Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New edits

A few basic points:

1. M35 is an example of an SNP name. E-M35 is an example of a clade name. While I can understand that earlier versions of the article had this wrong, because it is not that hard to understand, and complex to fix, why on earth would Causteau spend so much time de-correcting this?

2. Causteau has also gone to special efforts to re-label a newly discovered clade/SNP in a way which is clearly inconsistent with the naming system being used in this article and being used generally now, which is to name a clade by using the SNP (e.g. E-M35) when there is any risk of confusion by using the other method, which is clearly the case with M293.

3. Causteau also changed the text with a comment as follows: "no mention of 'sub-Saharan M35' in the paper or on Dienekes' blog". I'd like to point out that the title of the article itself, just for starters, mentions "Tanzania to southern Africa". In other places "southern Africa" is mentioned simply and the map shows southern Africa, quite clearly, all of it below the Sahara.

4. Then we have this monstrous sentence which, apart from the unnecessary and wrong terminological changes has lost its way and now treats a "polymorphism" as a "sub-clade":

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

...to...

The fourth major sub-clade of M35 to be announced is M293 (Henn et. al. 2008), a polymorphism which reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1. M35 is an example of an SNP name. E-M35 is an example of a clade name. While I can understand that earlier versions of the article had this wrong, because it is not that hard to understand, and complex to fix, why on earth would Causteau spend so much time de-correcting this?

I really don't see the point in Lancaster's griping here since SNPs are often used in place of clade names as a quick means of identification. E1b1b1 simply becomes M35 when pressed for time. If this is such a concern to him, then why not simply name the clade as it is labeled by most official sources i.e. by its actual name of E1b1b1 rather than the far less common E-M35? Causteau (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference you give above does not say what you say it says. Nor does any other. In any case if this is not important, why have you now done so many reverts? I think it is just your usual problem that you feel possessive and annoyed about any edits. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Then I'd be interested to learn why the authoritative ISOGG website that you yourself have liberally quoted from in the past cites E1b1b1 as the clade name and M35 as the SNP? Where exactly on the page does it list E-M35? I'll tell you: nowhere because it is not the primary name for the haplogroup. Causteau (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We both know that E-M35 is a widely used name, as already mentioned in the article, but now you are changing the subject. The question is whether M-35 is a clade name anywhere. It is not. E-M35 is. Are you seriously saying that you don't see that in the references? How far do you want to take that claim? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Lancaster. I am not suggesting that M35 is a clade name. Please do not put words in my mouth. I quite clearly wrote that many use it in that way as "a quick means of identification". I know you know this because you just acknowledged as much in an earlier post of yours. In any case, it doesn't matter because I've replaced M35, M215 and all other instances in the text that use SNPs in place of clade names with the actual clade names used most frequently by official sources such as ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, etc. i.e. the E1b1b/E3b-type nomenclature. Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the issue is simple: you reverted an edit which used the term E-M35 as a clade name. So, first, please justify that revert. Stop changing the subject. The subject is that you have done two reverts and refuse to justify them. Second, I deny saying that M35 is anything other than a casual abbreviation. So give a reference for M35 being a valid form of clade name. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And by the way here are some of your insistent reverts which show that you think M35 is a clade name, and a better clade name than E-M35...

I had...

The fourth major sub-clade of E-M35 to be announced is E-M293, in Henn et. al. (2008)

...you reverted to...

The fourth major sub-clade of M35 to be announced is M293 (Henn et. al. 2008)

I had...

E-M78 is by far the most common sub-clade of E1b1b in Europe

...you reverted to...

M78 is by far the most common sub-clade of E1b1b in Europe

I had...

sub-clade of E-M35 is E-M123

...you reverted to...

sub-clade of M35 is M123

These are simply wrong changes. You've made no attempt to explain them, and you would not be able to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are living in the past, my friend. The page as it stands does not state any of those things you cite above. It now states the actual, primary clade names, something I told you I would see to in my post on this talk page dated 12:20, 22 August 2008, an edit which you yourself approved in your own post dated 12:55, 22 August 2008. You are complaining about nothing, and you know it. Causteau (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What? This discussion started because of your reverts. The above are just given as example. Your reverts and edits have consistently been attempting for some time to replace E-M35 type nomenclature with M35, i.e. for clade names. The article still contains many references with the less preferable reference, but to the extent it does not this is only because I have been reversing your work. In this discussion, as I would understand it, you are still arguing that you were right. If that is not the case, then state that clearly please!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The above are an example of what the page looked like before I fixed it in this edit which you yourself approved in your talk page post dated 12:55, 22 August 2008. There are no more SNPs cited in place of clade names. I saw to it that there weren't and replaced them all with the dominant E1b1b nomenclature from ISOGG and other official sources. I don't see why this all of a sudden troubles you since it is the primary name for the clade and you did very clearly approve the edit in your earlier comment dated 12:55, 22 August 2008. Causteau (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what "approval" you are talking about. Look, the aim is to make the article better. So all I need to know is whether you can accept that E-M35, for example, is preferable as a clade name to M35. Just answer, and then stop reverting anyone who improves the page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since every instance in the article of an SNP being cited in place of a clade name has already been corrected by me as you are already well aware. Causteau (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As fas as I know, I have the right to edit this article whereever I think it can be improved. If you are busy deleting things, those deletions may be reversed unless you can explain them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Causteau has also gone to special efforts to re-label a newly discovered clade/SNP in a way which is clearly inconsistent with the naming system being used in this article and being used generally now, which is to name a clade by using the SNP (e.g. E-M35) when there is any risk of confusion by using the other method, which is clearly the case with M293.

Untrue. I have not gone through any "special efforts" of any kind other than to label the new clade as it is labeled by the study itself, namely, as E3b1f-M293. Please click the link above and see for yourself that this is the case. Causteau (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Special efforts like reverts? Again, you seem to find reverting so "normal". Concerning the name you are insisting upon not being compatible with the naming in the article as it now stands, is there truly any doubt? The article you refer to uses "E3b" to mean something other than what the Wikipedia article means. Furthermore, it proposes a sub-clade name "f" which is already reserved. But both these problems are only a result of timing: both E3b had been made obsolete, and f had been reserved during the period this article would have been in peer review. But surely this is just obvious. However it will not be obvious to people who see your edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The "article", as you put it, that I cite is in fact the exact same study by Henn et al. (2008) that you yourself referenced. In all honesty, it does not matter what you write here since people can see for themselves in the link above that the study quite clearly states E3b1f-M293. If for whatever reason that troubles you, perhaps you should take it up with the paper's authors. Causteau (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the issue entirely. The authors have defined a clade which exhibits the SNP called M293. By normal convention used by them and others, such a clade can be named E-M293, and this is especially the convention taken when there is any possible confusion. The fact that their article came out after some big changes in terminology mean that there is such possible confusion. Your insisting on combining incompatible naming systems has no basis, because naming systems are intended to do the opposite. (And by the way there is no official rule which means we have to accept the naming in any particular paper.) According to the naming system in the Wikipedia article you are changing, E3b1f would be a distant cousin of E1b1b and not a sub-clade at all. Furthermore the Wikipedia article already defines another "f" sub-clade under M35, defined by P72.

Oh, I see the point alright. You'd rather we replace what the study does actually state as the name for the haplogroup (E3b1f-M293) with a name of your own choosing that isn't even once cited in the paper. Well I'm afraid we can't do that since that is the very definition of original research. Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The name in the article is out of date according to the same norms which it uses, and it does not therefore fit in this Wikipedia article, which is more up to date. Simple. If you want to refer to the name in the wikipedia article with an explanaiton about why the name does not fit the system in the rest of the article, that would be silly, but I'd have no complaint beyond that. Just don't make this article wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I see you did yet another mass revert, although you have no response to the above. Let me put it more clearly, mostly for the sake of others, because you already know the following:

The source for preferring E1b1b1 as the preferred name for the clade defined by M35 in the Wikipedia article is the introduction of the article itself, which cites Karafet and ISOGG. The source for E3b1 in Henn 2008 being this same clade, is Henn 2008, which is cited. For sources where this is also called E-M35, just look through the references and the article as it stood, but especially see Cruciani and Karafet - both of which are in the references and clearly cited as sources. For sources where the 6th "f" sub-clade name under E-M35 is reserved for SNP P72, see Karafet, which is already cited and now explained in detail in what you reverted away from. In addition, what you now wanted to remove was a new comment I added which even now explained the potential confusion and the exact name used in the Henn article and how it should be compared to the other references. If you do not address this very tight chain of referencing, and you insist on reverting as if you have, then expect to be re-reverted every time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is exactly one source in the reference section which cites the E-M35 nomenclature first. All the others, just like official sources, Family Tree DNA, and just about every other official source cite the E1b1b/E3b nomenclatures -- the Henn study included. There is no way around this, nor a way around the fact that you wish to replace this primary nomenclature with an E-M293 that is not once mentioned in the Henn source which identified E3b1f-M293's new polymorphism to begin with! Causteau (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all the articles use the E-M35 or E-M293 type of nomenclature at some point. So what if one or two do not? On the other hand whether this is preferable to E1b1b1 is not the point, because the Wikipedia articles uses both, as it should, and as the literature does. Nobody is debating that. The question we must discuss, concerning your reverts and edits, is whether M35 on its own is a clade name. It is not. Address this in a clear way or cease.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

At some point? I don't think so. They almost exclusively cite the primary name for the haplogroup starting from their very titles, which is almost invariably the dominant E1b1b nomenclature. You are trying so hard to turn back the clock with this whole M35 thing, when it has already been discussed, resolved and even approved by none other than yourself in your own post on this talk page dated 12:55, 22 August 2008. The article as it now stands only features the dominant E1b1b nomenclature as ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, and most other official sources do. Causteau (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no agreement between us on this. The Wikipedia article has used the E-M35 terminology for clades, and if you've removed that then this is just wrong and I'll revert it. I am a member of ISOGG, and am aware of the thinking of many people in this area. I can tell you for sure that you are totally wrong. E1b1b is the current attempt to maintain the old "family tree" style notation and I had agreed to keep that as the title of the Wikipedia article. The volunteer project involved in studying this clade changed its name to E-M35 a few months ago. Cruciani, the main author cited, uses this style of terminology very often, for example even in the headings of his articles. You have no right to remove important information from an article like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Given your past edits and your surly behavior, I'm more inclined to believe that you are a member of Egyptsearch than ISOGG. I don't give two hoots about your personal assurances and neither does Elonka. Remember, she specified we source our material, and your assertions above and elsewhere are still predictably unsourced. And I have every right to remove unsourced material as Elonka herself has made in clear in her guideline #3 posted yesterday: # Keep the actual article edits, source-based. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, any unsourced information can be removed. So in other words, citations are essential. Causteau (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything I have written is sourced and where several sources are needed to understand the test, this is explained. I don't know what your obsession is with Egyptsearch, but in any case I don't even know what it. I am not interested in it. The subject now is apparently whether the article can be made better by removing reference to a naming system used by the chief authors in this field - as you admit that they do. This isn't a discussion about sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made no such "admission". Kindly stop stating your wishes as fact. Above, you're exploiting the fact that I'm discussing your very much unsourced previous edits by stating that what you have now written is sourced in reference to your latest edit! Incredible. See below for a discussion of that edit. Causteau (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to admit anything. It doesn't matter if you shout "un-sourced" everytime you delete something. In the end it actually has to be true. If you keep deleting material, expect reactions. You have no magic powers. I am not surprised that you find it strange and disappointing that I keep trying to edit the article in small ways aimed to please you. That's your normal way. You think it is a competition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Causteau also changed the text with a comment as follows: "no mention of 'sub-Saharan M35' in the paper or on Dienekes' blog". I'd like to point out that the title of the article itself, just for starters, mentions "Tanzania to southern Africa". In other places "southern Africa" is mentioned simply and the map shows southern Africa, quite clearly, all of it below the Sahara.

The study itself does not once mention "sub-Saharan M35", which is exactly what Lancaster wrote. This is why he is unable to produce a quote from it that describes M35 in such a way. What the study does actually mention is that "this polymorphism reveals a monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of a previously paraphyletic clade, E3b1-M35*" -- virtually identical to my paraphrase: "a polymorphism which reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade." Causteau (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So your concern is that you think there is a big difference between sub-Saharan Africa and southern Africa? Then why does your edit in no way reflect this concern? That your quote is literal is not important. The question is why you removed information wrongly. More about this sentence though below... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just like I expected. You can't prove that the study labels M35 as "sub-Saharan" as you've done in your own edit so you attempt to drag this conversation into petty semantics. Look, anyone with a modicum of commonsense knows that the term "sub-Saharan" implies a lot more than just geography. It also has a racial connotation, a connotation which, like it or not, is implied nowhere in the study. Causteau (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, if this is a big issue for someone (which would surprise me) I would have absolutely no objection to changing "sub-Saharan" to "southern" which is the exact word used in the article, and which, in the context of the article means the same thing. You did not do that. You simply deleted it. How do you explain yourself? What exactly is the difference? (On the other hand, southern Africa is a less clear term. The article includes Tanzania in it, but not everyone would.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on stating things that are so blatantly untrue? Are you so naive as to think that I won't investigate your claims? Get this straight: I did not delete any reference to "southern" anything, as this link very clearly indicates. That reference to southern Africa is still in the article. What I did do, as I've painstakingly explained above, is replace your ambiguous and unsupported assertion of a "sub-Saharan M35" with a paraphrase issued directly from the study. You then correctly pointed out that the paraphrase erroneously identified a clade as a polymorphism rather than something defined by one, so I modified my edit to better reflect what the source does actually state as explained above. And now you want to bring things back to square one? Gimme a break. Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me just repeat the exact quote of the change you made, as I have already done...

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

...to...

The fourth major sub-clade of M35 to be announced is M293 (Henn et. al. 2008), a polymorphism which reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to repeat it if you must, but that won't change the fact that I long ago fixed that quote and with your own approval (see your post on this talk page dated 12:55, 22 August 2008) to: The fourth major sub-clade of E1b1b1 to be announced is E3b1f-M293 (Henn et. al. 2008), which is defined by a polymorphism that reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade.. What now? Causteau (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The question I raised above under this point, number 3, was the removal of information, specifically concerning the geographical area where the clade is found. You still have not justified this. I don't think you ever even thought about. Things like this just happen when you do full reverts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just getting pathetic. How many times must I repeat to you that "sub-Saharan M35" is not once mentioned in the Henn study. How many times must I re-iterate that the term "sub-Saharan" implies a lot more than mere geography? That it also has a racial connotation that is not implied let alone stated in the Henn study? "Sub-Saharan M35", as a Google search readily proves, is the stuff of Afrocentric websites such as this thread on Egyptsearch. No one else makes that mistake except Afrocentrists. Causteau (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And how many times have I said that if you want to use another term for the same thing, such as southern Africa, you are welcome. The point is that you have no right to remove information from an article like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you officially have no point per Elonka's guideline #3 posted yesterday: # Keep the actual article edits, source-based. Your "sub-Saharan" M35 is not sourced, and there is no way around this. Causteau (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. This has nothing to do with Elonka's point 3. It is concerning the removal of correct and well-sourced information for no reason. Do you need me to look up Wikipedia recommendations to prove to you that this is out of order? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Much as I'm sure you wish it had nothing to do with Elonka's point #3, the fact that the Henn study never once describes M-35 much less E-M35 as "sub-Saharan" as you've inserted into the text, coupled with your choosing to cite E-M293 as the name of the clade although the Henn source very clearly names it E3b1f-M293 and not as E-M293, makes it very relevant to the issue at hand. In fact, this is the entire issue! Causteau (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just refer to my entry on this page 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC). That settles it as far as I can see. If you really claim that there is no source in our references for referring to subclades of E by using the haplogroup name and then the SNP name, then I'll be surprised. The Henn article tells us the name of the SNP, and which SNP it is "under".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Yet another straw man argument. Look, do you want to resolve this thing or what? Or are you just interested in playing little mind games and talking about another subject when we're very clearly discussing an entirely different topic above? No Lancaster; I am not claiming sub-clades of E anything (who the hell mentioned the parent clade???). The Henn study cites E3b1f-M293 -- it doesn't even so much as once cite E-M293. I know because this because I own the entire study, and I could post it online any time for others to verify for themselves that this is the case, capish? Causteau (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

E-"x" is a standard way of naming any clade of E defined by an SNP "x". Yes or no? Does Henn et al name the SNP as M293? Does Henn et al not make it clear that M293 defines a subclade under E-M35? Good sourcing does not always mean that exact wording is better than wording which is adjusted to be compatible with the context in the article. And this case is an extreme case where the exact wording simply can not be dropped in to the Wikipedia article without causing errors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Then we have this monstrous sentence which, apart from the unnecessary and wrong terminological changes has lost its way and now treats a "polymorphism" as a "sub-clade": :The fourth major sub-clade of E-M35 to be announced is E-M293, in Henn et. al. (2008) which is claimed to include a majority of sub-Saharan E-M35. ...to... :The fourth major sub-clade of M35 to be announced is M293 (Henn et. al. 2008), a polymorphism which reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade.

Again, SNPs are often used as a quick way of identifying a clade. If this is a problem (though I don't see why it should be), then by all means, name the clade (E1b1b/E3b) as it is named by most official sources (i.e. E1b1b/E3b). What's more, my phrase ("a polymorphism which reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade") is, again, a direct paraphrase of the actual study, unlike Lancaster's famous "sub-Saharan M35". Causteau (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick way yes, but if someone goes to the efforts of making this more precise what possible justification to you have for reverting that effort and making the article more wrong, and less right? As in the past you seem to feel no problem with that. Secondly you have not addressed the fact that the composite sentence you have now created is now hard to follow and simply wrong. A polymorphism is not a clade. A polymorphism can be used to define a clade.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So you take exception to this too, eh? No problem. As I've anticipated above, the thing to then do is to "name the clade (E1b1b/E3b) as it is named by most official sources (i.e. E1b1b/E3b)." You are, however, right about a polymorphism not being a clade like that one sentence in my edit erroneously implies it is. I've now adjusted that line to read: The fourth major sub-clade of E1b1b1 to be announced is E3b1f-M293 (Henn et. al. 2008), which is defined by a polymorphism that reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of the E1b1b1* clade. -- a direct paraphrase of the study. Causteau (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is fixing at least one problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime Causteau, you have now once again started an edit war: reverting edits, and then reverting the reversion. And this despite the fact that your own defense, as above, does not deny that the reversions make no improvements, and might even make the article worse. Can I please suggest that you go out and get some webspace and make your own personal webpage about this subject? Wikipedia does not belong to you. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... sure pal. Only in your lonely planet does it take one person to start an "edit war" (which, last I checked, involved several reverts over a 24 hour period -- not a couple of days). I've also not once mentioned that my "reversions make no improvements". That's your wishful-thinking speaking and a blatant straw man argument. I've done quite the opposite, actually: I've provided direct links to the study itself and other places to prove you wrong. It's not a question of "belonging" either; and let me just say that if you harbor that kind of cynical mentality regarding other editors that have the audacity to modify edits you've made which they know to be unsatisfactory (or, as in the case above with "sub-Saharan M35", unsupported), then perhaps it is you who should start looking elsewhere for a means of expression. Causteau (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So now you are going to haggle over the definition of edit war? How pointless! Your first revert is recorded at 12:59, 18 August 2008. I reversed that and started a discussion 10:05, 21 August 2008. Then your second is at 02:41, 22 August 2008. Shall we call it an edit skirmish? The point is that you are blocking other people from working on this page. The only reason there are not faster reverts happening is because others know what happens if they edit. Concerning the number of people to make a war, please note that I am in correspondence with a lot of people who send me suggestions, but would rather not go through all this extra struggle. Several of us do have other outlets online, some of which link to here. Our main aim is to have a properly written article we can refer people to on this subject. Your current edits make it simply wrong, mostly in small ways, but nevertheless, in quite straightforward ways which are avoidable, and were avoided by the versions you reverted from.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL You are something, you know that Lancaster? You label the talk page discussion heading "New Causteau edits" in a transparent attempt at painting me as some sort of serial vandal, adopt a hostile tone from the get-go, are as condescending as ever, accuse me of initiating a revert war (as if it takes one person to engage in 'em), and then feign disbelief at the alleged pointlessness of my taking exception to your behavior. I will say, however, that I am extremely glad that you posted that last remark: "several of us do have other outlets online, some of which link to here. Our main aim is to have a properly written article we can refer people to on this subject". With that one couplet, you've just confirmed all that I've suspected about your edits. Do yourself a favor and read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:TIGERS policies. And be sure to let your vested buddies at those "other outlets online" (I wonder what those might be?) also get a good look at them. Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau is the only name I can refer to, while you have my full name. When you write ad hominim, as above, this is in no way justified just because I have referred to you as Causteau. I have no idea what you are trying to imply in the rest of your ramble, so why not say it more directly? Do you think the directives you refer to mean that we should keep our wikipedia activity secret? Do you think there is a secret cabal of E3b enthusiasts with a plan to take over the world? Like I said, there is a problem on this article and it is a simple social one: you block people and you are offensive. You justify yourself on an emotional basis, because you feel a sense of possession about this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. I'm not the one writing ad hominem here. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. You initiated this talk page discussion on the wrong foot by first naming the entire thread after my "new" edits in a juvenile and nauseatingly transparent attempt at stacking the deck. You've also consistently commented on the contributor rather than the content because the actual content (i.e. the Henn study) doesn't support a thing you say. It doesn't once mention "sub-Saharan M35". It labels the clade with the new polymorphism as E3b1f-M293 and not E-M293 as you've attempted to insert into the text. I've made this very clear in my edits above and through my liberal linking to sources. It's you that has engaged in cheap personal attacks in a futile attempt at either intimidating or unnerving me, but it's all for naught. I'm here to stay because you are dead wrong on this issue. Get used to it. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, everything has been explained more than once. You refuse to address the facts. You are in the same silly situation you have been before where you can not justify your knee jerk reverts, and you are trying to think of a way to explain all the stupid extra debate you put people through whenever they want to improve this article. Respond above, to the discussion I originally started after your first knee krek revert in this series. No other approach is justifiable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So that's your great comeback? More opionions no facts, eh? I don't have to "try" and explain anything, the links to the Henn study and other official sources as well as time stamps more than do the job for me. I know this bugs you Lancaster, but the sources really aren't and never have been on your side. Causteau (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to do full reverts and then not discuss them, then no, the problem is yours. The onus is on you. I'm making a lot of effort just to be "allowed" to edit on this page. I explain everything 2 or 3 times before you let things pass, as I have now done once again. See above and below. Save yourself a lot of effort and just stick to the facts. Stop trying to use pseudo legal arguments to "win" (a word you frequently use)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

No Lancaster. The onus is on you to prove that the Henn study labels M35 as "sub-Saharan" or E3b1f-M293 as E-M293. We both know it does neither, so quit trying to forcibly insert your POV into the article. Elonka and Wiki policies have made it very clear that unsourced material cannot stand. Try and respect that. Causteau (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well no. Let's update things. I explained long ago that I had simply equated the paper's "southern Africa" with "sub Saharan" and that I was not insisting on that. I long ago suggested a compromise, using the article's term, though I don't see a big problem. You have been trying to revert that compromise as recently as a few minutes ago. Here is what you wish to delete:

A fourth major sub-clade of E1b1b1 to be announced (Henn et. al. 2008) is defined by M293, an SNP or polymorphism that has been found in Southern Africa, and is thought by the authors to include the majority of M35 lines which do not have M78, M81 or M123.

...and...

This sub-clade is associated by the authors who announced it with the spread of pastoralism into Southern Africa. See Henn et. al. (2008). The authors referred to this sub-clade with the proposed name E3b1f. But this name was already out of date by the time the article was published because E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1, the clade defined by SNP M35, and also because the sub-clade under E-M35 with the name "f" had already been proposed in Karafet 2008, for SNP P72.

I predict that you'll not explain your opposition to this. You'll change subject, and keep messing around trying to "win".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That edit you've cited above is the one you just tried to forcibly insert into the text without even so much as once discussing it with me here on this talk page. Now that you have finally decided to do so, there's no problem with this edit other than the fact that you've chosen to name E1b1b as E-M35 although the article is very clearly titled E1b1b and references to E1b1b abound in both the article and the scientific literature since it is the primary nomenclature for the haplogroup per ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, and just about every other official source. The edit should therefore read: This sub-clade is associated by the authors who announced it with the spread of pastoralism into Southern Africa. See Henn et. al. (2008). The authors referred to this sub-clade with the proposed name E3b1f. But this name was already out of date by the time the article was published because E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1, the clade defined by SNP M35, and also because the sub-clade under E1b1b with the name "f" had already been proposed in Karafet 2008, for SNP P72. Also note, however, that a lot of the above reads like synthesis, as there isn't one source cited which supports that entire assertion. Causteau (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, ignoring your obligatory last sentence to put in some legalistic-sounding inuendo, that is fixed, and gee, it looks like you did not even read what you were trying to delete! And yet, strange, you tried to delete it again just a few minutes ago. What a surprise. Here's an idea: go through the article and find real problems, if there are any, and then discuss them here before making wholesale blind reverts "on principle". I am going to start a new section below for you to respond to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange! You just tried to delete it again even though you now admit it is basically OK. But then you wouldn't see it that way. You would say to yourself that you were only deleting some improvements as part of a full revert, which is a much easier way of working. How about you just home in on real problems and - shock idea - maybe try to avoid using full reverts as your normal mode of editing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL You did a full revert. You didn't implement any of the changes I recommended above for only one of the paragraphs you quoted. You just hit the "undo" button as I indeed expected. The other paragraph you quoted above I said was okay. However, your edit modifies a lot more than two paragraphs. I've now implemented the necessary changes since you didn't yourself, including the name for the clade the Henn source does actually state. Causteau (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, with great reluctance, I have been only fully reverting your full reverts. But I have not intentionally done that to any more refined editting work. Did I do it accidentally? I think if you analyze all our debates it is always the same: you want to start by full reverts and then discuss. I have never given you problems with normal style editing, and I've often let in text I did not like. We could both save a lot of effort if you would just stop seeing full reverts as the normal way of editting whenever someone makes a few changes and you develop a few doubts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could save a lot of time and headache if you would just cite things that are properly sourced from the get-go and not just insert things that you wish to see featured in the article regardless of whether or not those things are referenced. Editing indeed needn't be that difficult. Causteau (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, we can start a discussion about anything being added which is unsourced as so as you explain an example. At the moment, even the petty examples you made so much trouble about have been fixed to the point of stupidity. So let's not worry too much about problems we don't have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't debate with IPs, Lancaster, especially when I know them to have real accounts. Causteau (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You left at least one un-signed message also today. Gee, I wish I had taken the chance to make a real big point about it! That would have been so good for the discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's utter bull, as a visit to both this talk page's history page and the main article history page more than prove. That second 81.241.55.117 IP (along with the 217.136.97.176 IP) is yours -- not mine. Gawd, was is it with you anyway and the truth? Causteau (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you accidentally seperated some paragraphs so I did not see the signature, but I do think I saw one today. Anyway, you've certainly done it in the past. I don't think it is good if I make errors, or if you do, but to be honest I think you are looking for things to complain about, and not focussing on the quality of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, for best results, please keep discussions focused on the article, and not on other editors. Try to speak in the third person, avoid the words "you" and "your". And to really look good, consider going back and reviewing previous comments, and refactor/remove anything which was not directly related to the article. --Elonka 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a dilemma. Causteau has changed the subject away, as always, from what is best for the article. In this case it is concerning unsigned comments on the discussion page. I know he has done them many times. Do I now go and make a big study of it? Well, why would I? The real problem is that Causteau changes the subject in this way to subject which are purely concerning his personally "winning" or loosing. How does Causteau explain his sudden passion on this subject?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My "sudden passion" on this subject might have something to do with the fact that I take exception to people who do not know how to play fair. People who have no compunction about using using IPs to create the illusion of multiplicity, who tell blatant untruths about their interlocutor using IPs when called on it, who try and insult their way into submission, who will continue to insist that they have not inserted something into the text when they are literally quoted as having done just that, etc. Things like that are quite annoying, no doubt. Causteau (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So these were revenge edits. By the way, what on earth do you mean by "using IPs to create the illusion of multiplicity?" I think you should explain. Isn't this another innuendo thing? It is particularly strange, because there is no pretence that there are any more than two of us plus Elonka in this conversation??? So which IP multiplicity could an evil plotter be accused of having created even? Aren't you going a little far with your conspiracy theories? Do you really think there are secret cabals interested in a Y haplotype? By the way, you work under a special name, while anyone can Google my name and check my E3b interest. I am a genealogist who is E3b, and I participate in study into the haplogroup and administer projects. Not that I should have tell someone that in order to get an edit allowed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Certain editors unfortunately use proxies, Lancaster, and you're apparently one of them. It's funny how you persist in these lame ad hominem attacks when Elonka expressly forbade them. However, unfortunately for you this this time, I'm quite serious about reporting you. You've taken it one step too far, and for what? BTW, whatever happened to the story of your account "accidentally" timing out? Wait, nevermind. I think I've known all along. Causteau (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what are you talking about???? You'll report me for...? I use proxies in what way in a conversation between two people? I'll just focus on a formality I can understand for now though while you consider whether to go beyond vague innuendo: you shouldn't put things in quotes when claiming to explain someone elses explanation, unless someone used the words involved. It is a bit dishonest.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a hugely disingenuous move you pulled there, replacing that obvious unprovoked personal attack you posted under an anonymous IP address with that paragraph above you posted under your real account. Luckily, there is such a thing as difs, so your little stunt has been preserved for posterity and Elonka. Bravo. And next time we speak (God forbid), spare me the details of your life. Save that for someone who cares or might actually be impressed by it. Causteau (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing what you can pull off without even knowing it. I do not even quite know what you are accusing me of. Funnily enough I think we are both on record on this very discussion page, telling Elonka what our IP addresses were because both of us had posted a few responses without being logged in. Who cares though? The only really relevant thing I can perhaps say in reaction to what you write is that I've at least tried to be direct and clear. I have no concern about saying what I think in my own name, and your frequent complaints about that show that you know it and are not comfortable with it. What is your own name? I think that you produce a lot of innuendo, but in the end I can be googled. I am really not competing with you in whatever game you are playing. I just want you to stop full reverts and revenge edits and pettiness. In short: let other people edit this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I take back what I said about not caring about Lancaster's accomplished internet life. I am indeed impressed. His username/handle can be Googled. That right there automatically puts him head and shoulders in terms of ingenuity above 95% of Wikipedia editors who employ readily identifiable handles, no doubt. What doesn't is his insistence that I started the reverting. I did no such thing. Lancaster was the first to do a full revert of my modification of his initial flurry of edits. How's that for irony? Causteau (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I note in passing that your tone continues to be purely personal, and never directed towards the quality of the article. In response to your surprise, I wonder what your point is? Your surprise makes it clear that there is no basic disagreement about who out of the two of us normally does full reverts. Fact is that this particular revert of yours, the one I re-reverted, was not quite a full revert, but rather a revert over a group of edits. You left in the new reference for example. It was however blanket-like and cynical as we have seen from all your discussion about it. Anyway, I do not deny every having done a revert, and why on earth would this be of interest on this talk page? The aim we are supposed to have is making the article better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Will wonders never cease? Lancaster, in another one of his aggressive misrepresentations, feels that my tone is "purely personal, and never directed towards the quality of the article." Apparently, I'm the one that re-started this discussion with a personal attack. I'm the one that keeps writing in the first person when Elonka expressly recommended we write in the more impersonal third person. Lancaster also insists that this link to the history page does not reveal that he indeed made the first full revert that he keeps accusing me of having made, but that my modification and rewriting of his earlier flurry of edits somehow qualifies as a full revert itself! Causteau (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Next round

I wish to note that Causteau's newest reversions are deceptively annotated. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&diff=233698718&oldid=233624654 They imply that the only change being made is a reversion away from new materials which are un-sourced, and that they reflect edits being made about a topic Causteau is willing to discuss on the discussion page. In fact, as usual with Causteau, this was another block revert: even changing back small edits. As explained above to Elonka in detail, it could even be argued that when looked at in detail Causteau has not questioned any single point of fact, nor of citation. Causteau implies that there is new unsourced material, but examination of Causteau's explanations contain no definition of any unsourced material. Also please note that efforts at discussion have already been attempted and Causteau is not open to them, except as a way of winning influence over the article. Therefore I have re-reverted. If Causteau wants to make changes in details, normal edits, then this can be done without make mass reverts which remove many uncontroversial improvements. I am open to any form of dispute resolution people propose within reason, but I want to make my reasoning clear because for now the Causteau blind reverts will be treated by me as vandalism. I do not apologize for referring to this as a concern with a particular editor, because that is what it is. After examination of the editing record it is Causteau does mass reverts frequently, and is prone to using any argument available to defend them. Causteau frequently uses turf war terminology in complaining about other people's edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka: Before I begin, I would like to draw your attention to the name Lancaster has chosen for this heading, a heading which quite blatantly violates the very sound recommendations you presented earlier and also once again runs afoul of Wikipedia's mandate to comment on the content and not on the contributor. Yes, that was a very necessary revert on my part because as I was writing that long response above to Lancaster's earlier untruths, I visited the history page in search of difs to prove my point, and would you believe it, Lancaster had re-inserted the E-M293 that is not once mentioned in the study in question. He also modified a whole bunch of other things without bothering to discuss it first on this talk page nor having the decency to provide even so much as an editing rationale on the history page. If Lancaster wants to talk about questionable editing patterns, about folks not being amenable to reason or harboring ill intentions, it's very clear who is the winner in this department given his thoroughly unsourced handiwork, relentless incivility, and constant unilateral edits on this page alone. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, stop whining about winning and losing and justify your reversions. Forget everything else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm the one with the tacit policy of never explaining my edits as I make them on the history page. I'm the one that can't link to the Henn source itself for support. Hell truly has frozen over. Causteau (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your old tactic, apart from randomly referring to legalistic points such as policy concerning sourcing: when I give a clear answer you do not reply at that place, but rather you write something ad hominim elsewhere implying that I've never given an explanation. Just go to the place or places where I explain the references, and tell me if you see any gap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Intertested people, please check if we have agreement on the following

Causteau, can you in particular just give yes/no to the following? Ideally though, can some of the lurkers make their thoughts known? Then we know that anyone doing knee jerk reverts of edits can be judged on this basis concerning whether they are acting in the best interests of the article...

1. As a clade name, the format "E-M35" is acceptable and widely used, and also surperior and more correct, in comparison to the shorthand SNP name, "M35". yes/no.

2. The above naming system is generalizable, and intended to be so. Any clade or sub-clade of E can be named by the defining SNP, for example E-M293, E-V13 etc. yes/no

3. The clade defined by M35 is known as both E1b1b1 and E-M35, but E1b1b1 is a new version of the same naming system which used to give the name E3b1. yes/no

4. Henn's new article is about a sub-clade of E-M35, and it's E3b1 = more recent E1b1b1 = E-M35. yes/no.

If Causteau refuses to answer, then I think that is a clear indication of motives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sockpuppets, trolls, Afrocentrists, please come on down and show Lancaster support. He needs it because the Henn study does not support his naming of what it specifically labels E3b1f-M293 as E-M293. And I sincerely doubt your protestations can overrule Wikipedia's policy on sourcing or the administrator Elonka's directives above regarding verifiability.

All of the above is a straw man argument. The article does not list M35 as a clade name anywhere. Please have a look for yourself. It lists the primary name for the clades i.e. the E1b1b nomenclature as shown on ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, and most other official sources. It's this primary E1b1b nomenclature that Lancaster is for whatever reason trying to supplant with the much less popular E-M35 type nomenclature. He also wants to cite the E3b1f-M293 haplogroup -- which the Henn study in question specifically labels E3b1f-M293 -- as E-M293, although the Henn study doesn't once use that terminology. Causteau (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Everything is as clear as possible. Causteau, if you revert any edits from now on because they treat the answer to any of the above 4 questions as answered, then you know what to expect. Concerning other subjects, he E1b1b nomenclature is not in question, and neither is what Henn says. The E-M35 nomenclature always was in the article and it is standard. It has to be reinserted. You only removed it as part of your petty game. Thanks for your constructive attitude, not. --217.136.97.176 (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Causteau's response to this involved a new direction of discussion, and I think it must be dealt with separately. See the next section heading, wherein I have broken out the continuation...)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Innuendo and a disputed sentence

(I believe the following thread of discussion, started in response to the questions in the above section by Causteau, is something others should comment on. Is the use of innuendo appropriate, and is Causteau deliberately mis-reading a sentence? It is important because it is important to Causteau, who is throwing this stuff around in a so far successful attempt to control the article entirely, supposedly with the backing of an admin. If people tell me I am just in the wrong, fine.--Andrew Lancaster) (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd, Lancaster, that you log in and out of your account regularly, posting as an IP and whatnot. Where exactly are you logging off to I wonder? At any rate, if you ever feel the need to insert unsourced or just plain untrue material as in the famous case of "sub-Saharan E-M35", I shall of course be there to intervene, as any conscientious editor that values Wikipedia's sourcing policies would. My "petty game", as you of all people put it, is factually supported and backed by just about all official sources, no different then the E1b1b primary, dominant nomenclature for this haplogroup. I realize this pains you since you are quite clearly emotionally attached to this issue (viz. "It has to be reinserted"), but those are the facts. I thinks its high time I re-directed you to certain Wiki policies you are clearly in desperate need of: WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:TIGERS. Causteau (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a time-out on the log-in Causteau. Mystery solved. Just to repeat, I have never mentioned sub-Saharan E-M35, ever. Write about the facts, and stop using innuendo and dishonesty to try to "win".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have "never mentioned sub-Saharan E-M35, ever", eh? Very well. Then I must be imagining things when I see you trying to insert that very phrase ("sub-Saharan E-M35") into the article in this edit of yours (a phrase which you've repeatedly tried to re-insert into the text, actually). Causteau (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever even read what you post, or what people reply? Slow down! This is the second time you've read that passage just wrongly. You are citing a quote where I say that a sub-clade of E-M35 is sub-Saharan, i.e. M293. You are flat wrong, but also pig-headedly wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL I see. I "read" you wrong now. It's no longer a case of you having "never mentioned sub-Saharan E-M35", but of me not understanding your use of the term "sub-Saharan E-M35" which you did, as it turns out, mention in the following quote: The fourth major sub-clade of E-M35 to be announced is E-M293, in Henn et. al. (2008) which is claimed to include a majority of sub-Saharan E-M35. Just do us a favor already and spare us the mind games, k? It's, like, very insulting. Causteau (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the quote you keep mentioning. It says that there are M-35 people in sub-Saharan African. But that is not a controversial statement. It does not say that M-35 itself is associated with sub-Saharan Africa. It is a comment about the sub-clade of E-M35, E-M293. Do you really not see the difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the quote above does not say that "there are M35 people in sub-Saharan African". It quite clearly states "sub-Saharan M35" -- it labels M35 itself as sub-Saharan, which is a huge difference and a major statement that Henn herself never makes. Causteau (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that M-35 is sub-Saharan.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it most definitely does while Henn's study most definitely does not. Causteau (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I said a sub-clade of M-35 is in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically E-M293. So does the article. If you really do not understand that by now, I do not know what I or anyone else can do to communicate with you while you remain in this state.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You quite clearly said "sub-Saharan E-M35". And please, just let it go already. It's futile. Anyone with eyes can see exactly what you inserted into the text. Causteau (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(In reference to the "let it go" by the way, I should perhaps point out that in fact Causteau has written continuously, even in a a post a few moments ago, and in a series of postings asking an admin to intervene on this behalf, indicating that this exact sentence under discussion above is his main or perhaps his only evidence for "unsourced" comments having been in my edits, and in turn I think that the claim that I make edits with unsourced comments is in turn his basis for nearly every editing actions of his or mine which are in dispute.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit here is the sentence which Causteau describes as famous, and infamous, and racist...

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

According to Causteau his sentence states clearly that M-35, all M-35, is African. Does it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New idea: attack the E-M35 nomenclature

Causteau has a new type of edit. Instead of full reverts he has a new edit he is pushing which can be described simply as the full removal of all reference to the E-M35 type of haplogroup nomenclature. This is totally unacceptable and Causteau has never presented any argument for this. Indeed he has implied that any doubts raised about his understanding that such nomenclature is common and accepted in the literature have been referred to as "straw man" arguments.

This is the nomenclature used for example in the main author in the literature, Cruciani. The only vague comments he gives to justify this above indicate that he sees this as a sort of tactical move to fight the efforts of a secret clique who are trying to change the way people talk about haplogroups, away from E1b1b to E-M35 for example.

I propose that the article should for the time being make sure that it includes both formats, as it did before, because both are very widely used. I consider Causteau's edits as something similar in spirit to his full reverts, and I will be editing against this policy unless he comes up with at some sort of argument that he is not deliberately making the article worse as some kind of petty revenge, which is quite honestly what it looks like. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No... what is a straw man argument is how Lancaster consistently misrepresents the situation because things are not going his way. Note how he had to start an entirely new section to address this apparently "new" issue. Would you like to know why that really is? It's because the allegedly "well-intentioned" Lancaster just posted material and reverted the article under an anonymous IP address to create the illusion that he is many people and not just one. How's that for disingenuous?

This new section allows Lancaster to push back from view my response to the exact same issue he raised in the previous section, which he also labeled after me (pretty lame attempt at stacking the deck, IMO). There's nothing new proposed here. Lancaster claims that the E-M35 type nomenclature is the main naming system used by one lone researcher, Cruciani. Trouble is, that's bollocks. Cruciani only used that nomenclature in two of his studies whereas he used the primary E3b/E1b1b-type nomenclature in several of his other studies. And most other researchers including Peričic, Arredi, Luis, and Sanchez observe the dominant E3b/E1b1b naming system.

The fact remains folks that the article lists the primary names for the clades i.e. the E1b1b nomenclature as shown on ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, and most other official sources. It's this primary E1b1b nomenclature that Lancaster is for whatever reason trying to supplant with the much less popular E-M35 type nomenclature. It's clearly a very emotional issue for him (viz. "It has to be reinserted"). In addition, he wants to cite the E3b1f-M293 haplogroup -- which the Henn study in question specifically labels E3b1f-M293 -- as E-M293, although the Henn study itself doesn't once use that terminology. Causteau (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, Cruciani is just one example of a key writer using the E-M35 nomenclature. It is normal and widespread. It must remain in the article. No one is trying to remove E1b1b as the main nomenclature. Causteau is trying to remove all reference to something else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "remove" anything. I'm trying not to repeat anything, namely, the clade name which is already cited in the article in the form of the primary and far more widespread E1b1b nomenclature. It seems to me that it's Lancaster and his emotional attachment to the E-M35 nomenclature that's trying to needlessly force their way into the article. Causteau (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

E-M35 appears in the titles of major articles on this subject. It is increasingly the only name researchers use. Why would you try to erase it from the article? Please explain. Is it revenge?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

E-M35 appears in the title of only a handful of papers on this subject and usually in parentheses. It certainly is not the official name of the E1b1b haplogroup upheld by ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, and most other official sources. It's a not even a secondary naming system (a distinction which would go to the E3b nomenclature) but a tertiary naming system, similar to HG21. Causteau (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of papers? It appears in the title of the main papers there are, and there are only a few main papers on this subject! ISOGG and Family Tree DNA? Those are people I am in constant correspondence with, and they use the same style I use. You are just plain wrong. In any case even if this is tertiary, why delete it? Do you really have the right to do that do you think? You have never claimed that the system is just my invention surely? Are Wikipedia readers not allowed to know about it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears in the titles of a couple of papers and usually in parentheses, just like I've written and you know it. I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm not interested in your personal assurances about being in contact with the folks at either ISOGG or at Family Tree DNA. That may or may not be the case, who knows? What matters is that the primary clade names are already cited in the text. If you want to cite E-M35, you can do so alongside all the other ancillary names (Hg21, Eu4) in the lead-in. This way, Wikipedia readers can know about it, and nothing is needlessly repeated. Causteau (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, that means reverting the last edit you did. Thank you for this concession, which you made so incredibly hard to get to. It is certainly my intention to make sure the Wikipedia article refers to this nomenclature. You never had any right to delete it. By the way, I did not mean to make a point out of my links to others except to once again make it clear that if you truly do claim to have no reference for this nomenclature, there is plenty around, and we can go that way. So this problem is now fixed but the bigger problem, that you attack all intruders on this article, is still there. If you would ever stop doing mass reverts, it would really be nice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not in any way, shape or form mean reverting my last edit. What is it with you any way? I clearly wrote that the E-M35 nomenclature is an ancillary one, just like Hg21 and Eu4. It's E3b that's secondary to the primary E1b1b nomenclature. Therefore, if you are so keen to mention E-M35, the lead-in alongside the other ancillary haplogroup names Hg21 and Eu4 is the place to do it. And STOP engaging in personal attacks. I will not ask you again. Causteau (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to do a simple revert, and I normally avoid them. But I still say that the E-M35 nomenclature must be included in this article, and I have never demanded that it must be anything other than an auxiliary nomenclature (although to be honest that would be a more correct approach given the existing ways of writing amongst those who study this field). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming to your personal stuff: 1. There is no personal attack in what you are replying to. I wrote "If you would ever stop doing mass reverts, it would really be nice." How is that a personal attack? 2. When you say that "I will not ask you again", what are you implying? Sounds powerful. Is it a threat? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

It is embarrassing to see two such highly-educated individuals, resorting to an edit war. Gentlemen, edit wars do not work. Trying to force your preferred version of an article this way, is completely ineffective. Instead, build your case on the talkpage, request comments from other editors.

To be clear: The next editor who reverts this article, either one of you, is going to have their account access blocked. Or, some other admin is going to come along and just protect the page, and then neither of you will be able to edit it. So, cut it out. --Elonka 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair and I, for one, have no problem with any of that. Thanks again for the assistance. Causteau (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, both of you can still change the article, but the reverting has to stop. Also, I want both of you to be scrupulous about sourcing. I am still seeing you making changes, but without providing citations for those changes. The next editor to add information that is not accompanied by a source, could also be looking at a block. For example, this sentence is uncited: "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35)." Where is that from? Which source verifies it? Please add an inline citation to it. Thanks, --Elonka 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The information needs to be verifiable; it's beyond obvious at this point. I can't tell you how many times folks on Wikipedia have asserted things and sometimes even quoted sources only for those sources not to support what they say. Causteau (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If Causteau can ever agree not to be the first to do a full revert, this article will never have the problems it now has. Causteau's revert first talk later policy is THE problem. But now I want to see this in action. I do not believe his intentions are to aim at a good article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If Lancaster can find it in him to source material rather than to just plain fabricate it (see the "sub-Saharan E-M35" debacle above), then there indeed shouldn't be a problem. Actually, that's not entirely true. Lancaster's latest comment above clearly demonstrates that he is a stranger to decorum and civility since, while I have have neither addressed nor spoken ill of him in my comments to Elonka, this little factoid has not prevented him from using this opportunity to take a cheap though predictably impotent shot at me. Whatever. Causteau (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My first attempt to respond was deleted because judged to be a personal attack by an admin. But I still want to draw attention to the use of the word "impotent" because it is a factual and objective piece of evidence needed to consider the problems this article is having. I do not think I need apologize for the fact that these words are obviously those of one editor, because that editor should be held responsible for edits. Other words which are getting bandied about involve winning and loosing and "I will not ask again". If all these styles continue to be the norm, the article will suffer. I'd like to request, not for the first time (see the archives) that Causteau reflect upon whether this is really a good thing. Causteau might well succeed in forcing me to give up on the extreme efforts needed to make this article correct and up-to-date. Causteau has already frightened off others. Is that a good aim to have?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary of current roadblock

I wish to summarize what has happened to this article this week. I fear this will no longer be clear to anyone. In summary though, what has happened is that one person, Causteau, is successfully blocking others from editing this article. This has also happened in the past.

STEP 1. A new article appeared in the literature, (Henn et. al. 2008), and on the 18th of August I started a series of edits to include some of its new information, which edits also included some new tidying up which was overdue. Citation of the article was included in a new reference, referred to in the two places in the article where it is relevant. None of the tidying up involved adding new concepts that were not already in the article.

The initial edits by me are here and here and here.

STEP 2. Causteau reacted first on the same day here. This was indeed not a full revert. There were only three components to the edit though, and all were quite questionable, as Causteau has since admitted in effect (to be explained below). I would say that they are very clearly wrong edits:

1. Causteau re-wrote a sentence so that...

1a. It had gone from being a logical sentence to being logically wrong, as Causteau later admitted ("You are, however, right about a polymorphism not being a clade like that one sentence in my edit erroneously implies it is.").

1b. The re-written sentence also no longer included a key piece of information concerning the geographical area relevant to the new discoveries being referred to in the literature. In other words correct and sourced information was removed. Causteau's issue here, which only became apparent after a lot of effort forcing discussion on the discussion page, was concerning the term "sub-Saharan" which Causteau considers racist. As soon as this became clear I suggested that we could use another word. Note that Causteau nevertheless reverted edits trying to replace "sub-Saharan" with "Southern" (as in the article being referred to).

2. Causteau changed the nomenclature used to describe how the new discovery should be categorized, such that the subject heading now uses a nomenclature which is out-of-date and not compatible with that in the rest of the Wikipedia article, which includes information about discoveries in this field which the new article had apparently not had a chance to take account of. I note in passing that this is the only edit made at this time by Causteau, the wrongness of which is supposedly still controversial. But the controversy is odd: Causteau sees the problem, but wants the article to stick to the problematic nomenclature because it is what occurs in the article being referred to. Causteau, when pushed to justify his reversions concerning this, which still stand in the article, eventually claimed on 23rd August that to take other articles about a subject into account would be synthesis of a type forbidden on Wikipedia.

As this particular controversy involves a point of order concerning synthesis. I'd like to call for the opinions of others on it.

3. Causteau deliberately changed nomenclature in the article in an incorrect way, using SNP names as clade names, for example changing E-M35 to M35, as the name of a clade. This was effectively a reversion of small improvements I had been doing. (Causteau would later start systematically removing any use of the E-M35 nomenclature, which is increasingly the most commonly used outside of this Wikipedia article. So this particular issue has become a bigger controversy, as reflected in my posting on the discussion page that it had become so, here.)

Causteau also did another edit here immediately after the first, working on the introductory sentence of the article.

STEP 3.

On the 21st of August, I reverted only the wrong edits of Causteau, as described above, and not the change to the introductory sentence. I also simultaneously attempted to start a discussion here. I listed 4 explanations of reasons for changes I'd made.

STEP 4.

On 22nd August Causteau did two edits, all involving the controversies now on the talk page, and all pushing hard in the direction then already defined on the discussion page as controversial. Causteau went further, and started to actively remove any mention at all of the E-M35 terminology for example. I contacted an admin who has intervened on the article previously,Elonka. I noted that I was holding off from reacting in the same style.

However, I also continued editing on anything I could find which seemed uncontroversial.

STEP 5.

Causteau's responses to the attempts to initiate discussion only start the next day, the 23rd and the opening words are "I really don't see the point in Lancaster's griping here...".

On the same day, Causteau fully reverted all my edits of the previous day, but left his in, on the basis that there was a discussion started on the talk page, although those reverted edits were not necessarily related to the discussion, which I had in fact initiated to begin with. As usual in Causteau's editing, even minor edits to fix sentences etc were removed.

This reversion was of course in opposition to the principles it claimed to stand by and was completely inappropriate. When this occurred I contacted Elonka, on her talk page, to state that "I had held off, but I believe at this stage it is most correct to at least reverse those mass reverts until real discussion takes place. I don't know what else to do. It surely can't be the intention that whoever dares to be most aggressive can get their way."

This therefore started a round of reverts, which Causteau "won" with the current version of the article being the one wherein all edits of the 22nd are removed.

STEP 6.

Elonka finally did intervene to stop the reverts, but with the result that the version now standing is the reverted one of Causteau. Letting the first revert remain seems against the principle of stopping reverts? Am I missing something?

SUMMARY

A major problem with the above is that there now seems no possible way for anyone other than Causteau to make edits, even small edits anymore. I do not see any solution. The article as it stands has been worsened, and others are clearly being held out from making improvements.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The E-M35 type nomenclature is being opposed

Sorry for another long posting. Believe me I wish it were not necessary, but as things stand we have an editor who has managed to revert all recent edits except his own, and then have other editors, not him, blocked from being able to get their edits kept. The article needs us to get rid of that situation...

As mentioned above in many places on this talk page, going right back into the archives, Causteau believes that the above type of SNP-based haplogroup nomenclature is rarely used and not "official" enough. Causteau has stepped up the pressure on this subject, this week, by even stating that I must be part of a conspiracy to get this terminology used more widely, by pretending dishonestly that it already is. These intensified accusations go together with deleting, editing and reverting actions in the article itself.

On the other hand it must be said that Causteau won't engage in discussion about any real details of concerns about nomenclature and Causteau clearly admits that the type he keeps removing appears at important points of the literature, so I did not at first think it necessary to defend this point due to the fact that the true facts seemed to be pretty clear to Causteau, for example the fact that several articles in the references use the nomenclature even in titles.

...but Causteau wants doubts to remain about just how common and widely used this nomenclature is, because Causteau dislikes anything intrusive to the article, and this nomenclature issue has become a core element of Causteau's more general taking over of this article. So it seems someone has to spend a lot of time on blowing this subject apart...

First concerning officialness, here is one of the most authoritative references you can give concerning Y haplogroup nomenclature...

A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups, by the Y Chromosome Consortium.

About halfway down the page we find:

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

Note the more "robust" nomenclature mentioned above, based on SNP mutation names, is the one Causteau has taken a disliking to.

Second, here is the important Karafet 2008 article referred to as a major source of nomenclature in the existing Wikipedia article:

The Y Chromosome Consortium (2002) defined a set of rules to label the different lineages within the tree of binary haplogroups. Capital letters (from A to R) were used to identify 18 major clades. Lineages that were not defined on the basis of a derived character represented interior nodes of the tree. Because they were potentially paraphyletic, they were called “paragroups” (indicated by the symbol *). Two complementary nomenclature systems were proposed. The first system used selected aspects of set theory to define hierarchical subclades within each major haplogroup using an alphanumeric system (e.g., E1, E1a, E1a1, etc.). A shorter alternative mutation-based system named haplogroups by the terminal mutation that defined them (e.g., E-M81). Here we continue to follow the rules of these systems, making use of the flexibility inherent in them when new mutations are mapped on the tree.

Any fair reading of the article shows a strong preference for the system it calls more flexible, at least in running text. (It should be noted that until the hypocrisy was pointed out, Causteau was happy to have a wrong version of such terminology in the running text of the Wikipedia article, putting things like M35 on their own as clade names! Once I tried to improve these to the more correct E-M35, he changed all reference to mutations when referring to clades, taking a more extreme position.)

Here is a 2005 paper by Family Tree DNA's Mike Hammer, and appearing on their website, which uses the flexible terminology exclusively as far as I can see. The tendency was noted on a public forum.

Causteau has made a lot of an ISOGG webpage which I originally placed into the references of this Wikipedia article. It is indeed my chosen reference for the up-to-date phylogeny of E1b1b. I perhaps need to remark for readers who might not understand that the E1b1b nomenclature is the phylogeny-based name, in contrast to the mutation-based name. So absolutely nothing can be concluded about preferred systems of nomenclature by observing that a webpage intended to give the latest information about phylogeny, includes the updates of the phylogeny-based naming system as well.

The above addresses Causteau's desire for "official" status. As has already been discussed above, Causteau has also claimed that whether or not the nomenclature is used, it is not commonly used by people in, to use his examples, Family Tree DNA (a testing company used by genealogists, with which I have frequent interaction as a project admin) and ISOGG (the International Organization of Genetic Genealogists, of which I am an active member). How common a term is used in general use is something hard to prove, but let's not just leave it...

I have explained above to Causteau on this talk page that I have first-hand experience of the fact that people in both organizations increasingly use and prefer the E-M35 nomenclature in all correspondence and discussion. Causteau's response to this was that Causteau does not care about such correspondence and discussion. So with that out of the way, we must presumably stick to published articles and the like, which is what I have done with this posting.

I think the above is enough explanation, but tell me if I am wrong. To be frank, Causteau appears to know it all already, and so all this extra work is actually only being required by Causteau as part of a general policy that people should not edit this article. Putting that problem aside though, unless someone can really explain a good reason why not to, I am hoping that editors may now start removing all traces of deletes, reverts and edits which were aimed to remove all reference to the SNP based clade nomenclature, or to make it incorrectly seem like a second class nomenclature which is not widely used. This is because if such changes are not allowed the article will be wrong.

Does anyone see any gaps in the above account? By the way, I have not bothered to compare to other Wikipedia articles on Y haplogroups, because as can be seen in the archives, this has been tried before with Causteau, with very little success. Presumably Causteau thinks most such Wikipedia articles are wrong, but does not have time to go change them all.

Best Regards Andrew--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Hello again, gentlemen.  :)

Coming in as an uninvolved administrator, I freely admit that I do not understand the exact topic that you are talking about. It's just not my field. Then again, that can be a good thing as it allows me to be completely neutral in terms of the subject matter. My perception right now is that both of you are highly intelligent individuals who are acting in good faith. Both of you wish to produce a high-quality article. There is just disagreement on how to do this.

My concerns right now, are that the article has de-stabilized, since there is an edit war. So let me see if I can offer some course corrections to get things back on an even keel:

1. Please keep discussions on the talkpage very civil. Avoid using the words "you" and "your". Speaking only in the third-person, can help re-focus the discussions onto the article content, rather than on other editors.
2. Please keep discussions source-based. Instead of talking from personal knowledge, stick strictly to discussing what the sources say.
3. Keep the actual article edits, source-based. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, any unsourced information can be removed. So in other words, citations are essential.
4. When you see an editor add something that you disagree with, don't use the "revert" button. Instead, try to change the text to something that you like better. Try to seek a compromise.
5. If one editor adds something, and another editor removes it, the first editor should not add it back, unless they are also including a source which allows verification of the information.
6. Instead of trying to make the article "one way or the other", try to see if there is a way to find a compromise. Per Wikipedia's neutrality policy, this will probably lend to a stronger article which is a better resource for our readers.
7. If the above suggestions do not help to stabilize things, please request opinions from other editors. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for suggestions on where to place requests, such as via third opinion, or Requests for comment in the science topics. WikiProject talkpages are also good sources.

Hope that helps, --Elonka 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It does help Elonka, and thank you for your assistance. I especially appreciate your recommendation to keep things source-based, which is something I have been pushing for all along in this discussion. Now that you are overseeing matters, I'm sure Lancaster and I can resolve this thing in short order. Please do keep an eye on the page. Best, Causteau (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka. Actually, I do not think this helps. The problem on this article is that there is an unapologetic serial reverter who is not open to meaningful discussion. CAusteau is not even disputing any real facts. Why shouldn't others just do the same? I see no sign of any good intentions at all. The discussion above is almost embarrassing to be involved in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem, as I see it, is that information is getting added to the article that is not being cited. This would seem to be a violation of the verifiability policy. In short: if any edit is made which could be considered to be controversial, that edit should include a citation which allows for verification of that information. If there's no citation, then don't make the edit. Once we get the citations squared away, we can move on to other more subtle issues. But for example, this edit was a revert of another editor.[1] The edit changed the article, to a state which did not match the cited source. The source that is used,[2] says such things as: "E1b1b1, M35 (formerly E3b1)", and below that, "E1b1b1c, M123 (formerly E3b1c)". Yet, the revert to our article changed "M35" to "E-M35". I see nothing in the source which uses "E-M35". So, unless we have a source that says "E-M35", the term should not go into Wikipedia. Period. If there is a source, then please provide it. This will assist other editors in verifying the information that is being discussed. Thanks, --Elonka 00:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I am sorry but that is not correct. You are being misled by the discussion, which as I say is not working, due to bad intentions. Causteau has a strong tendency to revert edits en masse and feel no big concern about it, and that is that. The series of changes this week were mainly to do with adding information about a new article. The article is cited. Causteau is not complaining about that.

Concerning the question of whether E-35 is a more correct name than M35 for a clade, do not be misled. Causteau's edits and comments might imply that there is some rational disagreement that can be discussed but also note this "No, Lancaster. I am not suggesting that M35 is a clade name. Please do not put words in my mouth." In other words, the double revert should not be taken to imply any such preference by Causteau, even though there seems no other possible way of understanding someone who keeps changing clade names back to forms like M35?

FYI the ISOGG webpage you refer to does not write things like "E1b1b1c, M123 (formerly E3b1c)" as you say because as per the tabular format of that webpage E1b1b1c is in a box, and M123 is being listed next to it in the box for defining SNP. I know many of the people who put that webpage together BTW, and if this is the only source, please forget it. If you want to see examples of names like E-M123 on the other hand, just look at the titles in the references section for a start. So there is absolutely no reason to be doing knee-jerk reverts everytime I try to mention E-M293.

In the case of that new clade M-293, this is particularly important, because Causteau's insistence on replacing this name with E3b1f means naming this clade using a different system to the one in the Wikipedia article. There is absolutely no justification for mixing naming systems in any particular webpage or article, because that defeats the whole purpose of such a system. It is as wrong as possible. Names like E3b, and E1b1b, which are going out of fashion by the way, are intended to show a "family tree" where E3 and E1 would be siblings. There is no debate, because the article referred to is very clear, that E-M293 is a "grand-child" of E1b1b (E-M215, formerly E3b), and a child of E1b1b1 (E-M35, formerly E3b1).

To repeat: Causteau is not at all debating that this is wrong, nor that E1b1b1 is the up-to-date equivalent, as used in the Wikipedia article, of the clade named E3b1 in the Henn article. E1b1b1 is a "translation" of E3b1.

The other disagreements also have nothing to do with sourcing: One is that Causteau removed a reference to the area of the world where M-293 is found because I used the term "sub-Saharan" instead of "Southern" Africa. Note: Causteau admits the article does define the area as Southern Africa.

Causteau's latest posting above goes in a completely different direction: conspiracy theory. Causteau also admits that such a theory has been guiding the reverts and edits for some time and has apparently wanted this to become the subject of debate on this discussion page. Well sure. I guess if you think someone is part of a cabal working against you, then reverts without being to justify them makes more sense? Tell me again about the good intentions? I think however that Causteau should only make edits that Causteau can justify, even if there are secret cabals out there.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I thought Lancaster would've learned something from our previous encounter and from the links to ebay's civility and personal attack policies requesting that editors not attack other editors and comment on the content rather than the contributor, but I was apparently mistaken. There are several untruths that he has just predictably relayed which I would like to address:

• Elonka, I am sorry but that is not correct. You are being misled by the discussion, which as I say is not working, due to bad intentions. Causteau has a strong tendency to revert edits en masse and feel no big concern about it, and that is that. The series of changes this week were mainly to do with adding information about a new article. The article is cited. Causteau is not complaining about that.

In other words, Lancaster is very disappointed that you, Elonka, have audaciously and unreasonably chosen to demand actual sourcing for his remarks of a "sub-Saharan M35" and E-M293 -- neither of which are cited anywhere in the Henn study in question. He then naturally chooses to attack the contributor (me) rather than concede that his material is indeed nowhere to be found in the source. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think Wikipedia is Causteau? Are you sucking up? Elonka did not make any specific remarks about anyone. If she wants to, let her. You should be careful how you cite people. Secondly, you are by no means a contributor. You revert edits and you debate over petty details in order to try to "win". In the meantime you make it very difficult to keep the quality of this article from devolving. Want a medal for that? Thirdly, I object to my actions being called an attack. I updated this article because new information appeared in the literature. I did not ask to be reverted by you. I then tried to start a discussion here, which you ignored while continuing to revert. I've done all I can to work with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concerning the question of whether E-35 is a more correct name than M35 for a clade, do not be misled.

Indeed. Please do not be misled, Elonka. This issue has long been resolved. If you'll look at the discussion above, you'll see that Lancaster (at the behest of his buddies at those "other outlets online", no doubt) requested that we use the terms E-M35, E-M215, etc. in place of just the SNPs M35, M215, etc. I told him that if he had a problem with our using SNPs such as M35 as a quick way of referring to clades such as E1b1b, then we should logically be using instead the clade names most used by official sources such as ISOGG and Family Tree DNA. If you'll just visit those sites, you'll see that they indeed use the E1b1b-type nomenclature. That is because that is the dominant, primary naming system for haplogroups, and before that, it was the E3b-type nomenclature. The E-M35-type nomenclature Lancaster and his buddies at those "other outlets online" favor is not by any stretch of the imagination the primary, dominant naming system. I therefore suggested on several occasions that we use the E1b1b nomenclature, and went ahead and corrected every instance in the text where SNPs are used in place of clade names per Lancaster's complaints. Lancaster's response to this edit was the following remark: That is fixing at least one problem. And now he is back to complaining again? About what exactly? The fact that the text now features the official names for the clades as shown on ISOGG, Family Tree DNA, and almost every other major authority rather than one of his own choosing? Now who is really being unreasonable? Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have answered this above and below. You do not address those explanations. For example you are simply mis-reading the ISOGG webpage. By the way, if anyone cares to look through the archives we'll see that Causteau also made me jump through hoops before he even accepted that we could use E-M35. I repeat, the format E-M35, M-M215, E-M293, etc, as used very widely, is standard and not even new. M35 is a slightly incorrect shorthand way of referring to E-M35.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the case of that new clade M-293, this is particularly important, because Causteau's insistence on replacing this name with E3b1f means naming this clade using a different system to the one in the Wikipedia article.

Whether or not the E3b1f-M293 name designated by the one source that announced the new polymorphism jibes with the existing E1b1b-type nomenclature mentioned in the text, it is still sourced. Using Lancaster's logic, the E-M293 name he proposes we replace E3b1f-M293 with also does not jibe with the existing E1b1b-type naming system in this article. It's not even better in this regard! What's worse, E-M293 is not once mentioned in the very study that broke this story. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The referencing for the term, and the incorrectness of yours, is explained above by me. You refuse to make direct replies to direct explanations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Names like E3b, and E1b1b, which are going out of fashion by the way, are intended to show a "family tree" where E3 and E1 would be siblings. There is no debate, because the article referred to is very clear, that E-M293 is a "grand-child" of E1b1b (E-M215, formerly E3b), and a child of E1b1b1 (E-M35, formerly E3b1).

There indeed is no debate because none of the sources anywhere cite that the newly-coined E1b1b naming system is going "out of fashion" any time soon. That's Lancaster's wishful-thinking speaking, as is the notion of E-M293 being a "grand-child" of E1b1b since E-M293 is not once mentioned in the study -- E3b1f-M293 is. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, this just shows that you are ignorant and not reading the references you claim to be supporting. I did not invent the systems. I am just referring to the ones which exist. The problems I mention are also widely discussed. Check Karafet 2008.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Causteau is not at all debating that this is wrong, nor that E1b1b1 is the up-to-date equivalent, as used in the Wikipedia article, of the clade named E3b1 in the Henn article. E1b1b1 is a "translation" of E3b1.

Of course I'm not debating the E1b1b nomenclature because it is the prevailing naming system per ISOGG and just about every other official source. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you eventually learnt that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The other disagreements also have nothing to do with sourcing: One is that Causteau removed a reference to the area of the world where M-293 is found because I used the term "sub-Saharan" instead of "Southern" Africa. Note: Causteau admits the article does define the area as Southern Africa.

Another straw man argument. No, I have not moved any reference to the "area of the world where M-293 is found" or anything of that nature. What I did do was remove unsourced material -- the Henn study does not once describe M35 as "sub-Saharan". Also please note that sub-Saharan carries a lot more connotations than merely "below the Sahara". It also has a racial component to it -- one not once implied by the Henn source -- which unsurprisingly does not seem to disturb Lancaster. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right that this geographical term does not disturb me. I know of "racial component". On the other hand, as mentioned many times, you could have changed to a less "racial" term. You did not need to delete information which was correct. A big part of your self-confident aggression seems to come from the fact that you hardly even notice what edits you have made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Causteau's latest posting above goes in a completely different direction: conspiracy theory. Causteau also admits that such a theory has been guiding the reverts and edits for some time and has apparently wanted this to become the subject of debate on this discussion page. Well sure. I guess if you think someone is part of a cabal working against you, then reverts without being to justify them makes more sense? Tell me again about the good intentions? I think however that Causteau should only make edits that Causteau can justify, even if there are secret cabals out there. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha! In your dreams pal. My last post was a very clear reference to Lancaster's creepy assertion of regularly visiting "other outlets online" where he and his compadres take a keen interest in what is cited in this article and actually try and personally see to it that all is presented as they want it. Thing is, I Googled Lancaster's infamous "sub-Saharan M35" phrase, and I only came up with one hit: a link to an Afrocentric website, Egyptsearch. Coincidence? I think not. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Causteau (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the sort of thing you are talking about??? Are you claiming that "Sub Saharan Africa" is not normal English, or that it is connects to some sort of plot??? It has a Wikipedia article, and is a normal English term! Please get off your high horse. As to my cabal, I am a member of the public who is known to be interested in the subject of this article, and I know many others who are also. As has been shown time and time again, I know more about it than you, even though that never stops you from treating every piece of information you did not know before as suspect. I mentioned that we all would prefer the article not to contain mistakes, and that there are discussions around indicating that people are hestitant to edit this article because of you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL Sure you don't pal, sure you don't! The links don't lie. The only other people besides Lancaster to whom it has ever occurred to label M35 as "sub-Saharan" are Afrocentrists, just like my link above to that Egyptsearch website proves. Heaven knows the Henn study sure as hell does not. I realize all this linking must be most infuriating, but do understand that if you're going to make tall claims like "sub-Saharan M35", they are going to be quite thoroughly investigated and exposed. Causteau (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Earth to Causteau: where did I label M35 as sub-saharan? You seem to be lost. We were talking about M293. M293 is a newly discovered SNP, and I think you have not yet read the full article. There is very little about it on the internet. But what we do know is that it is described as being in Tanzania and Southern Africa, and then there is this map: http://bp0.blogger.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/SJgeh72_R_I/AAAAAAAAAF8/c3rukfjAbpg/s1600-h/m293.jpg Explain your way out of this. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So now you have amnesia, is that your new strategy? Here Lancaster, here's where you label not just the mutation M35 as sub-Saharan as I had thought all long, but worse, the entire E1b1b clade! The Henn study does not once describe the new mutation "sub-Saharan". I know it cause I own it (bummer, eh?). The study says that some pastoralists from around Tanzania migrated to Southern Africa in a demic diffusion. It does not once say that E-M35 is sub-Saharan. You and only you have. Causteau (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote: "The fourth major sub-clade of E-M35 to be announced is E-M293, in Henn et. al. (2008) which is claimed to include a majority of sub-Saharan E-M35." How's your grammar? Is the subject of this sentence E-M35 or E-M293? By the way, as its designated official interpreter, have you actually read the full article yet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good Lancaster. You have more than proven that you are incapable of respecting Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks as well as Elonka's directives cited under the heading "Tone". You can dance around the issue all you want, but the Henn study still does not, never has, and never will cite either a "sub-Saharan M35" or a "sub-Saharan E-M35". Those good folks over at the "other outlets online" such as Egyptsearch, however, are certain to. In fact, I believe they already have. Causteau (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(personal attack removed)

I also do not claim that E-M35 was sub-Saharan, ever, and if I did by grammatical misunderstanding give that impression I trust this was fixed by later edits. My question about whether you have read the article was serious. You do seem rather sure of yourself. That's not just a question meant to annoy you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I am most sure of my eyesight, which very clearly identifies the phrase "sub-Saharan E-M35" in this edit. And kindly stop talking about me. If you want to discuss things, then further down the page is the place to do it like Elonka has suggested. Causteau (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I see from your edits on Wikipedia that you something about languages. So you know that putting together words in a row does not constitute a logical statement. The series of words in English "sub-Saharan E-M35" tells us that I was indeed willing to say that there is E-M35 in southern Africa. I've explained the rest. Why am I bothering? Just read it again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, looking at your suggestion above, I would like you to confirm whether they were intended to demand that any edits at all made after Causteau's on the 22 August may justifiably be fully reverted? Clarification is needed. The current version of the article is such a full revert, which Causteau claims to be your intention. Shouldn't we be allowed to continue normal editing, and shouldn't the revert be reversed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

M293: which part of Africa?

Much controversy came from my original edits giving updates from Henn 2008 concerning the newly discovered mutation, M293, and one controversy was concerning how to describe the area where it is found.

1. Causteau felt the term "sub-Saharan" Africa to be racist, and accused me of being part of a plot.

2. Causteau pointed out that the term "sub Saharan" was not in the summaries of the article online.

3. Eventually Causteau came to his present position, which is to emphasize at all costs that his reading of my original edit, long gone, implied according to him that all E-M35 is sub-Saharan, which would have course have been wrong if that is a correct reading.

I asked Causteau twice if he had a copy and he told me that I was infringing civility guidelines. I now have a copy, passed to me by a fellow researcher in this area. It uses the terminology "sub-Saharan" as follows in a comment under the maps, one of which is online and mentioned already in this article: "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa, indicating a separate phylogenetic history for M35*(former) samples further north."

My understanding now is that the outer bounds of E-M293 are "sub-Saharan Africa". The concentration of E-M293 is in "Eastern and Southern Africa". The words in quotes are the words in the article. I propose that in order to avoid more reverts by Causteau, Causteau should now re-check the wording on this basis in the Wikipedia article and adapt it according to the above. If Causteau wants me to do the grunt work as usual so that he can perform his normal role of critic, no problem, but then he should make clear what he'll accept and that he won't be doing reverts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Causteau felt the term "sub-Saharan" Africa to be racist, and accused me of being part of a plot.

Ever notice how Lancaster never bothers to include difs to support his constant accusations? Well, that could be because they have zero basis in truth. I have never labeled the term "sub-Saharan" Africa as racist. That is just plain false and utterly absurd. In fact, do yourself a favor and search this page for the term "racist"; see for yourself just whose comments come up cause they sure won't be mine. What I did actually write is that Lancaster inserted the term "sub-Saharan E-M35" into the article, a term which is not used anywhere in the Henn et al. study in question that he references. I then quite logically pointed out that the term "sub-Saharan" also has racial connotations, connotations which the Henn study never mentions or even so much as implies. As for that whole "plot" thing, I was simply playing off of Lancaster's own gratuitous disclosure that he and some other people at "other outlets online" take a keen interest in what is presented on this wee page and try and personally see to it that all is presented as they want it. I actually found the revelation more than a little creepy, to be honest. Causteau (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Causteau pointed out that the term "sub Saharan" was not in the summaries of the article online.

Not true, hence again no difs. I said repeatedly in my comments above that M35 much less the clade E-M35 is never once described as sub-Saharan in the Henn study, and I am of course right. Causteau (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Eventually Causteau came to his present position, which is to emphasize at all costs that his reading of my original edit, long gone, implied according to him that all E-M35 is sub-Saharan, which would have course have been wrong if that is a correct reading.

Like most people, I'm not a mind reader. If Lancaster puts the term "sub-Saharan" beside the clade E-M35 so that his edit reads "sub-Saharan E-M35" as it indeed does, I'm afraid it is not obvious to non-psychics that what he actually means is "sub-Saharan M293", especially considering the fact that the Henn study does not describe M293 in that way either -- it only ever says that "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa" i.e. it describes its distribution area as sub-Saharan, not M293 itself. Causteau (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Causteau twice if he had a copy and he told me that I was infringing civility guidelines.

Yet again not true. Lancaster never so much as once asked me if I had a copy of the Henn study, which is why he is unable to produce a dif proving he did. In reality, I told him I owned one! Causteau (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I now have a copy, passed to me by a fellow researcher in this area. It uses the terminology "sub-Saharan" as follows in a comment under the maps, one of which is online and mentioned already in this article: "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa, indicating a separate phylogenetic history for M35*(former) samples further north."

Umm, that quote quite clearly says "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa". It does not describe E-M35 as sub-Saharan ("sub-Saharan E-M35") like Lancaster has in his actual edit. The problem with Lancaster's edit is that he described an entire clade (E-M35) as sub-Saharan while that quote he just produced only ever describes one SNP (namely, M293 -- not even M35) as "only found in sub-Saharan Africa". It doesn't describe the M293 mutation as "sub-Saharan", but its distribution area as sub-Saharan Africa. What's most disturbing about all of this, however, is that Lancaster still refuses to admit that he is wrong and that the study in no way, shape or form describes the E1b1b1/E-M35 clade as "sub-Saharan" like he has very clearly written. Causteau (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding now is that the outer bounds of E-M293 are "sub-Saharan Africa". The concentration of E-M293 is in "Eastern and Southern Africa". The words in quotes are the words in the article. I propose that in order to avoid more reverts by Causteau, Causteau should now re-check the wording on this basis in the Wikipedia article and adapt it according to the above. If Causteau wants me to do the grunt work as usual so that he can perform his normal role of critic, no problem, but then he should make clear what he'll accept and that he won't be doing reverts.

What I would really like is for Lancaster to quit playing so loose with sourcing and just stick to what the studies actually say. I realize doing so is a lot more challenging than just dreaming up what a study one apparently never even had full access to until now says, but that's the only way of ensuring encyclopedicity. Causteau (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)