Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of miscellaneous.

Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


May 18[edit]

New York subway "free" transfers[edit]

OK, so I was doing the Subway Challenge about 2 weeks ago, and here's what happened: I tried to use the "free" out-of-system transfer from the A train to the 1 train at Inwood-207th Street (due to the normal transfer at 168th Street being closed), but when I got to the 207th Street station on the 1 line and tried to use my card for the free transfer, the turnstile charged me a second fare! How could this be??? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4192:EBD4:E289:ABE0 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about the New York subway, let alone their free transfers but a quick search for 'new york subway free transfer' finds [1] which says (actually I don't even have to click to see most of this since it's one of the Google automatic snippet things):

A MetroCard allows one free transfer within 2 hours of first swiping your card. You can transfer from bus to subway, subway to bus, bus to bus, or between select subway stations. (Free subway-to-subway transfers only apply when you are required to exit the station to make your connection.) If you take the subway one way and the bus back you can get two rides for one fare, but you can't transfer between buses going in opposite directions (i.e Madison and Fifth Avenue buses).

List of New York City Subway transfer stations also seems to suggest free subway to subway transfers being limited as does [2] which doesn't even mention them. Are you sure you're normally entitled to a free transfer between the station you left the A train and 168th Street station? If you aren't sure, seems to me there's a fair chance this isn't one of the transfers which is intended to be free. If you are sure, then there's a fair chance the problem is that transferring via the other station (Inwood-207th Street) is, probably intentionally, not eligible. If you were forced to due to the closure of the normal station and assuming there wasn't a designated alternative you were supposed to use, you may be able to convince them to waive the extra fee if you complain and explain your situation. At least here in NZ I think it's likely although our system is a lot simpler so doesn't have such complexities anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, if you've done this before or read about it and it's been free, but only when forced to by the closure then a likely explanation would be the process of enabling a free transfer at Inwood-207th Street when the 168th Street station is closed is not completely automated and someone mess up or is supposed to be but fell through for some reason. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see -- it was more than 2 hours after last swiping the card! (I started the challenge at Rockaway Park at 4 AM, but the transfer from the A to the 1 took place at 7:45 AM!) 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4192:EBD4:E289:ABE0 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19[edit]

Mongoloid and racial science[edit]

In genetic studies and archeological papers, I still encounter speculations relating to the time and place of a supposed Paleo Mongoloid/Neo-Mongoloids split, or instances where the term Mongoloid is used in a way that suggests all ethnicities who fall under this group share a common ancestor.

With the knowledge of haplogroups and genetic distance readily available to researchers, it should be very clear no such race exists. If it is to be used at all, Mongoloid should be labeled a macro-phenotype, as two ethnic groups can be of a similiar phenotype, yet be unrelated.

Most Native-Americans for example, are more closely related to Europeans on the paternal level than to East-Asians. This is because Haplogroup Q is sister to Haplogroup R. With this in mind, why is Mongoloid still treated as a well defined family of closely related humans? Am I missing something? déhanchements (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, last time I checked, most American Indians were most closely related to the Buryat-Mongols of Siberia, not Europeans. 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4192:EBD4:E289:ABE0 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Y-DNA Haplogroup C-P39 is commonly found in Na-Dené speakers, so yes there is a relation between the Na-Dené and Mongolians. I suspect that paternally most Native-Americans however are more closely related to Europeans, while maternally they are related to East-Asians. In any case, there is significant genetic distance between them and both populations. déhanchements (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
We have an article Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas which seems to not agree with your suspicion. Rmhermen (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rmhermen: The article only confirms my suspicion, it list Y-DNA Haplogroups Q and R as the main Native-American haplogroups, and maternal haplogroups common in East-Asians and Siberians, such as D and C.
However I did read these in the article on Haplogroup Q-M242, It is unclear whether the current frequency of Q-M242 lineages represents their frequency at the time of immigration or is the result of the shifts in a small founder population over time. Regardless, Q-M242 came to dominate the paternal lineages in the Americas.
I will concede that it's possible Q-M242 only gradually came to dominate the Americas, and maybe C-P39 was more common in prehistory. déhanchements (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Estimates of the pre-Columbian population vary, but some historians argue for an estimate of 100 million or more. You don't think colonization affected the frequency of lingeages, given the sheer ammount of people killed? Disease could've wiped out the groups closer to East-Asians leaving a vacuum for the others to fill. It makes sense, since if the maternal lineages are East-Asian, the paternal ones must have been as well. -- 174.255.142.78
Right, but even if 99% percent of Native Americans were paternally and maternally close to Mongolians before Columbus, there's still the fact that Haplogroup C is distant enough from other Mongoloid markers like O2-M122, O-M175, N-M231, D1a, and D1b, the first three if which are nearer to R, albeit only by a margin.
According to [3], Lineage O represents nearly 60% of chromosomes in East Asia. The O3 haplogroup has the highest frequency, being absent outside East Asia. The O1 and O2 haplogroups appear in Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, South China, Japan, and Korea [66,76,77].
A case could be made for three races which exhibit the Mongoloid phenotype, one including Tibetans and Ainu; one including the Mongolians, Tungusic speakers, Kyrgyz, and Amerindians (possibly); and one including the rest. And even this would be meaningless for the modern age given increased admixture between all of these groups. The Amerindians at any rate, if the above theory is true, are far from homogeneous. These three groups together don't share a recent common ancestor that Africans and Europeans don't also share. déhanchements (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The statement that "Most Native-Americans for example, are more closely related to Europeans on the paternal level than to East-Asians." is confusing two different things: the ancestry of the individual and the origin of the group. A Native American man may have had a European (or European derived) grandfather, but the bulk of his genes and ancestry might still be derived from Mongoloid populations.--Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
In Siberia N and Q may very well have replaced older C lineages, which would explain why N and Q people have Mongoloid traits, like O people, but unlike R people. Haplogroups N, O, P, Q, and R originated from a common ancestor. N, O, P, and Q are almost always found side by side to a minority of C and D lineages, and have Mongoloid mtDNA (A, B, C, D, F, G, M7, M8, N9, Y, Z), except around Finland, while R1 men typically have Caucasian mtDNA (H, I, J, K, T, U, V, W). C is a very ancient lineage that originated at least 60,000 years ago, and later migrations would've brought about the distribution we observe today. 2600:1700:BAA0:E760:B12C:8F8A:8DB:C6DF (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
So in your opinions, is the term Mongoloid then, at some level, a valid, biological taxon? I would also like to see more information on this supposedly larger prehistoric occurence of C. déhanchements (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
From page 89 of DNA Genealogy: A haplogroup tree of Y chromosome derived from based haplotypes of haplogroups and sub clades and their TMRCAs, systematically calculated as described in this study. 7,556 haplotypes from 46 subclades of 17 major haplogroups have been considered for the tree design. Timescale on the vertical axis shows thousands of years from the common ancestors of the haplogroups and subclades. The tree shows the alpha-haplogroup, which is the ancestral haplogroup of the African and non-African haplogroups, and the beta-haplogroup, which is the ancestral haplogroup, close or identical with BT haplogroup in the current classification. The left branch represents haplogroup A (arose ~132,000 ybp) and its subclades. The right branch of haplogroup F through R including T represent Europoids (Caucasoids) arose 58,000 years before present. Haplogroup B (arose 46,000 ybp) migrated to Africa, the Mongoloid and Austronesian haplogroup C split ~ 36,000 ybp, apparently Middle Eastern haplogroups DE split ~42,000 ybp. A region of the origin of the alpha-haplogroup ~ 160,000 ybp remains unknown. The Europeoid family of haplogroups arose apparently in the triangle between Central Europe on the west, the Russian Plain (Eastern European plain) on the east and the Levant on the south.

The classification of C as Mongoloid and Austronesian is accurate, up to 46% of Aboriginal Australian males carried either basal C* (C-M130*), C1b2b* (C-M347*) or C1b2b1 (C-M210), so in regards to a Proto and Neo-Mongoloid split, I would rephrase this as an Australoid and Mongoloid split. Furthermore the Kostyonki-Borshchyovo and Sungir complexes demonstrate that the C lineage was once present in Eastern-Europe, and a back migration from America ([1] [2]) has been hypothesized with a relation to the spread of the Dene-Yeniseian family, which could mean that the Na-Dene migration was not so late as commonly thought. I haven't researched Yeniseian or Na-Dene mtDNA, but if they share mtDNA haplogroups this may represent a replacement sometime during the back migration, with Q lineages overtaking the C ones. is the term Mongoloid then, at some level, a valid, biological taxon? The answer to that question is multi-faceted and complex, but rest assured it's not as simple as Mongoloid is outdated racial science. There are near homogeneous groups such as the Oroqen, Evenks, and Buryats who are related and share many physical features. Restricting ourselves to those maternal lineages which are related to one another, we find that on the maternal side many East-Asian and Amerindian ethnicities share a common ancestry and coincidentally or not, similar features. As far as paternal goes, if the conjectures concerning Haplogroup C are correct, then there was split in the human tree which resulted in a distinct population with shared features, and they would have been united by shared paternal and maternal ancestry. 99.141.134.13 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

May 20[edit]

Subway challenge[edit]

Where can I post my results for the Subway Challenge (AFAIK the first ever for 472 stations)? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4192:EBD4:E289:ABE0 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice the external link? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I did, but that site hasn't been updated in 10 years -- I'm not so sure they're even maintaining it anymore (else it would've included Matthew Ahn's record!) 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4192:EBD4:E289:ABE0 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you could always see if the Guinness Book people are interested. ApLundell (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Not eligible -- my run was a Class C (passing through all stations), whereas the Guinness record is a Class B (stopping at every station). 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:4192:EBD4:E289:ABE0 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 25[edit]