Talk:Haplogroup I-M253

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Human Genetic History  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

although almost always overshadowed by the more prevalent carriers of Haplogroup R or Haplogroup N.

Overshadowed by N? I'd hardly say the I1a group is ever overshadowed by N within the boundries of northern Europe; maybe only select places in Finland. Nagelfar 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Haplogroup N3 dominates over Haplogroup I1a among the populations of Finland and Estonia in the same way that Haplogroups R1a and R1b dominate over Haplogroups I1a and I1b2 among the populations of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.
OK, but that's only in a select area; I1a has a much wider swath. Also, it takes both subtypes of R; R1a & R1b together, to overshadow I1a; each one shares the areas by nearly a third of the population. The article should at least make it not seem that I1a is so rare by comparison; it is the second most common Y haplogroup in Europe. Nagelfar 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History[edit]

I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:

A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.
  • My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.
There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- e.g., the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those projects' charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those projects' normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

a little late - but i'm for it! (went to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History . . . . didn't see this )

betswiki (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

what is the status of this? -- Aaron # Aaronjhill (talk) 10:30am, 14 November 2008 (PST)

It's up and running (renamed to WikiProject Human Genetic History, or WP:HGH for short). A little quiet perhaps, but I think a few people have it on their watchlist, so it is quite a viable place to suggest improvements, flag problems, raise issues etc.
Click on WP:HGH, or the link in the top banner on this page, to go to the project homepage, then that page's talkpage for the forum. Jheald (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Off topic additions.[edit]

I still find myself regrettably disagreeing with the some of Aaronjhill's edits. Things like mentioning of Anglo-Frisian languages seems off topic and not tied directly to the matter at hand of the I1a haplogroup. Maybe someone can arbitrate a change. Nagelfar (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another off-topic addition is this material about J.R.R. Tolkien. The growing evidence that the Norman Conquest was not important genetically has little bearing on the unrefuted view that it resulted in a major shift in the English language. Tolkien was a philologist and linguistic change was his primary interest. The term "cultural" change here seems to conflate the archaeological sense of the word with the conventional usage. But Tolkien never believed that the Normans obliterated Anglo-Saxon peoples and their everday culture. At the same time, no one can seriously dispute that Norman culture completely obliterated Anglo-Saxon palace culture. So the entry is off the mark in implying that Tolkien held views that he didn't and for implying that those views had anything at all to do with the actual topic of this entry. Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The page move to Haplogroup I1 (Y-DNA)[edit]

By which official source should we consider the page move of the haplogroup to its re-designation as "I1" (and the same for the I1b page to I2)? This is difficult for me to consider crossing the line to action because wikipedia goes on notability and the most prevalent terminology (in this case I1a), but it is also meant to keep up on factual information by boldness and the newest official information on subjects. What announcement will herald the change? Because from what I've been reading lately, it is most assured that it is now considered I1. Nagelfar (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The public release of the preprint from the YCC can be considered the "announcement". Most of the other Y-haplogroup pages have been moved/updated. This one should be too. Jheald (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, we still need to edit things like the Template:Y-DNA I, some of the names of external links: (e.g., "Map of 'I1c' (now considered I1b2a)," which is not now even I1b2a, on the I2 page) and the name of [[image:I1a europe.jpg]] to simply I1 (would we need to ask a moderator to do this?). Nagelfar (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Private SNPs (which do not bifurcate I1).[edit]

A test by FTDNA by Thomas Krahn with haplotypes selected by Ken Nordtvedt for several potential subclade SNPs has shown none of them to appear worthwhile in actually separating I1. The SNP rs17249889 is derived for all disparate haplotypes in the chip selected for the I1 SNP which was discovered via deCODEme company tests (i.e. equivalent to known SNPs in the haplogroup). rs35547782 was found to be ancestral for all I1 samples. Maybe however, since the knowledge is so little and the pool of SNPs so small, this is an important thing for a wiki, in terms of how much information gets passed along. Maybe until it becomes too small of a fact (which it isn't yet) we could have a list of known private SNPs in I1. Nagelfar (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


For several years the prevailing theory was that during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) the I1 group sought refuge in the Balkans. Is this correct? I've read a lot about I-HG in last few years and have never found such theory. Until recently classification of I haplogroup was I1a and I1c (South France refugium) and I1b (Balkan refiugium). It was never defined that I1a and I1c originated in the Balkans. In the meantime marks are changed so I1a and I1c became I1a and I1b2a - both subgroups of I1, while I1b became I2a of I2. Is this just mistake made because of the changed marks? Zenanarh (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The assignations and Y-tree on this page (I1a to I1, etc) were changed almost immediately so I doubt there was any confusion there. Whatever was there before is likely stated as it was, save with the correct terminology, now. Nagelfar (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well there is a map to support theory, but I don't understand on what basis was that map created. It says I-HG and nothing more. Is it from period 5 or more years ago when markers were Eu** and not I1, I2, R1b, R1a,... so it was known in 2002 that there is a lot of I-HG in the western Balkans, but nothing more. After 2005 it is known that there is a lot of I2a (former I1b) there but not really other subgroups of I (sporadically some I1a but the most of other almost completely virtually absent). Is it possible that this theory is out-of-date remain? Zenanarh (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The new I1a is a near-private haplogroup, do you mean I1? I'm sure it is possible that the theory is out of date, add some citation needed marks or be bold and simply rewrite with sources you can find. Nagelfar (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I mean I1, a lack of it there... Max. frequency ~ 7% in some regions, but mostly around 1 or 2% . While I2a goes over 75% locally. OK, I'll rearrange it. Zenanarh (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


There's way too much speculation and synthesis on this page. The acceptance of certain assumptions that have not been cited is considered a synthesis on Wikipedia. Please don't assume that you can associate I1 distribution with historical or mythical events, you can't. What you can do is cite sources that associate movements of people with migrations of I1. On the whole it is best to stick to a description of the distribution of I1 in Europe and the estimated founding events for subclades etc. We don't even know if large population moveents, such as the so called folk wandering occurred, it's a theory and many archaeologists think it has serious flaws, not least the idea that large groups of people could move about freely through a heavily forested continent where there were no roads. Most UK archaeologists thesedays dismiss large folk wanderings as myth, and practically impossible. Y chromosomes do have a geographic distribution, but they can rarely be assigned to specific ethnic groups, and it is OR to associate Y chromosomes too closely with any specific ethnic group unless a reliable source does so. Furthermore one should not impose our own modern world view onto the past, we do not know the ethnic makeup of the peoples of prehistory, we should not assume that these people viewed themselves as belonging to groups that we can recognise in the modern world. That's basic anthropology. Ideas like "Celt", "Germanic", "Anglo-Saxon", when applied to peoples rather than language groups are modern ideas (even inventions according to the archaeologist Simon James), we should not assume that we know what happened in prehistory, or that the peoples who lived there were ethnically identifiable to us today, because we don't. Stick to the facts, populations, geography, founding estimates etc. Scientific facts we can verify. Alun (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's all very well to point out fallacies in ideas that became too pervasive, such as folk movements, as a resident of the Americas, I find the extreme denial of large folk wanderings to be highly amusing. Some clever revisionist archeologist will come along 40 centuries from now and tell us that legends of large New World population groups being descended from Europeans and Africans cannot possibly be accurate for the same reasons you now cite -- there are obstacles and the consensus has turned against it. But, obviously, folk do wander! It's just a matter of whether particular folk wandered, and if so, where, when, and with what effect on later populations. The rest of your points are mostly well-taken, but still, rendered absurd if taken too far. If there was not some degree of correlation between ethnicity and genetics, then we would have found a relatively equal mix of all haplotypes spread throughout all the world's populations. But it is because ethnicities tend to be dominated by genetically related groups in their genesis that we do find some populations with a relatively limited genetic ancestry, and others with a diverse genetic makeup, but each at a signficantly differnt mixture. This precisely because massive folk movement has occurred throughout both prehistory and history. The bias against folk wandering in the UK archaeological establishment predates the era of advances in genetics, and the prevailing consensus has not yet digested the implications of DNA studies, other than defending itself against some claims and laying hold of others as supporting the consensus. Ultimately, if they are not to become obsolete, British archeologists will need to re-evaluate all of their presuppositions in light of the new evidence. Today's consensus replaced an old consensus. Scientific progress will occur when today's consensus itself is consigned to the dustbin of history. Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes and a lot of it, even if backed by attested sourcing on the subject, goes too in depth and should be little more than a wikified link, as this article isn't about history and geography. This was what I meant by my talk section "Off topic additions." above. Aaron Hill in my opinion became a little over zealous but I don't fault him, it will be all the better when smoothed out to wikipedia standards with what he gave us, as long as it doesn't cross the line into synthesis which I agree it does in many places. Nagelfar (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree, they were undoubtedly good faith edits, and I didn't mean to imply they weren't. Alun (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that the section on I1 distribution in Britain is full of speculation and in the end does not clarify the relation of the genetic composition of the populace to historical events. Also, I am left a little bewildered with the "Anglo-Saxon invasion" theories, as the reader is left with the impression that this must have been a haplotype I invasion. Nevermind if there actually was such an "invasion" or "immigration" or not, but how do we know those "invaders" were indeed haplotype I? Personally, I am a German descendent of Northwest-German Saxonians, and my haplotype is R1b. McDonalds World Haplogroups Map says that England today has an even larger percentage of haplotype I than Germany does. The most dominant haplogroup in Germany, as well as in Denmark, is in fact R1b. So, where does that leave David Miles' cited argument, that 80 percent of the genetic makeup of native Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age? For one thing, if he is talking about haplotype R1b, then it would mean the majority of Germans (roughly 45%) and the majority of English (roughly 55%) share the same genetic makeup. Furthermore, it means that we can only guess that Anglo-Saxonian invaders or immigrants (if they were a reality) were not different from today's Germans and Danish, that is haplotype R1b (in majority). Genetics thus seems to be no effective tool to set apart Western European populations, even if you go back to the Ice Age. I guess we must stick with soccer teams and Rule, Britannia, for that.Saxomat (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You say: "England today has an even larger percentage of haplotype I than Germany does." and also: "The most dominant haplogroup in Germany, as well as in Denmark, is in fact R1b.", though the dominant haplogroup in England is R1b1b2 as well (as well as everywhere else in Europe), whether England has more I1 than Germany or not. (Germany I believe has more I2 than I1). The existence of I1 simply correlates with Germanic areas whereas R1b is more culturally indiscriminate with it's distribution, even though it is found in greater numbers. The existence of I1 is just more telling for the likelihood of Germanic influence than R1b (For example: Germany/Austria proper, in older times, was more celtic than Germanic: Le Tene & Hallstatt cultures for example. With time the Germanic language family seemed to flow south from the area of the nordic bronze age and possibly with it HG I1. Though such is conjecture.) I agree though, the article has too much synthesis. Nagelfar (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ring button swords[edit]

On one of the genetic genealogy forums elsewhere, someone posted two images of the lower part of Scandinavia / Denmark and Germany etc., with a frequency map of Y-haplogroup I1, and a map of the archaeological instances of ring-button swords. They seemed to match up perfectly (high frequency of I1 and the increase in instances of these finds). I know it is probably coincidence and of course until published an example of original research, but might someone who keeps tabs on these threads elsewhere on the internet for such topics have kept a link or know where to find at least the archaeology image of where the ring-button swords appeared or even this specific frequency map of I1? Nagelfar (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a map the likes of which I had been thinking. Completely original research, but I had seen discussions of the relation. Nagelfar (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups[edit]

The above article has been listed for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Artistic interpretation of scientific data"?[edit]

The map of the distribution of the haplogroup has some strange texture applied to it, and bears this disclaimer:

"Please note that this image is an artistic interpretation of scientific data."

I believe scientific artistic interpretation of charts and maps should not be allowed on Wikipedia. It's a nice looking map, but I'd rather see the actual data.

Also, the map makes it seem like the populations of Danmark, Norway and Sweden are 100% saturated with the haplogroup, whereas it's actually only about 40% who have it.

Sources are listed on the image page. If you want to see the data, follow the links.

Balanovsky et al (2008) Figure 4, Map A. Distribution of Y Chromosomal Haplogroups I1a, I1b, J2, and E3b in Europe

Rootsi et al (2004) Figure 1, Map C. Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe

The map claims only of the frequency of HG I1 so the darkest spots are the most dense, logically, and not the majority of the population just the M253+ population. 40% would still be the darkest on the map if that is the densest it ever gets according to the kind of chart it is, I see nothing wrong with it to someone who reads the map key/explanation. (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien wasn't talking about genetics[edit]

There's an entire section within the portion of the article dealing with Britain that, as it currently stands, seems totally out of place and therefore misleading. After an apparently objective discussion of the recent scholarly trends in examining the genetics of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Danes in the British Isles, the article begins discussing the Norman conquest and notes that genetic studies identifies very minimal Norman contribution to the genetic record of the modern British. So far, so good. But then the article begins discussing this as a refutation of J.R.R. Tolkien's belief that the Normans had wiped out Anglo-Saxon cultural traditions. While Tolkien's views are certainly a matter of debate, they have nothing to do with genetics. He was never concerned with the ancestral lineage of the modern British, but with the cultural legacy of pre-Norman Anglo-Saxons, which he believed had been lost to an invasive culture. One has nothing to do with the other. I'd like to take this section out of the article, but I'm interested in hearing whether there are any objections first. Ftjrwrites (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

please try to find better references[edit]

To editors who have worked on this article: I can see a lot of work has gone into it, but if an unsympathetic Wikipedian comes along and realizes what the true nature of most of the sources are, it may end up being slashed and burned. If the structure is to be kept in any way, you urgently need to get better sourcing and I am afraid that will mean pruning a lot of the most speculative stuff. I think it is unfortunate, but the fact of the matter is that very little has been published about I1, and on Wikipedia we are going to have to restrict ourselves to what is published. Most of the published articles being used as supposed sources for this article did not even test for I1. A lot of the sources are on Ken Nordtvedt's personal webpage, or forum posts by him. I have full respect for Ken, but if he does not get out and actually publish his stuff somewhere other than his webpage then we can't use Wikipedia as the FIRST place for his theories to be published. (The only Wikipedia arguments for using a person's personal web postings WP:SPS do not unfortunately apply to Ken: he is not a person cited in the literature as a geneticist. Maybe he should be, but again, it would probably help if he actually published more. How can academics cite his personal notes and forum postings?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Duly slashed and burned. --Genie (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)





POOK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 

From Vaeringjar - Please do not use all caps. Also, you incorrectly state that I1 shows one the greatest concentrations in the Balkans. You are referring to I2. That is not the case for I1.

Vaeringjar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi141 (talkcontribs) 20:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I Object to the Slash and Burn[edit]

The decision to mass delete everything in this article, despite some questionable content, is very disappointing. This article is so watered down, that I find is neither useful nor interesting. Further, I have read the comments about sourcing academic journals. While I think that is a fine goal to strive for, we all know that just because information makes it into a journal does not make it true. How is wikipedia to remain relevant in the 21st Century when the flow of new information is increasing exponentially. The ramifications for these wiki entries is that by the time information has made it into an academic journal to become sourcable, the information therein will be stale in the best of cases or just outdating or wrong in the worst. As an example, suppose I update the weather section for the planet Mars. My source is the Mars Science Labratory which is sitting on the surface monitoring the weather. No one is likely to put that in an academic journal but it is true nevertheless. Additionally, the reliance upon academians to study topics ebbs and flows with the funds that are available for certain projects. I fear that this will severely curtail topics that are unpopular for funding and brings a commercial element to the information that everyone here has so firmly stood against. The science being done in this particular field is largely being done by the I1 community. Corporations are not interested in the field and I do not see anyone at the university level doing anything worthwhile.

Vaeringjar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi141 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Vaeringjar that it was a poor decision to severely edit the I1 Origins section. Right now it does not appear we have much published information from academics on the origins of I1. In this case Dr. Ken Nordtvedt is the best source we have for facts on I1. I vote we undo the edits and add Dr. Nordtvedt's data back into the origins section.

Heinz von Biboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hein von Biboo (talkcontribs) 18:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To Genie[edit]

If you find fault in a section please explain specifically what you are looking for before deleting entire sections. Many of the authors of these sections are members of the I1 community and are very knowledgable of the subject matter which is changing at a quick rate of speed. The reality is that a fact does not need to appear in an academic journal to justify its inclusion. Wikipedia states that published, meaning publicly available sources, are considered acceptable. There are many sources of information besides academic journals. The internet is rich with information that these paragraphs reference when it comes to population data and other facts. Please exshare your interest in this article topic. Are you an academian? Are you an anthopologist? We would like to know what you are trying to do so that the community can work together on this page in a constructive manner.

Bodhi141 (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)