Talk:Western Hunter-Gatherer

It is SYNTH

It is SYNTH to entwine statements from a paper that only serves to explain the method used (NB Walsh et al. (2017) obviously only use contemporary samples with know phenotype) with results of second study that applies this method to ancient specimens. It is good to have Walsh et al. (2017) for background information, but it is not good to make it appear as if they have touched any aDNA. –Austronesier (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks, and happy festive season! There's a similar problem over at Cheddar man if you're in the fixin' mood... Tewdar (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Nadelik Lowen! And well, maybe later, but I'm oh so lazy know, after all it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Nadelik lowen dhiso, ynwedh! Yeah, I'm feeling a bit lazy too - way too much food and drink in my house at this time of year! 🍻🍗🍰👍 Tewdar (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• nb for Hunan - the Brace 2019 and Günther 2018 studies are not SYNTH - mixing Walsh 2017 with these studies (which we fixed) would be synth.  Tewdar  10:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Research Section

I have copy edited the research section to attempt to turn it into something resembling prose. Removing inline paranthetical citation is in line with policy which deprecates such citations. I have attempted to join up the studies that support each other. No references are lost, and the authors are all cited in the references. I removed a little extra detail but at this point have left in, in my opinion, too much detail. The details of alleles, haplotypes and such like is detail that can mostly sit in the cited papers. The prose really just needs to draw out what the papers show. We could put some of the detail in efn notes though. In any case I will leave it at that and see how the changes sit with other editors before attempting any further improvement. What I haven't done at this point is include any useful secondary sources that would help ensure that our presentation here is properly balanced. The section is still too reliant on primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This was a good first step, but many parts are still nightmarishly repetitive and over-detailed (especially the usual haplogroup-combing of sources). –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Validity of pigmentation predictions

So we have now a SYNTH-concoction of hand-picked statements (well, less synthish now) to express our unease about the validity of pigmentation predictions. Why do I not see this unease added to Yamnaya culture and Eastern Hunter-Gatherer? Is it because for these popuplations, light skin is predicted? Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of those sources, and may not get a chance today, but in general I do not think we should be adding 'concerns' about the 'validity' of pigmentation predictions to an article about WHGs using sources that aren't really talking about the pigmentation of WHGs.  Tewdar  09:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

At most, I would support a very short sentence somewhere in the physical appearance section stating that these predictions are limited by aDNA quality, lack of knowledge, etc. This certainly doesn't need its own (sub)section in this article.  Tewdar  09:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, a fairly simple mention about general "caution" regarding DnA analysis and phenotype deductions should suffice, per available sources. I also agree it sounds a bit biased to only use such a "disclaimer" for the "dark-skinned" WHGs. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind similar disclaimers getting added to other ancient population articles as long as this can be done without improper synthesis i.e. sourced to an article describing phenotype predictions of specific groups.  Tewdar  12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Graphs for periods BC/BP

It is a pity with good scholars not grasping that their plotter naturally plots data ascending from left to right, however, cannot read "BC" or "BP", which SIMPLY has to be told him by multplying the x-axis data by "-1! This sloppy procedure leads to the completely unnecessarily cruelly confusing result that dates from in each case only B.C. or A.D.. Chr. run contrary. Thanks, this probably was not the mistake of the provider of this particular graph.HJJHolm (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Even weirder

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It’s a good thing this article exists on Wikipedia, because otherwise, this concept would be virtually unknown. A search on JSTOR for the term “western hunter gatherers” returns a grand total of 2 papers published in peer-reviewed journals during the last 4 years: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. Since this concept is definitely not fringe, obscure, junk science, it’s a good thing that it’s been written about so extensively on Wikipedia, because apparently it isn’t being pursued at all in the scientific community. In fact, the Wikipedia articles written about “eastern hunter gatherers”, “central hunter gatherers” , “western . .”, etc, comprise more pages than all of the papers published in peer-reviewed journals about these topics during the last 4 years. Thank goodness the authors of these Wikipedia articles have so much experience working with peer-reviewed research, and were able to recognize the importance of these topics, when apparently the scientific community hasn’t. Let’s hope that 3 papers about "western hunter gatherers" are published in peer-reviewed journals during 2025, so that the average can be brought-up to one peer-reviewed paper per year for 5 consecutive years, because I’m concerned that at the current rate, this concept will likely be extinct by 2030, and this definitely isn't fringe, obscure, junk science, so we definitely don't want this topic to go extinct. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:FD9B:40B6:A183:8B19 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Hello, old friend 😁 Here are the Google Scholar results since 2020 for "Western Hunter-Gatherer". Looks like the concept of a distinctive "Villabruna cluster" (remember to search for that, too) is holding up quite well.  Tewdar  10:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This 2023 article would probably be a nice introduction for you to read.  Tewdar  10:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC) But Tewdar, Nature and Science are not peer-reviewd. It's a myth. These are same journal that failed to spread the truth during the "pandemic". I have repeatedly told you not to replace your tin foil hat with a Tesco paper bag. Yes, it's cheaper and easier to get, but see now what 5G has done to you. Nature! Tsk, tsk... –Austronesier (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Next you'll be telling me that archæology, archaeology, and archeology are spelling variations for the same word! You clearly have no experience working with peer-reviewed research! 😂  Tewdar  13:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) You know what, I just wrote a novel, realized I was allowing myself to get sucked into another bickering contest with you, and I'm not going to do that again. Let's make this easy, just find a single peer-reviewed paper publishing new data about "western hunter-gatherers" since 2020. Not a paper which simply cites the same old data published prior to 2020. Just find one peer-reviewed paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, containing new data about "western hunter gatherers", that's been published since 2020. That's it. That's all I'm asking. If you can do that, I'll keep my mouth shut. Again, not a paper which simply cites the old data. A paper published in a peer-reviewed journal which is focused on new data about western hunter gatherers. Look, my man, in the paper you linked to on Nature, the authors simply cited the same old papers published about WHG prior to 2020. That's why every time WHG is mentioned in that paper, it's followed by citations which link to the original papers all published before 2020. If WHG is a genuine topic of interest within the scientific community, then locate one paper published within the last 4 years containing new data specifically about WHG. This will demonstrate that someone somewhere is actually continuing to conduct research into WHG. I'm not going to get into another nitpicking bickering contest with you. If you can find one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal containing new data specifically about WHG during the last 4 years, then I will keep my mouth shout. Because I can't find one. Anywhere. And you can nitpick and waste your time avoiding this challenge. And my response is going to the same every time. Find a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal which has published new data about WHG since 2020 to demonstrate that this topic is still being actively pursued by at least one person in the scientific community. I can't find one. Everything I look at, even the papers listed on JSTOR and Nature, all simply cite the same papers published prior to 2020. I'm not going to get into another bickering match with you. I've made a very simple challenge. I'm not going to respond to anything which doesn't pertain to this challenge. Find a paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, which isn't simply citing the same old papers dating prior to 2020, which is publishing new data about WHG within the last 4 years. This will demonstrate that at least one research team is still conducting research into this topic. And I know you're going to fall into this pitfall, so let me head you off at the pass. "Look, this paper cites Allentoft, published in 2024." Don't say, "He cites a paper published this year." Because if you go to the Allentoft paper, everything he cites is the same old papers from prior to 2020. I just went through every single paper on Nature.com dated after 2020, and every single one of them cites the same papers dated prior to 2020 and is only using "western hunter gatherer(s)" and "WHG" in reference to the same papers published prior to 2020, and vast majority of those papers, are simply research papers (obviously) not publishing new data. Please find one paper about about WHG published since 2020 which is publishing new data about WHG, not simply saying, "This is how the data about WHG collected prior to 2020 relates to our data." Every single paper on Nature and JSTOR since 2020 has simply used WHG as a tool relevant to their data, in which they cite the same old papers dating from prior to 2020. Please locate a paper, written within the last four years, which is about western hunter gatherers, not how the old data about western hunter gatherers relates to their work. And honestly, of the papers I found on Nature, the majority of them were simply research papers, not offering any new data about anything. Anyway, from this point forward, that's going to be the only thing I respond to. Find a peer-reviewed paper published in a peer-reviewed journal which is about WHG, not someone simply citing old WHG papers as referential to their paper. I looked pretty extensively, and I couldn't find a single one. Let me know if you have better luck. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:F5CE:578B:E32D:6841 (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) LOL. Wow. Joshua Jonathan just tried to delete my challenge. Okay, so let me make my challenge more explicit. Find one peer-reviewed paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal within the last 5 years, which is about "Western Hunter-Gatherers". Please, link to one peer-reviewed paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, within the last 5 years, in which the term "Western Hunter-Gatherers" is in the title, and/or "Western Hunter-Gatherers" are the focus of the paper. Can't do it, can you Joshua? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) What do you think Joshua? The fact that no peer-reviewed papers published within the last 5 years have focused on "Western Hunter-Gatherers" and no peer-reviewed papers published within the last 5 years have had that term included in the titles of their papers or focused primarily on this group, might suggest that no one is actually pursuing this group as an area of genuine scientific research? I don't know. I'm just following one logical point to the next. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) We can play this game all day man, and you know as well as I do that when the admins review this interaction, they're not going to let you try to suppress the pursuit of reliable scientific data because you're feelings were hurt. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) How about you check the supplementary tables and the supplement for that article I linked. Therein you will find newly published WHG/Villabruna/Oberkassel cluster individuals. Why are you surprised that a article would cite previous articles mentioning WHGs? That's called, uh, science... it would be a bit weird not to cite them.  Tewdar  09:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Yup. Not gonna waste time on this. You suckered me into this before, and as I made abundantly clear, 7 times, I'm not gonna do it again. Cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a peer-reviewed journal within the last 5 years in which the focus is "Western Hunter Gatherers". I'm not going to goose-chase any of your tangents. I did that before. As I said before, simply respond to the challenge as I clearly laid it out. The reason you can't find any peer-reviewed papers with "Western Hunter-Gatherer" in the title and you can't find any peer-reviewed papers focused on WHG within the last 5 years, is because no one is actively pursuing this concept in the scientific community. Again, you simply avoided the plainly stated parameters I laid out, which if you had successfully followed, would have completely refuted my viewpoint. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) If you can find one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal containing new data specifically about WHG during the last 4 years, then I will keep my mouth shout - I'm guessing that last word wasn't a typo.  Tewdar  09:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Are you seriously going to be this childish? Now you want to bicker about typos? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC) No, you said you'd keep quiet (?) if I provided data for new WHG individuals published since 2020. Which I did. By the way, about half of that article I linked is about 'Western Hunter-Gatherers". You just didn't understand it.  Tewdar  09:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Yup, and again, you're simply using infantile tactics to avoid responding to the challenge, and as I've said 10 times, I'm not going to do this with you again. Find a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal within the last 5 years in which the focus is upon WHG, and WHG isn't simply cited using the same papers dated to prior to 2020. Find a peer-reviewed paper focusing upon WHG (not simply citing 7 year-old papers) within the last 5 years to demonstrate that this is a topic being actively pursued by at least one person within the scientific community. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Posth (2023) satisfies all of those demands I believe. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you understood it.  Tewdar  09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Right. Can you provide the link? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Posth (2023) is the article I already linked. It focuses on "Western Hunter-Gatherers", and the relationship between the previously identified Villabruna cluster and the newly identified Oberkassel cluster, features new data obtained from newly analysed individuals who fall within these clusters, and was published within the last five years. It cites previous papers because it builds upon earlier research, like all good science. In fact it would probably not have been published in Nature if it didn't cite these previous peer-reviewed papers. Tewdar  09:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) So that paper isn't about WHG, and every reference it makes to WHG is followed by a citation linking to a paper dated prior to 2020. Again, you're using avoidance tactics. Find a paper about WHG, published in a peer-reviewed journal, within the last 5 years. Not something in which a research team cites the same 7 year-old research data and says, "See how this relates to our data?" I can't imagine you're having this much difficulty understanding this. If WHG is a genuine topic of scientific interest, then find a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about WHG within the last 5 years. Again, not about how the papers from 7 years ago relate to their research about a topic in a paper they published this year. Find a paper about WHG which shows that WHG is currently being actively researched. Find a single paper about WHG published within the last 5 years. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) The problem is, you don't understand that the article I linked is about Western Hunter-Gatherers. You don't understand what the Villabruna cluster is, or what the Oberkassel cluster is. I'd bet good money that you do not know what a cluster is, in this context. All you seem to be able to do, is ctrl+F for "WHG", see some citations to previous papers, and then come back here and write a few paragraphs that tells everybody reading that you do not understand this subject. There have by now been dozens of peer-reviewed articles and books, even outside of genetics, that accept that 'Western Hunter-Gatherer' is a useful and valid term for describing the post-glacial populations of Europe. Nobody is saying that everyone in Western Europe in the Mesolithic was genetically identical.  Tewdar  10:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Yup. Another tangent. As I said, I'm not going to go down this path with you again. All you have is avoidance tactics. You still haven't found a paper about WHG publishing new data about WHG within the last 5 years. The best you've got is, "Look, I can make the argument . . " You can't find a paper with WHG in the title, or in which WHG is the primary focus of the paper, can you? I'm not going to waste time bickering with you about your avoidance tactics. Find a single paper in which WHG is in the title, or is the primary focus of the paper. And saying, "But look, I can make the argument that . . " isn't going to cut it. Yup, all of those papers on Nature cite the old data, so you could ostensibly argue that since the old data relates to the new data . . That's why I laid-out the parameters specifically as I did. Don't make a lame argument as though you're writing an essay for your 10th grade socio class. Find a peer-reviewed paper in which WHG is in the title, or is the focus of the paper, and it provides new data specifically about WHG since 2020. Not, "Even though the data this paper cites all dates to prior 2020, it ties in the old data with the new, so I think this means that there are people who are actively pursuing WHG." This is a sad attempt to circumvent the parameters of the challenge. And leave-off the baiting. Can you leave a single reply without behaving like a child? "I don't think you know what a cluster is" Ooh, you got me, zinger. Is it possible for you to just stick to the topic and not reply with sad attempts at insults, emojis, and "LOL"? Seriously, is it completely outside your capacity to behave like an adult? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) The Posth paper publishes new data. It's about WHGs. It was published in 2023. Here is another paper (Allentoft 2024) for you to try. Look at the supplementary tables. You see all those samples labelled 'HG_EuropeW' first published in 'Allentoft_Nature_2023'. Hmm. I wonder what that could possibly mean? 🤔  Tewdar  10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Right, so now you're just repeating the same stupid point, because you can find a legitimate counter-argument. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Posth (2023) and Allentoft (2024) are what you asked for: papers about WHG publishing new data about WHG within the last 5 years. If you cannot understand this, then I can't do anything more to help you today.  Tewdar  11:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) You'd have to actually read the paper though, to be aware of how the terms WHG, Villabruna, and Oberkassel relate to each other.  Tewdar  09:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Okay, so then your point is that WHG should be rolled into Villabruna, right? Because when I read that paper (and that was literally the only paper on Nature that offered genuinely new data since 2020), that paper said that WHG is simply another name for Villabruna. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:9821:7ACD:207A:C1F2 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC) No, you have not read the article properly.  Tewdar  09:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Jesus, my man, as I said in my original reply, both of those papers simply cite the same old papers from prior to 2020. How are you failing to comprehend this? New data specific to WHG, not how the old data about WHG relates to new data about other topics. New data from research teams specifically researching WHG. How are you not getting this? Not how data published in 2016 relates to new data about another topic. New data specific to WHG, published in a paper about WHG, demonstrating that someone is actively researching WHG, not that someone utilized data about WHG as work-cited in a recent paper. Demonstrate that someone is actively researching WHG by finding a peer-reviewed paper with WHG in the title, or in which WHG is primary focus of the paper. How are you not understanding this? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:F5CE:578B:E32D:6841 (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC) No, those two papers do not simply cite the same old papers from prior to 2020. They both publish new data that is about WHG, not another topic. Now, I'm sorry that you don't understand any of the articles I link to, but I can't really help you with that right now.  Tewdar  11:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Nope. Every mention of WHG in both papers is followed by citations linking to the same old papers from prior to 2020. And again, if you believe you're right, then why not simply link to a paper in which WHG is in the title, or is the main focus of the paper? I've said from the start, this will very clearly demonstrate that there are research teams actively pursuing research into WHG. But you can't find anything like that, can you, so you have to resort to tactics which I repeatedly said are clearly outside the parameters of the challenge. Showing how a research team used old research to help create new data does not in any way suggest that there are research teams currently focused on expanding data specific to WHG. You know this. And as always, you are simply using avoidance tactics because you can't find a single peer-reviewed paper published within the last 5 years with WHG in the title, or whose primary focus is WHG. The only point, you keep trying to make over and over, is that the old WHG papers from 5-10 years ago were used in the creation of new research. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:F5CE:578B:E32D:6841 (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC) If you believe that this is a current topic of scientific interest and pursuit, then why can't you find a single paper with WHG in the title, or in which the abstract plainly states, "We're going to demonstrate this about WHG"? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:F5CE:578B:E32D:6841 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) The fundamental problem here, is that you do not understand the research papers, nor their supplementary materials, nor the excel tables. You do not understand that these papers provide new information about the genomes of newly published WHG or WHG-related individuals. You do not understand what WHG means, or what the Villabruna or Oberkassel clusters are. You do not even know what a cluster is. Now, given all the above, how are you possibly going to say anything that makes the slightest bit of sense in this discussion?  Tewdar  12:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Right. All I do, all day, is work with peer-reviewed research in this field. And again, you can't simply stick to the point. Endless avoidance tactics. Name another topic, any topic, in which you think peer-reviewed research has been published, but you can't find that topic in the title of any peer-reviewed papers. And again, you're simply resorting to infantile avoidance tactics. "Oh, well you just don't understand peer-reviewed research." Right. Next time you're in a class related to anthro, whether it's a socio class in your high school, or if you're in college, an actual anthro class, ask you're instructor, "I found mentions of a topic in some peer-reviewed papers, but I can't find any papers specifically about that topic, no papers with that term in title, and nothing with new data specifically about that topic published since 2018." See what kind of response you get from your instructor. I promise, it's going to be the exact same response you're getting from me. And again, all you have is, "No, these research teams used this old data when they created their new research." Again, that doesn't demonstrate, at all, that there are currently research teams actively pursuing WHG, amplified by the fact that no papers have EVER been published specifically about WHG How bout this, why don't you find a single peer-reviewed paper with WHG in the title. Of the scant 18 peer-reviewed papers I can find on JSTOR which make any mention of WHG, not a single one of them has that term in it's title. Literally, no one has ever conducted research in which the primary focus was WHG. How bout this, not just in the last 5 years, but since the year 1900, just find one peer-reviewed paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, in which the primary focus was WHG. Just one. Now tell me that you genuinely believe there are teams actively pursuing research about WHG. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:F5CE:578B:E32D:6841 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) No, you do not work with peer-reviewed research in this field. You appear to have no knowledge of this field, which is archaeogenetics. You keep falsely claiming that Posth et al. and Allentoft et al. used only old data in their recent studies, because you are unable to understand their articles. If you look a little more carefully, you can see that Allentoft et al. in fact also used new data - they found many more, brand new individuals that they classified as 'Western Hunter-Gatherers'. Similarly, Posth et al. used new data and analysed several brand new individuals, and contributed to this topic by suggesting that 'Western Hunter-Gatherers' north of the Alps (Oberkassel cluster) are best modelled as mainly deriving from the previously studied 'Villabruna cluster' ('Western Hunter-Gatherers', in previous studies) and a smaller contribution from Goyet-Q2. Now, I cannot find a study that uses the terms 'WHG' or 'Western Hunter-Gatherer' in the title, because this would not be a particularly good descriptive title and because most such studies cover the genetic history of particular larger or smaller regions. But there are literally dozens of articles and books that happily use the term to describe a particular genetic signature (and the people who carried it). I get the impression that your problem with the subject of this article is not what you say it is. What's the real problem? Or are you just bored or something?  Tewdar  13:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Nope. I'm going to guess the sentence you're referring to is, "The two 14 ka Oberkassel individuals mark the earliest presence of WHG ancestry north of the Alps," and in the paragraphs immediately prior to that, he cites Mathieson's 2018 paper, Mittnik's 2018 paper, and Gunther's 2018 paper as the references for WHG. Again, it's redundant citation. The primary focus of the paper is not WHG. He's referencing a group someone else has named WHG, and then saying, "We found that this group which someone else designated, behaved in this way". This is not primary data. It's simply expanding upon the work of Mathieson, Mittnik and Gunther. The paper is about the interaction of archaic European groups, not about WHG. He simply cited other people's work, in the exact same way everyone else does. "I'm not identifying the two individuals myself. I'm relying upon the work of Mathieson, Mittnik, and Gunther". This is no different than all of the papers from 2014-2018 which simply cited Mathieson, Mittnik, and Gunther. And the section that mentions WHG in the Posth paper, comprises about 10% of the paper. And again, these are all simply avoidance tactics, because you still haven't listed a single peer-reviewed paper with WHG in the title, or one whose primary focus is WHG, or one which has published primary data about WHG since 2020. These are all simply avoidance tactics again. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Look, I've tried. You cannot expect to come to a topic you have no knowledge of, then skim through the latest research paper and come back and claim that the only person who truly understands this topic is you. You wouldn't do this for any other subject, and you certainly can't do it in archaeogenetics. I am going to tell you one more time, that the Posth et al. and Allentoft et al. articles are based, in part, on newly analyzed individuals that either fall within the Villabruna cluster or fall within the recently described and closely related Oberkassel cluster. This is what you asked for, and absolutely on-topic for this article, and now you are continuously moving the goalposts, asking for papers with WHG in the title or more than x% content about Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations of Western Europe. Again, the two papers provided offer a ton of brand new primary data which you are unable to find even though I even gave you links to the tables that contain the primary data which I am guessing that you did not look at, (possibly because you cannot open excel databases, who knows...) as well as even the correct search terms to help you to find the specific individuals. I am not going to continue this discussion, but I advise you to submit this article to WP:AFD for deletion if you think this topic does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Have a fantastic day.  Tewdar  14:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) And again, you have nothing but personal attacks and avoidance tactics. I'll cede those two papers to you. I think the claim that those two papers contain anything more than scant primary research about WHG is extremely tenuous. But, I'll go ahead and cede those two papers to you. What else you got? Have you found a single peer-reviewed paper with WHG in the title? Have you found a single peer-reviewed paper in which the primary focus of the paper is WHG? You have 2 papers published in the last 5 years which you believe contain primary data about WHG. I think that's an extremely tenuous claim. But let's not nitpick. Fine. We'll say that those two papers contain significant primary data about WHG. What else you got? Even if you had two peer-reviewed papers published during the last 5 years which were EXCLUSIVELY about WHG, my response would be, "Well, that's not very many." So again, have you found a peer-reviewed paper with WHG in the title, or a peer-reviewed paper in which the primary focus is WHG? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This one's quite good.  Tewdar  15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This one is nice.  Tewdar  15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Right. More avoidance tactics. The whole reason I set the parameters of the challenge as I did, is because I'm not going to spend the next month debating the individual merits of every single paper which simply has the term WHG in it. Frankly, I'm a little shocked I let you suck me down that rabbit hole once already during this conversation. Again, one paper with WHG in the title, or one paper in which WHG is the primary focus of the paper. You can post links to all 23 of the previously mentioned papers on Nature. Just more avoidance tactics. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Here's one by an archaeologist.  Tewdar  15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Yup, and WHG isn't in the title, doesn't appear in the abstract, and isn't mentioned until the second page. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Can you cite a paper with WHG is in the title, or in which WHG is the primary focus of the paper? 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC) In Charlton et al. (already linked), the paper is entirely about Goyet-Q2 and Villabruna ancestry.  Tewdar  15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) First mention of WHG in that paper, "The ‘Villabruna’ ancestry, also broadly known as Western hunter gatherers or WHG". You said the reason this article shouldn't be rolled into Villabruna is because WHG is not Villabruna. Now you're linking to a paper in which the first mention of WHG says that Villabruna is also widely known as WHG. And no, the entire paper is definitely not about WHG. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Again, you have failed to understand the relationship between the concepts 'WHG', 'Villabruna', 'Oberkassel', and 'Goyet-Q2', or the subtle differences in some of their definitions in the various studies, suggesting that you haven't really read or understood the linked articles, or even the Wikipedia article, which if I remember correctly does explain this. Also, I did not say that WHG is not Villabruna. Nor did I say that the entire paper is about WHG. I do not understand what you mean by rolled into Villabruna - are you suggesting we merge Western Hunter-Gatherer with the Ripari Villabruna article? Or are you unclear about how the Villabruna cluster relates to Western Hunter-Gatherers?  Tewdar  16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Right. More avoidance tactics. WHG isn't in the title, isn't in the abstract, first shows-up in the third paragraph, where it cites the 2016 Fu paper. The next sentence, cites the 2016 Fu paper. The next sentence, cites the 2016 Fu paper. The next sentence, cites the 2016 Fu paper. The next sentence doesn't cite anything more recent than 2008. This is called a research paper. Nothing in this paper is original work. Every single sentence cites someone else's work. This is a research paper, not original work. Avoidance tactics again. 2600:6C40:4A00:5400:15:42B1:445B:D049 (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) For the umpteenth time, you need to read the article properly, along with the supplementary information and tables to avoid making ridiculous claims like nothing in this paper is original work. If you are still unable to locate this information, after you made the exact same mistake in two other papers today, then I would suggest that you find something else to do.  Tewdar  16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I cannot find a single article with WHG in the title, as I already mentioned. If you think this means that the topic is not WP:NOTABLE, go ahead and nominate it for deletion.  Tewdar  15:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies and RegentsPark: am I correct when I think that this is a violation of WP:FORUM and disruptive? See also the archives; this IP has been ranting here for a couple of years now. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, absolutely, but if I blank this entire section, all of User:Tewdar's good work will disappear as well. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • How dare you associate my name with "good work". This is gratuitously offensive and I demand that you revision delete that comment. 😂  Tewdar  17:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh, this is User:AnthropologyAye-Whole? How exciting. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Yeah - didn't he get blocked for making some horrendously racist comment that I didn't have the privilege of reading?  Tewdar  17:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: I'm sure their redacted last words[1] are visible for you. Actually, Tewdar and I have to self-trout for violating WP:DFTT, especially when you consider that feeding them requires an enema. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
          • Yeah, these glasses of mine are helpful here--holy shit. Indeed, Austronesier, let's not (and by "us" I mean you and Tewdar)--for shits and giggles of a similar kind, I'm sure there's a Tartary or von Daniken group on Facebook that provides the same amusement but with pictures. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

            I was actually hoping to convince Aye-Whole that they were wrong about the notability of the topic. I guess this was pretty wishful thinking in retrospect. I didn't find the discussion particularly amusing. I suppose it had its moments.  Tewdar  18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)