Talk:Haplogroup R1a/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Haplogroup R1a. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Singling out rare mutations

IMHO, there is no reason for the following sentence "Concerning other sub-clades, R1a1a3 is defined by the M64.2, M87, and M204 SNPs and is apparently rare, for example found in 1 of 117 males typed in southern Iran.^[1]". For R1a1a1, R1a1a2, R1a1a4, R1a1a5, and R1a1a8 to be subclades they need to be found in at least one individual. Why Andrew continues to pay particular attention to this particular rare subclade is not clear given the fact he keeps erasing the sentences in the Lede and the First section lede concerning R1a1a6 and R1a1a7. It seems hypocritical.PB666 ^yap 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have not commented on this before, but of course dealing with facts like this has been put to one side due to other distractions on this article. The basic question I have is whether you have looked through all the literature and found that this is definitely the ONLY case ever found. Or are you assuming I did it? I think it is the latter. You do not ever seem to notice that I keep putting in words like "for example" and you keep changing the words to imply that there was definitely only one case ever found. I do not believe your assumption is correct, but I have also not spent time on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no assumption here, following wiki-guidelines I am commenting on what was presented and asking the question why specific discussion of R1a1a3 is encyclopedic. The informative response would have been, not only is it found in Iran but it was also detected here, here and here. I have no obligation to prove anything here, you have an obligation to informatively answer my critique, again an argumentative and diversionary response.PB666 ^yap 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten the context. Your edit assumed I knew something which I did not know. The exact change of wording you preferred included making it sound more definite that it is. If we keep the "for example" then what is wrong with mentioning some example information about this sub-clade, which someone can perhaps add to later?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Because there is at least one example of all the Subclades, and we are not singling these out for further discussion.
Because the confidence limits for the frequency of 1 in 117 is a frequency between 0.0021 and 0.0465, a 22 fold range as determined by retrograde probabilities on the binomial probability distribution (two of these taken together form the basis of the Fisher Exact Test).
because without knowing the sample from which the other mutations were derived the frequency range may be higher.

In conclusion there is simply too little information about this single mutant to make it encyclopedic. Or I could beg the issue, given that there are over 3000 detected mutations for HLA, should I discuss every known variant for an HLA serotype on the page, or should I focus on HLA alleles that are most important in the population? I am not applying any different standard here than I would apply for an HLA page. Single occurrence alleles are not encyclopedic, unless they are found to be life threatening mutants in some very famous person.PB666 ^yap 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the big issue. I would think that this section needs to be expanded eventually, when someone has time to look up what is really known about these sub-clades. You are simply removing information. It will not be anywhere else in the article. But if you feel strongly about it, you could take it out at least until someone has time to work on this subject one day. Maybe a compromise is to make a footnote mentioning the example from Iran. I leave it to you within reason though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Section heads, expanded or compacted

Prelude. I have redone the section heads from a dual R-M##### (R1xxxxx) model to R-M###. I __Really__ prefer the R1xxx style. However as this style has been disrupted by changes in the R1 family tree, in compliance to Wiki standards for persistent (non-changing) section heads the R-M####.

An example of a section head that would be destroyed, Previously under the old nomenclature there was a haplotype known as R1a1b. If we had a section on R1a1b that section title and the links disrupted when the new name became R1a1a3. Page#section links, for example Haplogroup R1a(Y-DNA)#R1a1c under the current wikisystem, would not have been updated to Haplogroup R1a(Y-DNA)#R1a1a3 when the section name changes from R1a1c to R1a1a3. It would simply link to the R1a pages lede. Obviously this is not a problem because only now are we creating these sections for future use. But we want the section heads to remain constant, not to change with whims and fancies of the nomenclature people.

So the question is whether such links would be disrupted with a future possible change in the nomenclature, for example the insertion of new clades within the base of R1a (between current R1/R1* and R1a1a).

Is this going to be a problem? I have search through about 100 links from other articles to R1b and E1b1b page, randomly clicking on links to pages, and then tracing the link back to these pages. The inter-page links are simply not being used. These are not even being used in cases where they are supposed to be used, for example: Haplogroup E-M35 (Y-DNA) does not link to E1b1b#Subclades_of_E1b1b1_.28E-M35.29 it simply links to the page. In other articles it is the same thing, talking about the Berber E1b1b links to E1b1b page and not the E1b1b1b section of that page.

I counted a large number of links that should be in the Main#Section link style that are simply Main. So the question is, should we create a page that is suited for an idealized version of how links should work in WP or should we create a page for the reality, people who work o pages associated with Y-DNA who are too lazy to make the interpage links when appropriate. Hopefully there will be improvements in the Y-DNA pages at some future point that writers are aware of and following the wiki standards. Maybe by that time all the bugs in Y-DNA cladistics will be permanently fixed.PB666 ^yap 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning nomenclature, this should be discussed on WP:HGH rather than being decided by edit war. There has been a discussion for some time. The situation was being watched. Apparently now we shall become dictatorship.

Concerning your study of E1b1b1 links you simply do not know what you are talking about and you should stop pretending that you do.

There is absolutely no reason that "Haplogroup E-M35 (Y-DNA)" should link to "E1b1b#Subclades_of_E1b1b1_.28E-M35.29" because E-M35 is not a sub-clade but is instead the same thing as E1b1b1.

There is absolutely no reason that "Berber E1b1b" should link to E1b1b the E1b1b1b sub section because Berber E1b1b is made up of two clades, not one.

Furthermore your continuing argument that the unknown parts of the Y phylogenies in this field are a kind of temporary error is simply a misleading error, as I have tried to explain several times.

Please move this discussion to WP:HGH and when you have consensus there, then you might feel some authorization to impose it on individual articles.

For now, sorry to say it, you are simply ignorant of the subject matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, once again Andrew you not only clutter up the page with diatribe, but you at the same time make you make mistatements.

The edit war developed because you increasing developed a chip on your shoulder with increasingly inappropriate remarks, just like those above. I may allow the section names you proposed to be returned if no-one stands up for the wiki-standard.
From the E1b1b#E1b1b1b "It is colloquially referred to as the "Berber marker" for its prevalence among Mozabite, Moyen Atlas, Kabyle and other Amazigh groups, E-M81 is also quite common among North African Arab groups. It reaches frequencies of up to 80% in the Maghreb. This includes the Saharawish for whose men Bosch et al. (2001) reports that approximately 76% are M81+.", and so yes if they are referring to the colloquial Berber marker they are referring to E1b1b#E1b1b1b section. It is not linked as such. Do I care, no.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its a duck. Your not going to convince me that Y studies are good phylogenetics until the invest in NRY sequencing, until such time you can keep your ideas about what is good and bad science to yourself. Y chromosomal studies are the only genetic studies in which the human geneologist are claiming a TMRCA of 70 kya and a certain mutation rate, and the people who study X-linked and Autosomal evolution say, that they've got it completely wrong, the chimpanzee testicular hypertrophy has caused extreme bias in the relative rates of evolution. What was the latest estimate, chimpanzee testicular evolution is 5.5 times that of ovarian evolution. In humans it only 2.5, thats a pretty big bias that the Y chromosomal people keep sweeping under the rug. Yes, the work it finally reaching the credibility level, but you yourself said that the STR estimates used by Underhill overestimate the branch TMRCAs by 3 fold. All across the board, from what Spencer Wells has promoted his career to how they are molecular clocking is a steaming pile of BS. Y-chromosomal studies have an emotional following, assume much more importance than what other genetics suggest about male lineages (carry only about 1/3 the diversity in the human population) and have been the source of some very poor and misleading science.
There is virtually no traffic in HGH, (2.5 hits per day, and probably 2 of those are you and Muntawandi) and (this talk page has close to 50 per day [1]). Talk:WP:HGH is probably the worst place in Wikipedia to have that form of discussion. Provided we can get our collective acts together on improving some pages we might actually be able to draw some interest to HGH and the project page. Other than you and me and Muntawandi, and occasionally geog1 this project is dead. I appear to be the only person in the project who has set my POV aside to help push some pages up so at least we might be considered for a featured article someday. The mt Eve page isn't going to do it, some moron filled the page with lies and mistatements over since it was a featured article and it was demoted to B status. Anybody and everybody does what they want, and no-one follows any standards and few have well guided complaints, so lets just leave that dead horse on the ground, cause you ain't gonna get a ride that way.

And according to the wiki talk page guidelines this is the place to discuss improving the article. I should note that the Haplogroup A page uses only one section header, same style as mine.

2.1 A1-P108
2.2 A2-M6
2.3 A3-M32
2.3.1 A3b1-M51
2.3.2 A3b2-M13

and I

4.1 I-M170
4.1.1 I-M253
4.1.2 I-M438
4.1.2.1 I-M423
4.1.2.2 I-M26
4.2 I-M436

and M

M-M4
M-M104
M-M353
M-P34
M-P117

N, the same thing. mostly

2.1.1 N-LLY22g
2.1.2 N-M128
2.1.3 N1b (P43)
2.1.4 N1b-E
2.1.5 N-Tat

D uses a different format

3.2.2 D1 (M15)
3.2.3 D1a (N1)
3.2.4 D2 (M55)
3.2.5 D3a (P47)

G uses still another format

3.1 G1 (M285+)
3.2 G2a1 (P16+)
3.3 G2a2 (M286+)
3.4 G2a3a (M406+)
3.5 G2a3b* (L141+)
3.6 G2a3b1 (P303+)
3.7 G2a4 (L91+)
3.8 G2c (M377+)

E and R1b uses still a different format

3.1 E1
3.2 E1a
3.3 E1b
3.3.1 E1b1
3.3.2 E1b1a
3.3.3 E1b1b
3.4 E2

2.1 R1b1
2.2 R1b1a
2.3 R1b1b
2.3.1 R1b1b1
2.3.2 R1b1b2
2.3.3 R1b1b2a1a1
2.3.3.1 R1b1b2a1a1a
2.3.3.2 R1b1b2a1a1c
2.3.3.3 R1b1b2a1a1d
2.3.4 R1b1b2a1a2
2.3.4.1 R1b1b2a1a2b
2.3.4.2 R1b1b2a1a2c
2.3.4.3 R1b1b2a1a2d
2.3.4.4 R1b1b2a1a2e
2.3.4.5 R1b1b2a1a2f
2.3.4.6 R1b1b2a1a2f2
2.4 R1b1c

O uses a different format

2.1 Haplogroup O1a-M119
2.2 Haplogroup O2a-M95
2.2.1 Haplogroup O2a1-M88
2.2.2 Haplogroup O2a1a-PK4
2.3 Haplogroup O2b-M176
2.3.1 Haplogroup O2b1-47z
2.4 Haplogroup O3-M122
2.4.1 Haplogroup O3a3c-M134
2.4.2 Haplogroup O3a3b-M7

Only articles using your favored section headers, are the ones you've worked one. So lets removed that source of bias in this 'who is a dictator argument here'. Secondarily I haven't decided yet, if we have a clear and broad consensus and every agrees that no-one is going to link directly to sections, I may change my mind. I am acting in good faith here to measure what is important.

The wiki standards, place family trees into cladograms. Y standard - make a dirty laundry list basically a cut and past from some outside projects page. The wiki standard, use non-changing section titles. Y standard - use any section style you like, in fact, write the page in any style, though heaps of information into pages with no organization, not tables, not helpful graphics, and no maps.

Thats because the HGH project does not follow wiki-standards, plain and simple look at any page. How many Y pages have been rated? about 10%. How many, if they were rated, would reach a C class? Most articles fall between a stub and start class. If these pages were in the Medicine project that would have been deleted.

So don't give me this pile of ____. You were one, not so far above saying your opinions about what an article should contain take priority of the wiki guidelines. Wikipedia is tolerant 'there are no rules' however to violate just about every guideline in the construction of articles really slaps the face of the encyclopedia. This is what I am trying to do with at least one Y page, bring it up to a standard consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. Just one page that has been reflected on by the broad membership of the encyclopedia.PB666 ^yap 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, Andrew, before you judge anyone, look at your references. Underhill et al. The Doi link does not work, there is no pubmed link, it has a non-standard author list. Your citations are a mess, if you spent some of the time fixing those references instead of arguing with me, you might actually place the article in a position to become a good article.PB666 ^yap 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I improved the article by putting the references in, and I do not think that requires any apologies from me. If you notice a broken doi number fix it yourself please. That's how Wikipedia works, and indeed right now you have taken over the article and I am no longer editing it. I think much of what you write above deserves study with third parties at a later date, for example "I may allow the section names you proposed to be returned if...". In any case, concerning nomenclature issues or anything else which you think should apply to all Y haplogroup articles, please discuss on WP:HGH.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Other editors may be interested in a previous discussion about referencing, also between Pdeitiker/PB666 and me, also about his preference for complicated footnote formats instead of Harvard style referencing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it would be in the best interest to come up with standardized nomenclature, linkage, etc. However, this would be a difficult task, as discoveries would continually warrant new articles, 'Policing' this would be a huge task for the apparently small group of HgH enthusiasts who actually know the subject at hand at a reasonable level. As an aside, the issue here isn;t the validity and applicability of Y-Hg studies. That should be worked into the HgH article as part of the discussion of the limitations of such studies. This is often neglected. I added a considerable amount of such discussion in the Genetic History of Europe page (if it's still there ? ) Hxseek (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to have a serious discussion, PDeitiker/PB666 needs to stick to one position. In discussion attempted above, when pressed he simply says that his preference is somehow Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is patent nonsense. Can PB666 confirm that he will stop waving that red herring?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can ignore the red herring, and discuss what is appropriate in this article, I'll start with my normal advice about what goes wrong so often: look at the context where you are editing. The sub-section headings which we are discussing here are actually part of a very article-specific section which was written to help explain a complexity about R1a terminology, something which PDeitiker himself is quite confused by.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again Andrew, your repeated throwing of insults will eventually take this to arbitration. You have assumed a hostile and combative attitude. Just like making numerous false statements the other day that were clearly untrue. What I understand or don't understand is immaterial, I read the article as it is presented, and I reflect on the understanding the article presents, that is what I am required to do by Wikipedia, remove myself of POV and critique inconsistencies and confusion within the article. Almost all of the Y articles are plaqued by Jargon, unexplained nomenclature and confusion.

People here have generally been appreciative of cleaning up this article and improving the explanations. The critical issue here is not why I present the unclarities, the critical issue here is why you can't read through the article from a disinterested point of view and take the reader into consideration. I should note that from day one, where I was dragged into mediating disputes on Y_DNA articles the primary issue is that not a single editor of these articles was placing the reader first, it took me two days of reviewing E1b1b page to find out where Andrews COI was taking place. But the largest COI of the article is that none of the editors were taking a NPOV, and the article was everyone was acting against the interest of the electronic general purpose encyclopedia. Andrew has not changed much, but hopefully by the end of this process he will see the rewards of working with WP and not working in a tangential direction. These articles generally lack explanatory graphics, and particularly with regard to E-M#### and phylogenetic names, numbers and proportions scattered heavily in the text, I came across a Y-DNA article last night of a single very long paragraph with peoples (##%), that format is not encyclopedic, its garbage.PB666 ^yap 17:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again if I had not taken a disinerested stance on these Jargons, these article improvements would not have been made because Andrew appears to have been clueless that other people would not understand the reasoning for the constant shift in nomenclature describing the same thing. In fact he went so far in that direction that he ripped the common names for Page07 and Page68 SNPs, the ones clearly displayed in Underhills cladogram and replaced them with rs####### with no explanation on R1a main for that nomenclature shift, giving pause to anyone comparing Underhill with the cladogram to wonder, where did Page68 go and where did the rs####### come from, they would have to go all the way back a poorly formatted table (almost like tables on some Y-DNA pages) to find out what he had done. So that I told Andrew that I am holding the line on R1a, no more unexplained Jargon, every effort should be in the direction of making the page more explained.

Listen folks, this process I went through same as Andrew. I argued with an administrator almost the same way Andrew is arguing with me, 'you don't understand HLA nomenclature, why can't you read the papers' geeze you are dumb I was thinking'. But he was essentially right, unless you can come up with an explanation that is fitting of the general audiance, why should I pretend to understand you. I thought the science was more important than the pages, but after hearing the complaints an letting people I know read the pages, college educated people with science backgrounds, one comes to realize that it is not acceptable to continue making things more complicated and adding unlimited levels of Jargon to a page, in time Andrew will come to see that the best way to express what he knows is to make it accessible to everyone, including those entering y_DNA for the first time. I have created several pages, one of the pages I created recieved a few hits everyday, however with much work on improving the readability and moving very difficult to understand material to subpages I increased the traffic to that page by more than a magnitude. Particularly, it is the first sections of a pages that, if they are not understood or tantilizing, people will simply click away. For this reason I have not walked away from helping you guys out on your Y pages. Just keep in mind that there is a natural end to this process, and once that point comes I will go back to my interest which is the fundamentals of molecular anthropology, not politically-motivated male genealogy pages. I seriously have alot of work to do simplifying mitochondrial Eve, which was once a featured article and is far more important to the project than any single Y-DNA page.PB666 ^yap 17:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not an admin or even a disinterested party. You are not a more experienced Wikipedian than me. In fact this article is one your top articles edited. You also have a clear record of dealing with a few obscure HLA articles only, and on the few occasions you have had to work with other editors you've had the same types conflicts. I on the other hand edited in this article and other difficult ones over a long period and my record shows I can compromise, even with you. You got nasty when your split proposal, which was based on a wrong understanding of this subject, was rejected by the other editors working on the article. When it comes down to it, you are just an average Wikipedian defending their own individual version of an article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The section they are in is called "Different meanings of "R1a"." In other words, it is NOT a simple listing of clades. There are three clades commonly referred to as R1a and they need to be carefully named and distinguished. Any one of these three could be what someone is trying to look up when they hit this article. That is why I proposed titles like "R1a (R-M420)", "R1a1 (R-SRY1532.2)" and "R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198)". The names PB666 wants to change to are not names people will be familiar with if they are looking up this article in order to understand this subject. PB666 is by his own admission not familiar with whether this is true or not, and clearly does not have a clear understanding of some of the passages where he is re-wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet made up my mind, yet.

You made the case for using R-M17, you justified why, and then you defined it clearly in the previous paragraph. Therefore that is not a problem. My problem with R-M17 lingo is that it did go undefined, once defined, is it a superior lingo, the answer appears to be yes. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I should note pages were the Phylogenetic names have change E3b = E1b1b. R1a1c = R1a1a3. So there is a precedent that the names will change.PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The users of these names need to decide, are they going to be direct linking sections, if so we don't want them to change in the future. If not, then we can use either of three styles.PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
R1a is the articles name, it will induce the primary hit. #R1a1a is in the name of the lowest section and it can be hit. When I googled R1a1 it hit R1a page as the first hit. So that argument is more or less bogus. R-SRY1532.2 hit R1a WP version as second hit, and Waepedia as first hit.PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty in section names

Let me specifically address this issue from what Andrew contributed to this argument.PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

First, his insistence that my presentation of the old cladogram as being wrong, that M420 was in the wrong place, while partially true, I should of have place another M420 on the R1a* branch leading to with SRY1532.2, that was an oversight. But it highlighted the fact the R1a as it was originally defined split part of the lineage from R1 to R1a (old) into two clades. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not partially true you were wrong. You were just wrong. But you edit warred as if you knew what you were talking about, and now you do not want to back down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not wrong Andrew I had intended to place M420 on both sides but forgot, it was an oversight. You never explained what was wrong with it clearly and so I never noted the oversight, but you made an edit to the figure that was better than mine and I accepted that it was better. If my understanding was so wrong, why would I have accepted your edit, I would have simply reverted in this is clearly a WP:AGF issue.PB666 ^yap 03:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was an oversight? How did you miss the several attempts I made to explain it you? When you "accepted" my edit you also proclaimed it was an example me having a WP:OWN problem. Such humility.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another false statement, the own statement is in regard to your insistence on introducing a new level of jargon.PB666 ^yap 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you are quite wrong. Here are some of your replies:

Of course you will say you were reacting to the tone. For example in some places I used harsh words like "wrong" or "incorrect".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The logic here is important, because what it means is that between any two known points in a clade say R1 and R1a, R1a and R1a1, R1a1 and R1a1a and given paraclades R1*, R1a*, and R1a1*. The finding of any defining mutations within R1*, R1a*, R1a1* that will be treated as M420 was treated with respect to the R1-R1a lineage will result in the reshuffling of the tree, that is clearly established, following WP:CRYSTAL we cannot anticipate this outcome, only prepare for the possibility. I wanted Andrew to discuss this problem in more detail on the page, as a means of critiquing the certainty of what we know 'bout Hg-Y-DNA pages, but he wants to take the opposite point of view, while adjusting to the nomenclature problem, while denying that the problem is not significant cause of poor science in the literature. Yet at the same time he argues that STR clocking is not good, and he points to his favored author, I should point out that the most reasonable form of molecular clocking is with a complete listing of SNPs in a lineage, such as with mitogenomes, which, BTW, for no apparent Y clade, do we actually have. So there in lies the problem.PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Second, Andrew himself pointed out that "The factor[sic] of the matter is, as I have explained before, the number and names of the SNPs we know are random chance and not important. There will be hundreds, but papers just mention the first ones that are found. More systematic research is needed before you can read much into them." And more importantly we have R1a1* representation over scattered over a broad region, with no evidence of recent continuity. So that the likelihood of such mutations occurring increases. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if there are a few mutations or 1000s of mutations missing between R1-R1a1a, I certainly hope the later is not true, otherwise we need to have a controversies section on the page.

We are not here to conduct speculation. We are here to summarize what is published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then Andrew, why did you put forth the speculation? When it suits you, you criticize the work and when it doesn't suit you you call it speculation or you try to bury it. Tis-tis.PB666 ^yap 03:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Which speculation are you saying I added? Please only make accusations when you can back them up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Third, Andrew insisted that we need to also add the R-M### scheme for clarity, after examining the wording of the sections without R-M### scheme I concluded that the passages would waffle back and forth unnecessarily without it. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me specifically address the issues I added:PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What? And you are telling everyone how to write?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if everyone is me, then I am telling everyone how to write. Happy.PB666 ^yap 03:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But you only accept your wording, claiming that you are teaching others how to be encyclopedic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Forth, it is confusing to be talking back and forth about R1a* (old) and R1a1* in a section titled R1a1, therefore for clarity's sake, I think that holding a section name objective to phylogenetic names (and the reorganization process) is ultimately less confusing. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"holding a section name objective to phylogenetic names (and the reorganization process)" What?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me specifically address the issues that WP brings to the argument:

Finally, with regard to the potential of section name changing, there is a wiki-policy that is very specific. "Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it within the same article and from other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links." Therefore we do not want to create section head names if they possibly will be changed in the future. However, as I proposed, if there is no activity in terms of direct linking to Y-DNA Page sections, I would waive this concern. I think at this point I would draft in editors from the Y-DNA pages to get their comments here, as this might affect the future on those pages. The only pages I will focus on are the Hg A, BT and B pages as these are core to the origins of Y-chromosome as I will draft 3 publications on Y-chromosomal evolution into these pages. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times at WP:HGH.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IOW, Andrew has brought to this argument 3 of the major reasons for using a single mutation based section head, I brought 1 reason, and 1 guidelines offer a forth reason (which is dependent on Andrews 3 reason). Now if Andrew were to back track and say, there are not 100s of mutations between R1 and R1a1a7, possible a few more mutations, or if he can confirm that R1a* Y chromosome was actually sequenced, then we might actually have more confidence in the older names. As it stands right now Andrew was the one principally who undermined his position. PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I proposed having a section explaining the different names, and the sub-section headings used two systems, not one. It is distressing to see that you do not even understand what you are reverting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I did not revert, I simply reworked the section. You were the one who reverted, blindly.PB666 ^yap 03:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You largely inserted the same texts which had been proposed and discussed before, without paying any attention to the concerns raised by others. That is reverting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, I preserved much of your text, Andrew, I did not do as you did, a blind reversion as you did, which is styled after the likes of Sophian and Small victory. Furthermore I still don't understand what specifically you have against the use of section heads, apparently stable, from 4 other WP articles. Why is is that we _____MUST_____ use your favored version. This sounds like WP:OWN. Reluctant to follow WP guides, reluctant to follow precedences, ignoring evidence of future problems, etc. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and so on. This conversation is over, as with all conversations with a combative person who has emotion control issues.PB666 ^yap 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All of these things point to the use of the most favored section headings of Hg-R### style. However only the final issue in my opinion is critical, if all the participant editors in Y-chromosomal articles agree that this will not be future problem, then we might revert the section headers back to your style.PB666 ^yap 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all this is not English and can not be parsed for meaning. Secondly your last sentence seems to be implying you are a sort of judge who can judge all people writing Y haplogroup articles. Who assigned this power to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No one, I am trying to see if a concensus develops. Just like you. I most agree on the two label structure, I will go along with the will of the masses.PB666 ^yap 03:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Which masses? If we are waiting for third parties to come and help then it seems this article is going downhill. It would be better if you felt some responsibility yourself to work with others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrews attempt to throw fog on this issue by repeatedly mentioning the HGH discussion is something that I have finally had enough. The discussion or proper section titles was never clarified, there was a recommendation in 2002 that both are in use but it was not either a wikipedia directive, and the only respondent to the quoted section was andrew. Here are the relevant links [5][6][7]

Nothing in the field of genetics is ever settled. It is a moving situation, and that is the reality we have to deal with if we want to be involved in writing about these subjects on Wikipedia. No point getting angry about reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another argumentative reply, read between the line folks, I made the correct assessment, the section titles (which Andrew has reverted) may need to be changed in the future. Andrew has no concern for WP:MOS.PB666 ^yap 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What in MOS? Nothing in MOS can make this specialized content decision for us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:57, 24

November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS governs that section headers should be resilient to change, even changing one letter of a section header at any point in the future will break a Main#section link, IOW we do not want to intentionally use section headers that will change at some future point. If there is a high probability that a reorganization of the clade will occur, then we should stick with the section headers that are least likely to change. There is always room for changing alias within the first line of the section.PB666 ^yap 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that MOS suggests many things, and that in a complex case a balanced decision has to be made. In Y haplogroup study almost nothing is fixed so aiming at fixed title is pointless anyway. On the other hand choosing a specially selected "fixed name" which is not a commonly used name is much more problematic. You also know that there is discussion about this elsewhere! See WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New sources

The new edition of JOGG contains Klyosov's articles. Fans of him will note that I removed reference to his theories a while back, waiting (a little while) to see a published version (or have a Russian Wikipedian help us?). Anyway, now he has published. It is more complicated than I had expected and I wonder if he changed his mind about the earliest phases of R1a at the last minute. BTW note that he does not deal with SNP based data, it is very STR oriented. Some notable quotes, which we must deal with:-

“

R1a1 haplotypes excavated in Siberia, are comfortably located on the tree next to the haplotypes from the Russian cities and regions named in the legend

”

“

The above data provide rather strong evidence that the R1a1 tribe migrated from Europe to the East between 5,000 and 3,600 ybp. The pattern of this migration is exhibited as follows: 1) the descendants who live today share a common ancestor of 4,725±520 ybp, 2) the Andronovo (and the others) archaeological complex of cultures in North Kazakhstan and South and Western Siberia dates 4,300 to 3,500 ybp, and it revealed several R1a1 excavated haplogroups, 3) they reached the South Ural region some 4,000 ybp, which is where they built Arkaim, Sintashta (contemporary names), and the socalled "a country of towns" in the South Ural region around 3,800 ybp, 4) by 3,600 ybp they abandoned the area and moved to India under the name of Aryans. The Indian R1a1 common ancestor of 4,050±500 ybp chronologically corresponds to these events. Currently, some 16% of the Indian population, that is about 100 millions males, and the majority of the upper castes, are members of Haplogroup R1a1(Sengupta et al, 2006; Sharma et al, 2009).

”

Here's what surprised me...

“

It is likely that Haplogroup R1a1 had appeared in South Siberia around 20 thousand years ago, and its bearers split. One migration group headed West, and had arrived to the Balkans around 12 thousand years ago (see below). Another group had appeared in China some 21 thousand years ago. Apparently, bearers of R1a1 haplotypes made their way from China to South India between five and seven thousand years ago, and those haplotypes were quite different compared to the Aryan ones, or the “Indo-European” haplotypes. This is seen from the following data.

”

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IF this does not make you skeptical about Y chromosomal studies what on earth would. Did they find even one R1a1* in these regions? And by what method did they clock. This is speculation.PB666 ^yap 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says I am not skeptical? The records show me explaining the way that these journal articles need to be read in the context of the big variations sometimes between them. This is in accordance with WP:DUE, but it does not mean we can pick our personal favorite ideas and favor them, and remove mention of others! The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is not the place to express our skepticism, and your should also refrain. You should not pepper your Wikipedia postings with speculations about my personal thoughts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A smaller note is this http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/11/16/0910803106.DCSupplemental/0910803106SI.pdf . Great contour maps and also a migration map, the latest in the tradition. This migration map shows R originating somewhere about Dagestan/Georgia. R1 and R2 and not split up. People wondering why the academics tend to pull R north and east of the Fertile crescent (and very far away from the R-M173* in central Africa) might however see the reason: R is part of P. The sibling of R is therefore Q, and its first cousins are N and O.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, Underhill claims the diversity in W and S. Pakistan from about 17 kya. Which is substantially south and earlier than his claim. The other thing, wheat was not domesticated in Central Asia or Siberia, I was domesticated in Anatolia and the final event, about 8000 years ago occurred in the Southern Caucasus, which is Western Asia, it spread slowly, Central Asia and East Asia wheat are a combination both both modern and older varieties, suggesting minimally there was cultural spread from the caucasus at or before 8000 years ago and actually Wheat culture spread into parts of Northern china prior to the spread of Rice culture. These early wheat growing areas are precisely the areas were R1a* and R1a1* are found most consistently and suggest that there was cultural pressure for radial migrations. Ergo, this story is rather far fetched. As we can see from Underhill, the diversity in Central Asia from R1a1a is about 1/2 that found in South Asia, and there is not evidence of R1a1* or R1a*. Present the facts in support of his theory, but I don't think we are in the business of supporting wild claims.PB666 ^yap 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really WP:NOT the place for debating what we think is WP:TRUE. Can you please post WP:OR somewhere else? (Perhaps your personal pages, or a blog.) I am not saying it is not sometimes potentially interesting to speculate, but this talkpage has a specific purpose. These types of postings are an abuse of their purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I have not read the paper i cannot comment. Our medical library here does not carry JOGG as it does not reach the level of notability in medical science. However without a chance to review their data, and having reviewed the data of Underhill and other papers, it does not seem that their conclusions are likely. Even though I have a strong critique of the Central Asian origin hypothesis, in deferance to two recent publications I did not contest the placement of this alternative in the Lede or in the Origins section. I am simply saying that we need to open this paper to review and critique before making major changes to the article. Not only this but the dates I have given are cited on the page Triticeae that I wrote (mostly) and on linked pages. So don't put this false tag on my statements. The publications that argue that R evolved in Central Asia would thus have R returning to Western Asia, returning, evolving in to R1a, migrating back to central Asia, evolving to R1a1a, then returning to Western Asia, Europe, and South Asia. This theory violates a core principle of science, Occam's razor, do not add extra steps to an argument unless those extra steps are demanded by facts. In this case, lacking R1a* and R1a1* where they say this R1a1a evolved demands the opposite treatment, that they do not have the facts. As per the most recent comment on the Incident board governing revolving theories, we should uphold a stance not to be pushed about by some two-bit author who might have a politically motivated reason (e.g. chinese advocating multiregional origin of chinese in the almost complete lack of genetic evidence) for reaching a point of view about his work. These are the types of additions to Wikipedia that have had the strongest tendencies to cause edit-warring. Consequently I strongly recommend a conservative/scaled down treatment of the article.PB666 ^yap 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an online journal. Concerning giving due weight, are you really going to accuse me of being someone who fawns to particular sources? I think I have annoyed all fans of particular theories equally, for better or worse. Not long ago I removed all mention of Anatole's articles until a full English version came out. I have also not rushed to insert anything. I do know this field reasonably well, and I do think about the likely controversies before writing. Please give credit (and suitable room to move) where due. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If this was intended to be a joke Jacques Ogg Musician it was not funny. There is a step higher than being critical, it making the stuff more encyclopedic.PB666 ^yap 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. As posted many times before, often correctly: [8]. I can hardly imagine how unfunny this must be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Klysov

Typically in STR analysis a technique more or less akin to pairwise analysis is done. Klysovo takes this one step further by created parsimony trees for STRs, thes are done with 17 and 25 and different level STRs. He uses archaic DNA as a means of anchoring branches. Several critiques.

Ireland was settled about 8000 years ago, approximately, prior to that Ireland both lacked to food supply support humankind in Prehistoric_Ireland. Ireland was separated by a lake corresponding to the Irish sea a glacial melt outlet at the south, and a large glacier at the north. By all accounts glacial diversity was reduced to about 1/3rd and animals that are on Ireland now, including many wild species may have been brought by ancient humans. If one looks at the tree of 218 Irish 19 marker haplotypes (figure 2), one will notice that the tree is both deep and bushy. This can be compared with the R1a1 tree for russians.
We can compare this with the tree for 262 Russians 17 marker haplotype (figure 9) which he is basing his conclusions on. However the Irish tree is both deeper and bushier. You might argue that 17 is less than 19, yes but 262 is greater than 218. In addition his 25 marker tree for Russians and Ukranians (110; figure 7) is far less bushy and less deep, with 6 more markers it has a lower depth. Ergo what to believe.
It appears that the depth of the tree is dependent on how many haplotypes one detects which depends on the population size from which the R1a1a are selected from.
The assertion that Klysovo is making is based on the diversity in India, a data set of 30, where he plots 22 of 25, whereas Underhill uses 154 Indians and Pakistanis. So we need to know how many Indians Klysovo used to obtain his Indian STR and How many STR variants were found in Underhill. These two could be talking apples and oranges.

--Joining the various theories into 1, Y came from Africa, Migrated to central Asia, evolved in R, migrated to the fertile crescent region, form R1a, R1a1, migrated while evolving to R1a1 in Central Asia, Migrated to China, migrated once again to India, while at the same time migrated back to Europe in time to form M456 before the bronze age, and another group or R1a1a* migrated from the Ukraine region back to India with the Aryan migration. Man I hope these people got frequent flyer miles. PB666 ^yap 03:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Very few relevant points to make about this:-

You should stop using this article talkpage as a personal blog. We all have lots of opinions, but the only reason to discuss articles in detail here is in order to make sure we explain them correctly and give the due weight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I could understand why some of this might need to be discussed if there was a big conflict between the conclusions of the papers, but there is not. You do not need to argue about how big the Indian samples are because they came to the same conclusions basically about that. The really key differences are quite reasonable to expect: (1) Klyosov does not use the Zhivitovsky method and (2) Klysov believes he found a key new ingredient in the story in some Chinese data no one else looked at.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
His name is spelled Klyosov, not Klysovo. (I know from previous outraged remarks about poor Mr Page, that "name discrimination" is a sensitive subject for you.[9], although of course before reading the article in this particular case you have announced your suspicion that he is a "two bit author". Always impressive to see people on the internet loose all perspective.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the beginning of Klysov Part II and would like to be able to get a message to him before he publishes more on R-M269, if it's not too late. His R-M269 at 4375 in Europe works for the Beaker culture hypothesis for Proto-(Italo-)Celtic and the linguistic evidence does not support his suggestion that the "ancient" Basque language belonged to this population. There is nothing proved to be ancient about the language and he hasn't gotten that it is only thought so in the visions he rejects. Linguists don't say so. In fact both Celtic and Italic have been demonstrated to have archaic "typological" features compared to later IE dialects, supporting a relatively early westward migration. So another, later explanation for Basque has to be found. What a delightful mess. How can I reach him? DinDraithou (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can help you there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to dig up my photocopies of two articles from the 1990s by Winfred Lehmann, a great Indo-Europeanist, on the typologies of these IE dialects. For some of the rest Wikipedia might be a good enough resource as the Beaker culture article is fairly comprehensive. The current consensus on the age of Basque will not be hard to find, although there will always be fringe theories. When I have the message together I can post it on your talk page and it is fine if the source is "WP editor", since I'm one of thousands capable of catching the error and it is simply fortunate I have seen his work so soon.

I might also contact R Stevens if I can, whom I haven't chatted with for a couple of years. This is a pet issue of his and he may have new sources on the Basque problem. Klysov references his project at least. DinDraithou (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Best place to find most of the genetic genealogy crowd is somewhere like http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-11. A bit OT but I note your concern about R1b. Just to give some perspective, a big problem here is the lack of new articles or good sources which are up to date. I think I am not the only one scared to even look at R1b until Cruciani's promised paper gets published. (Hopefully soon?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Things to watch out for

When editing or changing text a few things to watch out for.

As with references, any word that is not a part of regular vocabulary or special nouns need to be wiki-linked. In going over the lede I noticed that neither haplotype, mutations, or Y-chromosome were wiki-linked.
Use the wiktionary, that's what its there for.
SNP mutations = "single nucleotide polymorphism mutations" is really not good English. Genetic markers is IMHO preferable to both. We should avoid the use of abbreviations whenever possible if another word such as markers is equally suited.

Other issues.

It seems to me that we need more coverage of R1a1a7 clade, given that it is a large clade.

PB666 ^yap 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes of course, and no-one has stopped PB666 or any other editor from adding links, so PB666's edit remark [10] looks a bit like wp:DRAMA? Honestly, we all know that the biggest problem that has delayed such work has been distractions? Rather than posting implied admonitions, people should get on with editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Also looks a bit like WP:DRAMA, again implying accusations, and therefore distracting from editing. There was one case where I pointed out that one particular word had a better link within wikipedia than within wiktionary [11]. Apparently PB666 never had the time to fully understand what I meant. (His response at the time focused on the fact that he was very upset by my use of bold type, and accused me of article ownership and irrationality as a result.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

3. As has also been pointed out to PB666 already [12], the words he mentions do NOT appear in the text. They are in a link, in the mark-up. Without checking carefully, I think the only editor to ever propose using these words was PB666 himself? [13]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

4. As already discussed, obviously I agree that eventually R1a1a7's section could justifiably be expanded, and I think possibly the same could be said for some of the other sub-clades of R1a1a. But given recent problems and distractions on this article I would strongly suggest that this should happen when someone has time to do it properly. Please let's all resist putting in unfinished structural changes, "templates", "drafts", large expanses of reminder notes, or deadlines, or threats, into the main article for other people to consider or fix-up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:AGF reply: I am trying to remind everyone who is editing that one should be mindful of wikipedia standards.

[Unsigned posting above by PB666.] (Wikipedia standards include signing postings.) Yes, I was responding to an implied meaning, which always opens one to criticism. So my apologies if my reading was incorrect. However each of your remarks did appear to refer to particular cases where we disagreed. They do not look like random examples of Wikipedia policy, or any sort of compressed version of all Wikipedia norms. They look like a special selection of comments, continuing a theme of accusing me of breaking policies whenever I disagree with you on even minor points. It looked liked flogging a WP:DEADHORSE. Glad to hear I misunderstood.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Paraclades, paragroups and haplogroups

The term "paraclade" which was used frequently in the article is, according to google searches, not commonly used when referring to paraphyletic haplogroups. Rather, paragroup, is used more often, and is also the term proposed by The Y-Chromosome Consortium, according to:

The Y Chromosome Consortium (2002). "A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups" (PDF). Genome Research. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. doi:10.1101/gr.217602.

Paragroups are haplogroups, and most prefer to refer to them as haplogroups, but with the *(asterisk) as stated by Zegura et al.. See also WP:NEO. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not saying this can not be true, but it surprises me a bit. Has terminology not changed a bit since 2002?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, Muntawandi's edit was reverted.PB666 ^yap 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the names of haplogroups have changed, but the terminology used hasn't changed much. A haplogroup is still a haplogroup. "Paragroup" is used by Karafet et al. 2008 and by a number of studies from 2009. "Paraclade" is hardly used both recently and in the past. In fact I can't even find one y-chromosome or mtDNA publication that has used the term "paraclade" to specifically describe paraphyletic haplogroups. If indeed the intention of editors is create articles that represent mainstream views, then the Y-Chromosome Consortium is pretty much the mainstream. Otherwise, we would be creating articles based on our own personal preferences. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Are both terms common then? If so I guess we should maybe consider mentioning both even??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

According to google searches, the term "paraclade" does exist, but is rarely, if ever, used to describe paraphyletic lineages in population genetics. The term seems to be used in other scientific disciplines, such as in botany to describe the anatomy of leaves. At present, "paragroup" is clearly the term of choice in scientific literature. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no position on this. If you've done the homework, good on you. In any case, I do not accept you should be reverted unless it appears in wiktionary! I have nothing against wiktionary, but we are not writing wiktionary here, and wiktionary, while we may link to it in non-controversial cases (where there is not a better Wikipedia link at least, is actually like all wikis not a reliable source for anything which is not self-evident. WP:RS. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Intuitively, I understand what is implied by "paraclade", so based on semantics I don't have a preference as well. It is just that "paragroup" is what has been endorsed by the YCC, the body responsible for y-chromosome haplogroup nomenclature. If one used the term "haploclade" we would all understand what is implied, the term exists but is not widely used compared to haplogroup. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins and hypothesized migrations of R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198)

There is something screwy with wikipedia or the text in this section following the word "Ukraine." The sentence that is displaced deviates from what is in the edit window. Thre is a misplaced period in the paragraph that needs to be moved according to WP:MOS.PB666 ^yap 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Its repaired now, must have been edit conflict update issue.PB666 ^yap 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised comments page

PDeitiker (PB666) left a note on my talkpage to look here:Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)/Comments. I prefer discussion. I find this comments page hard to follow because nearly everything has been discussed before. Most of the issues are fixed, minor and requiring no talkpage discussion, or else clearly just points where he disagrees with others. I notice a few small things:---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The map in the infobox. I think this is just meant to be a very rough picture usable for infoboxes, and it is not in strict confict with anything except presumably some sort of theory PB666 has. But in any case I think you should use the file talkpage or else contact the creator, if you have any concerns or suggestions. Posting here achieves nothing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The need for more maps etc. I am appreciative of PB666's graphic contributions, but I do have to say that his frequency by country maps are not turning out as well I had hoped when he first started to make them. The locations of frequencies seems to be very subjective and debatable. This might not be easy to fix though I did once point out that Wikipedia does now have base maps with regions within countries.
I agree that some comment about STRs might perhaps need to be added. I was planning to do it while adding mention of the new Klyosov articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that PB666's notes have been inserted here: Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)/GA1 as review notes for the famous GA review we all have to dress up for. Of course he nominated the article for review only after I said it was distracting of him to keep referring to his own gradings of this article, referring to himself effectively in third person. I do not have much experience with the reviewing system, but I can see now from recent experience that it can be gamed, completely disconnected from a concern with making articles better, as a tool of edit war. Let's see if it works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:AGF reply. As for the edit war, Andrew, you are the one who is trying to kindle the war. You have many choices of behavior. 1. Reread the article carefully looking for issues of clarity and general readability, post your critiques on the comments page or, if you are bold, the AG1 page. 2. Wait, and let the reviewer. 3. See how far shoes fit in ones mouth.PB666 ^yap 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As per your comments, I do not like the map in the infobox, but I have not commented either on its applicability
As per the wording in the infobox, I think it is overly verbose.
As per the Maps, creating maps is particularly challenging, and although this is an encyclopedia and a rough depiction will do, the problem is that, for example, certain groups, tribal entities are not bound by state boundaries and scatter and intermingle geographically, including intermingling between general populations. In addition the authors use intrastate boundaries that are not defined either in their papers or elsewhere. To try to make a perfect depiction of what these represents would take a very long time. I think that if you want to complain you should probably email Underhill and other Y-DNA authors and ask them why they do not disclose fully the nature of the samples taken.
"I do not have much experience with the reviewing system, but I can see now from recent experience that it can be gamed, completely disconnected from a concern with making articles better, as a tool of edit war. Let's see if it works"
I strongly suggest you learn to be more self-critical, you should be able to scan this article and easily find 20 or so problems, maybe not of your making that you consider problematic, some you might be able to fix and others you might need the help of other reviewers. To continue treating this as a 'game' or an attempt to 'edit-war' neither serves you, this page, Wikipedia, or any of the Y_DNA articles you have worked on. This process is a community effort, at some point you need to realize that unvested people in this community have volunteered their time in an attempt to improve this page and the encyclopedia. You should stop treating it like a game or joke.PB666 ^yap 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posting headers that create the illusion that this is a content or personality war, such postings can be considered by many to be inflammatory. The comments page is open and free for all to use, this is a favored way for the encyclopedia to be improved, members of the HGH project are encouraged to make comments, and please stop belittling the improvement methods of Wikipedia. PB666 ^yap 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PB666, yes you call all disagreement with you a violation of wikirules, and for good measure you always put it in a personal way. But here are two simple points for contemplation:-

1. There is no doubt at all that you have asked for a review at this time, for the wrong reasons. You asked for it in the middle of a period when the content was not stable, and you were personally in major disputes about the direction of editing. You asked for it in order to press others to work to your schedule. One needs only look at your own comments about why you asked for a review. You did it in order to make a point, and in order to get your way by showing others this point. Please note the relevant Wikipedia policy, which is also just normal decency and common sense: "Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in containing vandalism, resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review.[14]"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
2. If we want to see where this and other haplogroup articles might end up if you get your way we can look at past examples of articles you have worked on without as much resistance from someone like me. For example, let's consider all the special tags and talkpage discussions on Mitochondrial Eve. This is not where we should be headed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The improvement of this page has nothing to do with mtDNA eve. I am not engaged in an edit war with you Andrew. Why is it that you seem to be afraid of this process. You seem to have been caught off gaurd by the posting at the top of this page. I welcome the GA review, I welcome the critique. I am not afraid of the critique. I am not sure why you are trying to turn this into a bad thing. Whether we pass or fail, this article will improve. That is a good enough reason, all by itself, for any intelligent and reflective person.PB666 ^yap 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A GA review is not how you get critique about things like "should this have a wikilink?". Critique is the stuff I post to you which says things like "what were you aiming at?" and "this is wrong". These are precisely the types of comments you call, loudly, personal attack. Why do I say you are edit warring? Look at all your actions on the talkpage and the article: threatening constantly that particular changes must be made by a deadline or else, and then sudden burst of massive almost blind over-writing. That's edit warring: gnōthi seauton.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Having come across a completely identical page to this page, names R1a1a, I improved that page. You unilaterally deleted it without even calling for a merger discussion.
You begged not to revert the page an try to improve that page. As a consequence I said, if there is not substantive improvement in the quality of this page, then it was my opinion that the best solution was to revert and improve the R1a1a, that would have forced a merger discussion.
I gave you a chance to improve this page.
The only way to get an independent outside review of an article is through the GA process. I don't know what the best way is going forward, I want to get outside advice. Not just to see what is wrong with the page but what I may have done or could improve.
I have no idea why this review process upsets you. You should embrace it, its almost like you don't want anyone to critique your work? You are not this page, you don't own the page, the page should improve no matter what your problem is with the GA process.

PB666 ^yap 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please step back from that horse carcass?

1. You yourself described how the R1a1a separate article had been made "secretly". You found it because you had already proposed splitting the article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

False, I would have created the new page in a personal sandbox, not a new article, I was checking to see if R1a1 or R1a1a page was in use as a redirect. When I realized that it was an exact copy of R1a I began doing what a responsible editor would do, edit to correct the content to reflect the name of the page. You did what an irresponsible editor would do, you blanked the page without a merger discussion.PB666 ^yap

You were told by an admin immediately after that what you did was wrong. It was so obviously wrong that there is no point going over it again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Immediately after is was told what? Another false statement? no admin here, or here , or here.PB666 ^yap 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? Please note: [15]. Will you also say that you are not aware of any of the relevant wikipedia guidelines?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Edit warring. Tendentious editing. Disruptive editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

False, I did not edit war, I rewrote the page and you deleted, there was no edit war with R1a1a, the statement is blatantly false, you should apologize for making it.

I was describing your own description in your own words, above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

3. WP:OWN--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you took ownership of the R1a1a page when you blanked it, I have made no further change of that page. You did not even inform the pages creator when you blanked it (neither did you inform the other 6 editors). Was that a good faith edit?

Of course it was. It was aimed at improving the article, and it was intended to the best of my knowledge to be fully in accordance with the aims and policies of wikipedia (as also agreed to by an admin who checked the case). So are you saying I did it bad faith? Please make all your accusations clear. According to you, what was my intention when I did that edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

4. The best way ahead for this article is that you stop being disruptive. It is already progressing, and it has become one of the better Y haplogroup articles. (Y haplogroup articles are unlikely to win any beauty prizes soon.) Progress slowed down when you started being disruptive.

False, progress accelerated greatly, the best way for the page to go forward is that you use WP:MOS as a guide, a start accepting outside critique as valid and don't belittle other authors understanding of the literature when you have not taken the time to explain that within the articles.PB666 ^yap 22:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, and I am the one who was editing by far the most before and after the decision you made to intervene. Have a look at my contribs page. If I do not argue my case on talkpages though, this article, which has (be honest) recently gone quickly from being one of the worst to one of the best Y haplogroup articles, may end up like Mitochondrial Eve.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So this is what you think of yourself, making the following types of errors?

Stated the TRMCA from "In 2007 Gonder et al. [1] date the most ancient mtDNA lineage L0d to 106,000 BP. This is 20,000 years more recent than Ingman et al. (2000)[2], who date Mitochondrial Eve to 171,500 ± 50,000 BP." The Ingman et al date was the L0-L1 TMRCA, the most ancient DNA Lineages are L0 and L1, not L0d and the age of L0d according to Gonder or Soares was 140 to 150 kya. Therefore in this sentence alone where 3 misstatements. "The 1987 results by Gonder et al. and Ingman et al. confirm the less precise result found originally by Cann et al. (1987) [3], whose estimate ran to 215,000 ± 75,000 BP." The current estimates by Gonder et al. were 194,000 +/32,000 years the current estimate of Soares is 192,000 years are insignificantly different from the TMRCA of Cann et al. 1987. Not only that Cann et al used is now being advocated now by Endicott,Ho, Metspalu, and Stringer (2009), for the clocking of local branch TMRCAs (with sequence not RFLP analysis). Do you think its a good thing to allow a page like this to propagate such mis-statements?
Declared no confidence range, instead gave conflicting TMRCAS from Ingman and Gonder.
Made no mention of the population size or the technique for which it was described. However declared there was no population bottleneck in the human population. Even though several authors, for example Endicott et al. 2009 mention bottleneck within their review (Med-Res qualifications exceeded on the issue). And Atkinson, Gray & Drummond (2009) specifically detailed a population size bottleneck ending shortly before the african exodus within the L2/L3 lineages. "When different such trees including the mtDNA tree are compared, no population bottleneck is found because different trees show different coalescent points."
One passage declared that it was possible Eve evolved 6000 (biblical) years ago, based on the mutation rates of sites most authors exclude from analysis because they evolve to fast to clock, like certain STR. Many other issues with this page that caused it to be dumped from FA status. "In the 1990s, scientists made a startling discovery. Mitochondrial DNA appeared to mutate faster than expected, which raised troubling questions concerning the dating of evolutionary events. The discovery was made upon comparing the noncoding mitochondrial DNA sequence of the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia to that of his relatives. Using this new calibrated clock puts Mitochondrial Eve at a mere 6,000 years ago."
Made no mention of Gonder's PMRCA in Tanzania. Used alot of bad references like Sykes seven daughters of Eve as sources, the same discussion you are having in the Genetic History of the British Ilses.

Ask yourself this question....Are you making these kinds of errors? Cause if you are and I haven't detected them, we are both in serious trouble.PB666 ^yap 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your point here? Why have you written a long posting with no relevance? Don't you think you use enough space on talk pages?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew you were the one who kept bring up the issue of mitochondrial eve without a thorough investigation of what the events were. And you were using Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck styled fear-mongering tactics. That is what the relevence, here, is to show everyone that you were just blowing insinuations out of your corn hole.PB666 ^yap 14:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

5. The review process is something I have no concern with, if we get useful advice I'll see that as positive. But you have tried to game it, and you have requested it for an obviously wrong reason. This is one part of your disruptive editing, and this is my concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have no concern with the review process, but, given the state of Y-DNA pages, you, more than anyone else, should.PB666 ^yap 22:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice that also concerning Mitochondrial Eve, your CV so to speak (when you claim that everyone should obey you), you have also frequently mentioned that your actions are aimed at such goals. The results speak for themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and the price of Japanese green tea in the township of Nanayama is around 2400 Japanese Yen per kilogram, however if I were also to bring this into the discussion, any reasonable person would consider it a diversion, just as you are doing above. PB666 ^yap

Haven't you been consistently mentioning not only this article specifically but also more generally the subject of other articles which you have experience in trying to bring to GA level, like you want to do here? Hasn't that even been pretty much your only argument on many occasions for working against consensus and ignoring the review process of your fellow Wikipedians? Are you now letting us know that this was a big diversion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As you have simply posted another demand that I stop mentioning this on my personal talk page, I repeat the question. Do you deny that it is you, and not me, that has consistently claimed that your editing record is why others should accept your opinions on things like wording and format? Do you deny that you've specifically mentioned Mitochondrial Eve as an example? Specifically, have you not often claimed that you are just helping give everyone the benefits of your experience in understanding what encyclopedic style is, something which you learnt by bringing articles up to a high standard? Are you denying that Mitochondrial Eve is currently an example of what your style is like? In order not to waste time, just to help you learn from recent experience, if you will answer me incorrectly I am able to post diffs. (The easier way to have a discussion is not to deny reality, and not to force people to prove every point when you know you are backing a losing position. But if you want to do it the hard way, I'll do it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MtMRCA page reached GA and FA status and I had nothing (that I know of) with that page here is the mtMRCA GA assessment "I feel that this article (promoted in 2005) has too much emphasis on popular perceptions, and the "Academic investigation" section is too poorly sourced (in breadth not quality, Nature is fine) for a GA by today's standards. There are also sizeable passages with no obvious source—the list of sources with no inline citation being quite long. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC). No improvements since this reassessment began more than a week ago, so I'm demoting this article. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)" So take your foot out of your mouth, and take a look what has changed, almost all of the popular culture stuff has been removed and replaced by primary literature and Med-res quality reviews. Once again your are misrepresenting events to try to politicize things. The MtDNA, IIRC, had about a dozen either misrepresentations of science or completely false statements. The most serious I have listed above, it somehow made it to featured article status. And, BTW, that page was primary to the HGH process and yet no-one member of our project was part of the review process. As a consequence of that very misleading piece of information being promoted, I revamped the talkpage HGH project box so that it now has a section devoted to comments. When people make fun of wikipedia because of the quality of information the Feb2009 Mitochondrial DNA featured article will be at the top of the list.PB666 ^yap 15:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained exactly what is relevant about Mitochondrial Eve here. Stop pretending you did not understand. The article has been tagged {{technical}}, the text is impenetrable, and the talkpage, like this one, is littered with walls of 90% irrelevant words, dogs breakfasts indeed, written by you, as well as repeated observations by other editors that the style is too technical. Also see your talk page where watchers of this article have called you excessively verbose and complained about some of your habits. And this is one of your example articles which shows what you want us to aim at, not in terms of anything to do with science, but in terms of style and accessibility. (I cite all these other places on Wikipedia because you have done so many times, and also because you have insisted on pretending you do not know what I am talking about.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is coming from someone who prior to a week ago never got involved in the rating process, was never involved in the promotion of an article to GA or FA status, someone who balks at the WP guidelines, and who is trying to subvert the GA process. This critique is no better than the person making it. Someone who admits they no little about the review process. As for the mitochondrial eve page, it is in the midst of a major revamping and not one of choice but of immediate necessity, at the end of the process I will submit the article for GA review. However, until that time consider the article to be under-construction, and treat it as such. At no point in this process have a proported the mtDNA article was complete or great shape, what I have said is that your foolish behavior here in editing this article, and on this talk-page with regard to obstinence about clarify the article and WP guides is a distraction from that effort. I am following the recommended improvement on the GA1 page, remove the popular science and replace it with more substantial work.PB666 ^yap 16:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My past involvement or non involvement with GA reviews is totally irrelevant. It is you who have repeatedly raised both your editing record and mine. GA reviews are not an essential part of what everyone must do on Wikipedia. I shall try to be positive about any feedback, as always, but as I have explained at length, you requested the review for the wrong reasons, and you have abused the process.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[Translation of spin] You don't like being critiqued, it scares you.PB666 ^yap 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just tell me, in your own name, not the name of a third person such as a hypothetical referee or MOS or another editor like Din, what your critiques are in terms of what works and does not work in this article? And if you think the above is spin, in other words twisted truth, say how. I notice you show up as "vested referee" now right? And you nominated the review while involved in an edit controversy right? You brought up your editing records as a reference dozens of times right? Looks very dodgy, but maybe you can explain it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As this further discussion may be an effort to thwart the GA process I am stepping away from this talk page. I have inserted my comments in good faith, you guys can read them, if you find them important you can debate these here otherwise I will make no other edits to this page or the main page until the review process is complete.PB666 ^yap 21:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice you are still inserting replies above though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just to make sure it is clear, I do not believe the notes you have placed on the review page are appropriate.

While people are welcome to comment on reviews, the first review has not been written before you started writing on this page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Several points are clearly asking for opinions about open content disputes which you are personally involved in. This is explicitly not what GA reviews are for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The rest of the points are clearly things like missing links, commas etc, many done by you, which don't deserve any type of WP:DRAMA at all. They should just be fixed (many were already fixed). Unless you are trying to imply that you think other editors are stopping you - an insinuation I hope you are not making?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Difficult intro

I think the intro is too difficult to understand. the most obvious problem is that it is necessary to know what a haplogroup is. As I didn't, I needed to click first haplogroup and there on haplotype and there to read on to the second definition. --Ettrig (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that put us between a rock and a hard place? If we bring in a full definition discussion this will also be poor style, or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ettrig, I rewrote the first paragraph, is this better or worse?PB666 ^yap 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good question! If I react in any honest and clear way I shall be accused of trying to own the article one more time. BTW you could also compare Mitochondrial Eve with the present article, because the direction of editing is one or the other apparently.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find any good description of haplogroup in Wikipedia. The following is my guess: A haplogroup is a set of organisms that share unique similarities in their DNA sequences. R1a is also used to refer to those particular DNA sequences. If this is right we could write that R1a is a particular set of DNA sequences that occur in the human Y chromosome. --Ettrig (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would be wrong, so that did not work. But did you see the version PB666 wrote over? I had actually already done an attempt to respond to your requests. Here is a diff: [16]. Notice also that the suggestion of a link to genetic genealogy was made by another person who stopped by, [17]. It has been done, and PB666 has inserted a tag questioning this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a key concept of the page, haplogroup, should not be left to outside page definition, the wiktionary should be used and the specific Haplogroup (genetic) definition is the definition is sutiable, otherwise we must explain. The same is true for male-line, male-line is not a genetic lineage, its a right of inheritance. Specific terms like lineage (genetic) are more applicable.PB666 ^yap 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is simply nonsense. I say that as an objective description in order to explain why the response must be short. Editors are invited to check the above and confirm that it is nonsense of course.

There was an explanation of a haplogroup in laymans terms, or an attempt, but you wrote over it--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You say we can't use outside page definitions, but instead wiktionary???????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
A male line is not a "right" of anything even if it can have an influence on rights.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue regarding maps

This issue regarding map has been brought forward above. Wikipedia as deleted many maps because of WP:COPYVIO as a consequence unless we can get creative commons material maps are not available. The critique that Andrew has raised is quite correct. However there are issues with also adding alot of tables. As you may note I have added a table for the STR diversities. I am not happy with this, I would have preferred the authors to have presented STR diversity values instead of Coalescent times. Adding long tables also is not good for page archetecture. Consequently I created an ordered table with the smallest values missing. I will not be able to make a table for STR values because of the way the data was presented. I am currently working on a Map of R1a1a* but it has many of the problems Andrew states and parsing out the information from the Tribes and Castes of India has created a presentation problem, again how not to create original research while presenting the data. In addition the data from Sharma et al. And the latest data from Sharma et al. (2009) and Klyosov's articles in addition I have another article that uses the new nomenclature that has been published and these will all need to be combined.PB666 ^yap 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you describe my remarks as a critique and not a bad faith personal attack. (Giving credit where credit is due.) I don't [have] a simple solution. People should keep trying different things I guess. We should discuss this at WP:HGH though because it affects many articles, but to state the main points of discussion:

People would like contour maps if we could do them non-controversially. They are very accessible. Problem is that they must contain assumptions.
User:Hxseek has done some relatively uncontroversial and non copy-vio artistic representations of the contour maps in the literature. He is not basing it on any mathematical method using the raw data, just doing it by eye.

Doing by eye is still original research, just sloppier original research

[unsigned comment above by PB666 as usual] Whether a copy of a map introduces non-obvious original thoughts depends on each case. You remark is equivalent to people who say that not using exact quotes from authors introduces OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wapondaponda and others have asked whether we should do our own contour maps from raw data, using the standard known methods. (So using the "standard assumptions" and therefore arguably not going beyond what is obvious. I am not opposed to it personally, but User:Wobble expressed concern that it might be WP:OR. Anyway the practical problem is that currently no-one has the software and wants to do this.
I had expected your idea to work better, and I do wonder if it could be done better with more data and more attention to defining regions more exactly. The region definitions seem to be giving difficulties?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would work better if we had GPS defined coordinates. I tell you how you can rationalize this problem. In the supplementary materials for Underhill et al (2009) take a look at the breakdown of India, it is presented in two sections. There is a broad region called the 'tribal' that extends from middle part of western India to the North Eastern border region of India. Underhill discloses this in S1. This section on South Asia looks innocent enough until you start looking some of these up. For instance one or two of these

Tribe geographies represent very minor tribes in one state drafted into the study, but the major portion of the tribe will live in the next state. Some of these tribes in given states are so small they would represent an invisible pinpoint on the map.
Underhill does not disclose the particuar details of the sample. The problem, again this is for maps, is that some tribes do not represent a concise area, but are spread broadly about over multiple states.
The best way to invision the tribes of India is to take 100 cans of paint of different color and a large map of india with a heaping brush of paint scatter big and small droplets on the map approximate to different regions, with generally no regard to boundaries, then take the brush and smear them around a little bit.
The take a look at different resources, the placement of tribes is not the same, some researchers split tribes by minor differences, extend or contract territories of tribes, etc.
With both Sharma and Underhill one is left asking the question, why this village of this tribe? Sample convenience?PB666 ^yap 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
To put this into perspective, you can sample 100 people from a broad 1,000,000 population, or you can sample 100 males from a cluster of villages and call the people X, however, when we define subpopulations there needs to be some definition of effectively interbreeding, what are the traditional boundary from which mates are selected. Suppose you live in village X which is on the boundart of a territory, is it common to select a mate in the next village which is not part of the tribe? Is the boundary between tribes fuzzy? and how interdispersed are Castes between the tribal peoples, are they of outside origin or are the converted to the religion at some late point.
This may not seem important, but from their point of view they are looking for insight into the origin of haplotype X. From our point of view we want to creat a map psuedocolor density. Knowing the genetic makeup of 5 tribal village clusters of a fairly rare religious/ethnic group that represent 10,000 people within a state that has 100,000,000 people does not help creating a fair representation of density.

This discussion may fit into HGH but in terms of the scattering issue, Underhill may be the most problematic single paper that I have encountered. HLA studies in general differ because most typing is done in hospitals, which draw people from surrounding city, towns and villages, that creates its own bias, but it is certainly easier to map. For example the two studies I am currently working on draw people from the Mississippi river to California, another study draws people from Southeast Texas for HLA typing, the HLA dataset covers 12,000 typed individuals in the US over 5 loci. Different studies of HLA in the US come up with very similar (all but identical) answers, with the exception of Hispanic and African American communities. PB666 ^yap 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You should refactor the above so people can read. You should also, as requested several times, move it to WP:HGH. This page is busy enough. BTW many articles do include coordinates now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes busy with your diatribe.PB666 ^yap 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bullet list

I have replaced the hated bullet list with a little paragraph but don't claim to have written anything particularly inspiring. DinDraithou (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. (BTW, I like bullet list, is those members of the super secret wiki-cabal guys that have create the guidelines).PB666 ^yap 07:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And why was this done please? Who says it was "hated"? If edits are not improvements then expect them to be reverted. Please make your case. There is no guideline forbidding bullet lists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am rather neutral toward bullet lists. But yes, my impression is that they are looked down upon by the Wikipedia comunity. But there is a peculiar exception for Wikipedia:Featured Lists. --Ettrig (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it the general approach is to avoid them unless removing them makes a passage worse, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ettrig, R1a is not a list, it is marked as a Mid-Importance HGH Article, not as a list. List and other special pages will be marked in the HGH project box at the top of the page.PB666 ^yap 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against bullet lists and use them frequently. Furthermore, I believe that if they are looked down upon by the Wikipedia community then it is pretentious for them to try to look better than the writers of many excellent journal articles. I thought, and must have misread, that the list needed to be removed for the article to achieve a certain rating here at Hautepedia and was simply trying to help. DinDraithou (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit on behalf of other people. See WP:MEATPUPPET. This bullet list is used in a case where a list is being given that is very difficult to read if compressed into a paragraph. There might be other formats that work, but just squashing and de-formatting is not one of them. Furthermore the "need" you mention does not exist. It is a personal preference of one editor, PB666, that we should push quickly towards GA review. But Wikipedia itself has a rule saying that Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE, and GA review guidelines state explicitly that GA review should not be requested as a way to try to break editing disputes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool down. Andrew, you can hardly blame me for not bothering to read most of this talk page. I see now that there was an argument above and that you assumed I was taking the other side. In any case I don't need to participate in your discussion to make an edit and see no so-called consensus backing your revert.

A case can be made for the passage in paragraph form. In this particular case the bullet list may limit what maybe should be a longer passage. The lines are rather long and the syntax borderline. But if what you really want to keep is the bold text for the alleged associations, the reason many will be coming to the article, then fine. DinDraithou (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The above response written by me is just an explanation of the situation, and what can go wrong, no cooling necessary. The use of capital in wikispace links is standard and most such links don't work otherwise. The bullets, are meant to show the structure of the below sub-sections. They are meant to catch and guide the eye. One idea that might be proposed would be to just move everything to the sub-sections, but then we have two problems: (1) PB666 has many eccentric rules and one of them is that any group of sub-sections needs to have a lede section as well (I do not agree); (2) given that you would have lede, then sub section, then sub section, etc, the eye is no longer attracted. The reason is that these two different levels of sub-heading are almost the same. It is a problem in the standard wikipedia formatting itself. In other words the sub-sections start to look like whole sections for different regions. See what I mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Din, I agree Andrew exhibits patterns of WP:OWN so don't get put off. However I am leaving Andrew's version for the time being, we deeply need some outside critique on these types of issues because these bullet lists are a part of many pages. This may be changed at some future point in favor of what you wrote. In response to Andrew, there may be better, more encyclopedia ways of doing it. And BTW following the wiki-guides is not eccentric, where as reverting others edits when two other people disagree with you and point to what you said on a talk page is in line with the way Small Victory edited pages.PB666 ^yap 14:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PB666, you agree with what exactly? Are you saying Din said I "exhibit patterns of WP:OWN"? Make your own accusations loud and clear in your own name and have your diffs ready, otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time and energy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Also note that I did not say that Wiki guidelines are eccentric, and said your own personal rules are eccentric. I think I was very clear. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the revert you give no diff and you do not mention the two editors. If you are talking about Din, he has clearly said he just thought both of us agreed about it, and misunderstood. Case closed for the time being.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
OTOH, you've clearly refused to give any justification in terms of article readability, quality etc, but only claiming you are forced to make the changes even if it makes the article worse, by citing rules which do not exist. Wikipedia's most basic rule is that no such rules can every exist. You fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia's basic spirit. In the meantime the world is still waiting for your case to be made about how removing the bullets makes the article better. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Andrew is as we are arguing about methods you seem to thing that one authors methods are superior to another. Remember the statement on ANI by . What you are simply doing is cherry-picking methods. "Has anyone else noticed how often content disputes involve subjects related to human genetics? This simply can't solely be due to its young, cutting-edge nature. (And I assume the vast majority of Wikipedians know better than to argue that one ethnic group is superior to any other.) For the record, I honestly expect half of the expert conclusions presently advocated will be found to be as plausible as Aether within the next 20 years. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)" The big problem here is that when people raise critical questions regarding the quality of the Y_DNA research you suddenly whip out the WP:OR or WP;SYNTH tag. Here is what was revealled to you and I find exactly hits the target. "In closing, I would like to remind everyone that the hierarchical haplogroup nomenclature, like the field itself, has been changing very rapidly; to illustrate this, take a look at Y haplogroup trees from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, early 2008, and mid 2008" and translation is the hot new theory of the day will be proven wrong tomorrow. Instead of throwing out WP:OR tags why don't you try being more reflective of all the potential pitfalls in Y_DNA research, errors that are obvious and everyone talks about.PB666 ^yap 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, really we are not arguing about this at all. This talk page simply is not about the problems of genetics. I have expressed no particular point of view on the matters you point to here, but you know I am not naive about them. I am not going to argue about the problems with the whole field. The field exists. (Or you arguing all population genetics articles should be removed from Wikipedia?) The subject we were discussing here was bullet points.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It was about bullets until you peeved him a different direction, now instead of having one problem you have two. See what the chip on your shoulder has brought you. Somewhat enjoyable if it were not for the bad timing. Try consensus building, instead and I should point out that while this page is about Y-chromosomes, the testosterone biosynthesis genes are encoded elsewhere in the genome, if you catch my drift.PB666 ^yap 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so let Din write for himself, and concerning bullet points, can you explain why you think they make the article bad? Above I tried to explain problems that occur if you try to move them. What thoughts do you have on the matter? Did you read what I wrote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to know what the reviewer said, that's why I did not revert you revert, but on the other hand, I thought his version was better than yours, the only thing is I would have moved it to the last paragraph, since it was describing the subsections that followed. I am trying not to take sides on the issue, there are certain issues I have with this page I want to know what outside reviewers have to offer. It they don't have a problem, then I don't have a problem and I learn something. The point it we have to learn how to do better: the horrific collapse of the mtDNA eve page from FA to no longer having GA status, the battling over the E1b1b page, the battle over Genetic History of Europe and Genetic History of the British Ilses indicates that our level of performance needs to more professional and more attractive the mainstream reviewers. However we get there, it does not matter. IMHO if its 50:50 or even 60:40 in favor of the bullet list, the we should use the wiki-guidelines.PB666 ^yap 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to DinDraithou as "the reviewer" above, and as someone who was offering outside advice about this section? That is very confusing, because by his own account he was just writing what you said you wanted, mistakenly thinking there was consensus. He said he had not gone through the talkpage and realized that this was not the case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning your mention of those other articles, you recently asked me not to refer to Mitochondrial Eve, but since you raise it once more... The tags and talkpage (and your talkpage) show clearly that a lot of people associate its problems with your writing style. Concerning E1b1b, I think people who know the article, even people who once edit warred on it, believe I played the major role in getting it to a much higher level than it originally had. Am I wrong about either of these things? Y haplogroup articles are typically not very good. Would you agree that E1b1b and R1a are now amongst the better ones?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning bullets, I have explained the problems their removal would cause and received no reply. The Wikipedia guidelines, including those about bullet points, pretty clearly say that no change which worsens an article should be done. I have not seen any person other than you make any negative comment about them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:" The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:"PB666 ^yap 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PB666, firstly, your consistent re-editing into old conversations is really not good. Secondly, if you personally are making an accusation and think actions are necessary, then that is up to you. I made no accusation, and do not see any need to. Misunderstandings happen. If you are trying to create animosity, there are "processes in place to mitigate the disruption" of this also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Basically in the last week you are grabbing any tag you can find when someone disagrees with you which is really exempifies on major tag, which you are ignoring the major, WP:OWN issues you have, in essense you though out these tags as a smokescreen.PB666 ^yap 12:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe this posting is relevant, accurate, ethical, or fair.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any comments about the pros and cons of bullets points in the section/sub-section structure we are discussing? I did make some remarks above. I don't know if anyone sees any errors in those remarks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indo European Studies

Sorry, but these fresh postings are easily separable, so I do so:- --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are much bigger problems. The list should not be under "Eastern European migration hypothesis" and it looks like the section was put together by people unfamiliar with the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which I spent my junior and senior years on the sixth floor of the university library reading. There were Neolithic cultures which may or may not have been ancestral to the Kurgan culture and they were not in Eastern Europe (and neither was it). DinDraithou (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be a problem, but can you explain your point please? I think you have to realize that geneticists and linguists do not cross reference much, and this means that we have very little we can cite about R1a which comes from the Journal of Indo-European Studies. See WP:SYNTH.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tough. Since I'm miffed I have tagged the section, and that's just how thing are. We've gotten awfully used to geneticists citing each other and not reading up on languages and cultures and I was going to let the standard nonsense go. And this section is so, so classic. But since we're getting haughty and think that dinky little misleading list is sufficient... DinDraithou (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasons for posting the tag. It means it should be removed though. Tagging because miffed is not an acceptable reason. Do you have a better explanation? What does the Journal have to say about R1a origins please? Anything?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are asking poor questions. "The Journal" doesn't "say" anything particular on it and the theories of geneticists are merely remarked upon as "interesting", last time I checked. The tag stays until replaced by a better one. I will add a small list of resources in a further reading section for those readers who might not be quite clear on what Indo-European or Kurgan or Andronovo mean. Then we can figure out how to make the section meaningful without being original. One way is to summarize Central Asia and "Eastern Europe" from the LGM to the proto-historical period, mentioning the most prominent archaeological cultures and proposed languages spoken. That will naturally contribute to the following discussion on proposed R1a1a expansions, giving meaning to the Andronovo results. DinDraithou (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DD, you should be able to come up with some relevant statements, and paste here, maybe a minireview or something. I replaced the tag already with a section specific tag, I filled in the comments on the tag but you can fill in those comments if you like.PB666 ^yap 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PD, you are apparently seeking to take advantage of a misunderstanding. You and Din were worried about different things. That is now clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, if he cannot justify the tag then I will remove it, I am giving him a chance to present what he has. But please don't try to tee anyone else off, we don't need that. PB666 ^yap 03:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You already removed his tag before your wrote this, and before I even wrote what you are responding to. [18]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Din, I think no one has any opposition in principle to what you are saying. I guess the only thing to watch for is that we all seem to agree that geneticists might simply be making vague remarks when they have sometimes connected R1a with Aryans. To what extent should we really go deeply into it in this article as opposed to just linking to specialist articles? I am open to different possibilities, but in any case if you are looking to make a criticism of published authors you'll have to go get yourself published or find a source, for better or worse, because Wikipedia is just a collection of stuff from other places (by intention).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no intention of doing that (where do you get that?) and know the rules. Look at the articles I've created and contribute to and you'll find I'm quite conservative. I'm suggesting something quite different, only a well referenced summary. It's irritating to have my motives guessed at for the sake of argument. To try to put me on the defensive? Please stop it, Andrew. DinDraithou (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out a concern, of mine. How my concern arose is obviously because of your own explanations of what you intend, which seem to indicate that you want to insert material which is not genetics related, except in the sense that it would be like a critique of the understanding of genetics authors. Anyway, if my comments were un-needed, I suppose that requires no extra discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this article, your article, and you are the geneticist(s). The section is poorly written SYNTH and you appear to be trying to deflect criticism by 1) accusing me of breaking the rules and attacking your sources, who did not author the section, and 2) accusing me of making a dastardly edit I haven't yet made or you can prove I will make, to "your article". Please read Kurgan hypothesis and follow the Wikilinks if you already haven't. It's a good start. DinDraithou (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe helpful for understanding:-

I am not a geneticist, but I am a reviewer of genetics literature. (You might want to see my one published article: http://www.jogg.info/51/files/Lancaster.pdf because actually I had the impression that linguists and archaeologists were quite happy with the way it created a perspective similar to what you want. (Unfortunately it was not about R1a, so we can not use it.)
I have also read the Wikipedia article you refer to and of course a lot of the literature on Indoeuropean studies.
I've said I agree with your concerns about how geneticists refer in an offhand way to other disciplines.
I have not accused you of any edits you have not made, but I have raised concerns about how you described your intentions.

If my concerns were a misunderstanding, then let's just get on with it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see you've placed a tag there (I moved it to the sub-section involved BTW), but can I ask for more definition of the aims you are suggesting here? Obviously the difficulty we have, my reason for asking for a definition of your aims, is that we literally can not make Wikipedia better than the literature it cites - in this case the R1a related literature. If the problem is in the source literature, for example if no linguists and archaeologists write much about R1a, and no geneticists write much about archaeology and linguistics related to R1a, then there is not much to do, and no point putting tags? So please help advise on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a1a7, Poland etc

As discussed above, it is inevitable that R1a1a7, as a major sub-clade, will eventually need a bit more discussion. This may raise several issues...

Where should it fit in the article structure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It is clear enough that R1a1a7 corresponds to STR identified clusters mentioned in the new Gwodz articles in the new JOGG edition. (This is even more clear if you are following the internet updates including Gwodz's own website, where he has commented on how his data corresponds to the Underhill SNP-defined clade. I think we can cite an author's website for clarifying remarks?) How to combine the SNP and STR oriented literature. There is a more general point here. STR clades are actually a powerful tool which often allow researchers to go far beyond what SNP-bound researchers have worked out, but it is a very fast moving discussion, and authors like Underhill do not publish much about it. The Kylosov article is one of the first in recent times to use STR data in a detailed and transparent way. Good for the field, but it may raise debates about what should be said on Wikipedia.

So, let's all remember not to rush, and that Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not rushing it, but when publications are published has not bearing on whether we should improve a page today or tomorrow. There is alot to be said about R1a1a7 from underhill right now. If not today, when. If the page is well organized, then at some point adding R1a1a7 into the fray will not be a problem. For right now, the discussion or R1a1a7 should be placed in the European section of distribution, and the origin part of R1a1a7 should be placed under the European migrations part of the Origins section.

There is a comparison with STR in supplementary material of Underhill et al. I should point out that most researchers identify numerous reticulations in STR ancestry, but in Klysovo's trees there no reticulations are described, does he just sweep alternative branching into a secret drawer that only he can see. I consider the method valid, but I should point out that the first methods for mtDNA parsimony as disclosed in Vigilant et al 1989 and Vigilant et al 1991, because of reticulation missed the L0-L1 branch, L1a,d (now L0a and d) were treated as equivilent branch points to L1b,c. Secondarily, I really don't like the fact he switches between longer and shorter STRs without providing some relational statistic (for example a table relating different samples) and third it looks an awful bit like the depth of the tree he comes up with is dependent on the sample size. This is a very important point because reticulations in maximum parsinmony trees can be resolved by increasing the sample size. What this does is it increases the maximum depth of the population. If this is true much more sampling of longer STRs are going to be required to resolve reticulation patterns. To explain this pattern, suppose we have an mutation that reverses in both descendant lineages, that mutation is invisible to us, however if we find a third lineage that branches early in the cluster the shows the mutation that reversal can be detected. If more lineages are produced the verticle placement can be made. The bushier the genetic tree the less likely reticulations are to be lost. PB666 ^yap 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good news, if I may ever get back to editing the main article, and away from the attacks on this talkpage, the Gwodz article (Part II) does contain very clear information on the correspondence between his study and Underhill et al. He also makes explicit mention of the fact that there are different methods of estimating age apart from the Zhivitovsky method. This allows the M458 to be discussed in a more balanced way than otherwise, because to be honest I see no reason not to suggest that it is much younger than Underhill et al suggest, maybe as recent as the expansion of Slavic languages (as has been discussed on the internet, for example on the Dienekes blog).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion arising from mention of new articles

This needs to be separated in order to allow good faith discussions in the original section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The first posting below is a COPY of a posting in another section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a comparison with STR in supplementary material of Underhill et al. I should point out that most researchers identify numerous reticulations in STR ancestry, but in Klysovo's trees there no reticulations are described, does he just sweep alternative branching into a secret drawer that only he can see. I consider the method valid, but I should point out that the first methods for mtDNA parsimony as disclosed in Vigilant et al 1989 and Vigilant et al 1991, because of reticulation missed the L0-L1 branch, L1a,d (now L0a and d) were treated as equivilent branch points to L1b,c. Secondarily, I really don't like the fact he switches between longer and shorter STRs without providing some relational statistic (for example a table relating different samples) and third it looks an awful bit like the depth of the tree he comes up with is dependent on the sample size. This is a very important point because reticulations in maximum parsinmony trees can be resolved by increasing the sample size. What this does is it increases the maximum depth of the population. If this is true much more sampling of longer STRs are going to be required to resolve reticulation patterns. To explain this pattern, suppose we have an mutation that reverses in both descendant lineages, that mutation is invisible to us, however if we find a third lineage that branches early in the cluster the shows the mutation that reversal can be detected. If more lineages are produced the verticle placement can be made. The bushier the genetic tree the less likely reticulations are to be lost. PB666 ^yap 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of what you are saying are your own unpublished thoughts on the matter - interesting but irrelevant. It is for a blog, not here. This talkpage is busy enough. Concerning "if not today, when?" The answer is when someone has time to do it properly. That's how Wikipedia works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Quite a lot", have you read any of the work of Bandelt? How about Soares et al. (2009), correcting for purifying selection. You seem to be unfamiliar with "a lot" of the critical work in Molecular Anthropology. Until you familiarize yourself with the mistakes made in mitogenomics you will simply be reinventing the wheel of debunkable claims regarding Y. It I were to compare Y-chromosome with the state of mtDNA I would say its somewhere between the level of 1999 to 2001 with regard to thoroughness of branch placements, with regard to the mechanics of evolution I would place Y-chromosome studies between at the level of mtDNA between 1978 and 1987.PB666 ^yap 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please go get a blog and put it there? Let's focus on what should be in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this first you tell him to show some support on the R1a page, then you tell him to go get a blog? What was that tag? WP:MEATPUPPET

[Unsigned comment above by PB666, as usual]. It is hard to read this offhand remark as anything other than a attempt to create misunderstanding, confusion and conflict?

I called no one a meatpuppet. Din explained himself why he removed the bullet points and that he thought he was doing what others wanted. In other words it was a misunderstanding. A meatpuppet is something worth mentioning as a thing to avoid being, partly because it can so easily lead to such misunderstandings. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, huh. Somebody posts something that disagrees with you and you wrote "Please do not edit on behalf of other people. See WP:MEATPUPPET. This bullet list is used in a case where a list is being given that is very difficult to read if compressed into a paragraph. There might be other formats that work, but just squashing and de-formatting is not one of them." Go check his talk page, have I made any attempt one way or another to sway him into altering the page? You pull an accusation out of the blue, attach a tag insinuating " The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:" with no evidence of some sort of collaboration, an now you are saying you didn't do it. In the meantime this "excellent" article managed to pick up a tag on its Bronze Age section, which previously I told you we should remove these so-called language association bits because they were simply to speculative, and you have another fruit-loop author saying that Indian STR diversity comes from Central Asia via china, which you've gone about adding to the page. So rather than getting rid of chaff we have added more chaff to the page.PB666 ^yap 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, check the editing history. I removed a lot of material about the Kurgan hypothesis and explained the reasons why to you. (More generally, you got interested in this article when you saw what I was doing here. You misunderstood a lot of things, and you asked a lot of questions. See both our talkpages. The sudden changeover to you writing as if you always knew more about R1a than me came at a very well defined point: right after your split proposal was rejected. That split in itself however was a case which showed how little you understood: critically, you did not understand the admittedly confusing way in which most studies mean R1a1a when they write about R1a. That's why you thought they could be split more easily than they could.) Afterwards, when I started putting in a very restricted summary you were surprised, because you said you thought we'd decided to get rid of it completely. Fact is that we can not get rid of it completely because it is mentioned all through the literature. To remove it completely would be non-neutral, and it would also start edit wars and make the article unstable (as it has in the past). So I put it in, but with an effort to make sure that it was put in perspective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the article was on the things to do list. What got me interested in cleaning up the article were all the 'clueless' quotes by Y-DNA pundits. I get very burned when I see science 'operators' using weak data promoting their positions within society. I have a general opinion that popular science is bad science and should be replaced and made user friendly. This page IMHO was probably the most politically inspired Y-DNA pages and it needed to be refactored.
The talk page issues were, you:please wait, I waiting for the last paper, please give me copies of these new papers, and yikes why did you split the article, splitting was awwwwfullllll, hysterics, I wanna revert.
Well now you got a problem, because you did not get rid of what I considered speculative literature discussions, someone who is more expert than you on this issue is now arguing that the explanation is inadequate. If you just took a neutral opinion, this idiot over here suggested blah,blah, blah, but this heap of evidence over here suggests he is just BSing the issue it would be done with. Its not an issue of me being unfamiliar with the literature, quite the contrary, because I am so familiar with cycles in the literature I know the fine line that separates warranted conclusions, like Underhill et al from unwarranted conjecture. Alot of bad conclusions come from an inadequate level of typing, I don't see any reason the WP should be the place where people who use half-assed techniques get a full public airing (Which means this page should be very short). The reason I want all the markers for R1a to R1a1a lineages (or at least noted so that people will understand that even these best authors are only typing a subset of known markers, and the subset of known markers is a fraction of all markers, and to discuss the deficiencies of the techniques, which you were very reluctant to do) is in fact the best improvement on this page.(note I expanded the cladograms so that they could be cross compared). You now have 3 notable opinions : Indian R1a1a came from China, evolved in India and spread elsewhere, or evolved at the West/South Asian margins. None of these hypotheses yet suggest a back migration connected with the Kurgan hypothesis, and you have someone who is familiar with the hypothesis, which means you are forced to better explain how something that didn't exist (based on available evidence) could have existed. The page was tagged on this accout. Easy situation to diffuse, present, and critique (debunk) and be done with it.PB666 ^yap 11:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Such long postings. Would it be a true summary of the above to say that you think I should remove mention (not just reduce mention, or put it in perspective which is what we did a lot of already) of some theories and articles which are well-known to people who study genetic genealogy and population genetics? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If not, what is your point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If yes, then aren't we then breaking Wikipedia neutrality policy, and also confronting the old dilemma of "who gets to decide"? Won't we indeed be hanging out a red flag to the people you call "race based" editors? Is this really the way to getting a better article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The person I suggested could get a blog in order to express his opinions about side subjects not directly related to this article was PB666 (Pdeitiker), i.e. the person now writing in third person. It was a good faith suggestion. It would mean for example that you could shorten your posts here by referring to this blog. Even better would be to publish an article which could maybe even be cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff. And the subject I was discussing is directly related to this article because you keep wanting to add unreliable sources of information when, at the same time, your writing is being criticized for including unreliable sources. See tag here PB666 ^yap 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You should read more carefully perhaps. The first diff you posted shows a person complementing what has been achieved here. He also posted on my talkpage. The second diff you posted shows another person placing a tag about a sub-section needing expansion. This is being discussed. This person is highly critical of genetics literature itself, and so we need to consider what can be done. Neither of the diffs you post are relevant to anything you raised above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of the Main Page

I think that the R1a article is now excellent. Very academic yet understandable also. The set out is good Hxseek (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a place to make comments, here. PB666 ^yap 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the GA reviewers page has not replaced the talkpage. Posting in other places is also possible, but the recent record shows that you and I have ourselves been asking for opinions here, on this talkpage, about the direction the article has taken. The importance is that for example you have justified certain bursts of unilateral but very poor re-writing by referring to my work here as "disturbingly unencyclopedic". In other words you depict these bursts as a kind of emergency action. In reality you seem to want to attack or denigrate anyone who does not agree whole-heartedly with you. After he stated that your writing style was a worsening of the article, you chased MarmadukePercy, who is a career editor, not only off this page, but over onto my talkpage to attack him. He stated on ANI that he has been staying away from here now because of your "Bruce Lee" behavior. You also seem to have gone out of your way to put Ettrig off. Now you are asking another yet editor simply to remove his comments? My diffs are ready if you want to dispute any of this background of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1. "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article, and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer."PB666 ^yap 11:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Further" reviews. You posted the first review. You are now the "Vested reviewer"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is no justification at all for asking a person who disagrees with you to move his talkpage remark to the GA review page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

2. No Andrew, you are confusing me with you. I am trying to get you and others who edit Y-DNA pages to start pushing your acts to a higher level so that we can break up this pattern of un-rated or low-rated pages and constant infighting and back-biting during edit wars. Lack of clarity, and excesses of opinion (no matter who generates it) is a key cause of edit-warring. This page, left needing help on the HGH page, was full of quotations of opinions, many obsolete, when I decided to take up getting this page fixed. I have left my comments on the GA1 page, it is a fraction of all my comments, and I have marked off the list problems that have been corrected. This, what you call eccentric, is the way things get done in other parts of Wikipedia, you seem to like to make fun of the way things get done. IOW, my eccentric critiques are directed at the fact that conflicts within the sphere of this project are primarily do to the fact the editors are putting their vested or ethnocentric interests first, and not the overall goals of the encyclopedia. This seems to have caused a rise in your androgen levels. Every page that you edit from now on should be either a B or C-class when you get finished, or been tagged for the problems on that page for someone else to work on, and a pointer placed in the HGH project. It would be a shame if the E1b1b page that you have been such a contributor to does not try to reach GA status. PB666 ^yap 11:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try one more time to explain this GA thing and why you keep mentioning as the target in opposition to the normal targets of improving articles. Is trying to make the articles better the same as bringing them closer to GA, or different? Is an editor who is considered more successful at bringing articles to a much higher standard doing the same thing as being more successful at bringing them closer to GA standard or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure

No current promotion of articles within HGH, articles within core HGH areas have undergone demotion.
A major editor of this article is bucking at using wiki-guides, says guides are not need for 'his editing'
We need more exposure of high quality work, that the volunteers at HGH are working toward WP improvements not solely participants in race-based edit wars.
Self-improvement and self-critique, a heaping dose served all around.

PB666 ^yap 11:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Frankly, no one is ranking HGH articles except you and you just started recently. But anyway, you have not downgraded any articles I have worked on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Please explain who is "is bucking at using wiki-guides and saying "guides are not need for 'his editing'"? You have diffs for this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Not sure of your point here. I do not think you are accusing me of race-based writing. I am thinking your idea is that better articles will discourage race based edit warring? Maybe. But in that case see my questions above: is trying to improve articles different from bringing articles closer to GA or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Sure. And nice weather is better than bad weather, and war and hunger are not nice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, could you please answer my questions? I am trying to understand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Call for Poll about two versions of a paragraph

Editors working on or watching this article, please choose which of the versions in these diffs look best to you, and make your remark below: [19], or [20] or perhaps some of these earlier versions for example: [21], [22], [23]. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and no polling should ever replace discussion here WP:POLLS. However in the case of the opening paragraphs, which have been bouncing between different wordings, I think it is a good idea to have a poll of interested editors. In order not to allow the polling to discourage discussion, please feel free to add any explanation or alternative ideas, of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) [links adjusted]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, Andrew I and the other editor are insistent that the word haplogroup, which is in the title of the page, be explained in context. You keep dancing around the issue in your write-up. That's a problem.PB666 ^yap 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is the other editor? Are you saying I disagree? Anyway, the practical problem is that it is hard to get the wording right, especially with you writing over everything I attempt. Maybe you think the same about my edits. Indeed I'd say your edits meet your own description of dancing around the issue just as much as mine. That's why I try to open this up more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a free world, GWB stood up on a AC and declared mission accomplished. Whether people respect you or not depends on how much what you say reflects reality. As for the other editor, I'm not your mother, read up the article.PB666 ^yap 12:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My current proposal would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29&oldid=328181732. I am open to other suggestions, and indeed I am looking for better perspective, in order to avoid "discussion by revert"! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Wiki guides say no more than 4 paragraphs in the lead, this is unacceptable because it creates two essentially dangling paragraphs.

WP:Lead#Length, you know, Andrew those eccentric guides you don't want to follow. Why don't you practice creating leads, maybe you will improve. Try starting here: E1b1b1a.PB666 ^yap 12:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing in terms of "formal rules", which is what you are doing, it is obviously trivial to just take the proposed versions and take out the paragraph breaks, resolving the "issue". However, I should point out that you originally demanded the increase of the length of the lead, and in my versions I am simply breaking up the discussion it into natural paragraphs. So. maybe it should just be shorter?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We need as much explanation at the top as we need, we need enough paragraphs after the first paragraph to discuss what is in the article, and our lede is not too long at the moment, but we do not want to create a highly fractured and difficult looking lede structure. It will be a turn-off.PB666 ^yap 12:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is confusing. You seem to be saying that the lead may not be above 4 paragraphs, but you are also saying that there is no rule, and that it is not currently too long. I suppose we might be talking past each other because you do not see my point about natural break points. For you the question of paragraphs is just the trivial one of taking out the paragraph breaks. So there is no issue here. We just take the breaks out?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My new proposal is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29&oldid=328202061. Now it has less paragraphs. I think it is better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As tweaked by DinDraithou: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29&curid=21481404&diff=328214898&oldid=328212478 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this because you still haven't dealt with the problem of Haplogroup. I have placed your version Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)/Lede<---here.

And am unaware of any comments by ettrig, however, as the saying goes you know what that good lede will look like when you see it.PB666 ^yap 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is Ettrig's comment At the time, your version was up and you asked him to specifically comment on it. It was very recent. I guess you did not read it, and frankly you read past a lot of stuff . Another thing you also did not notice is that my new proposal does indeed deal with the word haplogroup - actually that bit is not so different between our versions [24]. So your revert was based on a misunderstanding?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I read this: "I didn't find any good description of haplogroup in Wikipedia. The following is my guess: A haplogroup is a set of organisms that share unique similarities in their DNA sequences. R1a is also used to refer to those particular DNA sequences. If this is right we could write that R1a is a particular set of DNA sequences that occur in the human Y chromosome. --Ettrig (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - Andrew, unambiguously this is a critique of the page on Haplogroups, not of what our lede was. It is explicity for this reason that I defined haplogroup in context. Muntawandi is also calling for people to work on the Haplogroup is. There is a similar problem with the Serotype page. For certain diagnostic definitions a Serotype is only the variants of antigens on microbial surfaces. But for serotype as biochemist use broadly a serotype are variations of antigens on any surface, self, microbes, implants, whatever. So does this mean you are going to go work on the Haplogroup page and fix the problems there. Ettrig is apparently working or had worked on this page.PB666 ^yap 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be true, but in addition to this it also seems he is not satisfied with the opening you wrote. He was answering you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good logic. That's why he edited the Haplogroup page. He is not the only one, see comments in Talk:WP:HGH. He has actually improved it, the more improvements on that page, the less that needs to be done on this page. See comments above on solving the Haplogroup issue in R1a. I have moved the Lede to the subpage.PB666 ^yap 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

^ Regueiro et al. (2006)

[regueiro-1] Regueiro et al. (2006)

[1]