? I propose that we have agreed that: E1b1b is "common" in both Sudan and Europe (actually more common in Sudan) but the term "common" is not always enough to give the full story when we are talking about population distributions. On this basis, wherever an editor thinks the word is giving a misleading impression, and he/she can find a way to make things more clear, then they should do so whether or not the word common appears in the scientific literature. What is alarming about this is how obvious this should be, and how often you seem to start arguments that are dead on arrival, for example your argument that prevalent does not mean "most common" but only "common": [6] [7] [8] [9]. More recently we have your insistence during reverting that Coffman-Levy never refers to sub-clades, and that Henn et al never refer to sub-Saharan E-M35. Presumably you'll complain as in previous cases that I am giving an account of your actions which requires me to guess wrongly about your exact thinking. But that's exactly what you should help everyone with. We only see your reverts and the types of replies you make on the talk page. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that "other interlocutor" of mine believes with regard to me is none of your business, nor is it your place to discuss anything pertaining to me on this or on any other page on Wikipedia. Do you understand this? Can you for once just stick to the subject at hand and not digress into petty, uninformed ad hominem? First of all, no, E1b1b certainly is not more common in Sudan than it is in Europe, as I've repeatedly demonstrated above. It is only common in certain Afro-Asiatic groups concentrated in the North (e.g. the Beja) and admixed groups in the West (Masalit, Fur). Those were the groups who were chiefly affected by the gene flow from north of Sudan, a gene flow which did not affect the country's Nilotic majority as Hassan et al. 2008 very clearly state. They also make it clear that E1b1b is focally distributed in Sudan (i.e. concentrated in a few groups). It is not clinally distributed across the entire region the way E1b1b is in Europe. Even in areas with seemingly low concentrations of only a few percent, we are more likely to find far more E1b1b/E3b carriers in Europe than in any given region in Sudan no matter that Sudanese region's E1b1b frequency. This is because the European ethnic groups are exponentially more populous than the Sudanese ones. For instance, if we take a European ethnic group like the French (who, at 8%, aren't even really noted for being E1b1b/E3b carriers), and compare them to the Masalit of Sudan (who are noted for being E1b1b carriers) -- and even, for good measure, assume that a generous 100% of Masalit are E1b1b carriers -- we still wind up with over 16 times more E1b1b carriers of French extraction than Masalit ones. This is because there are 52 million ethnically French people in France alone versus only 250,000 or so ethnic Masalit in Sudan and Chad combined. This underscores the importance of taking into account actual population size as I mentioned earlier. A clade may indeed be more "common" in a region, but just what is the size of that region's ethnic population? For example, do they only number about 5000 or so like the Khwe in South Africa? And is that distribution spread across all or most ethnic groups in smooth gradations (as in Europe) or only really focused in a few, select groups (as in Sudan)?

As for that old "sub-Saharan E-M35" debacle, although this is clearly a non-sequitur and has no relation whatsoever to our present discussion, Henn et al. 2008 do not once refer to E-M35 as "sub-Saharan". How many times must I repeat this? Look, I own the study; I believe I've already stated this as well. Henn et al. use the term "sub-Saharan" a grand total of once, and what they do actually say is that the SNP M293 is found in sub-Saharan Africa. They don't label the clade E-M35 as sub-Saharan, but the region in which M293 is found. Gonçalves et al. (2005), by contrast, describe E3b itself (along with haplogroup J) as consisting of "lineages that are typical of the circum-Mediterranean region or even East Africa." Causteau (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was, if you look again, that you seem to want to insist that you are still in disagreement with someone long after you have clearly shown in other ways that it was just a misunderstanding - even if it requires coming up with new ways of ignoring what people are saying, and pretending they are saying something else. It is called flogging a dead horse, but it is very distracting to others, who naturally think that such reactions require an answer to explain that you have misunderstood something. (And it is disturbing also then to have even more angry reactions from you about people trying to guess your intentions and breaking etiquette by talking to you instead of just about content, and so on.) You've illustrated the point perfectly above with your responses: no-one ever suggested any text which needed a comment about Europe having more people than the Sudan, and no one has ever argued that E-M35 is Sub-Saharan. The only point worth discussing is in effect long decided: the word common can be vague. If you would just give a quick nod when the real discussion is over that would be very helpful to everyone including you I am sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3. New explanation of the Cruciani paragraph, more similar to the old one. "The latest estimates regarding the origin and dispersal of this sub-clade of E1b1b assert that:" I guess if the quote needs to remain in the article it does need some sort of explanation, but I frankly think the best solution is just to remove it now, because it is confusing when taken out of its context like this. Most of what it says is incorporated into the text, or would need to be just in order to explain the quote without risk of confusion. So whatever needs to be saved can be of course. Maybe the quote just needs to be shortened down to do a more focused job.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not taken out of its context because it specifically discusses the origin of E-M78 (Northeastern Africa) and its areas of dispersal. It perfectly introduces what the quote is actually about, and the quote itself is obviously relevant. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By context I am referring to the fact that the article has its own terminology which a reader builds up an understanding of as they read through the article, looking at the tables etc. In the Wikipedia article, it does not work so well. It is hard to understand, and a paraphrase might be better. Direct quotes are not always better than paraphrases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The only conceivable problem with the quote might be the confusion which might stem from the term "Northeastern Africa". Readers might take this to mean the Horn of Africa when Cruciani of course really means the eastern part of North Africa i.e. Egypt and Libya. A simple addendum to the phrase which introduces the quote should cover this. Causteau (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But why do that and not just use clear language to start with?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already taken care of this problem, and it didn't require getting rid of that valuable Cruciani quote. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is valuable in it which does not require being re-explained in the rest of the article? Please address this point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Africa replaced by North Africa as the dispersal point for V12, etc. Seems a good change. I also interpret Cruciani that way at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Causteau (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cardium Pottery

Why is there a picture of the distribution of Cardium Pottery in this article? I do not mean to imply ignorance of the fact that the E-V13 distribution is sometimes linked with various pottery types, in a fairly speculative way. But this argument is not discussed in the article, and I am not aware of any particularly strong relevance for Cardium Pottery specifically? Should this be deleted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall an editor adding the picture some time back. It had to do with the Cardial culture in the region, which is indeed linked to Neolithic E1b1b carriers. Causteau (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that there's some indirect way to link the subject to E1b1b, but is it really a good thing to just post in anything at all with any level of indirect association?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins - run-on sentence

This paragraph is one huge run-on sentence, and contains incorrect information -- E-M123 is not a subclade of E-M78.

"As E1b1b1 dispersed, all major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, apart from E-V13 and E-M123, both found in Europe and amongst Jewish populations, which are the two major sub-clades of E-M78 which originated outside of Africa, both apparently in the Near East."

I'm not sure when this wording about the subclades was introduced (I thought I found the diff, but I was wrong), but this sentence/paragraph has been chopped up and moved around quite a bit recently and neither of you realized that E-M123 is not a subclade of E-M78. C'mon guys, there's so much knee-jerk editing going on that neither of you are taking the time to really proofread the edits.

The entire paragraph needs to be rephrased -- even the first part. I know what you're trying to say -- E1b1b1 dispersed, and the major subclades were founded. But it's worded strangly right now and doesn't read well at all. How about something like this:

"As E1b1b1 dispersed, each of its major subclades was founded. E-M78 and E-M81 are thought to have originated in North Africa [or the Horn of Africa?]. E-M123, as well as E-V13 (the largest subclade of E-M78) appear to have originated in the Near East."

I don't think the mention of E-M123 and E-V13 being found in Europe and among Jews is necessary in this paragraph -- this section is about origins, not about where the subclades are found today.

Actually, I don't even think E-V13 should be mentioned here, since you're talking about the subclades branching off E1b1b1 -- which are E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, as well as E-V6, E-P72 and E-M293. E-V13 is more appropriately discussed in the E-M78 section below.

And, I'm not validating whether the origins are correct as stated or not -- I'm not the geography and history expert. I'm just trying to rephrase what's already been written so that it reads better. -- Efweb (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence has evolved badly because of the edit warring. The tendency in the article right now is that redundant material gets kept, and sentences get longer. I also have a concern about irrelevant citations. I'll try to work on what you've spotted here, and please feel free to name more tasks, but of course we should all try to edit when we see something that can be improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"occurs commonly and is distributed... in all of Europe" comes directly from Cruciani et al. 2006; please do not remove

Dear Causteau, The title of this sub-heading is your explanation for a new knee jerk edit. Please note that the grammatical words involved are not important to the content. The English used in academic abstracts is often awful and there is absolutely no reason to use bad English just because it can be found in an abstract! Can you please reverse your revert? EfWeb is absolutely right that this article shows scars from this type of reverting. Let it be improved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Andrew, but "bad English" (which it isn't) in a reputable journal is not an excuse to reformulate what the reliable source in question actually states. Cruciani et al. 2006 make it clear that E-M78 "occurs commonly and is distributed" in all of said regions including "all of Europe", so that is what the E1b1b article now dutifully relays. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is no such duty. The Wikipedia article does not have to be slavish to odd phrasing just because the odd phrasing can be sourced. I am afraid that you still misunderstand (assuming good faith) the rules you cite at me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing was only "odd" in your estimation. And what is a duty on Wikipedia is that materials need to be reliably sourced, which the phrase already was and is. Causteau (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First, so was what you reverted within seconds. Second, the differences you are insisting on are words like "and" and "is", just connectors, not important to the content.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. What I restored was a direct paraphrase containing words taken directly from an actual reliable source. Your modification of course removed those very words, and in the process changed the entire meaning of the statement. Causteau (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I used a direct quote, even better than a direct paraphrase, whatever that is, and when you took that out, you also changed the meaning just slightly, well not really. Look, this is silly. Surely you realize that your actions are edit warring, and clearly also a continuing attempt at bad faith opportunistic abuse of Wikipedia rules in order to justify your reverts. Please stop it. Nobody is fooled. (Accusing someone of bad faith editing is not "assuming bad faith" by the way if you have the evidence in front of you and are explaining it by the way, so don't - please - quote more pages of WP rules as a diversion.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No you did not. You first removed the words "occurs commonly and is distributed" that were taken verbatim from Cruciani et al. 2006, replacing them instead with "E-M78 male lineages are common" that by contrast wasn't taken from Cruciani et al. 2006. You then gutted the text of all reference regarding the fact that E-M78 is observed in "all of Europe" as Cruciani et al. 2006 also make very clear. After I restored the page, you came back with a study of Cruciani's from two years earlier that conveniently did not include any mention of the fact E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in the aforementioned regions including "all of Europe". You can quote me all of the rules you want, but it's your constant removal of reliable sources that are indefensible. Causteau (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I made several reverted attempts to make a long ugly sentence more clear and easy to read, by changing minor words. No doubt that your words such as "and" have good footnoting, I just don't think it is relevant. If I changed the meaning that was not the intention, and I put it to you that you could not have even noticed it given how fast you reverted. Surely the meaning of the sentence can in any case somehow be preserved without such awful English? Let's please stop having to have a source for every tiny word and think a lot more about the quality of the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so everyone please remember that Causteau and I are not editing the article for one week. For anyone looking for something to do, here was one of the sentences we could not agree about...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) "occurs commonly ... in" North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. (current version right now)

Neither of us are happy with this. Causteau believes more words are needed in order to more exactly match the wording of the article being sourced here, and I believe less are needed in order to take out redundant words which currently imply things which are not justified.

Causteau wants:

E1b1b1a (E-M78) "occurs commonly and is distributed in" North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe.

I believe the above is wrong, because bad English is wrong, not just as a detail, but also because when people see words they are led to believe there is a reason...

1. "occurs commonly and is distributed in" can be read as "occurs commonly (in) and is distributed in" or "is a common (clade) that is found in". Both these odd readings (there is no unambiguous reading) would imply similar high frequencies (presumably 50% or more) in ALL the places mentioned, which is certainly not correct.

2. "and all of Europe" instead of just "and Europe" is also odd, but can only be read to imply that amongst all the places mentioned (North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia and Europe) it is Europe which has the most consistently high levels of frequency, or the least low spots. This is certainly not true either. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewording - outside opinions

...Dear Wikipedians, why not have a go at making a better sentence? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying. Orpheus (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your input Orpheus. Your proposal seems a good alternative, as it actually preserves what Cruciani et al. (2006) write. It's also written in proper English, which was oddly one of the original objections against the use of Cruciani's own words. Causteau (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed, and I swapped the order of the two sentences leading that section as well. Seems to make more sense that way. Orpheus (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Causteau (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a definite improvement, and interestingly similar to proposals that were once routinely reverted. If I may, I'll suggest it can possibly be better:

• Concerning your comments elsewhere about clade term confusions, I wonder if it might be nicer to open the sentence with "E-M78 male lineages" instead of the more abstract "E1b1b1a (E-M78)" i.e. referring to real people, something people can visualize, rather the abstract "clade" or "sub-clade", and with the SNP based nomenclature which easiest to recognize in running discussion, instead of the phylogenetic terminology which is hard on the human eye (but quite appropriate for headings etc).
• "is a commonly occuring" is written with a complex verb construction where one is not necessary because "is a common" would mean exactly the same thing.
• How do you read the meaning of "and all of"? What does it change in the meaning of the sentence?

Causteau, for future reference have you accepted the idea that "There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying." If you can accept that these are simply discussions about better or worse style, then this would remove a major impediment to recent attempts to edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing grammatically or factually inaccurate about Orpheus' rewrite, nor was there anything wrong with the Cruciani direct quote to begin with (how could there be? it comes directly from Cruciani himself). Orpheus' rewrite fully captures what Cruciani et al. 2006 actually write, and does so without gutting the text of its key phrases: that E1b1b1a (E-M78) commonly occurs and is distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. What's more, opening the section with "E-M78 male lineages" only confuses the lay public, as the latter might take that to mean that E-M78 only pertains to or has significance for men, when of course the clade also tells a woman a lot about her paternal ancestry if her father, brother or other male relative in her direct paternal line is tested. Causteau (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Could you respond to my very simple question in order to help people understand your aims and thoughts, in order not to later get reverted by you? Have you accepted the idea that "There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

2. I shall respond to your question: "how could it be?" What we should be discussing is how best to word this Wikipedia article. The style used in academic abstracts is, I am quite sure, not what most academic authors would want people to consider their best style. But more generally neither you nor I nor anyone is arguing (I think) that exact quotes are always best in the context of a Wikipedia article. So I think that your own editing and any example of editing you can find shows that direct quotes might not be best in all cases. Of course if there is a serious difference in meaning, let's talk about that. Do you disagree or agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Concerning the meaning you think "gutted" by my suggestions, we've not had much discussion. The edit of Orpheus explains how you think the joint appearance of the words commonly occurs and is distributed in the Cruciani abstract should be interpreted. In any case it is an improvement, but it is notable that you allowed or encouraged no such compromise before when I asked you to consider one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

4. But what about the other words which I thought redundant (or potentially misleading)? How do you read the meaning of "and all of"? What does it change in the meaning of the sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Concerning the alternative beginning to the sentence, thanks for now explaining a reason for what you've reverted before without any explanation. I find the explanation quite odd I must say. Indeed women readers might think they are only potentially connected to E1b1b through male relatives, and that is indeed the truth, and also what you do not want the article to say. My own explanation of what I thought worth trying to achieve was making things less abstract: this is about men you know, and in a particular way, not some abstract thing that only academics can understand. Can you respond to this concern of mine and explain what the justification would be for deliberately trying to make the subject more abstract?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to offer another opinion here - you two should knock it off. Focus on the article itself, not on whether you have been proven right on minor points of procedure. Now I realise that you're both making a valiant effort to assume good faith and be civil with each other, and I think you should both be proud of how well you've conducted yourself on this talk page. It's obviously an issue you both care about, and any minor lapses of civility are outweighed by the great heights of restraint you have both reached to keep things well ordered and under active discussion.

However - I also think you should take the opportunity of this neutral opinion to back off and put the old discussion behind you. One thing about content disputes that I've noticed is that they become focused on the minor little things and lose sight of the point - making articles better. I could give examples for both of you but I'm not going to, because I don't want to make either of you feel singled out or (even worse) triumphant and vindicated. Email me if you want specifics - I'm happy to offer constructive comments in private. Orpheus (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps in this spirit we should ignore my questions about policy interpretation, assuming that there is no on-going edit war risk which requires me to be super careful about that, and narrow it down to my questions specially about the text. We currently have...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe.

I find that the end result of the compromise so far is better, but still containing redundant wording which can be removed without changing the meaning. The possible exception is "and all of" but to the extent that this has a special meaning, it is very open to interpretations which are wrong - in particular that distribution in Europe is somehow "more" in Europe than the other areas. "Europe" on its own without qualifier would mean "all of Europe"? The following is not intended to be a compromise, but for reference what I think might be the shortest possible version of everything that is clear in the existing version, so that we can then discuss which meanings we think are missing, and from there we can add them...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) lineages are common in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe.

I'd start by suggesting two things: 1. subclade, if that word has to be there, is relative, and to mean something it is better to say "of E-M35". 2. I don't see any point in using an academic passive verb, but if one has to be there, "distributed" is a old fashioned metaphor implying that a rational being spread things deliberately, that academic authors often use without thinking. "which can be found" is a possible alternative. 3. This minimal version, without any extra words, already implies that E-M78 is found in all parts of all the places mentioned. 4. To raise a new subject in fact, E-M78 is found in small amounts far to the east in places like Pakistan. (But the distribution of E-M78 from the Levant to the Himilayas is clearly complex and involves very low frequencies for the most part. So this is probably better though of as something for thinking about for the time being.) 5. I took out "male" which I'd mentioned in previous suggestions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to put this, but this non-issue has already been settled. Orpheus and I have already agreed to go with his grammatically correct and accurate paraphrase of what Cruciani et al. (2006) (the reliable source in question) actually write: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe." If you think that Cruciani (who is one of the foremost authorities on E1b1b) is somehow mistaken when he and his colleagues assert that "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe", perhaps you should consider taking it up with him personally. Causteau (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just happen to not yet be fully satisfied with the style of sentence. I can't help that, so can you please do more than just giving me a proclamation? Both of us have read the full Cruciani article and all the statistics, so we know pretty well what they might have meant or might not have meant. To treat the first line of the abstract as something we may not question is purely arbitrary, and I wish you would stop doing it. It implies that I should go back to the policy question, because it clearly has not gone away for me: Have you accepted the idea that "There's no need for a direct quote from the source as long as we don't misrepresent what the source is saying"? In other words, are you willing to discuss things with other Wikipedians as equals or are you going to insist on playing Don Quixote to the Wikipedia windmill?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cruciani states in no uncertain terms that E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed in the aforementioned regions including all of Europe. While he does indeed state this in the study's abstract, an abstract is not chopped liver; it's an essential part of a study. And when Wikipedia writes about reliable sources, it doesn't just pertain to only certain sections of a given text. It pertains to the entire study -- all of Cruciani et al. (2006) is a reliable source. What's more, Cruciani repeats again in the study's body that "haplogroup E-M78 is characterized by a broad geographic distribution, which includes northern and eastern Africa, western Asia and all of Europe". It's by no means arbitrary; it's fact from people who ought to know. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I see your point on how "all of Europe" could be interpreted as emphasising the European frequency over the African frequency. It doesn't actually say that, but the lay reader could potentially see it as that. However, I don't see an alternative that isn't insanely clumsy. The only other wording I'd suggest would be to change "all of" to "throughout". I think something along those lines should remain there, because all of the other regions mentioned have a regional qualifier. To not have one for Europe would raise an ambiguity - is Europe too small in terms of population genetics to warrant dividing into regions, or is the haplogroup spread through all of the regions? That's my reasoning as a non-biologist, anyway - the author of the paper may have a different one.

I think that "throughout", like "all of" implies that E1b1b is particularly widespread and common in Europe, whereas compared to at least the two regions of Africa we mention, it is particularly NOT widespread and common, but rather very patchy indeed, and nowhere near as common. Your point about the other words having "regional qualifiers" is interesting, and this might indeed have been the intention of Cruciani et al. I had not thought of it at all. So is everyone going to get that? If the intention of the wording is unclear, I guess we should ask ourselves what else we can write that gets across what is most essential?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b/E3b doesn't have a patchy distribution in Europe. It is very common there, and is distributed in relatively smooth, clinal gradations throughout the entire continent. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you that distributed could be changed to something else. However I don't think it's particularly necessary - the chance of misinterpretation is fairly small IMHO. The only reason to change it would be to add more information (change "distributed" to "found in relatively high proportions" or something else informative and true). Disclaimer: I don't know if my suggested alternative wording is, in fact, true or not. I'm a physicist/engineer. Orpheus (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, do we need a passive verb at all? Let's start from a simple base and ask if we need any embellishments. It is a general rule that wording like "is common in" is preferable to "is commonly found in" and really looses nothing of the meaning. What do the more complex possible additions to the simple version add in terms of meaning, rather than ambiguity? Simplest style is best style, and the article should not be left worse than we think it can be made?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "distributed" should not be changed to something else because that is what Cruciani et al. are talking about; that is the term they themselves use. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are just going to insist that if you cite something from a source, the wording can never be misleading or confusing in the context of the Wikipedia article, and no improvement can be possible? This seems to be a very unreasonable and impractical approach!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. I have not written any such thing, as can quite clearly be seen above. Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've said that passive verbs when unnecessary are bad style. In response to this you have said only that the wording comes from the source. Is there another argument you are making?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've haven't "said only that the wording comes from the source." I've said "the word "distributed" should not be changed to something else because that is what Cruciani et al. are talking about; that is the term they themselves use." They are talking about where E-M78 occurs commonly and is distributed, so the term distribution needs to be mentioned (as it indeed already is). Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. I am saying that I believe that "is common in", "is common and occurs in", "is commonly occurring in", "is common and distributed in", "is frequently found in" etc etc etc all mean the same thing, and it is just a question of style. Therefore, I am saying, we should select the shortest and neatest one, that fits the Wikipedia article. The way I read all your replies, you have never explained any extra meaning which comes from using all the extra words. You have only said that the wording is similar to the wording in Cruciani et al. If there is a difference in meaning then I am genuinely interested to understand it, and I would like you to explain it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the above discussion so far the only alternative seems to be to put in qualifications, making the sentence admittedly very silly. Obviously I do not see the following compromise as good, but at least it is not misleading. Keep in mind that major studies find E-M78 absent in a large part of Europe - a fact which can of course be sourced, meaning we can potentially end up putting 2 sets of contrasting sources next to each other, which would be silly, because there is not a real dispute about the facts. Comments please--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe, though falling to very low levels in Russia, Belorussia, Finland, Scandinavia, Ireland and Scotland, as well as in parts of Spain, England, Germany.

Actually, even this is still misleading, and more qualifiers seem needed. Personally I would prefer something like this...

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is very common in Egypt and the Horn of Africa, as well as many parts of North Africa, West Asia and Europe.

Then no qualifiers are needed, and the details are going to be discussed below anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. New version by Causteau, seems better to me than the previous one:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b1a (E-M78) is a commonly occuring subclade, distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe,[23] with a frequency peak centered in south Europe and southeastern Europe (13%–16% in southern Italians and 17%–27% in the Balkans) and declining frequencies evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe.

A great time for people interested in this subject to start helping to edit it!

Dear E1b1b watching Wikipedians, Causteau and I are taking one week off from editing this article. This would be a great time to try out wiki-editing. And having more people involved could be very good for the article. It is understandable, but not good, that having two busy editors like Causteau and myself constantly focusing on this article may have discouraged people from making changes in the past. So here is your chance to change that!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Question - is "E1b1b1a (E-M78); formerly E3b1a" a clade or a subclade? The article seems ambiguous, and as a result I'm not sure if my recent edits are correct or not. The ambiguity is that E1b1b1a seems to be (hierachially) beneath E1b1b, the main subject of the article, but then E1b1b1a1 is referred to as a subclade of E1b1b1a. Can subclades have subclades, or should they be sub-subclades? Orpheus (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe no one will dispute the following, but if I get something wrong I hope people will be happy to say so. All of the above, any level, can be called "clades". "Clade" is a very general word like "category" or "grouping" and not one where there are defined levels like the species, genus, etc system in biology. "Subclade" is a pretty common word, but it is always relative, to the clade above it which is presumably the one in discussion in a particular context. "Sub-Sub-clade" is a bit quirky, but I would say acceptable in some contexts. I guess that raises the question of what the correct context is. The article is about both E1b1b, and it's one and only dominant sub-clade E1b1b1. But there are sections about the dominant sub-clades of E1b1b1, and so on. Having said all that, it is quite likely that this can get confusing, and if the confusion can be tamed at all please try to do so. A fresh perspective would be good for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

reference formats

I've switched the article over to the more complete Wikipedia citation format. Here is what the template looks like if you want to put in more articles... {{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | date = | year = | url = | doi = | id = }}

One handy trick this allows is to do "Harvard" format citations in the text or in footnotes, which are then links to the references. The basic format for this is as follows... {{Harvcoltxt|Sengupta et al.|2005|pp=12-24}}

This can also include page numbers etc. See [10].

Currently the article has the full links, titles etc of articles in BOTH the references, and in the footnotes. It also has to be put in newly each time a footnote is not just a reference to an article but also contains a quotation, page reference or comment.

Now we can put the Harvard citation in the main text without any footnote at all if it is just a citation without special comments. Everything is better linked, and does not have to be redone every time you add a reference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative photos

(You can use these photos) because we know they are E1b1b

Orville Wright - E1b1b1a2 (V13)

William Harvey - E1b1b1c1 (M34)

Another suggestion is looking for Berbers, Somalians, North Afircan Arabs & Albanians who are confirmed E1b1b.

This is even more important with Jews or Albanians (More than 70% of Jews or Albanians are not E1b1b1 how do we know the photos you posted are E1b1b1?)

I have some photos of confirmed E1b1b, but I have to ask them for permission to use their photos first, for now we can use these two confirmed ones.

Also a group photo of Somalians with a text description saying that more than 75% of Somlians are E1b1b1 will be much safer than listing one photo of an untested person.

Cadenas2008 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cadenas. Thanks for your message about this with your suggestions, which I also see you posted to Causteau. Let's definitely consider such ideas, but first, for the time being, I suggest not actually removing pictures just because we do not know the haplogroup of the person in the picture. I think the readership of Wikipedia is smart enough to understand the pictures and not be mislead - and no picture at all would seem a shame? No about the ideas you have my general answer would be "go for it" however I'd suggest that if you want to put a picture in of the Wright brothers, we'll need to double check the sources for that, and put something in the article, maybe under a famous people heading. I know they are said to be E1b1b, but I forget the details. Are you more familiar with it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Andrew here. It's a bit much to remove someone's picture just because we don't happen to know if they have been tested. I mean, were the Jewish man and the Libyan Arab boys whose pictures you didn't remove tested? Is that why you retained them but got rid of the Druze Arab and Somali men? This is one of the things that puzzled me about your edits. At any rate, the point is not to suggest that a particular person is E1b1b, but rather that the people that that person represents are E1b1b. This is why the description for the Druze man, for example, read "many Druze men are in the E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) lineage most commonly found in Europe, especially the Balkans" rather than "this Druze man is in the E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) lineage most commonly found in Europe, especially the Balkans". There is zero chance of readers misinterpreting what it is we are talking about. Also note that I didn't just add the pictures all by my lonesome; Andrew and I both did because we both saw value in their inclusion. Causteau (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to try to define how I understood the photos: I see the ones there now as pictures "representing" ethnic groups. Does that make sense? To me it seemed to make sense. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and that is exactly how I too saw it. We both also made it clear in our descriptions of the photos in question that said ethnic groups were, in turn, somewhat "representative" of the sub-clades where their respective pictures were featured. That is why the Berber man's picture was in the E-M81 section, the Jewish man's picture in the E-M123 section, etc. I honestly don't really see any valid reason why those pictures were removed, and I think the page is the poorer for it. Causteau (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Cadenas is inviting us to put any photos back in. In the meantime I see no problem with him making new proposals. Concerning famous people by the way, I know many people are interested in such things. So if we get truly famous people with good paper trails, I see no big problem starting such a section - perhaps at the end of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can find famous people, but will they be "representative" so-to-speak of the sub-clade in question? For instance, are the American Wright brothers really a good representation of a population that E-V13 is most characteristic of? I don't believe they are whereas E-V13 is observed at among its highest frequencies in the Albanians that the removed image represented. Wouldn't an Albanian or a Greek or a Macedonian man then be preferable for that particular sub-clade section? I believe so. This is not to say that we have to completely do away with Cadenas' admittedly interesting suggestion that we include famous known examples of E1b1b carriers. We just first need to make sure that the sub-clade section they are featured in is also characteristic of the larger population they in turn represent. Alternatively, we could start a new section where we could perhaps cite some famous examples of E1b1b carriers and include photos of said people for good measure. This gallery area would of course exist in addition to the images in the sub-clade sections that we already had. Causteau (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that no individual shows what a Y sub-clade looks like, ever, because the Y chromosome is too unimportant for most physical traits. A photo can show an ethnic group though, and an ethnic group can be carriers of a Y chromosome, just like a particular family line can, or a particular person, who may or may not be famous. I should say that photos are not a make or break for me, I am just explaining how I think they can be though about. The same goes for famous people. I can understand that people like a bit of colour in an article, which helps people get a grip on the subject matter. The famous people discussion comes from a member of the E-M35 phylogeny project, so Cadenas and I will ask there what list of solid examples there is. Definitely something for a separate section though. Who is going to get a sample of Mr Obama? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, by "representative" and "characteristic of", I wasn't talking about physical traits but relative sub-clade frequencies. As for famous people, I'm indifferent either way. We, do, however already know of two, so a draft could look something like this:

William Harvey

Famous English physician William Harvey, that was the first one in the Western world to describe the systemic circulation, belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1, more specifically to the subclade E1b1b1c1 (M34). Ancient ancestor known was Humphrey Harvey (1459-1526, Kent, England). Ysearch: B2YWY. Look also Harvey Y-DNA Genetic Project

The Wright Brothers

The Wright Brothers belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1, subclade E1b1b1a2 (V13). They are descended from Robert Wright of Brook Hall. Look at Wright Dna Project.

As an aside, I doubt Obama is E3b, as most Kenyans belong to E(xE3b) and haplogroups A and B, including his father's tribe, the Luo. Causteau (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

True. The rapid change in haplotypes between the Horn of Africa proper and Kenya is actually quite staggering, and if anyone is good at making contour maps, it would be great to have one to show this - for this article just the E1b1b differences on their would show how stark it is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Although more Southern Tanzania E1b1b frequency is higher at 37%, but I am not sure if they propotioned the Khoikhoi for their actual size? Cadenas2008 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that in Tanzania most E-M35 is E-M293? This fades quickly north of Tanzania it seems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b also shows up in South Africa again! Not sure what part of Tanzania is more E1b1b. The groups with Ethiopian links are usually small, so I am just quoting Luis et al. Cadenas2008 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

E-M293 is a sub-clade of E1b1b. It is the most recent discovered, so last in the list in the present Wikipedia article. It dominates E1b1b from Tanzania south.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous People

Thanks to Cadenas for raising this subject. But the real work has been pushed along by Sergey Lutak, on the E-M35 Project at http://community.haplozone.net/index.php?topic=818.0 His own summary is here, but in Russian: http://www.rodstvo.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=446

I would suggest we consider what Sergey collected so far. Any with a Wikipedia entry might perhaps be worth starting with?...

1. Peter Shirts (b1808 Ohio,d1882 New Mexico). He was an explorer for the Mormon Church, who has been referred to as the 'Daniel Boone of the desert'. There are several references to him on the internet that a quick Google search turns up: http://history.utah.gov/apps/markers/detailed_results.php?markerid=3119 http://history.utah.gov/apps/markers/detailed_results.php?markerid=1227 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paria,_Utah http://www.onlineutah.com/montezumahistory.shtml ftdna kit number is N3997. YSearch id is 887NW. Several in the line also on http://www.smgf.org Furthest known ancestor is Michael Schertz born 1660 Hesse-Darmsstadt, Germany/arrive in New York on one of the 'Palatine ship' in 1710, died in New York 1711. Michael Schertz is listed in the FTDNA Palatine DNA Project (referencing my DNA) at: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/PalatineDNAProject

2. Dr. William Harvey (b. at Folkestone 1 April, 1578), noted as the discoverer of the circulation of blood. Dr. Harvey died without issue in 1657 The modern descendant is Bill Harvey in the USA, who has a good paper trail, that can be used to link to William Harvey if you also use the "Extensive research ... done by Oscar Jewell Harvey in the latter part of the 19th century capped with his "Harvey Book" published in the US in 1898." SNP test is: E1b1b1c1a (M84+) Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/HARVEY&fixed_columns=on (B2YWY in Ysearch)

3. Arthur Wilde Parsons (1854 - 1931) is recognized as being a fairly well known British marine artist, and many of his paintings used to hang at the Royal Academy in London. His great grandson in England has been tested. I think no Wikipedia entry?

4. Wright brothers. Steven Bird noted it first: "Nearly forgot! The most famous PROVED pair of siblings that are definitely E-M35 are Orville and Wilbur Wright. They are descended from [Robert Wright of Brook Hall], whose other descendants are E-V13. Their relationship is proved solidly through conventional genetic research. "The Wright family of Essex is rather infamous in genealogical circles because of the overabundance of men named John. Cheesy The three brothers from the same 17th c. generation were called "John the Elder" "Middle John" and "John the Younger." Their father was John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch. A bit like the George Foreman story; all of his boys are named George. The Wright DNA results are available at: http://www.wright-dna.org/dna/OtherResults.html See the fourth group on the page.

5. The Hatfield clan. Hatfield-McCoy feud Ysearch user 3AC8Z Decended from Ephraim Hatfield here is his link http://www.ysearch.org/alphalist_view.asp?uid=&letter=H&lastname=Hatfield&viewuid=3AC8Z&p=0 If you go to this link its the hatfield group project http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/hatfield/results kit number 79827 is decended from Ephraim Hatfield.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we list a few photos of the verfied European E1b1b, but we also list an equal number of African group photos so it doesn't seem that E1b1b is a European gene. I am not sure whats caused previous arguments (We can try to avoid that & make the article look better). Is that a good solution? Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really because when Andrew and I were posting pictures, neither one of us was thinking in terms of posting "more" or "fewer" European, Middle Eastern, or African pictures. We were simply thinking in terms of adding photos to the sub-clade sections showing representatives of ethnic groups that typically have considerable frequencies of those sub-clades. Our image descriptions consequently reflected this e.g. "E1b1b1b (E-M81): The most common Y haplogroup among North African Arabs and Berbers". It's a sub-clade first, ethnic group second model because this article is after all about E1b1b itself. Causteau (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I am trying to make sense of whats going on! Notice the situation only exists in E1b1b, so it has to do with ethnic groups & we are trying to be balanced right? I said that because you hinted that I kept the other photos on purpose! Cadenas2008 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Libyan boys? photos

I actually agree with Andrew here. It's a bit much to remove someone's picture just because we don't happen to know if they have been tested. I mean, were the Jewish man and the Libyan Arab boys whose pictures you didn't remove tested?

I didn't leave any Libyans or Jews [[11]] both are less likely to be E1b1b than Somalians.

Personally I will be very disappointed if I find my photo under R1b or H1 just because of my nationality. I think you have an ethical obligation to ask these people & findout whats their Y-DNA & if they want to be on the article before posting their photos! least we can do is post group photos of Somalian children, Berbers.Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can respect your purism on this, but if you can't find good photos do we need to have no photos or bad ones? If you can find good ones, everyone is happy! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your initial flurry of edits yesterday when I wrote that you didn't remove the photos of the Jewish man and the Libyan boys, and of course I am right. It wasn't until today that you removed the rest of the photos (1, 2).

I again agree with Andrew. This is a really purist stance, which could easily be applied to any article on Wikipedia (and most other articles on the internet, actually). Take the Druze page, for instance. How would those men in the pictures on that page feel about having been elected virtual "representatives" of the Druze albeit without their consent? It's the same thing, and thankfully is not considered a problem in Wikipedia's image use policy. Causteau (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Causteau I swear with our MRCA that I didn't see the photos of the Libyan boys or the jewish guy & I thought I removed every photo. The Druze article is an ethnic article (I am not Druze or E1b1b for the record! I already was accused of being a jew -not that its a bad thing!- in the R1a article I don't want to end up being in an ethnic issue here).

The photos just stuck out, I didn't see this in the other article, if you want I will do my share & try to make a good E1b1b map to beautify the article? & I had a group photo posted, but they were lost in an edit conflict :) .Cadenas2008 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of group photos

Ethiopian children. [[12]]. Cadenas2008 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an alright photo, but the Somali man is already in the V-32 section, so I'm not sure where it could fit in. Causteau (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not use it instead? It is a little clearer in quality, and the idea that a group is a better picture of an ethnic group is something I see no reason not to respect? Ethiopia is extremely rich in E1b1b haplogroups. I don't see that Somalia has any higher claim for a photo than Ethiopia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's why:

1) The Borana image is of uncertain copyright status, as it is not hosted on Wikipedia whereas the Somali picture is.

2) Somalis are almost exclusively E-V32 whereas the kids in that photo are Borana Oromos (the link says "boranatp2.jpg"), and Borana Oromos have many different clades of E(xE3b) (and even a considerable frequency of haplogroup A).

3) Somalis have a higher frequency of E-V32 per Cruciani et al. 2007.

4) Boranas only number about 200,000, whereas Somalis number around 16 million, so there are exponentially more E-V32 Somali carriers than there are Boranas. Causteau (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the point. Causteau, to divert a little do you know of any photos for any of the high M-293 tribes?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. Causteau (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Causteau how about this one? A beautiful photo of smiling Somali Children & their phenotype is pretty much that of the average Somalian so it doesn't leave any doubt!

Somali Children

. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure how to put this, but at least two of those children are girls. The one in the middle certainly is. Hence, the head-covering. Causteau (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? Somalian kids celebrating. [13]. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but I wonder if you've ever actually met a Somali? Because if you had, you'd already know that several of the boys in that photo are Bantus and not Somalis. Further, Bantus aren't E1b1b carriers but E1b1a carriers (see Sanchez et al. 2005). The man in the photo, on the other hand, is a confirmed ethnic Somali. He will do just fine, and actually is representative of the average Somali: from the narrow, elongated face, to the high forehead, to the aquiline nose, to the reddish-brown complexion, it's all there. Causteau (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir I know how Somalians look! The guy you posted doesn't have a typical Somali phenotype -least to say & we are trying to profile 77.6 % of the V32 Somalians!-.

• He didn't look like the average slim built, smooth skinned small nosed Somalian.

Compare these guys, [14]. Cadenas2008 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That latest photo has only one recognizably Somali person in it: the guy on the bottom right. Certainly not the guys on the left. I could easily counter it with far more typical examples (e.g. 1, 2) and leave it at that, but that's hardly conclusive. So I'll go one better. Here; read this. It's an old (and still the most thorough yet) anthropological survey of the Somali people by a former president of the Anthropological Association of America. It covers everything from their nasal index to the average hair form and somatype, and echoes what I've written here about the typical Somali phenotype. Causteau (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the gentleman's nose is quintessentially Somali since it is elevated and narrow, with tower-shaped nasal bones. The ubiquitous aquiline features of the Somali people have already been attributed by the anthropologist Loring Brace, among others, as a physical adaptation to living in a hot and dry environment. Note that the absence of this nasal elevation in some of the chaps you've posted suggests that they either evolved in a very different physical environment from the arid lowlands of the Horn of Africa or that they have incurred significant foreign admixture. Read this paper for the details; it's really eye-opening. Causteau (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you from Somaliland?

Are you Mr Caddoow himself? (if thats the case you can say so & we end the discussion here!)

I am concerned because you are trying to say that the majority of the Somalians are not Somalians!! (so far you claimed 90% of the Somalian guys I posted are not -real- Somalians! you even ridculed the 3 children & said two of them are girl lookalikes!)

if you are trying to tell me those beautiful Somalians I posted are not the majority of the people of Somalia today. (regardless of who moved in who didn't move E1b1b is the majority today & they don't like Mr Caddow!).

• I did a search on the guy you are using & he is involved in politics (correct me if I am wrong)

• The people in Somaliland are at odds with southerners because of the war....etc (just reading your ethnos comments on youtube), please don't translate that into biased wikipedia articles!

Does this have anything to do with your selection of Mr Cabdullaahi Axmed Caddoow, this is his profile [15].

Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is surreal. Am I from Somaliland? Am I Mr. Caddoow himself? Where exactly is this stuff coming from?

Before you say anything further, please take a good, long, hard look at WP:CIV, AGF, and WP:PA, and see how your entire post above completely disregards those important policies.

Next, try and understand this: I have not "ridiculed" those three children or anyone else for that matter. All I've done is point out to you that the middle child in particular is definitely a girl... as her head-covering proves (please use logic here). The reason why I pointed this out is because this is a Y DNA page, not an mtDNA page. I figured you already understood the implications of this since you seem to have edited other haplogroup pages, but I was apparently mistaken.

I've also linked you to several studies that back up what I casually asserted regarding the typical Somali phenotype; it wasn't just talk. And I certainly didn't do this to hurt your feelings or to cause trouble. But had I known that this is how you were going to react, I'd honestly much rather not have gone through all that trouble. Causteau (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted about 15 Somalians so far all of them didn't add up in your eyes! How about this Somalian boy?[16].

The Somali phenotype is that of the children you see all over Somalia, they happen to be 77.6% M-78 (Sanchez et al. 2005). Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not posted about fifteen Somalis, but only a few well-chosen photos of people you have insisted are Somalis yet whose physical characteristics don't necessarily jibe with that designation. This is why I asked you right off the bat if you have ever actually met a real Somali or if they are perhaps instead just an internet abstraction? Did you know, for instance, that not everyone that inhabits Somalia is an ethnic Somali? That Somalia like Ethiopia has actual minority groups, and that many of said groups live in Mogadishu proper?

Further, the Somali phenotype has also already been heavily documented, so there's no point in attempting to re-invent it here on this talk page. It's also a futile exercise to attempt to link a Y chromosome to specific physical traits -- there's no such thing as a typical E-M78 "look", as it spans several continents and peoples. Causteau (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(Sanchez et al.) M78 77.6% Somalia

High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males SANCHEZ Juan J. (1) ; HALLENBERG Charlotte (1) ; BØRSTING Claus (1) ; HERNANDEZ Alexis (2) ; MORLING Niels (1) ; Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s) (1) Department of Forensic Genetics, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, DANEMARK (2) Departamento de Canarias, Instituto Nacional de Toxicologí]a, La Laguna, Tenerife, ESPAGNE

Abstract N=201 male Somalis, 14 Y chromosome haplogroups were identified including M78 (77.6%) and T (10.4%). Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is mentioned in the article I think? Have a look under E1b1b1a1b (E-V32)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

E-V12

Shouldn't the opening line under Undifferentiated Lineages say "E-V32 and M-224?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.42.235 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't quite follow. Perhaps you need to explain a bit more in detail what you think might be wrong. The way I understand you currently, if you would change "or" to "and" this might imply that the E-V12* group is V32 negative but M224 positive?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It has already been corrected. The old version said "E-V12 or M-224," just a typo.

Trivia section

The section "Famous E1b1b members" is a trivia section. This is an encyclopaedia, this article should be about the haplogroup and not about people who happen to have been a member of it. How does the section improve the article? Do we need it? This article is not a branch of FTDNA or worldfamilies or any other surname project. I fail to see the encyclopaedic relevance of these contributions. Wikipedia has core content policies that demand that information be verifiable from published sources that are reliable. It's even more important in science, see here and here. I think it should be removed as irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Relevance of content and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. Alun (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one opinion.

1. This is only arguably trivia. Arguably it is just something more interesting to the genealogists than to the geneticists - both of whom share an interest in this subject.

2. I am no big fan of trivia sections, and I respect the concerns, but I don't agree that the section breaks rules in any clear way. This section is presently according to standard procedure in writing these sorts of articles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Guidelines and you could also see http://www.isogg.org which is a website run mainly by genealogists, but respected and now cited by geneticists in peer reviewed articles. I would suggest that if people find this really difficult to stomach it should perhaps better be debated on the Wikiproject page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History

3. Deletion would not be uncontroversial. Wikipedia is democratic, and so it is sometimes hard to be too snobby about (arguable) "trivia".

...So I happily played a big role in working on this section when I heard people starting to talk about how the article needed it. I (and I think other editors) tried to keep the section short and as well-sourced as the genealogical material allows. I think deletion would be very controversial for at least some people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with a simple listing of names of famous people with the haplogroup. The problem with the section as it currently stands is that it is original research. The only "evidence" that these people are in the haplogroup is anecdotal from surname project administrators. The evidence is in any case inferred from other results. The Harvey pedigree looks distinctly suspect too. These old published genealogies are often full of errors. Y-search entries and surname project websites are not reliable sources for such claims. This sort of research needs independent verification. If this section is to be included then you would need to get the project admins to write up their research and get it published in a respectable genealogical or scientific journal. Alternatively you could write an article yourself so that it can be referenced as a source. Note that the Famous DNA section on the ISOGG website is based on published sources in respectable journals.Dahliarose (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your estimations of the potential standards of comparison might be a bit unrealistic...

1. First, any random sample of genealogical publications will include many errors, including new ones and "respectable" ones. This is not controversial, just a known problem in the field. Many fields have similar problems, but clearly it is not the idea that whole fields get banned from Wikipedia for such a reason. Genealogical publications are often also very good.

2. On the other hand surname projects are normally quite reliable publications, which often have to be acceptable to several different genealogists working on the project. They also have clear contact addresses so that you can cross check things. It is not fair to pass this off as anecdotes, at least in the cases represented here.

3. There is no obvious way to ensure independent verification in genealogy. I wish there were. As genealogy goes, the cross referencing in this case is pretty solid as far as I can see.

4. I do not agree at all about your judgment of the ISOGG pedigrees. I say this with full respect to ISOGG, of which I am a member. The Niall claim for example has not one single pedigree and is arguably media hype about a very common haplotype in Ireland. I repeat, when it comes to genealogy even respectable journals are difficult to trust. The claims of the Irish article involved in that case were very vague, and on the whole the DNA study was less detailed and cautious than what many surname projects do on a constant basis.

My core concern is that effectively your standard mean no practical level of publication will be good enough for nearly any normal genealogical claim. Genealogical remarks obviously can not be banned from Wikipedia?

Lastly, your claim that OR is the correct description of the potential problem with this section is unfounded. I gathered the information and cited my sources. I added nothing to it, even though I recognize that the sources in genealogy are always a little difficult. I think there is no way this can be described as Original Research. You can only say that the citations are not convincing enough, which I think is debatable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the sourcing that is part of the problem. The Wright Brothers claim is backed up by a comment on a Forum which does not count as a reliable source. The Harvey claim, if I've understood correctly, is backed up by an unsourced unpublished statement from someone who claims he is a descendant of Turner Harvey. I cannot see any statement anywhere in the Harvey surname project to the effect that they have a descendant of William Harvey's family in their project. As the Harvey section now stands disparate pieces of information have been drawn together, and conclusions have been drawn which are not made in the original sources (ie, the Y-search entry and the Harvey project page). This is therefore original research. The Niall of the Nine Hostages research might well be wrong, but the point is it has been published and covered by the media so it can therefore be cited. If it's wrong then no doubt other papers disputing the original research will in due course be published, and the Wikipedia article can be amended accordingly, citing the new research. No one is doubting the hard work put in by the surname project administrators, and their work will in the vast majority of cases be vastly superior to the published work of the Victorian antiquaries. However, if the surname project admins don't publish their work, or at the very least publish their conclusions on their websites, then their work can't be cited. I'm not saying that genealogical research should be banned from Wikipedia. As with any other subject covered on Wikipedia, it just needs to be published in a reliable source. Dahliarose (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we see the same problems. I would just say in summary that it is controversial either way. If you just delete these sections then we'll probably see things constantly re-inserted, deleted etc. And I am not convinced that there is a solution as easy as you seem to suggest. Remember this is not ONLY a problem of finding good genealogical sources, but ALSO a problem of linking them to the DNA results of a modern person. Surname projects are therefore sometimes limited in terms of what they can "publish". The forum messages mentioned are however clearly messages by surname project admins, and/or at least in one case moderators of the E-M35 phylogeny project, so not just average forum messages because to a large extent verifiable. The Calhoun case is probably an exception, because I could find a pedigree on http://www.smgf.org which is a lab who also employs genealogical researchers to check pedigrees, that it then publishes in a linked way. I could then extend the evidence by referring to a modern published genealogy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think surname project admins appreciate how important their work is and the need for publication. The problem of finding the good genealogical sources and linking them to the DNA is a problem for the person who publishes the research not for the Wikipedia editor. Are you in contact with any of the project admins? Research doesn't have to be published in a scientific or academic journal. An article could be published in a genealogical publication such as the journal of a local family history society. The important thing is to get something in print so that other people can then cite the research. Even if your own research shows that the Calhoun case is cast-iron if the statement hasn't been published elsewhere then it can't be used. It doesn't really matter for now, but so much hard work has gone into this article that you really should be aiming for good article status. The famous people section as it currently stands would automatically fail the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Other editors have raised concerns by tagging the article so the problem is not going to go away until the proper sources can be found. Dahliarose (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I doubt there is a neat solution possible. This will probably remain a borderline matter. Surname projects (and yes, I've had contact with all these) are a source which is better than some which are widely accepted. Maybe a point of detail but maybe you misunderstand my point about the Calhoun case. It has a neutrally published pedigree and DNA result. http://www.smgf.org is not a surname project. Anyway, I had fun doing my best to make a famous people section (a standard for Y haplogroup articles) which is perhaps the best one on Wikipedia :) but I have no big position on it. I just hope people won't be edit warring about it because that may mean the article ends up worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it's only "arguably" trivia. The article is about the haplogroup isn't it? The article is not about people who carry this haplogroup, it's about this specific Y chromosome.

I know what you mean, but for argument's sake let me explain the other side. The haplogroup is defined by the people who are in it. When someone would talk about E-M35 moving from Ethiopia, THAT is a metaphor. You mean "people who were M35+". As I mentioned before, a lot of people see this subject as related to genealogy. Are they wrong? I think there are simply different aspects to this subject. To treat this article as something which should naturally be ruled by the concerns of molecular biology, or any of the fields which are concerned with it, would be controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in what a "lot of people" think. Genealogy as a subject may be very interesting, we can deal with that over at Genealogy. But that's not really the issue is it? The section in question is not really about genealogy, it's about "famous people". If we want a genealogy section in the article it should be concerned with discussing how this haplogroup has been used in genealogy research, and not discussing the lives of the famous people who are supposed to have carried the Y chromosome. Besides the haplogroup is not defined by the people who carry it. The haplogroup is defines by a specific SNP. That SNP was created bya single mutational even in an individual who cannot be known, how the life of that individual might be relevant to this article, "the first man to carry the mutation who is the direct ancestor of all subsquent members". But otherwise I don't see it. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction you are making between "how this haplogroup has been used in genealogy research" , and "famous people who are supposed to have carried the Y chromosome". And I don't think this is correct: "the haplogroup is not defined by the people who carry it". I think it is defined that way, at least in the same as "black haired humans" is defined by the existence of humans who are black haired.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The distinction is obvious I would have thought. If you want to have a section that discusses this haplogroup and how it is used in genealogical research, then that would be relevant. I think the problem is that you are just wrong, haplogroups are not used in genealogical research, they are too ancient. Haplotypes are used in genealogical research because they have a much more frequent mutation rate, and we can get up to 100 loci genotyped, easily enough for the haplotype to be unique to any men that share paternal line ancestry, unlike this haplogroup. Being in possession of this mutation does not indicate family relatedness. On the other hand the section "famous people" is not about genealogy, it's about famous people. Genealogy is the study of families, it is not the study of famous people. I'd fully support the inclusion of a section about genealogy in the article. But as I say, I think you are just wrong when you say that any haplogroup is used in genealogical studies. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Seriously? I don't think that's a very objective way to look at it. Having black hair is not equivalent to being a member of a Y chromosome haplogroup. For one thing there is no evidence that black hair is phylogenetically partitioned, unlike haplogroups. Secondly hair colour is a multi-locus trait, unlike Y chromosomes which act as a single locus. Thirdly hair colour is visible for all to see, whereas Y chromosome haplogroup membership is cryptic. Dividing people up into a set called "black hair" is biologically and evolutionarily meaningless. Dividing people up into Y chromosome haplogroups is not biologically meaningless. But the members of the group don't define the group, most people who carry this mutation are utterly unaware that they carry it. The haplogroup is defined by the mutation, that's how ISOGG define it. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your point about ISOGG, that is not an encyclopaedia. I am certain that the Wikipedia project has a completely different set of goals to those of ISOGG. I use ISOGG all the time, they are a reliable source and maintain an excellent resource. But if they want to include trivia then that is their prerogative, they are not an encyclopaedia.

It was just an example of how different people see this subject. Clearly it is not how you see the subject. You want it narrowed down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the subject". Do you mean this specific haplogroup? When we are discussing a mutation that arose 26,000ybp, that is not genealogy, that's population genetics. Or are you claiming that everyone who is a member of this haplogroup is part of the same family? Clearly that's not correct, there are people who belong to this same haplogroup who are clearly not members of the same family and are totally unrelated on the sort of scale whereby we normally think of relatedness. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not everyone thinks this way. People are really interested in thinking beyond the closely related. They really do think this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's not genealogy is it? It's population genetics. I'm all for population genetics, having a genetics degree myself. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We, on the other hand, are not a genealogical resource. I am sceptical of the reliability of "family" DNA projects. For example the Harvey Y-DNA Genetic Project is cited in the article, how do we deal with this? Normally in science we accept only sources published by reliable scientific publishers. I don't think we can treat family projects any different from say blogs, and we certainly don't cite blogs.

I think there are a number of questionable assumptions here. First you make a sharp distinction between science and genealogy. There is a problem here, because we are concerned here with male lines, and male lines are a subject which concerns genealogy in a scientific way. So for practical purposes the genealogists most closely involved in these discussions, let's say ISOGG members, or people publishing articles on JOGG, are practicing science. We should not dismiss them on a technicality. So when you say "how do we deal with this?" that is a good question. I'd start by saying that ignoring the problem completely would be wrong. What I think is eventually required is some sort of peer review system run perhaps with JOGG and/or ISOGG help. I've started some discussions, but we do not have that yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't make a sharp distinction between science and genealogy. I make a sharp distinction between published reliable sources, and unpublished sources that may be unreliable. Indeed I include genealogy as a science in my post, I just point out that family tree projects are no more reliable than any other blog. I wouldn't cite any scientific blog. I'm happy to accept that family tree websites can be considered reliable, if there is a consensus for such a thing. Personally I remain sceptical. Unless information is published by reliable sources then I think we need to tread with caution. I consider Jogg a reliable source, and have cited it myself here on Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very wrong to say DNA surname projects (not "family tree projects" which are not in this discussion) are no more reliable than "any other blog". They are not blogs to begin with, and they are at least in some cases outside of the "self published" category altogether. But perhaps more importantly I have already agreed several times that I see that the verifiability of DNA projects is a bit debatable. There is not need to go beyond that with exaggeration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is incorrect to say that DNA surname projects are as unreliable as other blogs, what I meant was other science blogs. There may be a great many sophisticated, well informed, knowledgeable experts on these projects, but they fall outside the scope of reliable sources. I don't see that changing, but you can always ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that there is a great deal of unreliable speculation out there, especially when it comes to genetic research, I think we need to stick to reliable sources. I also think we need to stick to the subject at hand. In this case the subject is the haplogroup, and not speculation that people from history might possibly have belonged to this haplogroup.

The way I see it, comments speculating about the haplotype of men living in the Natufian culture (if verifiable etc) are OK. I also understand that comments like "examples of famous early Virginians are..." are OK. Am I right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends, a famous Virginian would have identified as a Virginian, would have been aware of being a Virginian. Being a Virginian would have been an integral part of their understanding of who they were, because they would have been immersed in Virginian culture and society for their entire lives. Indeed they may well have attributed their success to being Virginian. These famous people belonging to this haplogroup did not define themselves according to their haplogroup. We can certainly say that they might be famous because they were Virginain, we can't say any of these individuals are famous because they carried this haplogroup. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an artificial attempt to create a rule that no one uses. You are implying that if a person can only be named as a famous Virginian if he identified himself that way or if being Virginian made him famous. Really? Again, if there is agreement that there is an issue worth discussing, why exaggerate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating, it's a valid point. Where someone comes from, the school they attend, where they live, these all play a fundamental role in the identity of that person. The Y chromosome haplogroup a person belongs to doesn't play any sort of role in determining a person's identity. Our identities are socially constructed and not biologically constructed, any anthropologist will tell you that. Trying to equate belonging to a Y chromosome haplogroup with being a member of an ethnic group is what I would call artificial. Indeed I find it quite alarming that anyone would consider these things equivalent. That's biological determinism. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think you have answered the question about encyclopaedic relevance. If you can espouse a good argument for the encyclopaedic relevance of these people being included, then I'd be more than happy. I don't see the connection at all, I think it amounts to attempting to turn what is an encyclopaedia into a resource for genealogists.

I believe Wikipedia has many articles which are of interest to genealogists. Your argument borders on saying that if something is of interest to genealogists it should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Why do you feel the need to pretend I'm saying something I clearly am not? Wikipedia is not a resource for genealogists, that's just a fact. This haplogroup is 26,000 years old, that's far too old to have much family significance. These people are not related to each other, they are not members of the same family. Presumably the interest this article has to genealogists should be the same as it has to anyone else who comes here, to see the genetic history of this haplogroup. Your argument is not that the section is relevant to the subject at hand, only that it is relevant to genealogists. I don't even think that's true, genealogists are interested in recent familial history. Genealogy is better served by Y-STR work than by Y-SNP work. Mostly population geneticists, anthropologists and archaeologists, researchers interested in ancient population movements, and population founding events, are interested in Y-SNPs because they are practically useless for recent familial history. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Alun, but what I said is at least debatably true, and your response is not addressing the fact that not everyone would agree with you. Just looking at what your write logically, you are making a lot of assertions that contain arguable assumptions. All humans are related, and many people feel this way and use the word related this way. I have no problem if you do not. You might find it ridiculous that genealogists spend so much time and money studying SNPs, but we have to try to find common ground.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thanks for saying I write logically!! I'm really not at all sure what you are talking about. I think you need to be more specific. Explain what you mean when you say:

• what I said is at least debatably true

What? That my argument borders on saying that "if something is of interest to genealogists it should be removed." Well I'd say that this response hyperbole, frankly. Now if I'd said "we should delete the article on genealogy", then you might have a point. What I said was that we should not have a famous people section. I still don't see the connection between famous people and genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families, and not the study of famous people. If you want to have a genealogy section, then discuss how the haplogroup is used in genealogical research, and not the lives of people who might or might not have carried this Y chromosome.

• your response is not addressing the fact that not everyone would agree with you

And? I don't think I have to address that at all. I have given my point of view, that a "famous people" section is a trivia section, and it isn't a genealogy section as you keep trying to claim. If people disagree with me, that's their prerogative. If there is a consensus to keep the section, then I'll abide by it, if there is a consensus to remove it, then you should abide by that.

• All humans are related, and many people feel this way and use the word related this way.

Yes, and that's called population genetics and not genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families and is not the same as population genetics. No one is disputing the usefulness of this haplogroup in the study of the relatedness of different human groups and populations. You need to decide what you are arguing, because now you are arguing something different. Genealogy is not the study of the relatedness of all humans, and if you are claiming that it is then I think you are confused. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more relevant to discuss the person who discovered the SNP that defines this haplogroup actually, if we are going to discuss individual people in the article. At least their notability is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Are we trying to say that these people are notable because they belong to haplogroup E1b1b? I don't think so. Alun (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Some UEP discoveries are noted in the article as it currently stands. It is interesting that an increasing number are being discovered by genealogists. Perhaps these should be kept out of Wikipedia? :) Well, more seriously, just to name an example, when the Trinity College paper came out which announced the Niall theory, they were way behind the genetic genealogy community, who were responsible for defining the M222 cluster, first in terms of STR signatures, and then by reviewing old SNPs that people were not focusing on, and then organizing tests. The conclusions were debated online and very critically, and were much less speculative and sloppy as a result. Eventually one person, David Wilson, admin of the Wilson surname project, made a webpage. I presume you would say that this fact should not be mentioned because the Trinity paper was verifiable. But that's a shame isn't it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to be sarcastic. Yes it is a shame. I don't dispute the good work done by genealogists, and contrary to your attacks on me, I have nowhere said that we should not include genealogy on Wikipedia. I have said that we should concentrate on the subject at hand, that is the haplogroup. I have also said that we need to include reliable verifiable material. There may be a great deal of excellent information out there on many different subjects. There may be excellent original research going on online in the genealogical community. I applaud them for their hard work. Unfortunately this falls outside of the normal scientific and academic process. This doesn't mean that the work is valueless, but it might get ignored for some time. It also means that unless it gets published in a reliable source then it will remain relatively obscure. But at least what you say above is relevant to the actual science, that would be important to an article. The section about "famous members" is not equivalent is it? As I say, unless you are somehow going to suggest that their notability is connected with their membership of this haplogroup, then I don't see the relevance. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's focus on the issue. We agree that there is good work going on which is hard to cite. So instead of making statements about genealogy not being appropriate, let's try to find a way to avoid Wikipedia being distorted because of this. In some cases, I have suggested, resources such as SMGF already give what I think is a tolerable work-around. You never really comment on that in detail. In other cases, I have tried not to cite Surname projects alone, but also the E-M35 phylogeny project, which is outside of the self-published category (it has more than 1000 members, with the active ones all being project admins). I accept however that citing statements made on its message boards is not quite where we want to get to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that genealogy is "not appropriate"? A genealogy section would discuss genealogy, and not famous people. I don't think it's correct to claim a famous people section is anything to do with genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families, and not the study of famous people. If the article wants to have a genealogy section, then well and good, but it should then discuss how SNPs are used in genealogy research, and not famous people who may or may not have been members of that group. I think that's obvious. What I did say is that haplogroups are not generally used in genealogical research because they apply to deep ancestry and not recent familial ancestry. But anyone who's ever looked into this should know that. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

--

BTW Andrew, why do you think anyone would edit war about this? I'm not impressed with this trivia section, but I haven't attempted to remove it from the article, and I wouldn't unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Alun (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has had turbulent periods to get to where it is. Call me nervous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that the views of genealogists should be discounted, but if their findings are to be quoted in a Wikipedia article then they have to be published, and publishing is something which unfortunately most genealogists don't seem to consider. Even if the people discussing the results of academic papers understand the subject better than the scientists, if no one goes to the trouble of distilling and publishing the comments, perhaps by writing a letter to the journal concerned, then those comments can't be referenced. You need someone to make the editorial judgement to decide which viewpoint to accept, which is the whole point of the peer review process. Otherwise someone can selectively quote from a Forum discussion to promote a particular minority viewpoint. With regards to the question of whether or not this section is encyclopaedic, I think this should really be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History. In their article guidelines they are currently recommending that such a section should be included in haplogroup articles. I personally think that a famous people section is useful and interesting to the general reader (not everyone who reads Wikipedia is a scientist), but it would be preferable to have a simple list, backed up by appropriate references. If the references existed there should be no need for the long explanations which we currently have here. Articles on towns and cities include a section on notable residents, and school articles have a section on notable alumni. When the numbers get too big they usually get broken out into a separate page as a list. I don't see why haplogroup articles couldn't follow the same format. That's only my view. The decision has to be decided by consensus. Dahliarose (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've written that quite well. To repeat: I do see the problems. (When I was making the section I asked at least a few surname project admins if they could take steps to make themselves more citable by the way.) My suggestion is that for now concerning this article some caution be observed. If deletions be done (if really necessary) please do it carefully and with good explanations about what was lacking in the sources. Some of these cases are better sourced than others, and in some cases a good faith criticism might actually lead to a nice patch. But I think that it is more important to talk at Wikiproject level, and with JOGG and ISOGG about how to create a way of dealing with this more general challenge. (I think problem is not a perfect word.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think we need a proper explanation about how it's relevant. I don't see this as analogous to school articles having a notable alumni section, or towns or cities having a notable residents section. When a person grows up in a town, or attends a school, that experience is something that molds their character and personality. It is something they are aware of, and something they may be very proud of. It might even be something they say is directly responsible for their attaining notability. e.g. "I couldn't have achieved this success if I hadn't attended such and such school" etc. But member ship of a Y chromosome haplogorup is not analogous to that. These peopel are not closely related to each other, and they are were not aware that they belonged to this group. I agree with Dahliarose, a simple list would suffice. We should really see how much consensus there is for a change to a simple list. So far two of us think a simple list and one thinks we should discuss these people in depth. Lets see if anyone else has any thoughts. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to get more comments on these topics. I must say I very happy to see two new voices on this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The format of the famous people section really needs to be discussed on the main project page not here. I see Andrew has raised the topic there and I've also added a comment. I've discovered that there is a List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. I suggest that it might be more appropriate to move the famous people content into that list for now, with a link to the list in the "See also" section. Then at least the content is not lost and the integrity of this article can be maintained. Would that be acceptable? If the references can be found then it would be a simple matter to add a short referenced list of famous people. Dahliarose (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view I am open to pretty much anything on this subject, despite my having taken up the devil's advocate position. I got involved in this subject because people aware of the article kept pointing out that the famous people section was missing, so to speak. I have some interest in the subject, but concerning whether it belongs in a Wikipedia article I can just state the case, and I know it has some weak spots.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dahliarose's suggestion. From my point of view membership of this haplogroup might be something interesting about a famous person, but the famous person is not something interesting about the haplogroup. I also don't think genealogy is the study of famous people, I think it's the study of families, so Im not sure of the connection between genealogy and a famous people section. Alun (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)