Talk:Haplogroup J-M172

Untitled

This article contradicts the Wikipedia article on Haplogroup J. Some of the info in this article is misleading, especially with respect to the frequency of Haplogroup J2 among Jewish males. Most published data show Jewish men, sephardic and Ashkenazi, carry Haplogroup J2 (M172) at about twice the rate of J1. The age of the M172 marker is estimated by Spencer wells to be 10K years old in his latest book, not 18,500 +-3500 years as stated in this article. 66.135.96.138 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

-Haplogroup J2 is not mainly found in Europe according to geneticist spencer wells and Semino et al, they simply state that haplogroup J2 as compared to J1 is found more frequently in Europe. Many Middle Eastern populations have rates of J2 that are numerically and percentage wise much higher than European populations, where it is observed at moderate frequency only in the Mediterranean region. Furthermore, in the northern Levant, J2 is seen as the older substratum of J and is found in semitic populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.72.124 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

J2 is mainly found in Europe, frequency data does not represent total population size. There is far more J2 in Europe then in the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.154.18 (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

J2 is not found mainly in Europe, in both frequency and absolute terms J2 is far more prevalent in West Asia than Europe.

Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History

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:

Description

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.

Rationale

• 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 -- eg 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 project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's 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) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me fix the order of the references?

I tried to fix the order of the references and I screwed up. Can someone advise me? Thanks. --Kupirijo (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Next time please use <ref> NOT {{ref}} --Kupirijo (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up all <ref> tags. Please use the {{cite}} template for references from here on out. --RebekahThorn (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

J2 Map is way off!

File:Inaccuratemap.jpg

The concentration of J2 is: Mesopotamia Levant

• Iraqis 29.7% (Sanchez et al. 2005)
• Lebanese 29.5% (wells et al. 2001 29% & Semino et al. 30%)
• Syrians 29%
• Sephardic Jews 29%
• Kurds 28.4%

• Then the frequency fades out of Mesopotamia

Turks 27.9%, Georgians 26.7% , Iranians 23.3%, Ashkenazi Jews 23.2%, Southern Italian 23%, Greeks 22.8%Tajiks 18.4%, North Indians 7.8% (R. Trivedi et al. 2007) 19.8% (Sahoo et al. 2006), Pakistanis 14.7%

• The map showed J2 center in the Caucas! Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The map is completely unsourced, i.d. without any reference, and probably stolen. The legend is an english-germanic mix, the not identifiable author points to Iran. Nevertheless, it should not be removed until providing a better one.HJJHolm (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nationalism Bias

In place of Origin, I avoided using nations because they distract from pinpointing the geographic origin & gives a nationalistic flavor to the article. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Its frustrating because alot of people are trying to make these articles better & your only focusing on nationlistic edits. Each place of origin has a link if someone doesn't know where that region is they will click on it!.Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

J2 Originated in Mesopotamia not Zagros

File:J2-origin.JPG

J2 origin*: O. Semino et al, C. Cinnioglu et al., N. Zahiri et al.

‎

• Please show me a study done by a recognized Anthropologist (not a blogger/website) that says the origin of J2 is from Zagros (A mountainous region!)

• Read..

O. Semino et al, C. Cinnioglu et al., N. Zahiri et al. I went through their J2 studies word by word I didn't find the word Zagros, your propaganda is ruinning this article please stop!..Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Reply: I believe the idea originated from Quintana-Murci et al "Y-chromosome lineages trace diffusion of people and languages in southwestern Asia" (2001), Am J Hum Genet 68:537–542. Here it is: http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Quintana-Murci-Iran.pdf.

What he actually wrote doesn't say outright that haplogroup J originated in the Zagros mountains, but it was picked up in Almut Nebel, et al, "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:1095–1112 (2001) where they state: "Hg 9 was shown to have spread from the Zagros Mountains in northwestern Iran (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001)." That is probably the article from which the concept in its simplified form began to spread.

Here's an extended quote from the original Quintana-Murci article (2001): "In Iranian populations, HG 9 shows very high frequencies (»30%–60%). Populations from the southeastern Caspian region and the Zagros Mountains exhibit the highest frequencies so far observed (»60%) (fig. 1A). High frequencies of HG 9 have been found throughout the Fertile Crescent region (Hammer et al. 2000): Palestinians, 51%; Lebanese, 46%; and Syrians, 57%. The incidences of HG 9 in Pakistan (18%) and northern India (19%) indicate a decreasing-frequency cline from Iran toward India. The most likely region of origin of a given HG can be recognized on the basis of two characteristics: it has the highest frequency and the highest diversity. Founder effects and drift in small populations can also lead to high HG frequencies, but this will usually affect neighboring populations differently and be accompanied by low diversity. Genetic diversity within HG 9 was therefore examined by the typing of HG-9 chromosomes from populations in Iran, Pakistan and India, at six microsatellite loci (DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393). If the number of mutations has been low, the haplotype (Ht) that underwent expansion is likely to be the one with the most common allele for each short tandem repeat (STR) (in this case, Ht 13: 14- 15-23-10-11-12). This Ht is present in our sample and is most frequent in the Iranian populations examined, as illustrated in the median-joining network (Bandelt et al. 1999) (fig. 2). Both the high incidence and the global haplotypic diversity of Iranian HG-9 chromosomes (D p .97), which are scattered throughout the medianjoining network, suggest that this region was the geographical origin of HG 9. Consistently, high haplotypicdiversity values of HG-9 chromosomes are also observed in the Zagros Mountains (D p .97) and southeastern Caspian regions (D p .98), where HG 9 exhibits its highest frequencies. These STR diversity values argue against drift being responsible for the increased HG-9 frequencies in these regions."

He's actually looking at the spread of these peoples toward the East -- he continues: "Altogether, the clinal variation and haplotypic diversity of this Y-chromosomal lineage support a model in which farming dispersal was accompanied by major population movements, probably originating in what was historically defined as Elam, towards the Indus valley, and this movement was associated with the dispersal of Dravidian languages (Renfrew 1996)."

If you read further in anthropology, you would find that the foothills of the Zagros are indeed considered to be one of the prime candidates for the first origins of agriculture, laying as they do just above the river valleys of the Tigris & Euphrates. Thus, to say that haplogroup J comes from the Zagros is probably an oversimplification, but I don't think it should be labeled "propaganda." The assertion that J2 came from there is, I think, a misstatement that has crept in, not deliberately but through carelessness, over time, as one person borrowed from another. Your map looks like a reasonable guess for the area of origin of J2. Iris-J2 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Iris-J2. The bulk of evidence, indeed, suggests a region of evolution through a span of land between North-Western Iran and Eastern Turkey (and perhaps even parts of the Lower Caucauses). This is where the I and J linkers split up. Where J represents a Mediterranean physical type, and I is the lighter Caucasoids. The attribution of Haplogroup J to 'Arabs', is a horrid farce, or a terrible generalization. Arabs carry a distinct haplotype J1, an independent product forming through ~10,0000 years of isolated evolution (from the data gathered it appears most likely that it came from Yemen). But even that being said, the phototype of (true) modern Arabs should be attributed to heavy mixing with East Africans (and a more minor mongoloid contribution). Yemenese women carry 35% East African mtDNA, which simply suggests that Arabs are 25% black. Europeans don't carry 'Arab', or certainly not black genes, but they are almost exclusively Fertile Crescentian, in origin. In fact, one autosomal study provided an estimate of, 'at least' (and I quote), 75% middle eastern origin, for modern Europeans. But the data is only based of modern sampling, which means it cannot account for evolution differences from founder effects (and genetic drifting), through recent history. So early Europeans (at 10KYBP), were even more genetically identical to early Neolthic dwellers of the Fertile Crescent (Interestingly, this would suggest Europeans are not true Caucasoids, but that's a whole other argument). Anyways, what is certain, is that all major Caucasoid Haplogroups(I,J,G,R) can be reasonably be suggested as being "Iranian" in origin. In fact, Haplogroup G, R, and J, have all been formerly proposed as being Iranian markers, based off clinial variation, and haplotype diversity. Given that, arguing over whether J2a1a1b2a43...ect..ect formed in Poland or Greece, or whereever, becomes senseless. And what is relevant, is the ultimate truth, that Europeans do not have a Paleolithic past. 2601:882:100:EF90:65B8:FA5A:9ED9:A1FA (talk)

Map again:

Sorry, but those maps do not seem very accurate. I was particularly surprised by the presumed concentration of J2 in the Basque country. In reality that region has one of the lowest levels of J2 J2 in Spain --Periergeia (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The map "Griechische Kolonisation" is from a lecture in German by Prof. Dr. Christian Pietsch. The map refers to Greek Colonization and not genetic-studies. It should be removed.LarG (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So, remove it, because it is stolen.HJJHolm (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

J2b (M102) as Ancient Greece connection?

Semino 2004(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965) says j2b (m102 old j2e) can be found in india and central asia with relatively large percentage, i believe experts thinks that j2b and R1a is proto-indo-european connection between asia and europe. And this is not enough j2b hardly found in cyprus, crete and southern italy(all three were part of ancient greece), for this reason please change this ancient greek connection claim and add indo-european conection to the article.--94.122.205.148 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Which experts would these be? I know of no scholarly paper making an Indo-European connection to any subclade of J. Paper after paper has connected the spread of J with the spread of farming in the Neolithic from the Near East (which includes the spread eastwards to Iran and India.) Spencer Wells connected R1a to the spread of Indo-European languages in Asia and Eastern Europe (which most linguists think occurred in the Bronze Age).--Genie (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Several authors have proposed that the Indo-European language presently spoken by Armenians arose during the Bronze Age, when Indo-European speaking tribes from the Balkans and Greece invaded Anatolia and Transcaucasia, leading to the subsequent spread of their culture and language. In this study, we have detected a number of lineages that are prominent in the Balkans (I2*, I2b*, J2b1 and J2b2) at low levels throughout Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van, the latter of which also contains haplogroups commonly associated with Bronze Age Greece (ie, J2a8-M319 (4.9%), and E1b1b1-M78 and its sublineages (3.9%)). While this may suggest genetic input from early Greek or Phrygian tribes, it is also possible that these low levels of Balkan lineages arrived in Armenia at a later time, such as during one of the many incursions into the area during the reign of the Macedonian, Roman and Byzantine empires." Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n3/full/ejhg2011192a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.154.18 (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"The phylogeography of the Y-haplogroups found in northeast Indian tribal groups suggests that haplogroups D-M174 and O-M175 and its derivatives are of East/Southeast Asian origin (Underhill et al. 2001), haplogroups H-M52 and F-M89 are of indigenous Indian origin (Cordaux et al. 2004), and haplogroups J-M172, L-M20, R-M17, and R-M124 are associated with Indo-European speakers (Cordaux et al. 2004)." The Northeast Indian Passageway: A Barrier or Corridor for Human Migrations? http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/8/1525.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.154.18 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the consensus of research (including the 2011 paper in Nare you cite) is pretty clear that early Indo-European or proto-Indo-European speakers are associated with R1A and R1B, whereas J2 is associated with the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Ancient Near East, not with proto-Indo-European migrations. Jacob D (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

broken external link

There are lots of problems with this page. I'll mention one: the dead link to www.m410.net. Anybody know where this is now? Or gone? IanHerriott (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

Nice looking map, but some inconsitencies. J2 does not occure in frequencies of > 10% throughout all the Balkans. In Greece and Bulgaria it is c. 20%, then 5-10% Serbia and Macedonia, <5% the rest

More accurate:

File:HaploJ2.png

J2

Hxseek (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

-- You need to edit this somehow, since your newest revision, which isn't too bad, doesn't come up when one clicks on the thumbnail -- rather, your older version appears, which doesn't reflect the map from Semino 2004 which you cite as your source. Iris-J2 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I just made a number of revisions, hope people won't mind. The new ISOGG tree needed to be added, that shouldn't be controversial. The two paragraphs I removed were a mixture of outdated, inaccurate, and incomplete information, presented in an unclear way, that would have required enormous work to re-write. There are obviously more than eight sub-haplogroups in J2 now -- depending on how you define them. There have been so many articles with so much new data since the cited 2004 article by Semino. There were several little assertions in the article that appeared at random points, referring to possible origins of certain clades, which weren't part of any balanced, systematic coverage of the origins of J2 clades overall, and appeared to correspond to individual's personal interests. Some links were broken, and the inclusion of the British Isles DNA project to the external links didn't make sense, since a large number of ethnic and geographical DNA projects contain J2 members, the British Isles having a lower proportion than many others.

There's still a lot that could be done to improve this article, but this is a start. BTW, something should be done about the "subclades of J2 Haplogroup" diagram, which was lifted directly from Sengupta (2006), despite the ingenuous claim of Adnanmuf that he made it himself, and it's already out of date. See the many other cases of images he has improperly used on Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adnanmuf So this should be removed too, shouldn't it? Iris-J2 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

These are long overdue changes and improved the article, especially by bringing the ISOGG tree up to date. As mentioned above, more work remains, especially it seems to me in regards to the graphics. I agree that the subclades diagram is dubious and outdated and needs to be replaced or simply removed. The removal of mention of possible origins of certain subclades may indeed be warranted, though if the text "A subclade of haplogroup J2a, defined by the M92 marker has been implicated in the ancient Greek colonization " warrants removal, then the associated graphic titled "Distribution of Ancient Greek colonies corresponding to that of Hg J2a-M92" should be removed/kept in tandem. The J2 Distribution map seems OK, but does not contain the entire range of J2, notably in light of the expanded discussion of J2 in Indian Castes and the Tharu of Nepal. Regarding the map graphic of the "correspondence" between J2 and Cardial pottery, I find this kind of loose geographical blobogram type correlation particularly unconvincing, though I'm unqualified to argue strongly against its inclusion.IanHerriott (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Origin

I tried to verify the info about the origin of J2 from the references provided, but I failed to find it, could anyone provide the qoutes and page numbers from these references here. Sole Soul (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The information about Zalloua and Wells is false. This is false:

"Zalloua and Wells 2004 and al-Zaheri 2003 uncovered the earliest known migration of J2, from Sumeria to Canaan.[2][8] In what may or may not have been a reference to that particular migration from Sumeria to Canaan, Genesis 11:27-28 [3] says that the family of Abraham came from Ur, a Sumerian city... Zalloua & Wells 2004 noted that J-M172 existed at least during the founding of Jericho (circa 10,500 YBP).[2]"

In the article of Zalloua and Wells, and in the article about them, there is no mention of such silly claims - and it should be noted that those claims contradict each other, because "the founding of Jericho" happened between 10,000 and 9000 BCE, while the "earliest known migration of J2, from Sumeria to Canaan" couldn't have happened before 6,000 BCE because Sumer was first permanently settled between 5500 and 4000 BCE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.210.134.202 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Early Neolithic peoples evolved thorugh a span of land between Eastern Turkey , the Lower Caucauses, and North-Western Iran

Thank you for your reply, Iris-J2. The bulk of evidence, indeed, suggests a region of evolution through a span of land between North-Western Iran and Eastern Turkey (and perhaps even parts of the Lower Caucauses). This is where the I and J linkers split up. Where J represents a Mediterranean physical type, and I is the lighter Caucasoids. The attribution of Haplogroup J to 'Arabs', is a horrid farce, or a terrible generalization. Arabs carry a distinct haplotype J1, an independent product forming through ~10,0000 years of isolated evolution (from the data gathered it appears most likely that it came from Yemen). But even that being said, the phototype of (true) modern Arabs should be attributed to heavy mixing with East Africans (and a more minor mongoloid contribution). Yemenese women carry 35% East African mtDNA, which simply suggests that Arabs are 25% black. Europeans don't carry 'Arab', or certainly not black genes, but they are almost exclusively Fertile Crescentian, in origin. In fact, one autosomal study provided an estimate of, 'at least' (and I quote), 75% middle eastern origin, for modern Europeans. But the data is only based of modern sampling, which means it cannot account for evolution differences from founder effects (and genetic drifting), through recent history. Anyways, what is certain, is that all major Caucasoid Haplogroups(I,J,G,R) can be reasonably be suggested as being "Iranian" in origin. In fact, Haplogroup G, R, and J, have all been formerly proposed as being Iranian markers, based off clinial variation, and haplotype diversity. Given that, arguing over whether J2a1a1b2a43...ect..ect formed in Poland or Greece, or wherever, becomes senseless. And what is relevant, is the ultimate truth, that Europeans do not have a Paleolithic past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, just looking at this, could this post not be construed as at least slightly biased (or even racist)? The claim that Arabs are "25% black" is flawed on so many levels: first, in genetics there are no such racial categories (especially not defined by physical appearance) as they are phenotype, not genotype. You also cite very little sources, and the whole basing of your argument is shifty at best... these things are mainly hypothetical to start with. We still cannot say for sure where haplotypes originated (except for that they all ultimately come from Africa), we simply do not have a complete set of evidence...--Yalens (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, proposing R, J and G as specifically Iranian markers is laughable. All three emerged long before Iranians (and possibly even Indo-Europeans) even existed as a distinct group, and are found on a wide span of peoples that certainly aren't limited to those with Iranian influences... --Yalens (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Let;s not start inventing our own theories Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The map isn't really accurate...

I could list so many examples, but perhaps the most glaring is that the regions with the highest concentration of J2 are either drastically underrepresented or even left gray... Northeast Georgia has 72%, but there is no note that it has ANY on the map. Ingush and Chechens have 32% and 26% (it is probably more prevalent in the Southern highlands of the two countries). And by contrast, Southern Dagestan- i.e. Lezgins, Tabasarans, etc...- which has very little to none, according to the map has it notably... I have made a much more detailed version on my computer, but it involved a bit of guesswork (though I swear, much less than the current version!)... It should definitely be changed though....--Yalens (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ossetes in sidebox

I've preserved the split between Ossetians in South Ossetia (24% J2), Ardon (29% J2) and Digora (only 3%!) because it is the way that Nasidze did his data, and also because it is important to note the regional variation in Ossete DNA. --Yalens (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Work of Nasidze is made of very small quantity of tests

On the people of Caucasus Litvinov and Kutuev have given out the latest works about 20 % J2 at the Ossetin

On the largest database ysearch.org there are 13 ossetian results from them 4 - J2, these are ~30 %

I ask not to correct any more the table because trifles especially based on the small data here should not to hang. More objectively to write ~20% Astanti

If you could provide links to Litvinov and Kutuyev's work, that would be very nice :). Until you do, however, I will keep the regional differentiation, though I'm deleting Digora from the box since it is not "high"- on wikipedia, we use sources, not rough approximations. As for ysearch, that is not a scientific study as far as I can see from the site, rather it is a listing of users by their haplotype. And not a single one of them is located in teh North Caucasus for J2 on their "search by haplogroup" option (though there is one in Tqvarcheli).--Yalens (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Avars, Ossetes and "Kazbegi" Georgians

@Alba Illyrian on Avars: Labeling another editor as biased is not really constructive. Why don't I think that Marchani should be used instead of Yunusbaev regarding the figure for Avars? It's not because I am "biased", its because Yunusbaev is much more familiar with the region and much more importantly, he sampled a much bigger sample of Avars than Marchani did. Marchani only sampled 12, and furthermore, she does not know the region. Yunusbaev's figures are also more similar to those of other studies on the region (Caciagli for example). Even more critical in my mind, there is the possibility that Marchani's "Avars" were actually an Andic people labeled as Avars by the Dagestani census, but have quite different origins. The stats on Marchani's "Avars" are quite different from those of Caciagli and Yunusbaev's tests, but DO show similarity with the Andis in Yunusbaev 2006. If you look at the map of the sample population locations (geographic), it reveals that the location of these "Avars" in Marchani is actually in mountainous Western Avaria- where Andis and their relatives live. In short, Caciagli and Yunusbaev are much more authoritative. Marchani even said that her goal was to determine "1) whether the highland practice of patrilocal endogamy has generated sex-specific population relationships, and 2) whether the history of migration and military conquest associated with the lowland populations has left Central Asian genes in the Caucasus, by comparing genetic diversity and pairwise population relationships between Daghestani populations and reference populations throughout Europe and Asia for autosomal, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosomal markers." (from the PDF of Marchani's test). Note how determining the makeup of individual populations is not here (hence the small samples). And in any case, why do you add in Marchani's info, but delete Yunusbaev's?--Yalens (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop to falisification! "its because Yunusbaev is much more familiar with the region and much more importantly, he sampled a much bigger sample of Avars than Marchani did. Marchani only sampled 12, and furthermore, she does not know the region". YUNUSBAYEV IS NOT FAMILIAR IN REGION. Yunusbayev is from turkic Bashkortostan (!)It is Ural region!And all that is written by Yunusbayev there is a complete nonsense. This is nationalist engaged pseudo scholar--37.139.52.40 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

on Wells' "Kazbegis": In Wells 2001, this group is labeled as "Kazbegis", rather than Georgians, despite this not being the case ethnically (ethnically, they are undoubtedly Georgian). In Nasidze, they are counted once again as separate groups (as are Svans) from Georgians. Nasidze is both a Georgian and a professional- I trust his viewpoint. If you're doing the range without discerning subgroups, it should technically be "0-72%", because Svans, another Georgian subgroup, were found to have 0%. In any case, if you're going to subsume it under Georgians, you could at least put something like "Georgians (21%, but 72% in Kazbegi)", to make clear that no test has shown Georgians as a whole to be anywhere close to 72%, and to make sure that wikipedia accurately covers info (and once again, I trust the judgment of Nasidze). --Yalens (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

on South Ossetes: In fact, various wiki pages show regional subgroups in their analyses. For example, everyone makes clear when it is Croats from the isle of Hvar or mainland Croats; Italians are almost always divided along regional lines; etc. North Ossetes as a whole (as per Nasidze's test on North Ossetes, their ave was a little under 14%, data is here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/9/47) had an average of less than 24%, and South Ossetes do not represent the whole, so the differentiation is made. I don't see how this is so horrible. --Yalens (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin

I think an indian origin could explain something about indoeuropeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadb (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You think wrong. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

J2 Prescence in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews

What are the total percentages of J2-M172 in Russian Jews and Iranian Jews? Do non-Jewish populations there have the same haplogroup and if so, by how much lower or higher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.154.139 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

the bit about Genesis & geneticists both saying that Sumerians migrated to Canaan.

TO ALL WHO READ: Whichever way the "consensus" on the following issue goes, please note Jingiby removed more than just the Genesis citation, he removed citations to geneticists--which I added at the same time as my addition of the note that Genesis may corroborate the genetic findings. So don't do a revert (you'll re-remove the citation to Nebel eta al 2004 that way!), if the decision goes against me, please remove the 1 sentence about Genesis MANUALLY:

Jingiby objects because he sees it as my "religious sentiments"...nevermind that I'm atheist (my Recent Edits will even show nothing but my skepticism, though not hatred, toward religious dogma).

But I think the Genesis citat'n -- noting that Sumerians migrated to / had contact with Canaan -- is in accord with the current Scientific Consensus which reject both the Biblical Maximalists and the Biblical Minimalists, whereas Jingiby strikes me as using a hardcore-Minimalist or perhaps even an anti-theist perspective. I see including this sentence as matter of the Old Testament's historicity not its theological dogma: i.e. It's a book that contains both plenty of geography, etc, which my fellow archaeologists (mostly atheists) have usually either confirmed or can't confirm-nor-deny when it comes to GEOGRAPHY & ETHNOGEOGRAPHY, and Genesis does contain sections that do talk about The Little Man In The Sky...but what I've cited is a part about ethno-geographic migrations (historicity) NOT a part referring to unproven mythical creatures and thus is 1 of the parts of the Bible that many -- nay most -- anthropologists use to corroborate their work.

EDIT (ADDED LATER): Also I think my attention (MINIMAL) to Gen11 was given WP:DUEWEIGHT compared to my other (COMPARATIVELY LARGE) contributions. Either way, Jingiby's edits are sloppy & thus his whole history of Wikipedia edits should be checked, given that he TWICE removed MORE THAN just the Genesis ref, despite himself saying that the Genesis ref was the only part he disagreed with. The same book (Genesis) for example does corroborate the Darwinist theory that plants preceded animals, then humans came after (all the MAJOR categories of) animals, but ofc it also gets plenty of the details wrong, as most cultures' Oral Folktales do get generalities correct but details incorrect (assuming that Genesis was largely from a time before Israelites had paper+ink ;-) ); in this case, Zalloua&Wells 2004, Semino 2004, al-Zahery 2003, etc are NOT contradicting the Bible and LIKELY corroborating the Bible. It's not a perfect source, but I do encourage giving it credit where & when credit is (most likely) due, as in this case of "Sumerians-->Canaan". 72.183.52.92 (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That article must be written from genetic perspectieve, not from linguistic, historical, Biblical etc. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, ask for a third opinion. Jingiby (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

TO JINGIBY:

Realise that we scientists often DO rely on other disciplines of anthropology: ethnogenetics is a BRANCH OF anthropology, not a field of science that exists in a vacuum, as you seem to be claiming in your last post. You are making me repeat myself, because you're IN DENIAL completely about the FACT -- I say again, FACT, not my opinion -- that myself and the vast majority of other scientists are not Biblical Minimalists nor Maximalists, as the articles on Biblical Minimalism and Biblical Maximalism will show you WITH REFERENCES; i.e. we're perfectly comfortable to say, "Hey look, even that Primary Source doc, the Bible, corroborates us." (or that the archaeologists like John N Tubb (who continues the connection from Sumeria all the way to Israelites [not only Canaanites] by showing that Israelites are "ethnically" [to quote Tubb] Canaanites) "corroborates my/our work".

I've tried working with you:

1. I notified you that you've removed PEER-REVIEWED genetic info: parts that you haven't even objected to!

2. I tried to be the bigger man, by suggesting taking this to Talk; but now you've still given ZERO rationale (see also Logic) nor any signs (nor even denials) that you comprehend how we work w/other anthropologists, including, yes, a Primary Source historic document such as the Bible, and yet, despite your childish lack of ability to EXPLAIN your position as I have just done, you still did a THIRD revert (3RR); stop with the reverts at least temporarily. And are you such a complete Jingbat that you don't even know HOW to edit MANUALLY so that you don't remove the bits citing GENETIC RESEARCH, so that you ONLY remove the sentence about "Genesis," as I've already requested TWICE that you refrain from removing the bits that cite geneticists (PhD's) along WITH the Genesis bit? People with "sloppy" editing like yours are a disaster for Wikipedia.

It's also noteworthy that you've added ZERO substance (constructive edits) to this article in the past YEAR, in contrast to how I've just spent the last 8 hours adding 99% genetic (deffo not Genesis-related) peer-reviewed info as 99% of my edits, in contrast to you, who PURELY came here Wiki-lawyering to "keep dat Bible out of mah science, why, I worship at da altar of Darwin" but as I just EXPLAINED, we scientists DO use the Bible to corroborate some things; if you were even a real scientist, you'd have known that already!! You had no answer for that; you cannot have an answer for that b/c most people KNOW that we (especially archaeologists) often check whether the Bible agrees with one geographical (and ethno-geographical) position or the other, and you're just being an anti-theism dogmatist (as illogical as a religious dogmatist, given how we've seen the Bible HAS usually agreed with our scientific findings in the past [or at least doesn't positively conflict with our findings]), rather than respecting the fact that we scientists DO look to history's earliest/Primary Source docs (which includes the Bible) to corroborate our work. <--There, I just explained it again, in different words, because you seem to have trouble even comprehending English.

Also noteworthy: I see others on your personal page complaining that you did the same to them, with no rationale.

If people agree with you, they'll agree that the sentence is "out of place" and delete it or come to the Talk page...and then we have the "3rd opinion. I'll also contact someone who's been editing this page; leave it up for a day so he has a chance to comment. But you need to let others SEE it in context, within the article, for them to judge properly.72.183.52.92 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not even the Bible mentions anything about a "Sumerian migration to Canaan", if you actually bother to check it. Jacob D (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

About "Nakh people" and Daghestanians

So called "Nakh people" such people don't exist. It is propaganda. There are people speaking the Nakh-Dagestanian languages (North Eastern Caucasian).Idea that, Dagestanians (peoples of Daghestan)mainly treat one haplogroup J1, and Chechens another has under itself no firm soil. There is no research at once of two people which author would be the same scientist. The statement that the vast majority of Dagestanians (first of all Darginians) concern to Arabs belongs to a Pan-Turkist Bayazit Yunusbayev from turkic Bashkortostan. And if this pseudo scholar would be engaged in studying of Chechens and Ingushs, its conclusions of a bla the same. That is it would start utvezhdat that Chechens belong to "Arabs". As far as this person is incompetent clearly from his statements that haplogroups Ia,Ib,Ic found in Dagestany can to be connected with Scythians and Sarmatians. That is their penetration. But one author has no such data. And it finds these Skitho-Sarmatian genes only in the most culturally backward the, mountainous villages where there live the anti-Avarian separatists.It has also a statement that Turkic-speaking Kumyks of Dagestan are allegedly genetically more related to the Turkic peoples of Central Asia than North Caucasians. Anybody has no similar ideas,statements they are present ONLY at Yunusbayev. And still Yunusbayev constantly compares the genetic data taken at huge number of Turkic peoples of Daghestan with scanty number of the genetic data taken from small number the caucasian speaking Dagestanians. That is at it always so: "We compared data taken at 3500 Turkic speaking Karanogays,.with 7 Darginians, 5 Kubachis and 9 Ando-Tsez. Yes same totally ludicrous! And knowing that other researchers came to a conclusion about genetic proximity for example of Avars with Georgians and Iranians, Yunusbayev right there doesn't mention any Iranians at all. It simply doesn't attract them to comparison, but instead of them at Yunusbayev Kypriotes-Turks appear. And and here Kypriotes Turks.. It has both Turks and Rypriotes-Turks, and here Iranians aren't present. Doesn't want to show and compare their data. This is the speculator, but not the scientist.The data provided on this page proceed from Yunusbayev's researches though directly don't mention him. And still if write about Chechens from Dagрestan then specify that they are MIGRANTS on the Daghestan earth.--37.139.52.40 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A pan-Turkic scribblers long time and thoroughly falsify everything they can.It came to the point that they are on the Turkish page of the Wikipaedia article "great Kumyks" (Kumuklar) posted misinformation that the alleged national leader of the peoples of the North Caucasus Sheikh Shamil was supposedly the Kumyk (!?).Everywhere and all of the scientific publication know Shamil as the Avar from the village of Gimry (District Untsukul),only Turkish Wikipaedia knows he as "Turkic Kumyk/Kumuk". Moreover,in Dagestan, in the village of Gimry visited relatives of Shamil and none of them claimed that they belong to the Kumyks.Therefore, we strongly recommend a very wary to the edits and publications belonging to the Turks.Bayezid Yunusbaev (from turkic Bashkortostan of Russia) is one of them.--109.172.58.15 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haplogroup J-M172/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is no source for the statment that Haplogroup J2 is found in 33% of Greek males. According to the paper "Y chromosome variation in Jordan" by Flores et al, 24.5% of Greeks carry Haplogroup J2. The following statement "The less-heterogeneous J2 (J-M172), which occurs as frequently as J1( J-M267) in some Middle Eastern populations, is the more prevalent in Europe." is Misleading. J2 (J-M172) is NOT more prevalent in Europe. The statement seems to state that J2 is more common in Europe than the Middle East. It is however, the more common type of Haplogroup J that is found in Europe. 99.239.249.134 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, all of us know that among Greeks are in the lead in Europe by quantity of purely African genes therefore existence of Middle Eastern genes as if spoils the general almost perfectly African origin."The less-heterogeneous J2 (J-M172), which occurs as frequently as J1( J-M267) in some Middle Eastern populations, is the more prevalent in Europe."This citation is taken from some scientific work. It the point is that the author claims that this J2 haplogroup, and at all not J1 prevails in Europe. that is it is more widespread in comparison with J1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrkan (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

this article about J2-M172 or J-M172 is way outdated

From the actual data presented to me, I can say this article is way off. I'm no anthropologist, but please fix it. This is the Human Migration map from the genographic project https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What diasporas and what Altai?

Strange statements according to Armenians allegedly have no J2 haplogroup (that is incorrect) and all the matter is that allegedly according to the text are introduced in article:“as well as many peoples (e.g. Jews, Armenians, Lebanese) having returned from diasporas”.Sorry,this text is unclear also without citations.However we know thatArmenia, situated between the Black and Caspian Seas, lies at the junction of Turkey, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan and former Mesopotamia. This geographic position made it a potential contact zone between Eastern and Western civilizations. In this investigation, we assess Y-chromosomal diversity in four geographically distinct populations that represent the extent of historical Armenia. We find a striking prominence of haplogroups previously implicated with the Agricultural Revolution in the Near East, including the J2a-M410-, R1b1b1*-L23-, G2a-P15- and J1-M267-derived lineages. Unless this J2a-M410- haplogroup belongs not to Armenians, but some diasporas? It is obvious that the fact of existence of this haplogroup as at Armenians, and the Anatolian Turks (< Hattic-Hurro-Caucasian World) didn't suit nationalistically oriented participants of both Armenia, and various Turkic state educations which arose on the world map after the collapse of the USSR in any way.Thus, genetic history of true owners of these territories that is Hattic-Hurro-Caucasians has to suffer because of extremely nationalist approach of both parties.Also bewilderment causes strange digressions to history of archeological excavations in Altai, a mention of this haplogroup J2a with cunning turn towards extensive Western Asia and with the further instruction on the Anatolian Turks.First, it is in this case not about extensive Western Asia, and specifically Syro-Anatolian-Сaucasian region. You shouldn't try to prove unprovable, namely that at a Turkic-speaking these genes from some other Turkic peoples (!?). Anything similar! According to genetic researches on the people of Afghanistan (see the map of a genetic distance), Uyghurs of China and Uzbeks of Afghanistan (also the Hazara of Afghanistan and Pakistan) is much closer to some people of the northeast Caucasus (Dagestan), than to Anatolian Turks.See: Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events.These facts once again confirm not Tirkic origin of a source, but its genetical PRIMORDIAL Hattic-Hurro-Caucasian origin--Wrkan (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup J-M172. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102123334/http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=11024115 to http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=11024115

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Children

Und 2001:871:4F:2BB2:4454:C87D:20EB:8F5E (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)