Talk:Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus

Subclades

Maulucioni and I briefly discussed this on our talk pages... I'd like to say here, that while I agree that it is good to not be very meticulous, I would rather we simplify in a different way. I have a couple problems with the current method Maulucioni is using (perhaps I should just say "you", its only us here really): For now, I'll say this: especially in the case of J2 and G2 subclades, how they are named changes quite often J2a4b(M67) was not long ago "J2f" and after that "J2a1b" (in Battaglia08). I think we should rename them by the marker to prevent having to re-edit this page in the future. So shouldn't we switch it to the markers, which don't change names (as much)?--Yalens (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using J-M67 may be OK too. My concern is that this table might turn out to be unmanageable or too complex. Unless a new table under a new title with only J ang G might be done. However, in all regions from West Eurasia, such as Europe, Near East, Caucasus, Central Asia, and including Egypt and sometimes West Siberia; in all these regions J, G, R1b, R1a, I, E, etc, are important and they have been present for many thousands of years ago. --Maulucioni (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming proposal

Interested/knowledgeable parties, please see Talk:Y-chromosome haplogroups by populations#Renaming for a renaming proposal that would affect this article and 10 others. Please comment over there to keep the discussion centralized. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q and R2a

I realized that here for Balanovsky's study, Q is reported as R2a here for some populations. Since Q seems more common, if someone has time we might want to change the R2a column to Q and then put the less common R2a into the other column. --Yalens (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130615030452/http://dna.xyvy.info to http://dna.xyvy.info

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yunusba(y/j/-)ev

It appears a supplementary figure that is not in the PDF on research gate that is now most accessible online. Unfortunately this appears to be corrupted [[1]]. Will rescue other version in a bit.--Calthinus (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunan201p: Frequencies accessible as aggregated with new data in his 2011 paper [2], here available from Dienekes [dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/caucasus-revisited-yunusbayev-et-al.html]. If you want to get it in the original, go to the first link and get the supplementary data, Yunusbaev has this table as the fifth page of "SOM_Nature_without_Endnote".--Calthinus (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus: you have posted an entirely different paper in contradiction of your claim that this one:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6525410_Genetic_Structure_of_Dagestan_Populations_A_Study_of_11_Alu_Insertion_Polymorphisms

Was the source of the falsified data. That is not allowed and you need to allow the rest of the community to look through the papers to make sure everything is correct here, so we don't spend another 10 years with wrong information on the article as it was before. Furtermore, your last revision retained the original falisifed Nogai data with the source I linked to above, so there are many problems with this revision. Also, what's your problem with zeroes? Would you rather the page contain blatantly false numbers? Hunan201p (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, zeros imply that the frequency of the said haplogroup is zero. As has already been explained, I never claimed the research gate version of the publication was the source, since that version lacks the supplementary table. The solution here is obvious -- we just use the 2011 source. But instead you wanted a talk page fight. ANI is that way.--Calthinus (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]