Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Dear Causteau, please stop going off subject?? The opening sentence of your last post above is so misleading and comic-book-lawyeresque as to be comical. I did not say Ellen disagreed with you, so your outrage is unconvincing. I said she only ever commented upon your summaries ''on the talkpage'' which you made for her. But ''these summaries are very different from what you've been pushing on the Misplaced Pages article itself'', which is that you've wanted to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa. This is something you originally argued for more openly, going to great lengths to say that Ellen herself wanted to express such doubts (15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)). In fact her point about the use of the word African was very specific and needed explanation, which she gives in her own article. One of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph! You only changed your tune (on these talk pages, not in editing the article) after I went through a lot of effort, including inviting Ellen to come and discuss things here. However the fact of the matter is that you did not take the opportunity to discuss the text you actually want in the article, but rather asked her to confirm a summary of her article which is actually the opposite of what you want in the Misplaced Pages article. So can you now pleas15:17, 29 October 2008 e stick to writing about the pros and cons of different versions of the text for the '''Misplaced Pages article itself'''?--] (]) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Causteau, please stop going off subject?? The opening sentence of your last post above is so misleading and comic-book-lawyeresque as to be comical. I did not say Ellen disagreed with you, so your outrage is unconvincing. I said she only ever commented upon your summaries ''on the talkpage'' which you made for her. But ''these summaries are very different from what you've been pushing on the Misplaced Pages article itself'', which is that you've wanted to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa. This is something you originally argued for more openly, going to great lengths to say that Ellen herself wanted to express such doubts (15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)). In fact her point about the use of the word African was very specific and needed explanation, which she gives in her own article. One of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph! You only changed your tune (on these talk pages, not in editing the article) after I went through a lot of effort, including inviting Ellen to come and discuss things here. However the fact of the matter is that you did not take the opportunity to discuss the text you actually want in the article, but rather asked her to confirm a summary of her article which is actually the opposite of what you want in the Misplaced Pages article. So can you now pleas15:17, 29 October 2008 e stick to writing about the pros and cons of different versions of the text for the '''Misplaced Pages article itself'''?--] (]) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me ]? ''You'' of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the ] from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
:<blockquote>"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."</blockquote>
:As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph". That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has ''always'' been that you are adding ] in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against). In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)). ''That'''s why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?). Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included ''both'' the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until ''you'' stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
:'''The Present''': Your latest appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again). ] (]) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me ]? ''You'' of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the ] from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
:Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me ]? ''You'' of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the ] from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
Line 1,073:
Line 1,082:
:Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included ''both'' the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until ''you'' stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
:Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included ''both'' the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until ''you'' stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
:'''The Present''': Your latest appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again). ] (]) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''The Present''': Your latest appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again).
I did indeed remove it! Thank you for finally coming back to the subject of the wording. The practical disagreement between us is indeed that you want to insist on saying that E1b1b "'''is often incorrectly described as African'''". And I and other editors say you either remove that part or we take the whole passage out because in normal English usage, "haplogroup X is incorrectly described as African" would NORMALLY mean "haplogroup X did not originate in Africa". So these are the words that say that E1b1b might not have African origins. Why do you insist on those particular words, and show no interest in other ones, direct quote or not? See the discussion between you and ] on your talkpages. This is part of your pursuit of trying to question any African origins theory wherever they appear in Misplaced Pages articles, irrespective of what mainstream literature really says. If this is not the case and I have somehow misunderstood then sorry but of course there should then be no problem accepting a wording change, because '''you and I and Ellen all supposedly agree that anyone who reads her article in context will agree that it is not intended to question the African origin of E1b1b'''. So the English language is what sets the rules here, because the English language tells us the current words would normally be read to mean something we apparently agree they do not mean. Before you start posting pages of Misplaced Pages rules, please note that '''we do not need to directly quote wording ambiguities from original sources''', if the meaning is clear enough in context. (Even in the citation of this passage, you've had no problem with you or other editors reducing or changing what words are directly quoted, in order to make meaning clear.) And concerning this particular passage, you have now insisted many times that you do accept that there should be no implication that E1b1b is not African in origin. So you should be able to accept the wording changes being requested now for so long. If not, why not?--] (]) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I did indeed remove it! Thank you for finally coming back to the subject of the wording. The practical disagreement between us is indeed that you want to insist on saying that E1b1b "'''is often incorrectly described as African'''". And I and other editors say you either remove that part or we take the whole passage out because in normal English usage, "haplogroup X is incorrectly described as African" would NORMALLY mean "haplogroup X did not originate in Africa". So these are the words that say that E1b1b might not have African origins. Why do you insist on those particular words, and show no interest in other ones, direct quote or not? See the discussion between you and ] on your talkpages. This is part of your pursuit of trying to question any African origins theory wherever they appear in Misplaced Pages articles, irrespective of what mainstream literature really says. If this is not the case and I have somehow misunderstood then sorry but of course there should then be no problem accepting a wording change, because '''you and I and Ellen all supposedly agree that anyone who reads her article in context will agree that it is not intended to question the African origin of E1b1b'''. So the English language is what sets the rules here, because the English language tells us the current words would normally be read to mean something we apparently agree they do not mean. Before you start posting pages of Misplaced Pages rules, please note that '''we do not need to directly quote wording ambiguities from original sources''', if the meaning is clear enough in context. (Even in the citation of this passage, you've had no problem with you or other editors reducing or changing what words are directly quoted, in order to make meaning clear.) And concerning this particular passage, you have now insisted many times that you do accept that there should be no implication that E1b1b is not African in origin. So you should be able to accept the wording changes being requested now for so long. If not, why not?--] (]) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:I see you've chopped up my post again, just like the good 'ol days. But would you believe it, there it is back again in its entirety right above your post. Just like magic. But who exactly are these "other editors" you speak of that wish to see Ellen Coffman-Levy's statement that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" gone as badly as you do? Cause all I see above is the one same editor who has been trying very hard to get rid of that quote in its entirety from the moment it was first added to the article. And that's in addition to every single source that asserts anything other than an African origin for haplogroup E1b1b, a haplogroup which you have already admitted to belonging to. Above, you disingenously "thank" me for what you describe as "finally coming back to the subject of the wording" ("wording" was never what the dispute was about, but ''meaning''), yet can't help yourself from again bringing up my talk page ] with SOPHIAN that, besides not even concerning you (see ]), dealt with ] (an article I've actually never even edited) -- not E1b1b. Moving on, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with the rubbish you've written above. It has to do with two things that you are simulataneously omitting in not including it:
:*The fact that it is ''incorrect'' to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to ] this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):
:<blockquote>"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."</blockquote>
:*E3b is ''often'' described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:
:<blockquote>"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is '''less''' bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, '''there is still''' a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."</blockquote>
:Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.
:Here's where you return with more personal attacks & attempts to water-down that Coffman-Levy quote. ] (]) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
== E1b1b is more a Mediterranean Middle-easterner&north African haplotype than African one. ==
== E1b1b is more a Mediterranean Middle-easterner&north African haplotype than African one. ==
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
I actually agree with Andrew here. It's a bit much to remove someone's picture just because we don't happen to know if they have been tested. I mean, were the Jewish man and the Libyan Arab boys whose pictures you didn't remove tested?
I didn't leave any Libyans or Jews ] both are less likely to be E1b1b than Somalians.
Personally I will be very disappointed if I find my photo under R1b or H1 just because of my nationality. I think you have an ethical obligation to ask these people & findout whats their Y-DNA & if they want to be on the article before posting their photos! least we can do is post group photos of Somalian children, Berbers.Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I can respect your purism on this, but if you can't find good photos do we need to have no photos or bad ones? If you can find good ones, everyone is happy! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to your initial flurry of edits yesterday when I wrote that you didn't remove the photos of the Jewish man and the Libyan boys, and of course I am right. It wasn't until today that you removed the rest of the photos (1, 2).
I again agree with Andrew. This is a really purist stance, which could easily be applied to any article on Misplaced Pages (and most other articles on the internet, actually). Take the Druze page, for instance. How would those men in the pictures on that page feel about having been elected virtual "representatives" of the Druze albeit without their consent? It's the same thing, and thankfully is not considered a problem in Misplaced Pages's image use policy. Causteau (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Causteau I swear with our MRCA that I didn't see the photos of the Libyan boys or the jewish guy & I thought I removed every photo. The Druze article is an ethnic article (I am not Druze or E1b1b for the record! I already was accused of being a jew -not that its a bad thing!- in the R1a article I don't want to end up being in an ethnic issue here).
The photos just stuck out, I didn't see this in the other article, if you want I will do my share & try to make a good E1b1b map to beautify the article? & I had a group photo posted, but they were lost in an edit conflict :) .Cadenas2008 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not use it instead? It is a little clearer in quality, and the idea that a group is a better picture of an ethnic group is something I see no reason not to respect? Ethiopia is extremely rich in E1b1b haplogroups. I don't see that Somalia has any higher claim for a photo than Ethiopia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's why:
1) The Borana image is of uncertain copyright status, as it is not hosted on Misplaced Pages whereas the Somali picture is.
2) Somalis are almost exclusively E-V32 whereas the kids in that photo are Borana Oromos (the link says "boranatp2.jpg"), and Borana Oromos have many different clades of E(xE3b) (and even a considerable frequency of haplogroup A).
3) Somalis have a higher frequency of E-V32 per Cruciani et al. 2007.
4) Boranas only number about 200,000, whereas Somalis number around 16 million, so there are exponentially more E-V32 Somali carriers than there are Boranas. Causteau (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Causteau how about this one?
A beautiful photo of smiling Somali Children & their phenotype is pretty much that of the average Somalian so it doesn't leave any doubt!
Umm, I'm not sure how to put this, but at least two of those children are girls. The one in the middle certainly is. Hence, the head-covering. Causteau (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound rude, but I wonder if you've ever actually met a Somali? Because if you had, you'd already know that several of the boys in that photo are Bantus and not Somalis. Further, Bantus aren't E1b1b carriers but E1b1a carriers (see Sanchez et al. 2005). The man in the man in fez.gif photo, on the other hand, is a confirmed ethnic Somali. He will do just fine, and actually is representative of the average Somali: from the narrow, elongated face, to the high forehead, to the aquiline nose, to the reddish-brown complexion, it's all there. Causteau (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sir I know how Somalians look!
The guy you posted doesn't have a typical Somali phenotype -least to say & we are trying to profile 77.6 % of the V32 Somalians!-.
He didn't look like the average slim built, smooth skinned small nosed Somalian.
That latest photo has only one recognizably Somali person in it: the guy on the bottom right. Certainly not the guys on the left. I could easily counter it with far more typical examples (e.g. 1, 2) and leave it at that, but that's hardly conclusive. So I'll go one better. Here; read this. It's an old (and still the most thorough yet) anthropological survey of the Somali people by a former president of the Anthropological Association of America. It covers everything from their nasal index to the average hair form and somatype, and echoes what I've written here about the typical Somali phenotype. Causteau (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, the man in fez.gif gentleman's nose is quintessentially Somali since it is elevated and narrow, with tower-shaped nasal bones. The ubiquitous aquiline features of the Somali people have already been attributed by the anthropologist Loring Brace, among others, as a physical adaptation to living in a hot and dry environment. Note that the absence of this nasal elevation in some of the chaps you've posted suggests that they either evolved in a very different physical environment from the arid lowlands of the Horn of Africa or that they have incurred significant foreign admixture. Read this paper for the details; it's really eye-opening. Causteau (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you from Somaliland?
Are you Mr Caddoow himself? (if thats the case you can say so & we end the discussion here!)
I am concerned because you are trying to say that the majority of the Somalians are not Somalians!! (so far you claimed 90% of the Somalian guys I posted are not -real- Somalians! you even ridculed the 3 children & said two of them are girl lookalikes!)
if you are trying to tell me those beautiful Somalians I posted are not the majority of the people of Somalia today. (regardless of who moved in who didn't move E1b1b is the majority today & they don't like Mr Caddow!).
I did a search on the guy you are using & he is involved in politics (correct me if I am wrong)
The people in Somaliland are at odds with southerners because of the war....etc (just reading your ethnos comments on youtube), please don't translate that into biased[REDACTED] articles!
Does this have anything to do with your selection of Mr Cabdullaahi Axmed Caddoow, this is his profile .
This is surreal. Am I from Somaliland? Am I Mr. Caddoow himself? Where exactly is this stuff coming from?
Before you say anything further, please take a good, long, hard look at WP:CIV, AGF, and WP:PA, and see how your entire post above completely disregards those important policies.
Next, try and understand this: I have not "ridiculed" those three children or anyone else for that matter. All I've done is point out to you that the middle child in particular is definitely a girl... as her head-covering proves (please use logic here). The reason why I pointed this out is because this is a Y DNA page, not an mtDNA page. I figured you already understood the implications of this since you seem to have edited other haplogroup pages, but I was apparently mistaken.
I've also linked you to several studies that back up what I casually asserted regarding the typical Somali phenotype; it wasn't just talk. And I certainly didn't do this to hurt your feelings or to cause trouble. But had I known that this is how you were going to react, I'd honestly much rather not have gone through all that trouble. Causteau (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted about 15 Somalians so far all of them didn't add up in your eyes!
How about this Somalian boy?.
You have not posted about fifteen Somalis, but only a few well-chosen photos of people you have insisted are Somalis yet whose physical characteristics don't necessarily jibe with that designation. This is why I asked you right off the bat if you have ever actually met a real Somali or if they are perhaps instead just an internet abstraction? Did you know, for instance, that not everyone that inhabits Somalia is an ethnic Somali? That Somalia like Ethiopia has actual minority groups, and that many of said groups live in Mogadishu proper?
Further, the Somali phenotype has also already been heavily documented, so there's no point in attempting to re-invent it here on this talk page. It's also a futile exercise to attempt to link a Y chromosome to specific physical traits -- there's no such thing as a typical E-M78 "look", as it spans several continents and peoples. Causteau (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
(Sanchez et al.) M78 77.6% Somalia
High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males
SANCHEZ Juan J. (1) ; HALLENBERG Charlotte (1) ; BØRSTING Claus (1) ; HERNANDEZ Alexis (2) ; MORLING Niels (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Forensic Genetics, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, DANEMARK
(2) Departamento de Canarias, Instituto Nacional de Toxicologí]a, La Laguna, Tenerife, ESPAGNE
Hi. I don't quite follow. Perhaps you need to explain a bit more in detail what you think might be wrong. The way I understand you currently, if you would change "or" to "and" this might imply that the E-V12* group is V32 negative but M224 positive?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It has already been corrected. The old version said "E-V12 or M-224," just a typo.
Trivia section
The section "Famous E1b1b members" is a trivia section. This is an encyclopaedia, this article should be about the haplogroup and not about people who happen to have been a member of it. How does the section improve the article? Do we need it? This article is not a branch of FTDNA or worldfamilies or any other surname project. I fail to see the encyclopaedic relevance of these contributions. Misplaced Pages has core content policies that demand that information be verifiable from published sources that are reliable. It's even more important in science, see here and here. I think it should be removed as irrelevant. Please read Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content and Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia. Alun (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's one opinion.
1. This is only arguably trivia. Arguably it is just something more interesting to the genealogists than to the geneticists - both of whom share an interest in this subject.
3. Deletion would not be uncontroversial. Misplaced Pages is democratic, and so it is sometimes hard to be too snobby about (arguable) "trivia".
...So I happily played a big role in working on this section when I heard people starting to talk about how the article needed it. I (and I think other editors) tried to keep the section short and as well-sourced as the genealogical material allows. I think deletion would be very controversial for at least some people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with a simple listing of names of famous people with the haplogroup. The problem with the section as it currently stands is that it is original research. The only "evidence" that these people are in the haplogroup is anecdotal from surname project administrators. The evidence is in any case inferred from other results. The Harvey pedigree looks distinctly suspect too. These old published genealogies are often full of errors. Y-search entries and surname project websites are not reliable sources for such claims. This sort of research needs independent verification. If this section is to be included then you would need to get the project admins to write up their research and get it published in a respectable genealogical or scientific journal. Alternatively you could write an article yourself so that it can be referenced as a source. Note that the Famous DNA section on the ISOGG website is based on published sources in respectable journals.Dahliarose (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think your estimations of the potential standards of comparison might be a bit unrealistic...
1. First, any random sample of genealogical publications will include many errors, including new ones and "respectable" ones. This is not controversial, just a known problem in the field. Many fields have similar problems, but clearly it is not the idea that whole fields get banned from Misplaced Pages for such a reason. Genealogical publications are often also very good.
2. On the other hand surname projects are normally quite reliable publications, which often have to be acceptable to several different genealogists working on the project. They also have clear contact addresses so that you can cross check things. It is not fair to pass this off as anecdotes, at least in the cases represented here.
3. There is no obvious way to ensure independent verification in genealogy. I wish there were. As genealogy goes, the cross referencing in this case is pretty solid as far as I can see.
4. I do not agree at all about your judgment of the ISOGG pedigrees. I say this with full respect to ISOGG, of which I am a member. The Niall claim for example has not one single pedigree and is arguably media hype about a very common haplotype in Ireland. I repeat, when it comes to genealogy even respectable journals are difficult to trust. The claims of the Irish article involved in that case were very vague, and on the whole the DNA study was less detailed and cautious than what many surname projects do on a constant basis.
My core concern is that effectively your standard mean no practical level of publication will be good enough for nearly any normal genealogical claim. Genealogical remarks obviously can not be banned from Misplaced Pages?
Lastly, your claim that OR is the correct description of the potential problem with this section is unfounded. I gathered the information and cited my sources. I added nothing to it, even though I recognize that the sources in genealogy are always a little difficult. I think there is no way this can be described as Original Research. You can only say that the citations are not convincing enough, which I think is debatable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It's the sourcing that is part of the problem. The Wright Brothers claim is backed up by a comment on a Forum which does not count as a reliable source. The Harvey claim, if I've understood correctly, is backed up by an unsourced unpublished statement from someone who claims he is a descendant of Turner Harvey. I cannot see any statement anywhere in the Harvey surname project to the effect that they have a descendant of William Harvey's family in their project. As the Harvey section now stands disparate pieces of information have been drawn together, and conclusions have been drawn which are not made in the original sources (ie, the Y-search entry and the Harvey project page). This is therefore original research. The Niall of the Nine Hostages research might well be wrong, but the point is it has been published and covered by the media so it can therefore be cited. If it's wrong then no doubt other papers disputing the original research will in due course be published, and the Misplaced Pages article can be amended accordingly, citing the new research. No one is doubting the hard work put in by the surname project administrators, and their work will in the vast majority of cases be vastly superior to the published work of the Victorian antiquaries. However, if the surname project admins don't publish their work, or at the very least publish their conclusions on their websites, then their work can't be cited. I'm not saying that genealogical research should be banned from Misplaced Pages. As with any other subject covered on Misplaced Pages, it just needs to be published in a reliable source. Dahliarose (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we see the same problems. I would just say in summary that it is controversial either way. If you just delete these sections then we'll probably see things constantly re-inserted, deleted etc. And I am not convinced that there is a solution as easy as you seem to suggest. Remember this is not ONLY a problem of finding good genealogical sources, but ALSO a problem of linking them to the DNA results of a modern person. Surname projects are therefore sometimes limited in terms of what they can "publish". The forum messages mentioned are however clearly messages by surname project admins, and/or at least in one case moderators of the E-M35 phylogeny project, so not just average forum messages because to a large extent verifiable. The Calhoun case is probably an exception, because I could find a pedigree on http://www.smgf.org which is a lab who also employs genealogical researchers to check pedigrees, that it then publishes in a linked way. I could then extend the evidence by referring to a modern published genealogy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think surname project admins appreciate how important their work is and the need for publication. The problem of finding the good genealogical sources and linking them to the DNA is a problem for the person who publishes the research not for the Misplaced Pages editor. Are you in contact with any of the project admins? Research doesn't have to be published in a scientific or academic journal. An article could be published in a genealogical publication such as the journal of a local family history society. The important thing is to get something in print so that other people can then cite the research. Even if your own research shows that the Calhoun case is cast-iron if the statement hasn't been published elsewhere then it can't be used. It doesn't really matter for now, but so much hard work has gone into this article that you really should be aiming for good article status. The famous people section as it currently stands would automatically fail the Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria. Other editors have raised concerns by tagging the article so the problem is not going to go away until the proper sources can be found. Dahliarose (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally I doubt there is a neat solution possible. This will probably remain a borderline matter. Surname projects (and yes, I've had contact with all these) are a source which is better than some which are widely accepted. Maybe a point of detail but maybe you misunderstand my point about the Calhoun case. It has a neutrally published pedigree and DNA result. http://www.smgf.org is not a surname project. Anyway, I had fun doing my best to make a famous people section (a standard for Y haplogroup articles) which is perhaps the best one on Misplaced Pages :) but I have no big position on it. I just hope people won't be edit warring about it because that may mean the article ends up worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think it's only "arguably" trivia. The article is about the haplogroup isn't it? The article is not about people who carry this haplogroup, it's about this specific Y chromosome.
I know what you mean, but for argument's sake let me explain the other side. The haplogroup is defined by the people who are in it. When someone would talk about E-M35 moving from Ethiopia, THAT is a metaphor. You mean "people who were M35+". As I mentioned before, a lot of people see this subject as related to genealogy. Are they wrong? I think there are simply different aspects to this subject. To treat this article as something which should naturally be ruled by the concerns of molecular biology, or any of the fields which are concerned with it, would be controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in what a "lot of people" think. Genealogy as a subject may be very interesting, we can deal with that over at Genealogy. But that's not really the issue is it? The section in question is not really about genealogy, it's about "famous people". If we want a genealogy section in the article it should be concerned with discussing how this haplogroup has been used in genealogy research, and not discussing the lives of the famous people who are supposed to have carried the Y chromosome. Besides the haplogroup is not defined by the people who carry it. The haplogroup is defines by a specific SNP. That SNP was created bya single mutational even in an individual who cannot be known, how the life of that individual might be relevant to this article, "the first man to carry the mutation who is the direct ancestor of all subsquent members". But otherwise I don't see it. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction you are making between "how this haplogroup has been used in genealogy research" , and "famous people who are supposed to have carried the Y chromosome". And I don't think this is correct: "the haplogroup is not defined by the people who carry it". I think it is defined that way, at least in the same as "black haired humans" is defined by the existence of humans who are black haired.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The distinction is obvious I would have thought. If you want to have a section that discusses this haplogroup and how it is used in genealogical research, then that would be relevant. I think the problem is that you are just wrong, haplogroups are not used in genealogical research, they are too ancient. Haplotypes are used in genealogical research because they have a much more frequent mutation rate, and we can get up to 100 loci genotyped, easily enough for the haplotype to be unique to any men that share paternal line ancestry, unlike this haplogroup. Being in possession of this mutation does not indicate family relatedness. On the other hand the section "famous people" is not about genealogy, it's about famous people. Genealogy is the study of families, it is not the study of famous people. I'd fully support the inclusion of a section about genealogy in the article. But as I say, I think you are just wrong when you say that any haplogroup is used in genealogical studies. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? I don't think that's a very objective way to look at it. Having black hair is not equivalent to being a member of a Y chromosome haplogroup. For one thing there is no evidence that black hair is phylogenetically partitioned, unlike haplogroups. Secondly hair colour is a multi-locus trait, unlike Y chromosomes which act as a single locus. Thirdly hair colour is visible for all to see, whereas Y chromosome haplogroup membership is cryptic. Dividing people up into a set called "black hair" is biologically and evolutionarily meaningless. Dividing people up into Y chromosome haplogroups is not biologically meaningless. But the members of the group don't define the group, most people who carry this mutation are utterly unaware that they carry it. The haplogroup is defined by the mutation, that's how ISOGG define it. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow your point about ISOGG, that is not an encyclopaedia. I am certain that the Misplaced Pages project has a completely different set of goals to those of ISOGG. I use ISOGG all the time, they are a reliable source and maintain an excellent resource. But if they want to include trivia then that is their prerogative, they are not an encyclopaedia.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the subject". Do you mean this specific haplogroup? When we are discussing a mutation that arose 26,000ybp, that is not genealogy, that's population genetics. Or are you claiming that everyone who is a member of this haplogroup is part of the same family? Clearly that's not correct, there are people who belong to this same haplogroup who are clearly not members of the same family and are totally unrelated on the sort of scale whereby we normally think of relatedness. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but not everyone thinks this way. People are really interested in thinking beyond the closely related. They really do think this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
But that's not genealogy is it? It's population genetics. I'm all for population genetics, having a genetics degree myself. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
We, on the other hand, are not a genealogical resource. I am sceptical of the reliability of "family" DNA projects. For example the Harvey Y-DNA Genetic Project is cited in the article, how do we deal with this? Normally in science we accept only sources published by reliable scientific publishers. I don't think we can treat family projects any different from say blogs, and we certainly don't cite blogs.
I think there are a number of questionable assumptions here. First you make a sharp distinction between science and genealogy. There is a problem here, because we are concerned here with male lines, and male lines are a subject which concerns genealogy in a scientific way. So for practical purposes the genealogists most closely involved in these discussions, let's say ISOGG members, or people publishing articles on JOGG, are practicing science. We should not dismiss them on a technicality. So when you say "how do we deal with this?" that is a good question. I'd start by saying that ignoring the problem completely would be wrong. What I think is eventually required is some sort of peer review system run perhaps with JOGG and/or ISOGG help. I've started some discussions, but we do not have that yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't make a sharp distinction between science and genealogy. I make a sharp distinction between published reliable sources, and unpublished sources that may be unreliable. Indeed I include genealogy as a science in my post, I just point out that family tree projects are no more reliable than any other blog. I wouldn't cite any scientific blog. I'm happy to accept that family tree websites can be considered reliable, if there is a consensus for such a thing. Personally I remain sceptical. Unless information is published by reliable sources then I think we need to tread with caution. I consider Jogg a reliable source, and have cited it myself here on Misplaced Pages. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is very wrong to say DNA surname projects (not "family tree projects" which are not in this discussion) are no more reliable than "any other blog". They are not blogs to begin with, and they are at least in some cases outside of the "self published" category altogether. But perhaps more importantly I have already agreed several times that I see that the verifiability of DNA projects is a bit debatable. There is not need to go beyond that with exaggeration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is incorrect to say that DNA surname projects are as unreliable as other blogs, what I meant was other science blogs. There may be a great many sophisticated, well informed, knowledgeable experts on these projects, but they fall outside the scope of reliable sources. I don't see that changing, but you can always ask at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion is that there is a great deal of unreliable speculation out there, especially when it comes to genetic research, I think we need to stick to reliable sources. I also think we need to stick to the subject at hand. In this case the subject is the haplogroup, and not speculation that people from history might possibly have belonged to this haplogroup.
The way I see it, comments speculating about the haplotype of men living in the Natufian culture (if verifiable etc) are OK. I also understand that comments like "examples of famous early Virginians are..." are OK. Am I right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It depends, a famous Virginian would have identified as a Virginian, would have been aware of being a Virginian. Being a Virginian would have been an integral part of their understanding of who they were, because they would have been immersed in Virginian culture and society for their entire lives. Indeed they may well have attributed their success to being Virginian. These famous people belonging to this haplogroup did not define themselves according to their haplogroup. We can certainly say that they might be famous because they were Virginain, we can't say any of these individuals are famous because they carried this haplogroup. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to me to be an artificial attempt to create a rule that no one uses. You are implying that if a person can only be named as a famous Virginian if he identified himself that way or if being Virginian made him famous. Really? Again, if there is agreement that there is an issue worth discussing, why exaggerate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exaggerating, it's a valid point. Where someone comes from, the school they attend, where they live, these all play a fundamental role in the identity of that person. The Y chromosome haplogroup a person belongs to doesn't play any sort of role in determining a person's identity. Our identities are socially constructed and not biologically constructed, any anthropologist will tell you that. Trying to equate belonging to a Y chromosome haplogroup with being a member of an ethnic group is what I would call artificial. Indeed I find it quite alarming that anyone would consider these things equivalent. That's biological determinism. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think you have answered the question about encyclopaedic relevance. If you can espouse a good argument for the encyclopaedic relevance of these people being included, then I'd be more than happy. I don't see the connection at all, I think it amounts to attempting to turn what is an encyclopaedia into a resource for genealogists.
I believe Misplaced Pages has many articles which are of interest to genealogists. Your argument borders on saying that if something is of interest to genealogists it should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. Why do you feel the need to pretend I'm saying something I clearly am not? Misplaced Pages is not a resource for genealogists, that's just a fact. This haplogroup is 26,000 years old, that's far too old to have much family significance. These people are not related to each other, they are not members of the same family. Presumably the interest this article has to genealogists should be the same as it has to anyone else who comes here, to see the genetic history of this haplogroup. Your argument is not that the section is relevant to the subject at hand, only that it is relevant to genealogists. I don't even think that's true, genealogists are interested in recent familial history. Genealogy is better served by Y-STR work than by Y-SNP work. Mostly population geneticists, anthropologists and archaeologists, researchers interested in ancient population movements, and population founding events, are interested in Y-SNPs because they are practically useless for recent familial history. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Alun, but what I said is at least debatably true, and your response is not addressing the fact that not everyone would agree with you. Just looking at what your write logically, you are making a lot of assertions that contain arguable assumptions. All humans are related, and many people feel this way and use the word related this way. I have no problem if you do not. You might find it ridiculous that genealogists spend so much time and money studying SNPs, but we have to try to find common ground.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and thanks for saying I write logically!! I'm really not at all sure what you are talking about. I think you need to be more specific. Explain what you mean when you say:
what I said is at least debatably true
What? That my argument borders on saying that "if something is of interest to genealogists it should be removed." Well I'd say that this response hyperbole, frankly. Now if I'd said "we should delete the article on genealogy", then you might have a point. What I said was that we should not have a famous people section. I still don't see the connection between famous people and genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families, and not the study of famous people. If you want to have a genealogy section, then discuss how the haplogroup is used in genealogical research, and not the lives of people who might or might not have carried this Y chromosome.
your response is not addressing the fact that not everyone would agree with you
And? I don't think I have to address that at all. I have given my point of view, that a "famous people" section is a trivia section, and it isn't a genealogy section as you keep trying to claim. If people disagree with me, that's their prerogative. If there is a consensus to keep the section, then I'll abide by it, if there is a consensus to remove it, then you should abide by that.
All humans are related, and many people feel this way and use the word related this way.
Yes, and that's called population genetics and not genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families and is not the same as population genetics. No one is disputing the usefulness of this haplogroup in the study of the relatedness of different human groups and populations. You need to decide what you are arguing, because now you are arguing something different. Genealogy is not the study of the relatedness of all humans, and if you are claiming that it is then I think you are confused. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be more relevant to discuss the person who discovered the SNP that defines this haplogroup actually, if we are going to discuss individual people in the article. At least their notability is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Are we trying to say that these people are notable because they belong to haplogroup E1b1b? I don't think so. Alun (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Some UEP discoveries are noted in the article as it currently stands. It is interesting that an increasing number are being discovered by genealogists. Perhaps these should be kept out of Misplaced Pages? :) Well, more seriously, just to name an example, when the Trinity College paper came out which announced the Niall theory, they were way behind the genetic genealogy community, who were responsible for defining the M222 cluster, first in terms of STR signatures, and then by reviewing old SNPs that people were not focusing on, and then organizing tests. The conclusions were debated online and very critically, and were much less speculative and sloppy as a result. Eventually one person, David Wilson, admin of the Wilson surname project, made a webpage. I presume you would say that this fact should not be mentioned because the Trinity paper was verifiable. But that's a shame isn't it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason to be sarcastic. Yes it is a shame. I don't dispute the good work done by genealogists, and contrary to your attacks on me, I have nowhere said that we should not include genealogy on Misplaced Pages. I have said that we should concentrate on the subject at hand, that is the haplogroup. I have also said that we need to include reliable verifiable material. There may be a great deal of excellent information out there on many different subjects. There may be excellent original research going on online in the genealogical community. I applaud them for their hard work. Unfortunately this falls outside of the normal scientific and academic process. This doesn't mean that the work is valueless, but it might get ignored for some time. It also means that unless it gets published in a reliable source then it will remain relatively obscure. But at least what you say above is relevant to the actual science, that would be important to an article. The section about "famous members" is not equivalent is it? As I say, unless you are somehow going to suggest that their notability is connected with their membership of this haplogroup, then I don't see the relevance. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's focus on the issue. We agree that there is good work going on which is hard to cite. So instead of making statements about genealogy not being appropriate, let's try to find a way to avoid Misplaced Pages being distorted because of this. In some cases, I have suggested, resources such as SMGF already give what I think is a tolerable work-around. You never really comment on that in detail. In other cases, I have tried not to cite Surname projects alone, but also the E-M35 phylogeny project, which is outside of the self-published category (it has more than 1000 members, with the active ones all being project admins). I accept however that citing statements made on its message boards is not quite where we want to get to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say that genealogy is "not appropriate"? A genealogy section would discuss genealogy, and not famous people. I don't think it's correct to claim a famous people section is anything to do with genealogy. Genealogy is the study of families, and not the study of famous people. If the article wants to have a genealogy section, then well and good, but it should then discuss how SNPs are used in genealogy research, and not famous people who may or may not have been members of that group. I think that's obvious. What I did say is that haplogroups are not generally used in genealogical research because they apply to deep ancestry and not recent familial ancestry. But anyone who's ever looked into this should know that. Alun (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
--
BTW Andrew, why do you think anyone would edit war about this? I'm not impressed with this trivia section, but I haven't attempted to remove it from the article, and I wouldn't unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Alun (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying that the views of genealogists should be discounted, but if their findings are to be quoted in a Misplaced Pages article then they have to be published, and publishing is something which unfortunately most genealogists don't seem to consider. Even if the people discussing the results of academic papers understand the subject better than the scientists, if no one goes to the trouble of distilling and publishing the comments, perhaps by writing a letter to the journal concerned, then those comments can't be referenced. You need someone to make the editorial judgement to decide which viewpoint to accept, which is the whole point of the peer review process. Otherwise someone can selectively quote from a Forum discussion to promote a particular minority viewpoint. With regards to the question of whether or not this section is encyclopaedic, I think this should really be discussed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Human Genetic History. In their article guidelines they are currently recommending that such a section should be included in haplogroup articles. I personally think that a famous people section is useful and interesting to the general reader (not everyone who reads Misplaced Pages is a scientist), but it would be preferable to have a simple list, backed up by appropriate references. If the references existed there should be no need for the long explanations which we currently have here. Articles on towns and cities include a section on notable residents, and school articles have a section on notable alumni. When the numbers get too big they usually get broken out into a separate page as a list. I don't see why haplogroup articles couldn't follow the same format. That's only my view. The decision has to be decided by consensus. Dahliarose (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you've written that quite well. To repeat: I do see the problems. (When I was making the section I asked at least a few surname project admins if they could take steps to make themselves more citable by the way.) My suggestion is that for now concerning this article some caution be observed. If deletions be done (if really necessary) please do it carefully and with good explanations about what was lacking in the sources. Some of these cases are better sourced than others, and in some cases a good faith criticism might actually lead to a nice patch. But I think that it is more important to talk at Wikiproject level, and with JOGG and ISOGG about how to create a way of dealing with this more general challenge. (I think problem is not a perfect word.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I still think we need a proper explanation about how it's relevant. I don't see this as analogous to school articles having a notable alumni section, or towns or cities having a notable residents section. When a person grows up in a town, or attends a school, that experience is something that molds their character and personality. It is something they are aware of, and something they may be very proud of. It might even be something they say is directly responsible for their attaining notability. e.g. "I couldn't have achieved this success if I hadn't attended such and such school" etc. But member ship of a Y chromosome haplogorup is not analogous to that. These peopel are not closely related to each other, and they are were not aware that they belonged to this group. I agree with Dahliarose, a simple list would suffice. We should really see how much consensus there is for a change to a simple list. So far two of us think a simple list and one thinks we should discuss these people in depth. Lets see if anyone else has any thoughts. Alun (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The format of the famous people section really needs to be discussed on the main project page not here. I see Andrew has raised the topic there and I've also added a comment. I've discovered that there is a List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. I suggest that it might be more appropriate to move the famous people content into that list for now, with a link to the list in the "See also" section. Then at least the content is not lost and the integrity of this article can be maintained. Would that be acceptable? If the references can be found then it would be a simple matter to add a short referenced list of famous people. Dahliarose (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
From my point of view I am open to pretty much anything on this subject, despite my having taken up the devil's advocate position. I got involved in this subject because people aware of the article kept pointing out that the famous people section was missing, so to speak. I have some interest in the subject, but concerning whether it belongs in a Misplaced Pages article I can just state the case, and I know it has some weak spots.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dahliarose's suggestion. From my point of view membership of this haplogroup might be something interesting about a famous person, but the famous person is not something interesting about the haplogroup. I also don't think genealogy is the study of famous people, I think it's the study of families, so Im not sure of the connection between genealogy and a famous people section. Alun (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The genealogy of famous people is clearly a subset of the subject matter in both genealogy (it is an example of genealogy: therefore good for using as an example) and some published population genetics articles (whether we like it or not). It also frequently gets mentioned in Misplaced Pages. If this point were an essential part of your argument Alun (I do not think it is) then the argument would look a bit dodgy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Who do you think you are to decide whether an argument is valid or not? Surely that's for the community to decide? What population genetics studies have used the genealogy of famous people? I don't think there are any, population genetics is a study of evolution and population change, it is not the study of individuals or families. Furthermore when when articles include lists of famous people, they may be just that lists, (e.g. Notable Georgians or links to longer list articles, e.g. Welsh people, Lists of Welsh people) or they may be a category (e.g. Vantaa, People from Vantaa. You have included a summary style edit, which implies that the events of the lives of these people are directly relevant to the haplogroup, or in other words, that this information (about the lives of these people) would normally form part of the haplogroup article, but that they are too long to include. That's wrong, nowhere else is information about "famous people" presented as if the biographies of the people in question is directly relevant to the subject of the article, usually it's presented as little more than a marginally interesting but trivial piece of information. Is it relevant to haplogroup Elb1b that William Harvey discovered systemic circulation? Who says this? I also suggest you take a look at the essay Misplaced Pages:Lists in Misplaced Pages, where it states To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. You are still confused here, you seem to think that just because other websites do something, that makes it valid for us to do it. So I'll say it again, it's no argument to say that "others do this so we can". We're an encyclopaedia, we have our own content rules and guidelines. We're not here to emulate ISOGG or other resources, they don't have the same content guidelines as us. I've always been amazed by the argument, often expressed on Misplaced Pages, that "we should do it because they do it". It's no argument at all. Alun (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll start with your philosophy, but please do not get too serious about it. The main thing is that you are now getting into a habit of misquoting me which I think is making it hard to find common ground. I only respond so we can get past it.
I did not argue that "we should do it because they do it" and we've already covered that. I refer to the relevant Wikiproject. The only "they" we discussed outside this was not raised by me: the whole science and genealogists thing. I referred to ISOGG as a serious resource with a famous people section because it was implied that there were none.
I also did not say I can decide what is "valid". I just said a particular argument looked dodgy. Now, the fact is that whenever two people have a discussion, they are always showing that it is a basic characteristic of being human, that we all have opinions about what is, yes well, "valid", which by the way is another word for "truth". So how should we discuss anything if we are not allowed to say what we think? And by the way, why do so many Wikipedian spend so much time recently proclaiming rulings to others which effectively tell the others not to proclaim rulings? :) (This is meant to be a humorous rhetorical question of course. I know there are good reasons.)
Coming to your content:
If you have not seen famous people mentioned in genetics literature such as Niall of the Nine Hostages and Thomas Jefferson, I am sure you can find such references very easily. I am not really that keen on many of these myself, but to say it is not relevant because too "genealogical" for a "science" article would be POV.
I have no problem with your remarks that the style might not be detailed here in this article. If this is what disturbs you most, then perhaps there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. I just looked at other articles, and saw that this is what people were doing.
However, I should mention something which keeps coming into my mind in this discussion. I think it would be really much more useful if you discussed the article text in concrete detail, explaining in each case what you are generalizing about. For example, I would say that a bigger part of the summaries is currently just about the DNA link, and not biography. If you can accept keeping a famous people section, then maybe it is possible that you could try editing it to remove redundant parts?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say I hadn't seen genetics literature about famous people? What I said was that population genetics is not the study of individuals or of families. Indeed it is not, that was a direct response to your claim that "genealogy of famous people is clearly a subset of the subject matter in both genealogy (it is an example of genealogy: therefore good for using as an example) and some published population genetics articles". Whereas I don't deny that the study of genetics has been linked to the genealogy some famous people, that's not population genetics. Furthermore it is all too common for editors here to make claims that are not made in original research papers. Mostly that's due to poor journalistic reporting, where editors read something poorly covered by a journalist and then cite the journalistic source rather than the original research paper, which is usually much more likely to hedge it's bets. Let's take the claim abour Niall of the Nine Hostages, what does the actual research paper conclude? Here is the quote "Genealogical association together with the predominance and pattern of variation of the IMH strongly suggest a rise in frequency due to strong social selection associated with the hegemony of the Uí Néill dynasty and their descendents. Figures such as Niall of the Nine Hostages reside at the cusp of mythology and history, but our results do seem to confirm the existence of a single early-medieval progenitor to the most powerful and enduring Irish dynasty." So the actual paper makes a very hedged statement. They acknowledge that a powerful family probably did exist, and that it's male members were very reproductively successful. They acknowledge that the male members of this family probably derive from a single man. Then they say that Niall occurs te the cusp of mythology and history. When journalists make claims like this we ourselves are on the cusp between science and popular journalism. For myself, I prefer to stick to the science and draw the conclusions that the more reliable sources draw. The fact is that often journalists get science completely wrong, they either sex it up to make it a "better story", or they simply don't understand it. Likewise take a look at the papers about Jefferson's Y chromosome, it's not a population genetics paper, they do not make inferences about any populations, but simply claim to have genoyped Jefferson's Y chromosome and compared it to similar chromosomes, indeed they are actually cautioning against "assigning individual ancestry based on a Y-chromosome haplotype" .
"What I said was that population genetics is not the study of individuals or of families." This article is not under any set of rules concerning its need to adhere to being "population genetics". It is about E1b1b, which is of interest to many types of people. Secondly, I think that "population genetics" is a bit different than you describe it. It currently tries far too much in my opinion, to be about famous people and events. However, that is notable, and can be mentioned on Misplaced Pages. My POV does not count, and I won't push it. You should avoid pushing yours. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may interject for a minute, I've been following the discussion above, and I have to disagree with the contention that the Famous E1b1b members section is trivia. The article is about E1b1b, so mentioning a few real-life examples of well-known people that readers can recognize who actually carry the clade seems relevant to the discussion. The latter seems to be a subject of considerable interest to the reading public, with many articles written on the topic both here on Misplaced Pages (e.g. 1, 2, 3, ) and in the popular press (12, 3), as well as some genetic studies published in peer-reviewed journals (1, 2). If there's a concern about the relevance of mentioning that so and so was the inventor of such and such, that information was only included in the text to make it easier for readers to identify the famous E1b1b member in question. Sort of like the "President" descriptor in this study on Thomas Jefferson and the former haplogroup K2. Perhaps some of the sourcing leaves a little to be desired, but that's nothing that can't be fixed. Causteau (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes this is about E1b1b, it's not about "a few real-life examples of well-known people". I don't see an argument there. It's like saying an article is about the World so we should mention some real life people who live there and give their biographical details, but there is no mention of any individuals who live on the world in that article. As I say it's marginal to the subject. Furthermore the links you make to other Misplaced Pages articles are simple lists, they do not include paragraphs of irrelevant biographical information in the article. Have a list by all means, don't clutter the article with irrelevant biographical information, we don't do that elsewhere. I'd like to know why it is considered more relevant to include biographical details in haplogroup articles than any other type of article? Summary style is not supposed to be used in this way, summary style is supposed to be for sections of articles that have grown too long, so a sub-article is required. Here we say that the article William_Harvey is a sub article of the article Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). What's the rationale for that? It implies that Harvey is famous because he has this haplogroup. That's just wrong. Your examples from the popular press are not about famous people, so what argument you are making there I can't guess. The two peer reviewed article you link to are for mtDNA so their relevance here is not apparent. But anyway they are not relevant to any haplogroup article, they are simply looking to see if a set of mtDNA sequences are the same, they can't prove relatedness, but they prove unrelatedness. That's not relevant to haplogroup articles. In fact the analysis is directly relevant to the article about Jesse James, and is mentioned as an example of how mitochondrial DNA analysis can be used to see if two individuals are not related in the mtDNA article, but Jesse James's biographical details are not mentioned at all in the mtDNA article. I don't agree that several paragraphs of biographical detail can compare to the single word "President", which is not actually used in the title of the paper you link to in any case.
As for sourcing, it certainly is not something that can be easily fixed. We have a policy here about verifiability. The sources this article uses are not reliable, it's a great deal of hearsay and conjecture. As I say above, when we look at scientific papers we see lost of caveats, but on the sorts of websites cited here we don't have these caveats, and cannot be considered reliable sources. Andrew seems to want to ignore our normal core content policies, for what reason I don't know, so he can include the claims of any individual who has any hair brained theory that they want to post on what amounts to a blog. I can't accept that. Alun (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not up to you as an individual. You have to convince others. I believe surname projects are both reliable for certain types of information, and also notable for certain types of information (in other words reliable about their own opinions, which are in some cases interesting in their own right, meaning we can at least write that "they believe..."). I can not think of any occasion where you or anyone else has explained an example of how surnames projects are considered unreliable and un-notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to change all this to a list as per normal Misplaced Pages policy, we're getting nowhere here and I see no compelling reason that biographical details are more relevant in haplogroup articles than say in town articles. Alun (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Alun, I suggest a few things must be fixed in your new version:
Why not reinstate the Savards and talk here about any reasons you have to remove them. You have not discussed this so far.
I think that the sourcing which is the biggest part of the text you deleted, should be reinstated as footnotes.
I suggest that the bullet points could be allowed by you to at least have a few added words to make sure it is clear who the people being referred to are like "...of the famous feud". I see no Misplaced Pages guideline saying articles must be opaque.
Concerning those sources, you clearly have "issues". I think it is pointless talking about those in general terms, so can you go through them case by case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The section is supposed to be aboud famous people right? The Sarvards didn't have a link to a Misplaced Pages article. I concluded that this is because they don't have a Misplaced Pages article. If they are not notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article, why should they get a mention here? The whole point of the famous people section is to link to the Misplaced Pages articles of those people.
The cites still exist. I haven't moved anything from Misplaced Pages. I simply moved the information to the biography articles of the people mentioned. The information is still cited there. Then I linked to those articles fromt he list. In Misplaced Pages lists don't need to be cited as long as the article linked to is cited.
If you want to explian who they are fine. Of course it seems odd to have to explain who they are, I mean if they are famous then they are famous right? Alun (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Try searching Savard on Misplaced Pages. Serge and Denis are the ones. Their links were deleted by you so you could have checked this. The article used to say...
According to information posted to the E-M35 Phylogeny Project by Denis Savard, administrator of the Savard DNA Project and moderator of the E-M35 project, the Canadian hockey players Denis Savard and Serge Savard have a common ancestor with three Savard DNA testees. The three Savard testees, members of the Savard DNA Project, descend from three different sons of Joseph-Simon Savard.
I think it's really unfortunate that the Famous E1b1b members section had to be wittled down to just an uniformative list, but I guess that's better than nothing. That said, I've been combing through the discussion above for some kind of agreement regarding the paring down of the section, but I couldn't find any. Can someone please point me to where consensus was reached on this matter? Last I was aware, Andrew, Dahliarose and I had all agreed that the section in question was not trivia and was indeed worth keeping; the difference was over whether to maintain the section as it was or to pare it down to a simple list. Causteau (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I know I did say somewhere that the normal format (as with notable people from places, and notable school alumni) is to have a simple list with an accompanying reference. With the new list the sourcing problem still remains. The latest footnotes seem to be Andrew's own original research using a compilation of primary sources. Misplaced Pages:No original research states "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." I cannot find any reliable sources which specifically state that any of these people belong to this haplogroup. Dahliarose (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Dahliarose, obviously that is a fairly biased way to describe the changes. I think it is clear that the sourcing information which Alun deleted, has now been converted into footnotes, in order not to offend the taste of people who think this section must be dry and uninteresting. The other change is the addition of more cross referencing. In other words what might at first look like synthesis because it includes a web of extra references now comes largely as a result of the fact that as we all know, Surname Projects are currently being questioned as a reliable third party publication. What the new details show is how easy it is to cross check this information, at least in all these cases. The sourcing is all still straight to very direct and clear information which can be found published online by various different third party organizations which are the experts in their field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how I'm being biased by stating that sources are unreliable - it is a simple statement of fact and a concern which is shared by other editors. You've only had to resort to extensive footnotes because the reliable sources do not exist. The Harvey claim, for instance, is made on a DNA forum. Your original research in the footnotes suggests that the claim might well be true, but this does not get round the problem of the lack of a published reliable source. If these projects really have identified the haplotype of a famous person they should be writing up their research and getting it published. For the Harvey research an article in the journal of the Kent Family History Society might be a good place to publish the research. Dahliarose (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless a lab has tested viable genetic material from Harvey etc. to determine their Y haplotype, making claims here is original research. Web-based family trees are either self-published or constructed out of self-published material and are not reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The deleted materials contained several links to the webspaces of testing companies. I can see two quickly, one of which links the tests at least to a surname (family tree dna), and the other gives an actual pedigree (www.smgf.org). All of the families mention were of course tested by labs according to claims independent of Misplaced Pages. So can you explain further?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, if the material comes directly from the company, it is a reliable source regarding what the company sells (but cannot be used to make any further claim). These testing companies are commercial concerns. This material is promoting their commercial interests. I personally would have no objection to a section on the commercialization of genetic lineages - in fact I think it is a good idea, even for a separate article, and there are books by academic presses and articles in peer-reviewed journals analyzing this phenomenon that would be great sources fo such an article or section of an article. Within this context, I would have (just speaking for myself) no problem with saying that these companies make these claims and specify the context (do they make these claims in promotional material, or in material individuals purchase from the companies). In other words, these are reliable sources for what these companies are selling. And it is fine to use them to illustrate what these companies sell. I think it is a matter of using these sources appropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow, or maybe there is a misunderstanding. Sticking to the two examples I named, www.smgf.org is a foundation which does not test commercially. The other type of example was of DNA surname project who use Family Tree DNA webspace. When they do this, then the lab results on their results table is controlled by the lab. There was no reference to any kind of offer to do commercial services. It was you who wrote that "a lab" has to have tested, and so I mentioned some examples of labs, one of which does indeed charge money. But I was addressing your point about labs. Taken literally, of course it is claimed by the organizations involved that in all cases a lab did a test. This could all be discussed in more detail but what is the precise reason for implying deleting the section with a comment which implies that labs were not involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If I've understood correctly it would be acceptable to state for instance that Family Tree DNA claim they have identified the genetic signature of the American president Thomas Jefferson because they make this claim on their own website. As a notable commercial organisation FTDNA are careful only to make claims on their own website which can be backed up by reliable published sources. There is in fact a published academic paper from the University of Leicester about the Jefferson case. It is however not acceptable to state that the genetic signatures of William Harvey and the Wright Brothers can be found in surname projects on the FTDNA website because FTDNA do not make these claims themselves. The surname projects don't even make these claims on their FTDNA websites as far as I can see. A surname project uses the services of FTDNA but the surname project admin analyses the results. FTDNA have a team of respected scientists such as Dr Michael Hammer analysing their results and publishing scientific papers. The scientific content will no doubt be carefully approved by their scientific consultants. Dahliarose (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Dahliarose, I understand that you judge surname projects not to have reliability for linking a pedigree and a kit. I honestly do understand that. I just do not agree, and I don't see that you've any done any more to defend your position than simply accuse me of obviously not understanding Misplaced Pages rules, or of trying to break them on purpose. And as you know this is the subject of an RS/N discussion. If you saying that Slrubenstein just means that he agrees with you about this then why did he not say so, and why have they posted no remark on that discussion of which Sirubenstein is clearly aware? Sirubenstein mentioned that the testing needed to be done by a lab. Nothing was said about judgments concerning reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the reliability question I think it is relevant to note on this page that Dahliarose does think Familytree DNA is a reliable source for DNA test results, and also apparently that they would even be reliable concerning linking those results to a pedigree. On the other hand if you go to Family Tree DNA's webpage and search it for information about particular surnames, they will direct you to contact any relevant surname projects which they recognize. I believe all of the ones in question for the E1b1b famous people section are in this category.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to deliberately twist people's statements. I have repeatedly stated that the only requirement is for surname projects to publish their results in third-party publications (ie, not on their own FTDNA websites). I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to make such judgements. That's why we rely on secondary sources so such arguments are not necessary. No one is disputing the reliability of the results of the DNA tests. That is not the problem. The tests are the raw data. They are equivalent to birth, death and marriage certificates. Someone has to analyse the data. This is what constitutes original research. Family Tree DNA is simply providing a facility to host the data from surname projects. It is not making any attempt to analyse the data. When it does analyse data the results are published in academic journals. We are going round and round in circles and I do not intend to comment on these issues further. Dahliarose (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Compare...
"I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to make such judgements." Dahliarose 15:53, 17 January 2009
"Of course we have to use judgement as to which sources are reliable." Dahliarose 15:46, 4 January 2009
I am sorry Dahliarose but I find your remarks having the twisting already in them. Can you please just give a simple yes or not then, could we cite Family Tree DNA as a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning this "I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to make such judgements. That's why we rely on secondary sources so such arguments are not necessary" I fear that it makes a nonsense of the whole discussion. If you do not claim that the surname projects are unreliable then this is clearly all coming under the definition of Wikilawyering because you are only arguing on a technicality, and clearly not looking at the intention of the policies, which by the way never say that Misplaced Pages only uses secondary sources. If the projects are understood by people who know about them to be reliable for certain types of data, and if the data on them can be cross checked, then they can be potentially used depending upon the details of the case. Indeed you are right that Misplaced Pages editors do not get to define who is reliable independently of third parties outside Misplaced Pages, and that is what I am asking you to stop doing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For my analysis of the problems with this section please see here. I outline three major problems.
Reliability of the sources. A major concern, most of these sources do not represent academically rigorous research that has been peer reviewed, nor do they represent sources that have a reputation for fact checking. Mostly they are self published online public resources, such as family name projects, discussion boards, and haplotype data uploaded to databases maintained by sites such as Ysearch, by members of the public.
Synthesis. As far as I can tell at least three of the claims are the product of synthesis on the part of a Misplaced Pages editor. These are the claims for Harvey, Wright and Calhoun. The fact of synthesis is indisputable, for us to claim something on Misplaced Pages we must have a source that unambiguously makes the same claim. As far as I can tell we don't have any source that states specifically that any of these people (Harvey, Wrights and Calhoun) belong to this haplogroup, we only have several sites that, put together, suggest that this is the case. That is a synthesis. WP:SYN states "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." (emphasis added)
Relevance to the article. I can't personally see the relevance of this to the article. The article is about haplogroup E1b1b, but these sources are all linked to haplotypes used for genealogical research. Haplogroups that are this old (>25,000ybp) are not used in genealogical research, and most of the genealogical sources cited have have data for haplotype so that families can calculate how closely related they are. One cannot make this sort of determination by knowing that one carries the M35 mutation. On the other hand this sort of thing does seem to be a standard part of these sorts of articles for some obscure reason that no one has ever explained to me. Alun (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Alun, the section is deleted and also under discussion on a Noticeboard, but given that you are still apparently pursuing a more general agenda I want to reply to your relevance point here, which however should be discussed on the Wikiproject board. I have tried to go over these points before and gotten nowhere, so I'll use simple language. The whole paragraph is ignorant nonsense. Indeed your terminology is so messy that we need to divide the claim up into several things it might mean:
There is no UEP discussed in this article to any great extent which is necessarily >25,000 years old. The article does discuss many very young clades however, all the clades known to the literature which come under E-M35.
Many of haplogroups are identified using STR markers which is apparently what you refer to as "haplotypes used for genealogical research". In other words, these same haplotypes are used in population genetics.
Haplogroups are categories of people including living people. I am in haplogroup E-M35 but not >25,000 years old. Only the UEPs which define the clades have ages like this (although 25,000 is a big number!).
Even the oldest UEPs (not clades) are often (and increasingly) used successfully in genealogy. They are often useful for eliminating doubtful matches, especially in the R-M269 clades.
The younger clades within E-M35 are being discovered exponentially. Their use in genealogy will increase exponentially, as it already is.
Putting all of the above aside, none of it is relevant. The deleted famous people section is about people who are in E-M35, and not about genealogy as such. It is also not about population genetics as such. That's it. These are examples of E-M35 which people like to know about, even if you personally do not. It is like pasting a photo in an article about Africa, something we are encouraged to do. Yes, you can argue (forever) about whether the article needs it or not. But please don't do that!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
RfC: molecular lineages and family trees
Please read the two sections, "Trivia Section" and "Removal of Section." The question is whether this deleted section relied on unreliable sources, and was original research. Slrubenstein | Talk22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
unreliable sources and original research see User:Wobble/sandbox This is clearly both based on unreliable sources and a synthesis. Wow, what do you get when you combine an unreliable source with a synthesis? We need a proper standup to give us the punchline!!! Alun (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
To close this discussion:
Alun raised the whole question/doubt leading to this, so the "wow" is rather disingenuous.
In answer to the question, there was no clear answer. Slrubenstein did the deletion and gave a reason for it which does not match the concerns of any editors. In other words it was a misunderstanding.
The whole section is deleted. But if someone else brings up these issues again on this or another article we are back to zero.
Is this material even desired? Surely there's going to be a huge number of people in this lineage. Trying to list them all seems rather foolish and counter-productive to me. Black people doesn't have a similar list. RS and SYNTH don't even come into it if the content is deletable in it's own right.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and this was originally Alun's main concern. However the section was added as a recommended section from the relevant WikiProject guidelines, and discussions there, and on this talk page, and on the internet generally about this type of subject, show that many readers, not all, do want this type of thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favor of omitting this section. I agree with Slrubinstein that only statements that are made in peer-reviewed articles should be credited, and with OrangeDog that the material is not even desirable. The problems with fact-checking that Alun lists in his sandbox appear serious. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Obviously Misplaced Pages does not demand peer reviewed sources only, so why in this case? Alun's Sandbox contains incorrect information. As has been discussed before after not convincing anyone with other arguments, he started posting critiques of material used to show that facts could be cross-checked, and pretending this was the only source. The cases for and against are not so hard to state in a more neutral way. In my opinion they are all debatable both ways, but they are quite distinct.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
For Harvey and the Savards, the facts are stated by the administrators of the relevant DNA projects on the E-M35 Project's Message Board. The identity and respected status of these people and this large project, can be cross checked, as can their statements. The E-M35 Project, which these gentlemen are moderators in, is a source put together by similar people to www.ISOGG.org, which is an accepted source both in Misplaced Pages and in academic articles, and for Alun and Dahliarose who argued the case against inclusion. After reading all relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines, I see that such non-anonymous sources are often allowed, even though Message Boards themselves are normally a bad sign. That is where the pros and cons really are, as was stated when these items were originally posted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
For Calhoun, there is arguably synthesis. You have to look at a pedigree in two places and see that it is the same pedigree. And you have to look at two DNA signatures (simple series of numbers) and see that they are also the same. Is that synthesis, or is that "1+1=2"? The sources however in this case are strong: a published book and an non-profit research foundation (www.smgf.org) which employees both professional geneticists and genealogists. Again, cross checking can be done, as a check.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
For the Hatfields and Wrights, the claims are made in a straightforward way on the relevant Surname Project Websites. These are respected projects when it comes to the relatively simple task of maintaining reference lists of pedigrees and DNA results. Again cross checking is possible for both the data and the organizations. In this particular case, I do find the arguments against inclusion start to fall apart. Peer reviewed sources do not exist for simple listings of pedigrees and matching DNA test results, and why should they?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. E-M78 originated in Northeastern Africa according to Cruciani et al. 2007. However, Northeastern Africa in that study refers specifically to the Egypt/Libya area, not the Horn of Africa. Cruciani and his colleagues refer to the latter instead as "Eastern Africa". Please see to Table 1 of the study for reference. Causteau (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I realize you're relying on Semino et al. 2004. The image's file page says as much. However, the Semino et al. study in this regard has been superceded by Cruciani et al.'s 2007 paper for the following reasons:
"Prior to Cruciani et al. (2007), Semino et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSemino_et_al.2004 (help) had proposed the Horn of Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78. This was because of the high frequency and diversity of E-M78 lineages in the region. For example, Sanchez et al. (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSanchez_et_al.2005 (help) found that 77.6% of 201 male Somalis tested in Denmark were members of this clade. However, Cruciani et al. (2007) were able to study more data, including populations from North Africa who were not represented in the Semino et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSemino_et_al.2004 (help) study, and found evidence that the E-M78 lineages in the Horn of Africa were relatively recent branches. They note this as evidence for "a corridor for bidirectional migrations" (conceivably the Nile River Valley) between Egypt and Libya on the one hand and the Horn of Africa on the other. The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".
An eastern African origin for this haplogroup was hypothesized on the basis of the exclusive presence in that area of a putative ancestral 12-repeat allele at the DYS392 microsatellite, found in association with E-M78 chromosomes (Semino et al. 2004).
In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa.
Yes, Cruciani et al. say E-M78 originated in Northeastern Africa. But once again, Northeastern Africa in their 2007 study refers strictly to the Egypt/Libya area, not the Horn of Africa. They refer to the Horn of Africa simply as "Eastern Africa". Have a look at Table 1 for this principle at work. Causteau (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose this, I will adapt the these maps from Cruciani et al as well. But as far as I can tell, the two are just splitting hairs as to the origins of E-M78 as the two maps are very similar. Their disagreement seems minor and I think it is best to include both views. I went through the Cruciani et al and I saw no reference to Libya. In the maps there are two centers of concentration, the darkest is in the Horn of Africa, and the second darkest is in Egypt. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not just splitting hairs. The Semino et al. study is depracated because she never even studied any North African populations to reach her conclusions. Cruciani himself states this. Have a look at the long section titled "Locating the Origin of Haplogroup E-M78". It explains in detail how and why Cruciani et al. changed the place of origin of E-M78 from the Horn of Africa (again, "Eastern Africa" in their terms) to Northeastern Africa (Egypt/Libya). The section concludes with the following paragraph:
"In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa."
Could you direct me to where Cruciani describes Northeastern Africa as being Egypt/Libya. The conventional description, according the[REDACTED] article Northeastern Africa is the basically the Horn of Africa not Libya. As I mentioned earlier, Cruciani et al make no reference to Libya, as far as I could tell. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, refer to Table 1 of the study for reference. Look at what areas Cruciani lists under Northeastern Africa. It's Egypt & Libya only. Ethiopia and the other countries in the Horn of Africa are all listed under "Eastern Africa". Next, actually read the section I've recommended (the long one titled "Locating the Origin of Haplogroup E-M78"). He clearly states that Semino et al. used to insist that E-M78 originated in "Eastern Africa" (i.e. the Horn of Africa) and that, based on his analysis of populations including North African ones, he proposes instead a Northeastern African (Egypt/Libya) origin -- an entirely separate region. Causteau (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
OK I see it. Nonetheless, at the moment that is the interpretation of the Cruciani study. I will still create a map from Cruciani and place it in the page. I see no reason why we cannot place both maps, especially if all the explanations that you have put forth are included. This is a fairly recent study so there has not been much response to it. In addition, Cruciani seems to have gone against convention in terms of geographic nomenclature. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the Cruciani et al. study is not fairly recent. It's two years old. It's also the incumbent standard. There aren't two competing "visions" out there; no one follows or cites Semino's hypothesis anymore since Cruciani's paper, including herself. I thinks it's frankly laughable that you're challenging Cruciani's authority on this issue. This is the man that not only assigned place's of origin for various E1b1b's sub-clades and sub-sub-clades, he discovered many of them too. And over the course of several studies, not just one. In other words, Cruciani=E1b1b. I'll have you know that contour maps are also no longer really kosher on Misplaced Pages's haplogroup articles. There was a big brouhaha a couple of months back that soured the powers that be on them. Why the need to cling to a deprecated place of origin when it has been effectively rendered obsolete and shown to be non-comprehensive? Causteau (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Experience has shown that in the field of population genetics, information changes rapidly, just as Cruciani is said to be an update of Semino, who knows what will be next. Cruciani is not definitive but strongly suggestive, he states:
In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa.
In addition the table that you provided a link, shows that the E-M78 is concentrated in the south of Egypt 50%, Somalia 52%, Baharia 41%, and oromo Kenya/Ethiopia 40%. The Libyans had relatively low frequencies at 8% for Libyan Jews and 20% for Libyan Arabs with samples sizes of 25 and 10 respectively. Whatever the case, Cruciani has not adequately defined Northeast Africa, I think it is a stretch to put Libya as being the place of origin. Cruciani mentions the Nile river as being a corridor for migrations, which eliminates Libya as a source of origin. Based on his map, Northeast Africa is Southern Egypt. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You're trying to hard. "We propose", "we suggest"... that's the type of language all the researchers use. It's called diplomacy; it's not an indication of uncertainty. Fact is, it's original research to pretend that Cruciani defined Northeast Africa as "Southern Egypt". He most certainly did not. In actuality, he makes it painfully clear what he means by "Northeast Africa" (as you yourself have seen, yet for some odd reason only known to yourself, refuse to accept): Egypt & Libya. This is indicated as plain as day in Table 1 of his study. "Southern Egypt" isn't. If you cannot accept this, that is your problem. Please keep your opinions to yourself. Only verifiable facts go into Misplaced Pages's articles, not the bizarre musings of individual editors. Causteau (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The study is very ambiguous on the definition of Northeast Africa. Libya is a very large country, in fact the fourth largest in Africa, so he could do with some explaining. As a matter of[REDACTED] policy, I have no issues with Cruciani et al's study. However the study uses terminology that is not conventional. Libya is even considered as part of Northwest Africa. In any case, if you are to use the table for definitions, then the frequencies are fair game as well. In which case the highest concentrations in northeast africa are in South Egypt, the highest frequencies overall are in Somalia, which he attributes to a back Migration from the Nile River. Though E-M78 is found in higher frequencies in Somalia, he argues against Semino et al 2004, because, the diversity in mostly Egypt of haplotypes is greater. The study is convincing, but is certainly not the end of story. The sample sizes used were still relatively smallWapondaponda (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the study is not ambiguous on the definition of Northeast Africa. It quite clearly indicates that the region is in the area of Egypt and Libya, as is already indicated and explained in the article. What on Earth does "the frequencies are fair game" supposed to mean? You think just because a region has particularly high frequencies of a clade, that all of a sudden makes it fair game to invent a new place of origin for the clade that the authors themselves never make? Get real. The Fulani have the highest reported frequencies of Haplogroup T, but the haplogroup is still accorded an Asian origin, not a West African one. In case you hadn't figured it out by now, we only go by reliable sources here. We don't invent data or entertain personal opinions. Causteau (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Chill bro, Could you draw on a map where Egypt/Libya is. Its quite an ambiguous definition. What is interesting is the huge gaps in the maps between the Somali center of concentration and the Egyptian center of concentration. In time those gaps will be filled, but that is an indicator that the study though rigorous was less than comprehensive.Wapondaponda (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it, seeing as how Nilotes inhabit much of that area. And Nilotes are of course predominantly haplogroup A carriers, not E1b1b. Causteau (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd to have to centers of concentration separated by a large geographic distance, normally there is only one. The gaps is mostly Sudan, northern Ethiopia. Most likely patterns that will emerge will be similar to others in the region. The nomenclature for these haplogroups is always changing, so maybe within a year or so, there will be a new study with new names, new regions of origin. For now Cruciani is the most recent, so it will take precedence, but I see no reason not to include other information from semino et al 2004, which is quoted extensively in the article for purposes of historical context. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The map is a projection dude; it's not set in stone. It was created using software like Surfer 8 (Golden Software), and is somewhat speculative. The Cruciani et al. 2007 study may indeed in time be eventually superceded as more data comes in. But for the present, it is the standard and the Semino study which, again, did not study North African populations, is obsolete in comparison. The Semino study, by the way, is already mentioned in the article; it wasn't omitted. That said, your continued insistence on citing it on the same level as the Cruciani study, as if they are two competing hypotheses when one in fact is an update of the other, is at this point a little troubling. Let it go. Causteau (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A few remarks, which I hope everyone agrees with?
I think we can all agree with the principle that there is no reason to exaggerate the differences between Semino and Cruciani. (I am not really sure anyone is trying to do that.)
It is worth mentioning the fact that Semino originally estimated a different place of origin, but only if it is also mentioned that Cruciani had a different conclusion based on extra data. (This is also how the text already is/was.)
Sudan is certainly important. This gap was filled by the Hassan paper, which is also already mentioned in the article.
Trying to pinpoint a place within Cruciani's "Egypt + Libya (+Sudan?)" is a piece of information we can get from Battaglia et al. which is a recent article. Again, this is already how the article is written.
Coming to contour maps. I am aware of the concerns Causteau mentions. Neither he nor I raised them, but we should keep them in mind. See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wobble#Maps and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Are_contour_maps_WP:OR_or_WP:SYN.3F However: first, I think these concerns were mainly directed at self-generated contour maps, ones involving combining data from different sources. Reproductions of a map from the literature overcomes this. Second, even if someone would make their own contour map, I do not think the debate was really closed. In the end it turned into an agreement that hypothetically, a self-made map might need to make assumptions which turn the map into OR. For example if we would combine information from Cruciani 2007, Hassan 2008 and Henn 2008, all made on very consistent principles with similar contributors, would that really be a problem? That's an example which was discussed, and left as hypothetical, but other examples have been pasted around Misplaced Pages and have not been deleted. Practical point: putting aside the more complex question of self-generated contour maps, I think Wapondaponda can certainly include a contour map based on one from the literature (as long as this does not violate copyrights). The Cruciani article is preferred, but in practice the difference is not big. Does all of what I have written make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but is ISOGG a reliable source on the origins of haplogroups. Judging by their website, they don't do any research themselves. It seems to me they are no different from wikipedia, in that the compile information. This page is referenced in the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
ISOGG is the source on which much of the haplogroup trees are based here on Misplaced Pages. To compare the organization to Misplaced Pages, a place where any old hack can edit a page, is something of a distortion and insult. If they aren't a reliable source (which they of course are), then guess what? Neither are any of said trees they publish, including the one in this very article. Causteau (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Educate me on this, but I looked at the reference , and it is a compilation of the very same references used in the article. The link above isn't a peer reviewed journal or article. Of course it is an organization, but if all they do is compile information but not publish anything, I don't see how they are any different from an encyclopedia. If they make a claim, it must be backed up by a study, of which I could not find any. If you know of the exact studies they reference, it would be great to know. Better to reference the actual study. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
ISOGG is not an encyclopedia, but the International Society of Genetic Genealogy. Most studies reference other studies as well when summarizing information, but that doesn't render them "encyclopedias". ISOGG similarly references other studies when publishing its haplogroup trees, yet we trust those because it's coming from them rather than, say, some random Misplaced Pages editor. ISOGG is also cited on all sorts of pages on Misplaced Pages as a reliable source, such as this info on a UEP cited on the haplogroup NO page, which was taken directly from this ISOGG page. Causteau (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well the reason why journals are some of the most reliable sources, is because they include a methodology for their studies. If ISOGG states that e1b1b may have originated in the Near East, I or anyone else, should be able to find out how they came about the conclusion. Looking at the website, I could not see how they came to that conclusion. There are a bunch of references at the bottom, but I have no idea which one. In the meantime, I will post some stuff on the genetics page or reliable sources noticeboard and see what others think. My initial impression is that they are a private organization that provides support for genealogists, but they are not accountable for anything that is published on their website. For the most part they do a good job, but once again, they are not accountable for anything as is the case with universities or research institutions. Neither do they appear to have any process of peer review. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this is clearly a matter for the community as a whole to decide on once and for all i.e. to what extent ISOGG and other similar organizations can serve as reliable sources, especially given their extensive referencing on other haplogroup pages. However, given some of your questionable/over-eager past edits (e.g. inserting a map labeled "E" that actually just pertains to the E-M78 haplogroup) and your newbie (?) status, it would perhaps be preferable if someone like Andrew or myself were to initiate the discussion. Causteau (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ, anyone can initiate a discussion, even an IP, see WP:BITE. If you take a look at the original images from Semino et al, you can see that the images are labeled in alphabetical order from A..G. Just by coincidence E-M78 was labeled E. I did not notice the coincidence until you pointed it out, at which point, I corrected the label. There was no intent to mislead anyone. ISOGG has made a claim, which at present I cannot verify. With Cruciani there is a clear methodology as to how they arrived at their conclusion of an African origin of E-M215. With ISOGG I could not find how they arrived at the statement "E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea". If the source they used can be found, we can verify its reliability and if it is reliable, we can use it alongside ISOGG. Until then, there should be a question mark on its reliability. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
ISOGG's SNP trees are now being used consistently as a reference in peer-reviewed literature, so their SNP trees are I think acceptable. These are effectively just webpages which are carefully maintained to reflect what happens in the literature. They are trusted. I think this is good enough for Misplaced Pages if it is good enough for the published experts. Concerning other types of information appearing on the ISOGG webpages I think it has to be discussed case by case. This has been debated here before, specifically concerning the E-M215 origins subject. See the archives of this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate ISOGG's efforts to create visual diagrams of SNPS that make it easy for even lay people to understand. For most trees that are uncontroversial, I don't see them as being a problem. But let say there is a dispute between two or more scientific groups regarding the exact position of an SNP in the tree. What will ISOGG do, most probably they will take one side over another. This creates a problem, if one uses them as a sole source of information as they may not have the whole picture. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
ISOGG is a big group of people, with respected leadership, and who are trying to fulfill a role that was not able to be filled by peer review, but still in a cautious and careful way. They understand that those particular webpages they maintain have become important. They are very careful about them. Secondly, what kind of controversy is really likely? Has there ever been one? Essentially this is data collection. Once someone respectable reports a particular result, that proves a point, and there is no debate: everyone just wants to know about it. I should mention that I am a member perhaps, but not fulfilling any particular functions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I should also point out that these are not just visual aids, as you would know if you thought about why peer reviewed journals cite them. These are the ONLY up-to-date collections of the latest results.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The Genographic Project
A similar problem arises with the Genographic project as well. What I have noticed is that they have not updated much of their information on the website over the last couple of years. This regards to the same assertion that E-M215 arose in the Near East . They are commercial entity as well, I know Spencer Wells is involved with them. But once again, I see no methodology. In many cases it would not be a problem to use the genographic project, because there is general consensus on the world's genealogy. However on the more contentious issue of the origins of E-M215, a much higher standard of sourcing should be required. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If your concern is the E-M215 origins question you might be interested to know that the person who looks after the ISOGG page which mentions Near Eastern origins, and his predecessor, are both known to me and have both been contacted by me about this, and neither feel strongly about the information appearing there. It seems to have been passed down, and the main aims of those SNP pages is to record the latest updates in phylogeny. On the other hand I have been able to ascertain that people like Prof. Mike Hammer do still feel that there might be something to the idea of Near Eastern origins - however (I would argue) they obviously don't think enough about it quite enough, or have strong enough arguments about it, which would lead them to publish anything? I tell myself on this basis (but this basis is all information of a type that I can't use as a source on Misplaced Pages!) that this remains in the article while the scientific community finally decides whether or not it has discarded this idea. It seems inevitable that they will unless new surprising data appears soon. No one has argued the case for a long time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So far, there isn't a recently published peer review journal that proposes the Near East theory. All the other peer reviewed studies, Cruciani et al, Semino et al etc propose an East African origin. ISOGG, and Genographic state the possibility of a Near East origin but have no methodology is available. From this would I be wrong to believe that the Near East origin theory is a currently a minority view and should be treated as such. As you suggested I looked through the archives and found the same discussion has taken place before. I find it interesting that Causteau was eager to dismiss Semino et al as being outdated, but yet sees the genographic project,( which still uses the older terminology e3b/M-35) or ISOGG as reliable on this very issue. Because of the lack of evidence, the Near East theory should not be given equal weight with the East African theory. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds suspiciously like an accusation Wapondaponda. I'll ask you to start assuming good faith and to not discuss contributors. Stick to the topic. For the record, I said that Semino et al. didn't even study North African populations in reaching their conclusions whereas Cruciani did. I also stated that Cruciani himself points this out in his 2007 paper. E1b1b is the single most common haplogroup in North Africa; the highest frequencies anywhere of the clade have been reported there, so this is no small matter. It's rather odd, moreover, that you should insinuate that I'm "eager to dismiss Semino et al." when 1) the Semino paper is already cited in the article and has been for quite some time now, and 2) you yourself appear to be not all that loath to dismiss the Near Eastern view. Heck, you won't even accord it a place in the article like the outdated Semino paper enjoys. I'll add that there is no truth to the accusation that the hypothetical Near Eastern origin of E1b1b is given undue weight. In reality, it's barely even mentioned. The Eastern African origin is indisputably given precedence. This is especially obvious when one considers the fact that the map in the Origins section unmistakably endorses an Eastern African/Ethiopian origin for E1b1b (E-M215). Neither Western Asia nor Europe is even featured in it, although E1b1b enjoys a considerable presence in both regions -- it's just one great big map of Africa. The map's caption also specifies that this is the standard theory according to the latest studies. I'll conclude by saying that Jimbo Wales specifies that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Well guess what? We've already done this with that one little blurb where we state that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture." And there's no map of the Near East to accompany or impose this view either; it's just that one little phrase. I agree with what Jheald told you on the HGH board: "Beyond that, for other information, a citation to their summaries is better than no citation at all; but if there is debate on a point, it would be a good thing to cite more authoritative sources as well." Causteau (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Causteau that this is not relevant to his questioning of Semino et al. on the specific point of E-M78 origins. Remember, Semino et al's older opinion is mentioned in this article, however we do not say that Semino et al's position is still a minority position and why should we? On the other hand it is interesting to contrast the two cases. I think if you look around the internet you will probably find places somewhere that say that E-M78 originates in the Horn of Africa. Possibly, if you ask around the academic community you might find a few who hold such a belief in a casual way also. But should we then be able to say that this is a minority position in a debate which is still on-going? And yet there is not really much evidence of any on-going academic debate for a minority position about E-M35 origins either. I suppose my position on this is fairly clear from the archives. I think the case for including the Near Eastern theory is weak, but I guess that for a subject like this:
Calling in neutral arbitration will fail because this subject is too obscure for most people (you'll see the admin in the archives who scolded me for questioning a National Geographic owned webpage as a source) and if we get a reaction it is likely to be a knee-jerk such as forbiding the use of ISOGG full stop. We have to try to make the community work. That means we have to convince Causteau, if not that the text is wrong, then at least that a change would be a reasonable compromise that he should not revert.
When a question arouses controversy, we should ask ourselves whether inclusion would be very misleading to the public, very controversial etc. In this case, I do not think so for the time being.
I think eventually the information in the public domain will be cleaned up. Unfortunately the two webpages cited are not often changed. The National Genographic project does not respond to questions about it, and I know the the ISOGG webpage is changed carefully in small steps. Victor Villareal of the E-M35 Project passes new information to ISOGG, but does not change the page himself. He has been looking into the text in question without wanting to rush to remove reference to the Near East without being sure he is doing the right thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:PSTS, ISOGG is a tertiary source just like Misplaced Pages. Reliable sources states: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources."
WP:SOURCES states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
Based on these guidelines, ISOGG and the Genographic project, aren't the best sources to use especially since they have not referenced any secondary sources in proclaiming the Near East origin of M215. The genographic project is a for profit organization. For $100 and a mouth swab and you get your DNA profile.
I have tried to find a peer reviewed article that proposes the Near East theory, but I could not find any. I agree with Andrew that the case is weak, and in my opinion somewhat misleading. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
First, The Genographic Project is not a commercial enterprise. It is a team of researchers financed by National Geographic, IBM, and the Waitt Family Foundation (someone bankrolls Cruciani et al.'s studies too, you know); not by some itty, bitty "Participation Kit":
"The Genographic Project is a global research partnership of National Geographic and IBM. With support for field research from the Waitt Family Foundation, Dr. Spencer Wells and a group of the world's leading scientists will attempt to collect and analyze more than 100,000 DNA samples from indigenous people all over the world. The goal of the Genographic Project is to learn about the migratory paths our ancestors took and how humankind populated the planet."
Second, the page you linked to which supposedly proves that it is a for-profit concern is actually just an open solicitation for DNA samples for the Project from the general public:
"The general public can actually take an active part in this remarkable effort by purchasing a Genographic Project Public Participation Kit and by submitting an anonymous sample of their DNA using an easy and painless cheek swab. By participating, you will not only contribute to this great endeavor, but you may discover something fascinating about your own genetic past as well. Furthermore, the proceeds from the sales of the Kits will be channeled back into the Project to support additional research and to fund education, cultural conservation, and language revitalization efforts for indigenous and traditional communities around the world."
Moving on, none of the policies you've quoted above forbid either ISOGG or The Genographic Project. Quite the contrary. WP:PSTS states that primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements. If indeed ISOGG and The Genographic Project qualify as tertiary sources, this is exactly the current situation since they're only being used in the article to source one phrase on the origin of E1b1b. WP:SOURCES likewise just itemizes the preferred type of sources, not all sources that qualify as reliable. It's actually unsourced opinions that Misplaced Pages forbids:
"Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Misplaced Pages to become a primary source for that material."
"Misplaced Pages articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."
"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
The forgoing is exactly what's already done in the E1b1b article. That's in addition to the Jimbo Wales quote I've already cited in my previous post. With the recent discovery of DE* chromosomes in Tibet, the suggested Near Eastern origin of E1b1b has just been given a huge boost, especially given the distribution of both E1b1b and haplogroup D. These are indeed uncertain and very exciting times in population genetics. Causteau (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about that, according to Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations DE* is an older African lineage, that has been found in Nigeria. I agree that biases form Wishful thinking should be avoided and the content of the article should be fact-based from reliable sources. Yes tertiary sources can be used on wiki, but[REDACTED] is clear that tertiary sources are lower in the hierarchy of reliability. Wiki policies provide some wiggle room in deciding how reliable a tertiary source is. There is no methodology or no inline citations from either ISOGG or TGP, and that TGP is using an outdated or incomplete nomenclature.
E1b1b is present in the middle east and europe. But based on all current standards and practices of scientific investigation, there isn't a shred of evidence for a near eastern origin of E1b1b. All the evidence points to East Africa. This clearly is the source of discomfort to some, because of some social ideas that people attach to these haplogroups. I find these ideas to be somewhat ridiculous, by chance events in history some haplogroups have become more common than others. By these chance events a haplogroup mutation could have arisen anywhere in the world. Editors should report what the facts based on scientific investigationa regarding the origins of these haplogroups rather than reporting what he said or she said that the haplogroup arose here or there with no facts. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
DE* is not African, but of uncertain origin. ISOGG and others say it originated in Northeast Africa, while Templeton (2002) say Asia. Besides asserting that haplogroup D is exclusively found in Asia, Shi et al. 2008 are speaking in the past tense when they say that DE* chromosomes being found in Nigeria supports the Out of Africa hypothesis:
"The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria , supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin."
However, in that very study they found it in two Tibetans (a fact which, incidentally, Andrew himself added to the haplogroup DE article):
"In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians) but not in other world populations."
I don't now why you're even disputing any of this.
I also don't need to engage in any alleged "wishful thinking" since ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project -- which, again, are reliable sources, as demonstrated in my previous post above -- state right there in black and white that E3b/E1b1b may have originated in the Near/Middle East. First, you tried to assail those sources with policy and a false claim that the Genographic Project is a "for profit organization", and when that failed, you now resort to ad hominem and casting aspersions on my editing. Lame; really, really lame. Causteau (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd put it this way: the case for saying that there is a serious argument that DE* is not of African origin is much better than the case for saying that E* or any other clade of E is not African in origin, but still very weak. Clearly of course it is true that there was a dispersion of DE* which happened very long ago and involved both Africa and Asia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I agree with Wapondaponda in terms of my judgment of the facts themselves, I think that concerning sourcing guidelines I have to agree with Causteau. There is no rule that Misplaced Pages can only use peer reviewed secondary sources, and if there were we'd have to start deleting nearly all of it. It is not therefore a reasonable standard. Also I agree that the National Genographic Project is not a for-profit project. Wapondaponda made a reasonable case already, that there is no evidence of on-going debate, and that the websites mentioning Near Origins are just out-of-date. Maybe it is just my opinion, but I think all Wikipedians should try very hard to avoid the temptation to come up with artificial arguments in order to try to force a consensus on a technicality, rather than based upon what is truly convincing to this community. Misplaced Pages always has problems when people start doing that. I think that we must try to convince Causteau, and the other thing we can do is write to the National Genographic people responsible for the website to ask for their sourcing. (I tried a while back, but maybe someone else can try again.) I know Victor Villareal is reviewing the ISOGG webpage involved. These steps might not be fast, but we should all remember "there is no WP:DEADLINE".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that at least with DE there are some actual peer reviewed journals that are for an Asian origin. I replaced the references from ISOGG on the page Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA) with the actual studies done by Hammer et al. At present, there is still no scientific study with actual human specimens and DNA that has been used to propose a Near East origin of e1b1b. I therefore propose removing the outdated reference from the genographic project and the reference from ISOGG that is not backed by any study. A reference to the Near East origin can be restored, if any such study is found in the future. With regard to DE*, I haven't been able to find many studies that reference it, possibly because it is so rare. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree DE* deserves to be treated as mysterious, because it is mysterious so far (but probably of African origin). Concerning E1b1b, I tend to agree that if someone really believes it originated in the Near East then they should publish their argument, because it would be a big call. It would be really exciting information in fact. But goodness knows that I've had much better referenced things deleted from Misplaced Pages! Causteau, is it really a compromise to keep this in, which is I guess how you see it? Isn't it obvious that the webpage references come from ideas that developed before Semino, Luis, Cruciani and all the rest circa 2004? Isn't it normal on Misplaced Pages to say that if the only sources are webpages, then the case has to be made for them? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There isn't really enough data in yet on DE* to be able to definitively conclude where exactly it originated. But based on all the information presently available (including the recent finding of DE* chromosomes in Tibet, the exclusively Asian distribution of haplogroup D, and the non-African origins of all the myriad descendants of haplogroup CF), haplogroup DE would most likely appear to have evolved in Asia, from where it later back-migrated into Africa:
"The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."
We don't know yet, at the moment YAP+ is very Africa heavy. Though ancient migratory patterns were certainly complex involving a lot of back and forth. In fact the Near East and North Africa are essentially one ecological zone. The terms Africa and Asia are recent social constructs that didn't exist in prehistory. That said, there is a remarkable consistency in that most of the deepest lineages of the human family tree all trace back to Africa. At present the weight of evidence favors an African origin. So too does the archeological evidence, though still sketchy, there isn't much evidence of Humans present outside of Africa until after 50,000 years ago. If we take the YAP+ to be 65,000 years old, that places it right in the middle of Africa. However these dates are still being revised, an archeological find could change them. One more thing, it is well established that templeton and hammer are supporters of multiregional evolution, which is not widely accepted.Wapondaponda (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Section break
Specialist wiki on this subject
Contributors truly interested in this field might want to consider looking at the E-M35 Phylogeny Project's own wiki. This might sometimes contain references or leads to material not yet on Misplaced Pages, or good ways of explaining things, although as another Wiki I do not believe it constitutes an independent reliable source for raw data etc. For those considering contributing keep in mind that it is the wiki of an organization and it is also a specialist wiki. This means you'll be kicked out quickly if you do not work constructively, but also that rulings about "synthesis" might be a little more lenient than Misplaced Pages itself (because what is "obvious" on that Wiki will be different).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew. Why are you and Causteau repeatedly undoing my picture edit? What was wrong with it? We all know the phrase, a picture paints a thousand words.
Ackee's typical 'Somali man'
You and Causteau appear to think that your 'typical' 'Somali man' is more appropriate than mine. So, I have included both pictures in this talk edit, so that everybody can 'see for themselves' what it is you are trying to achieve with your 'white fez' image.
My edit was a positive, valuable and relevant contribution that actually helps to add clarity to the article. So why does it offend you and Causteau so much? Perhaps we should ask a leading geneticist to arbitrate? (I hear James Watson has a lot of time on his hands nowadays). Anyway, I can see that you've already been feverishly at work today, (perhaps in your 'living room'). I have no intention of getting into an edit war, as I'm supposed to be concentrating on my Masters studies. An edit war would only lead to a 'lock-down' - and I'm totally against keeping knowledge kaptive. Have you seen this - http://www.wikirage.com/editor/Causteau/ ? Tut tut. Ackees (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ackees. First please note that I only undid your reverting once, at the same time just now that I proposed you stop and post here first. You started removing the picture Causteau placed some time ago, and you and he have been reverting each other since. I did not see the point of having that continue. (You say you don't want an edit war, but that is what it has been I'm afraid.) So here is the problem: The pictures you are edit-warring over both seem equally Somalian, so why not just leave in the one that was there before yours? The only hint of a reason you keep giving is that you maybe have some issue with the Fez. Are you disputing whether this is typically Somali? By the way, you may want to look over the history of debate on this talk page and its archives. The photo Causteau is defending was the subject of some debate before. He can at least claim that he has made his case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, what would be a good photo for this article? I'd say a group of men, and ideally men who had been tested positive for the relevant clade. There are some group photos of Somali men on Misplaced Pages, but mostly of poor quality and controversial because of Pirates or from old collections which are arguably undignified? What about this boy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Andrew. There was an edit conflict, so this paragraph is in reply to your comment of 11:48. First, I have only put my image in twice - and it has been reverted once each by you and Causteau. Secondly, yes I am disputing the 'typicalness' of your and Causteau's Somali picture (although I am not disputing that your man is Somali). But, my picture does look like a 'typical' Somali man, whereas your and Causteau's favoured version looks like an 'atypical' Somali man: that is, somebody who would stand out in a crowd of typical Somali men. As we are dealing with a gene that is present in the majority of the Somali population, it would seem sensible to use a picture of somebody who phenotypically represents the majority. Surely that isn't too much to ask in an article about genetics! What is your and Causteau's actual problem with my picture?
With regard to your 11:57 suggestions about the pirates, soldiers or the boy - all three have their phenotypical advantages over Causteau's picture. And I do not doubt that Somalia is a diverse country. But I carefully chose my picture because it was close to the previous one in age, gender composition and dispostion - the primary difference was that mine looked much more like a typical Somali man. If you agree that it's time for a positive change - why not just use my picture? Plus, I very strongly object to you altering my talk entry by changing my picture captions. That is not acceptable. My question remains, what exactly is your and Causteau's actual problem with my picture and it's rationale? Ackees (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for changing the picture captions. I added links, and removed your comment about my own intentions which I have explained to be wrong. (I have no preference between these two photos. I hope you can accept my word on that?) You said you included those two photos so everyone would know what the the discussion was about, so adjusting them in the way I did seemed acceptable to me. Oh well. As to how many reverts happened, believe me, Causteau will keep reverting if you edit this way. I just moved discussion here before things get ugly. Anyway, now we have something: You say the photo you removed was not typical looking. What do you base that on, and what do you mean by that? It is a bad habit to guess intentions of course but if I may risk a guess, you have only mentioned the fez. I also notice that your preferred photos all look a bit more generally African. Is that an issue for you? (I have learnt while editing this article over time that there are people out there who have surprising issues about how African E1b1b should be considered.) I only mention this because some people might wonder what the basis of your preferences are unless you explain them yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I am going to go out of a limb and propose the boy photo. I like it aesthetically, and it is not a photo of a soldier, pirate or "big man".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all surprised that history and genetics are controversial! One only has to think of disgraced geneticist James Watson and politicians like Mussolini and Hitler - and remember that they have their contemporary adherents and opponents. I do not think that your man is 'not African', or even 'not African enough'. I am happy that he is Somalian. But, my image is more typically Somali than the atypical one you reverted to - who could perhaps also have been a typical Greek, Italian or Mexican. I am not an official of some Apartheid, Edwardian or American 'Board of Racial Classification' - quite the contrary. Of course, I accept that you and Causteau might have simply made an innocent mistake. This is a worldwide publication and, should you choose, you are quite free to defend your choice of image in front of all - whenever you're ready. Until then, I do agree that the boy seems more typically Somali than the image you reverted to. Ackees (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That's quite irritating. You reverted my edit, apparently with no other reason than to merely repeat the unjustified action of somebody else. You then claim to have 'no idea' of the very subject at hand - despite the fact that I had already agreed with one of your own selection of pictures! Ackees (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember I told you that I asked you to discuss the subject here in order to avoid an edit war. Have a look at the history of this article. Also remember that you were the one who initiated deletions, not anyone else. In contrast to what I was hoping for, you have made no attempt to explain your preferences, which means your deletion of someone else's editing can be accused of being down to "taste" or in Wikipedian, your "point of view". I just hope whatever you propose will not lead to problems for the quality of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The "unjustified" action of somebody else? Dude, you wrote in your edit summary "verifiable Somali man", as if to imply that the chap already in the article was not verifiably Somali, which is patently false. That is why I reverted you. Whether you like it or not, the man in the photo that's already featured in the article is Somali -- not "Greek" or "Italian" or "Mexican" (what the...?). How he could ever be mistaken for any of said peoples defies logic. Show me one single Italian, for one, that looks like that! That's a Somali through and through. In case you hadn't figured it out by now, Somalis and the people of the Horn of Africa in general aren't your typical Africans. For one thing, they share much ancestry with North Africans and Middle Easterners, and in many respects more closely resemble them (viz. 1, 2, 3, 4). That is why they look the way they do (e.g. 1, 2, 3, or the chap on the right). Why this troubles you and makes you so noticeably irate and belligerent, I do not know. I also don't know where you get off talking to perfect strangers as you have. Ever heard of civility and assuming good faith? Those are actual Misplaced Pages policies that you have just totally run afoul of. With that gratuitous Wikirage link, you also seem to be engaging in something distinctly resembling Wikistalking, which, besides being more than a little creepy especially coming from someone one has only just "met", is a form of harassment, which is also very much against Wiki policies. Get a grip. Causteau (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Causteau, what do you think of the boy with prayer tablet? It might be a good idea to use a more attractive photo, and one which is not of a politician or soldier? This photo seems to draw controversy for various reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this photo has only drawn controversy from people with an agenda, as can be seen by the histrionic comments above and my analysis of said comments. The boy with the prayer tablet pic is problematic because it makes a religious statement whereas the photo that's currently in the article does not. It's just the picture of a Somali man in a white fez, like the caption plainly indicates. Causteau (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
We do not know that Ackees has a systematic "agenda", we only know that he has a point of view which disagrees with yours. We have received a comment before about the person in the current photo being politician. I personally think that politicians not known to have been tested for the markers of E1b1b are a distraction in this article, because they are non-anonymous. On the other hand, I don't see how a photo showing that a Somali might be a Muslim makes a "religious statement"? Somalis are what they are, and mostly they are Muslims. The photo is meant to show a typical Somali male, right? (And I would say that if possible the photo should not be a grainy low quality one.) It appears that everyone agrees that this boy looks like a Somali?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a religious article, Andrew. We're not here to make religious statements of any sort, which is exactly what the image of the "Somali boy with prayer tablet" does. Arguing that the image doesn't make a religious statement is like arguing that a picture of a Southern Christian man holding up the Bible and/or the cross is not making a religious statement (since most folks in the Bible Belt are, after all, Christians). That's, if you'll forgive the expression, a little hard to swallow. Further, if the issue is what everybody thinks a "typical Somali person" looks like, then both previous objectors indeed officially have no point since the typical Somali appearance-wise has a lot more in common with Middle Easterners and even Europeans than he or she does with Sub-Saharan Africans. And that's not based on opinion either, but empirical fact: 1, 2, 3. The Somali man in the fez may also not have been "tested", but then again, no one else in the article has so that hardly makes a difference. Causteau (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are responding to points no one has made, and not responding to ones they did make. I did not claim that religious statements should be allowed (I just don't see any). Ackees did not claim that your proposed photo looks too Middle Eastern or not African enough (that was a guess of mine about what Ackees thinks). My point about politicians is that they are not anonymous, and therefore a distraction given that we just want a "typical" person. What if we cut out the prayer tablet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The other editor's original objection wasn't that the man was a politician, but that he wasn't "verifiably" Somali. And when that was proven false, it changed to that he isn't a typical Somali, which is likewise untrue, as my links above prove. Moving on, cropping the image would leave just the boy's head since he is holding the tablet way up past shoulder height. I think it therefore best to continue with the theme already extant in the article, and that is pics of grown men all the way around, instead of having Somalis alone represented by a boy. I also don't see how the Somali man in the fez's political affilation is an issue when the Albanian man's artistic affiliation isn't. Causteau (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Causteau, you claim that Somalis 'in many respects' more 'closely resemble' 'Middle Easterners' than 'typical Africans'. To back your claim, you quoted the document "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease" 2, 3. This paper categorically divides the world into five 'races' 'African' 'Caucasian', 'Pacific' 'East Asian' and 'Native American', stating definitely, "the various racial groups were easily distinguishable".
If we use the OED definitions of "racial" (of or concerning difference in race)", than this is clearly a "racial" paper. They present various biological and genetic arguments to back up their racial views and specifically criticise scientists who disagree with the categorisation of humans into so-called 'races'.
Having quoted an argument about 'races', from a 'racial' document, we can therefore agree, that your P.O.V. on genetics and Somalia is a 'racial' one. We can agree that your agenda in using the image you have used is to illustrate your argument that Somalis 'closely resemble' 'Middle Easterners' as opposed to 'typical Africans'. To do this you have selected a picture of somebody who in your opinion 'more closely resembles' a 'Middle Eastern' than a 'typical African'. You support writers who believe in 'racial categorization' you wish to use this articale to pursue that agenda. And, to be fair, you have now come out and openly admitted your racial agenda.
Of course it would be totally wrong to assume that you and Neil Risch (author of the 'Categorization' paper) share the opinions of Ian Jobling, author the 'White America' blog, just because Ian is a fan of Neil . However, it is clear that there are strands of thought in the world who believe that the concept of 'race' has a scientific basis - you, Risch, Jobling, Watson, Hitler, Rhodes, Southern Segregationists, Mussolini et al.
On the other hand there are many thinkers who reject the concept of race as a scientific, biological fact. For example, Dr J Montoya states that racial theories "correspond best to the imaginations of the scientists and not the presumably defining and stable features being measured". Dr A.H. Goodman says that, "race is an inadequate and even harmful way to think about human biological differences" . Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, despite all his efforts, eventually admitted that "Classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin".
It is clear is that racial classification is one of the most controversial areas of all human inquiry. ' Race' is not a scientifically established 'fact'. It is a historical strand of opinion. And, people who support racial points of view should be aware that racial opinions will forever be linked with fascism, segregation and apartheid.
So, how do we judge the scientific validity of the three phrases you use to justify your theory of race?
Let us take the phrase 'in many respects'. That is vague. 'In many respects' everything resembles everything else. A teacup, 'in many respects' resembles a mobile phone. Both are less than 0.5 litres in volume, both are made of atoms, both are made by people, etc etc. 'In many respects' is an utterly useless phrase. You can use the phrase 'in many respects' to justify anything. And what about your phrase 'more closely resemble'? Well, this too is useless -scientifically speaking - as anything can 'more closely resemble' one thing than another, depending on what category you use. If we use the category 'things that burn oxygen' then an elephant 'more closely resembles' a a motor car than it resembles an eraser. Brilliant! One simply picks an arbitrary set of categories to determine resemblance! As to the category 'Middle Easterners' - what on Earth are you talking about? What does 'Middle Easterert' mean? Does it mean 'Moroccan?', Spanish? Iranian? Turish? Sudanese? Nubian? Darfurian? Kuwaiti? Do all the people in these countries belong to one of your so-called 'races'. Does it include New York Jews? Russian Jews? Tanzanian Jews? I submit that 'Middle Easterner' is not a scientific category at all. It is simply a phrase which people use to mean whatever they want it to mean.
And so we come to your piece d' resistance the lovely, wonderful, phrase typical Africans". I would so love for you to give me a water-tight, scientific definition of the phrase "typical African". Does it mean of 'African ancestry?' In which case, that would be everybody on earth. How helpful! I support the non-racial view, that there is no such thing as a "typical African" - except in the minds of those people who have already predisposed to create arbitrary boundaries dividing people into various arbitrary 'racial' categories. '
To sum up. I do not dispute that your photograph is a Somali man. Nor do I dispute that he is an African. Africa and Somalia are phenotypically diverse - as is the entire human population. However, your picture is based on your clearly admitted desire to assert that Somalis 'in many respects' more 'closely resemble' 'Middle Easterners' than 'typical Africans' - despite the fact that non of those phrases have any scientific meaning whatsoever. What is more, everybody who looks at the page, reads your references, and reads this talk will now clearly understand your 'racial' agenda.
My picture is not based on your 'racial' P.O.V. or the 'race' theorists you quote. I, like the other image selectors you have opposed, am not trying to prove that Somalis 'more closely resemble' so-called 'Middle Easterners' than so-called 'typical Africans'. You are. But, accepting that your image is valid image of a Somali person, I am going reinstate my, equally valid image of a Somali person in addition. So, there will be two, in recognition of the visual diversity of the Somali population - thus refuting any suggestion of racial bias or exclusivity based on dubious theories of 'race'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL Sure... you're not interested in "race". You only just introduced the very concept into the conversation by first falsely insinuating that the man in the white fez was not Somali, then, when debunked, insisting that he is not representative of typical Somalis with nothing other than your opinion to back that up, and finally topping that off with an insistence that he actually resembles Greeks, Italians, and Mexicans (!) more than the Somali he really is! Now, you come back here on the E1b1b talk page with some huge spiel on the race concept completely unrelated to the E1b1b article, and still have the temerity to insist that you are somehow not interested in race. Please. The Neil Risch source you take cheap shots at above states point blank that "populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians." Like I already pointed out, that kind of undermines your hollow claim that the man in the white fez is, in fact, an atypical Somali, doesn't it? As does this source which states outright that "the facial skeleton pattern of the Somali is closer to Caucasian patterns than the African ones". In fact, all the links to studies I've posted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) put the lie to your claims: that is why I cited them. Your likening me and Neil Risch -- the 2004 recipient of the Curt Stern Award from the American Society of Human Genetics -- as akin to Hitler (a man whose name you're invoking for the second time) and other evil types simply because I have the audacity to back up my assertions with actual evidence (such as Neil Risch's study) instead of my own "word" like you goes to show that you have very little in the way of respect for Misplaced Pages's most basic policies. Again, do not attack other users:
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."
"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
Do not attempt to force your edits into the article:
"Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute."
Get this: the point of the talk page isn't to provide a venue for you to take your frustrations at being unable to prove your point out on me or on Neil Risch or on Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza or on any other random person who happens to be able to do just that -- talk pages are exclusively reserved for the discussion of the article. And the point of the E1b1b article isn't to spam images of Somalis or those of any other single ethnic group as you've just done. It is to discuss E1b1b, understand? Take the lame racial politics that you and only you introduced, perpetuated, and exploded elsewhere. They are most certainly not welcome or needed here. Causteau (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why both photos can't be used. Since we don't know the exact DNA profile of any of the people in the photos, it is somewhat close to original research to even include photos of people. For purely Aesthetic purposes, photos are acceptable but they are of little meaning, since uniparental DNA has no known impact on physical appearance. For example John Revis. As a compromise, I would suggest using both photos. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Wapondaponda. But no, we can't use two photos of Somalis since this isn't The Great Somali Image Parade. It's the E1b1b article, and as such, it is reserved for the discussion of things directly pertaining to E1b1b -- not for illustrating any alleged "phenotypical diversity" of Somalis, Albanians, or of any other ethnic group for that matter. It's also not original research to include photos of "X man" and then claim that the ethnic group to which "X man" belongs is largely in the such and such sub-clade of E1b1b because the man in question does, in fact, belong to ethnic group "X", and the studies abundantly cited in the article already source the claim that his ethnic group is in the such and such sub-clade of E1b1b. Causteau (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ackees, I think you are speculating about Causteau's thinking far more than is necessary for this discussion. The practical point at hand is about a point of racial identification, if you want to call it that, which you clearly share an interest in with Causteau - i.e. what a typical Somali looks like. How do we handle that practical question?
None of what you have written above shows us any way forward. At least Causteau has taken the risky step of explaining something about his opinions. Perhaps you want to avoid doing the same because you expect something like the response he got from you? I tend to agree with Causteau that it is not a valid compromise to have two photos. My proposal is that you guys accept the spirit of compromise and go looking for other photos to propose. Please also remember to sign your posts on talkpages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Iman (model)
Debates over ethnic images are not new, they happen all the time. Take a look at this archive Talk:White people/Archive 21. After contentious debates, about which people were true representatives of the ethnic group, a decision was made not to use images at all. Since there are only two images in dispute, a compromise to use both I think is not complicated. It becomes a problem when ten different editors want to insert their own preferred photo. As for me my preference is Iman (model). Though she probably doesn't have a y-chromosome, she is verifiably and recognizably of Somalian descent. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why talk of an alternate image should even be considered when no convincing argument has even been advanced to support the change to begin with, whereas a boat-load have in support of the incumbent image's retention. One shouldn't just compromise whenever one is faced with any 'ol weak, ad hominem-laced argument just to keep the peace, as it were. If Wikipedians at large were to do this, then every page would be subject to constant manipulation by any belligerent editor that throws a temper tantrum. No... real, valid, non-contradictory reasons must be provided first. Causteau (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'd prefer no Somali photo than 2. This is not a major subject of discussion in the article. Causteau, compromise is relevant when 2 options are basically 2 points of view. Everyone has a point of view which influences their editing, but the idea is not to insist on your own. Compromise is also relevant if there is a strong likelihood that a 3rd option exists which ends debate. The boy with the prayer tablet almost got there. There must be others out there? Concerning Iman, you've omitted to tell Wapondaponda that you set a rule a while back that you thought the image should be of a male (because this is about Y chromosomes). And I accepted that as a reasonable guideline. I don't know what others think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
All rules that are made outside of policies and guidelines aren't binding and in many cases will be temporary. This is detailed at WP:CCC. Misplaced Pages servers have plenty of free megabytes, so there is enough room for more photos. I tend to agree with Andrew, that no photos is probably the best place to go. If we are to use photos, they should be maps , graphs or charts rather than people. Photos of ethnic or national identity have a rightful place on articles that deal directly with such topics. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The concept of 'race' has no biological/Scientific value for images or text in this article
Causteau, I refer again to the title of the Neil Risch paper that you cited above: "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, RACE and disease 2, 3".
I also refer you to your previous citation (above) of Carleton S. Coon's 1939 book "The Races of Europe" , in which the very first sentence of the chapter "The Mediterranean Race in East Africa' contains the utterly fatuous claim that Somalis are 'white racial stock'.
Until your mention of these documents, the controversial concept of 'race' was not openly referred to on this talk page. Although you (perhaps understandably) 'neglected' to cite the titles of these papers, it is clear that, by quoting Risch and Coon, two of the world's most prominent advocates of 'race' theories, it was you that first referred to the concept of 'race' , not me. I merely expose the fact Risch and Coon are advocates of 'racial' categorization theories and that you quoted them in order to justify your use of the Cadow image man in fez.gif instead of the Hadraawi image and others. It is not my fault that Risch and Coon use the word 'race' in the titles of their works, or that their works are about 'race', or that you openly quoted them.
And as to your statement about me, "LOL you're not interested in race" - I did not say that I wasn't interested in the subject. What I said is that the concept of 'race' is not scientific. You can quote "Caucasian" this or "sub-Saharan African" that until you are blue (or whatever) in the face. I, like Montoya, Greenwood, Cavalli et al , , (quoted above) utterly reject the scientific/biological validity of all and any racial categories.
Therefore, your justification of an image based on any theory of so-called 'race' or 'white racial stock' introduces an erroneous racial P.O.V.. I, like the thinkers I quoted, accept that 'race' is just a 'social/political' concept, not a scientific/biological category. Furthermore, I note that so-called 'scientific' theories of 'race' 'closely resemble' the basic tenets of fascism, apartheid, racism and segregation. According to Prof. John P Jackon Jr, Coon (the 'expert' you cited), "actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity ". In plain English, Coon was a racist (I know, I know). I note that his work is also lovingly quoted on this neo-nazi website , where a strangely familiar set of 'racial' arguments about Somalis are regurgitated ad nauseum.
I am merely reminding readers of the close proximity of psuedo-scientific 'racial' thinking to evil ideologies, and warning contributors of the dangers of introducing so-called 'scientific' theories of 'race' into this article about genetics - which, as is about inherited molecules, not pseudo-scientific nonsense about'race'.
I note that you have reverted my image. I shall again re-introduce my image of a Somali person, on the basis that it is an image of a Somali person (in addition to the image of a Somali person that is already there). However, even though you justify your use of an image on the controversial, unscientific social/political, P.O.V. basis of 'race'2, 3, I shall not delete it. I hope, that as my image is not based on any discredited 'white racial stock' theory, but is simply a picture of a Somali person, nobody will repeat the mistake of removing it.
ANDREW LANCASTER There is no 'speculation' on my part about Causteau's racial theories. And, if you take the time to read his references, you will realise that there is no need to go forever 'hunting' for 'compromise' images. Causteau's citations unequivocally reveal that his P.O.V. is 'purely' 'racial' and, as such he will probably never accept any image that does not fall into his/her utterly unscientific category about 'white racial stock' that 'more closely resembles a middle-eastern than a typical African'. I know that you have worked on this article intensively. But, to defend Causteau's picture edits looks sadly akin to defending his/her openly stated racial P.O.V. As long as such racialized P.O.V.s continue to goose-step around this article, it will remain 'of low importance' 'starter class', and might even be seen as nothing other than mere propaganda for a long-discredited (but sadly still breathing) creed - 'Scientific Racism'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Yes Bot, this was me Ackees (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that comparing someone to Hitler because you disagree about which of two photos looks most typically Somalian is probably a sign you've lost a bit of perspective while editing. Frankly both of you claim to be the more scientific while the other has an agenda. I am not convinced by either of these claims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to propose that we keep the images already in the article, and I even drew up a detailed response to Andrew's post, but I now see that Ackee is up to his old tricks again. It's clear at this point that he has absolutely no respect for Misplaced Pages's policies, particularly WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. Instead, he keeps engaging in bizarre racialist speculation, re-injecting race into the debate when specifically asked not to, and insisting that he will single-handedly force the photo of his choosing back into the article with no argument offered to support his case other than more ad hominem. I agree with both Andrew and Wapondaponda at this point: We shouldn't include any photos in the article, lest we give the Ackees of the world an opportunity to racialize a page that should instead be focused on genetics. Causteau (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not me that has lost perspective. I was deeply shocked that no other editor had anything to say about the use of the segregationist Carlton S Coon to justify picture edits. I am appalled that no other editor had anything to say about the use of such discredited notions as 'white racial stock'. It appears that, in this article, and on this talk page, such 'racialized' POV garbage has become 'normalised'. I have not compared 'someone' to Hitler. I have pointed out the obvious and direct historical links between the segregationist POV of Coon and the racist POV of Hitler. It is disgraceful that, in this supposedly 'scientific' and 'thorough' discussion, the nauseating POV of a segrgationist like Coon is glibly quoted as though this were some neo-nazi progaganda page. Why did no other editor deal with the use of the 'white racial stock' views of Coon - as advocated by an editor on this very page? Does no other editor understand how serious and damaging this is? Answers, please. Ackees (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Quit playing dumb. Carlton Coon was a former president of the Anthropological Association of America. He was also one of the last anthropologists that conducted large-scale physical surveys of populations. For this reason, his work is still quoted right alongside Cavalli-Sforza and other contemporary researchers (like in this 2003 study published in the reputable American Journal of Human Genetics). Even the great Jean Hiernaux based many of his measurements in his "People of Africa" book on Coons' work. You really need to lay off of the ad hominem. It only makes you look bad and seem incapable of formulating an effective response without resorting to personal attacks. Causteau (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ackees, with all due respect please do reconsider my point about lost perspective. Right from my first attempt to discuss this subject with you, you have looked for ways to try to over-rule rational debate by looking for reasons to be outraged - starting with my adding of a hyperlink to a posting you made. But I don't see anything else to your point. What is your point? Are you saying that your photo is a better choice because to prefer otherwise makes you a Nazi racist?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Causteau, Andrew Lancaster and Wapondaponda, all three of you have now stated that the one clear solution to the controversy produced by attempts to represent so-called 'race' or 'ethnicity' is to remove from the article all images apart from maps and graphs. In fact, this is the norm as most Haplogroup pages do not have other imagery. I agree that it is wrong to 'racialize' these pages. I strongly oppose the use of politically controversial 'racial' or 'ethnic' theorists such as Hiernaux
As you can see, the page is now purged of all images except maps and graphs. I am sure that editors will join me in continuing to purge the text itself of any pseudo-scientific 'racial' theorizing based on the gross distortions of segregationists like Coon and his contemporary ideological descendants. Ackees (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Ackees clearly also has strong opinions about race. He just does not want to explain them. His one-sided "cry wolf" approach has not been helpful. It is a shame that the discussion went straight to extremes on both sides. I think it is worth reflecting upon the fact that his and Causteau's way of presenting (or in fact not presenting) a rational case for their photo preferences is the only place where silly and irrelevant references to Segregationists and Hitler occur, and this irrelevant material has led to the bigger idea of including photos also being questioned. I guess trying to include a little colour in this article is doomed to failure. First all the references to genealogy and well-known people were removed, and now all the pretty pictures. Oh well. For those who don't know, it has also been proposed by others that many contour maps should be removed from haplogroup articles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Are_contour_maps_WP:OR_or_WP:SYN.3F . What will be left? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm looking at the map now, and my initial impressions are that (assuming it's based on Peričic et al.'s Figure 4c) it seems to somewhat understate the extent of E3b1's spread in France, Germany and Poland. The contour line delineating Iberia's E3b1 region from its non-E3b1 region also seems a little off; it's more of a right angle in the study, but a straighter line in this map. Peričic's map's distribution also reaches into Scandinavia, but this map stops short at Lithuania. As for the Cruciani et al. 2007 study, Figure 2D appears quite similar to Peričic et al.'s Figure 4c, so I could see how perhaps Hxseek confused the two. My concerns here, therefore, would be exactly the same as those raised with regard to Peričic's map. However, to this I'd add that Cruciani's map indicates a much greater spread into Scandinavia, almost completely covering Norway and Sweden, but at the lowest frequency range available. I think that if these issues can be corrected, then there's no reason why the map shouldn't be included. I also think Hxseek should base the revised map on the newer Cruciani paper if possible. Causteau (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can revise the map at some point soon, if we reach a concesnsus as to which source is preferable Hxseek (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Cruciani is certainly the best one in the literature right now? By the way if you are able to generate contour maps from raw data this might be something that would be allowed on Haplowiki which is a Wiki focused on E-M35. I can help get a good collection of data. We can not yet upload images there, but I think this is going to be fixed soon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. But there was a specific proposal which is that all language referring to such things as ethnic groups should be purged from this article. This was a new proposal, but expressed as an extension of links that Ackees saw between the choice between the two photos, and things like Nazism. I believe this needed a response, and that this response was concerning the content of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right Wapondaponda. Andrew asked me a philosophical question on my talk page and I erroneously moved the discussion here. Andrew, if you don't object I will progressively delete this talk section, as it is now irrelevant. Ackees (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin
Since the discovery of these haplogroups many people have attached significant importance to these haplogroups. It seems that these haplogroups have become badges of honor and symbols of ethnic identity and pride. So as the above study mentioned, it becomes a problem when the results of these studies have contradicted local narratives of origin. Some have even suggested that some scientists have been biased and have skewed results of their studies to align with local narratives.
I have mentioned earlier that I think it is possible that people attach maybe a little too much importance to these haplogroups. Firstly, the mitochondria started out as a primitive bacteria that hitched a ride on one of our ancestral single celled organisms. They had a symbiotic relationship and the primitive bacteria later became fully incorporated into our ancestral single celled organization. Technically, the Mitochondrial DNA is not "our DNA". The D-Loop section used for haplogroup identification is in the non-coding or junk DNA section of the mitochondrion DNA. Because the mitochondria is a "foreign body", its DNA does not recombine during sexual reproduction. Likewise the Y-chromosome also does not recombine. Apart from determining sex, the y-chromosome seems to be relatively insignificant relative to other chromosomes. The Y only has 78 genes whereas the X chromosome has over 1500 genes. Much of the Y is junk DNA. In fact the Y started out as an X chromosome, but due to loss of function has lost one of its legs due to shrinkage. Women can do fine without a Y chromosome, but males cannot survive without an X chromosome.
The D-loop of the mitochondria and NRY of the Y-chromosome are the most useless parts of the human genome with regard to phenotype. Yet they are the most useful parts of the genome in determining ancestry. Mutations in junk DNA do not influence phenotype and accumulate at much faster rates than in coding regions. A mutation in an actual coding region of gene will likely influence phenotype. Mutations on average are more likely to be bad than good, since our DNA has already been tried and tested by millions of years of evolution. Consequently, coding genes vary less across human populations and are less useful at determining phenotype. The mitochondria and the NRY are thus not good candidates for determining the so called ethnic superiority or inferiority of a population. They are just junk DNA.
The reason for all this is I think it may be a good idea in the future to create an article that deals with some of the social consequences of the human genome. Already the above article deals with the topic. Another article Genetic ancestry and the search for personalized genetic histories also addresses the conflict between social identity and genetic history. E1b1b appears to have important social consequences at least based on the popularity of this article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst not wishing to sound uninterested in any social problem, it almost seems like you are saying that there are obvious "important social consequences" that can most clearly be seen "based on the popularity of this article". Is it even popular? My first impression is that your remarks are highly speculative and any effort to write it up would mainly be original work. For a first remark, conflicting "social identities" are a problem of human reason. The conflicts develop without any need of genetics. People create narratives, and these narratives come into conflict with each other and with facts that will inevitably sometimes conflict with the narratives, because the narratives. I am not really sure where this leads.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes this article is very popular. This article cites over 51 references, but the articles of its ancestors Haplogroup E (Y-DNA), Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA) and Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), which I think are more important, only cite 15, 15 and 4 references respectively. Surely its popularity is due to its some social significance possibly relating to ethnic identity. I am still trying to figure out why this particular article is more detailed than and more active than other haplogroups. Maybe I didn't articulate the social implications very well, I will try to simplify them.
The genetic data on haplogroups will often conflict with local or historical narratives. For ::example the bible vs mitochondrial eve.
The genetic data may conflict with a person's social identity.
There may be bias among some, not all, scientists when it comes to studies regarding the geographical origins of certain haplogroups.
These biases tend to skew scientific studies to be in line with historical narratives or social identity.
One example is what has been the official position by Chinese authorities regarding the origins of the people of China. The official position is that the Chinese people are not descended from people originally from Africa, but that they are descended from Peking Man. this article has some of these details. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how you equate popularity with number of references. I think this just relates to the question of how to divide up the articles about parts of a phylogeny. For example we could move all detailed material about sub-clades into an enormous article about DE, or on the other hand we could split up E1b1b into articles about each of its smaller sub-clades. In fact if you think about it, it is logical that this will happen - as more recent clade divisions become more clear and we can say more about them, they become the focus of research and the bigger articles on Misplaced Pages will be those ones.
Still, even if this showed the article was popular, then how does this show that there are "important social consequences"?
I do accept that genetics contributes to the many sources of facts which conflict with myths, thus causing "social consequences", but are they really important? The genetic data is indeed being distorted to create new myths which will then one day become a source of confusion as well. I find that some academic authors seem rather over-enthusiastic to play these games.
But still facts have always come into conflict with myths. Villages who have believed something wrong about their neighbours for generations suddenly find themselves confronted with a new text book, etc. Genetics is just a part of the bigger movement of critical scientific thinking which comes into conflict with myths.
In most practical examples, the myths which genetics comes into conflict with are myths about differences which is not real, so genetics is in conflict with the worst types of myth. Where genetics has been most questionable however is perhaps where do-gooders have over-stated their case and then opened themselves to criticism. I think the Adams paper last year about Iberia where they claimed 20% of Spanish ancestry was Jewish was silly for example, based on the data they had, and brings the discipline into ill repute. Such incidents get discussions going. The discussions perhaps feed interest in some of these haplogroups, but those public debates are healthy, and show the public's ability to critically digest science which is relevant to it. I don't see it going much beyond that. There are no political or social movements based on haplogroups that I am aware of and any attempt to start one would collapse as changing data from science arrived.
Even if the truth is dangerous, I think it is a big call to support myth against truth, and certainly beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages. There are alternative wikis which deliberately bias their contents, for example away from evolutionary theory, but Misplaced Pages is not such a wiki.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Andrew, the "social consequences" of these haplogroups are in my opinion, the main reason why we are having a lot of difficulty regarding these articles. In the past few weeks since I started looking into these articles, I have witnesses numerous and unnecessary attempts to somewhat distort information contained in these articles. If we don't address this issue, there will be prolonged and unnecessary edit conflicts on several of these articles. Instead of reporting all relevant information, some editors are selectively cherry picking information that favors one view over another. As you point out, some scientists are actually stoking the flames, by injecting politics into their studies. Even though peer reviewed studies are the most reliable sources, scientists have ego's and issues regarding their own identity and unfortunately, these sometimes end up in their studies. If a particular scientist publishes a study that would seem to promote an ethnocentric view of the scientist's own ethnicity, wouldn't there be a conflict of interest. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree. I think rudeness, WP:ownership issues, and calling people racist instead of responding to their arguments (the problems I keep seeing) are not problems particularly strongly connected to articles about Y haplogroups. They also have very little to do with the number of references in this article. There are lots of references because of one editor, me, who has not contributed as much to other haplogroup articles. One person does not a social issue make.
Concerning the peer reviewed articles, I think on Misplaced Pages we can only try to quote them as neutrally as possible. We can debate them on other forums, and my sense is that this debate is happening, and is being heard at the right level.
Concerning your last sentence, this approach really worries me. Whatever you want to call it ("political correctness"? "negative discrimination"? "politically managed science"?) it seems similar to Cadenas2008 saying that any paper about Indian DNA can be ignored because of the potential effect of Hindu nationalism via the sponsoring of research. I think creating circular arguments in order to selectively ban sources based upon their ethnic associations is against the fundamental ways in which Misplaced Pages works, and if you think about how someone might apply this type of logic to whatever your favorite sources are, it is also completely in opposition to what you are aiming at. We have to judge source reliability according to neutral norms, as is Misplaced Pages policy. We absolutely can not start saying that serious peer-reviewed articles and authors should be ignored just because an author is a member of one of the ethnic groups discussed in the article!
I recently said to User:Ackees that I find trying to manage what scientific facts get reported based upon political ideas heads us in the direction totalitarianism. I stick by that, although I realize this might sound extreme. You just need to look at how totalitarianism came into being historically. Good intentions are very blunt tools.
I noticed its showing a high requency in Yemen & Western Oman? (more than that in Iraq). In Oman & Yemen M34 & basically M215(xM78) is the most dominant, with 0% M78 in 2 studies done on Yemenis? & only 1%~2% in Omanis. In Iraq M78 is actually higher 2%~5% but the map is not showing it.
An M78 map has to show that M78 radiates north to South (both sides) from the Levant (or elsewhere) & becomes equal with M34 in Southern Emirates, in Oman M34 picks up all the way to Yemen. If you want to make an E1b1b M78, M34 & M81 map we can all work on it, but we have to be more specific on frequencies & clearly mark the low frequency regions, just like we marke the high frequency regions.
I've inserted the Robino contour map for E-M81, but am not sure if that is going to be found acceptable. If anyone wants to make a rendering of it, that sounds great. Concerning E-M78 I see nothing wrong with the Cruciani map which has currently been removed, although with any contour map there are always assumptions. Concerning the E-V13 map, I'd like to remind that it is clearly not a rendering of the Cruciani map which it claims to be. It should be changed, removed or corrected I think. I personally think that an adaptation of the E-V65 map from Cruciani would be very interesting in the correct place also. What is not in the literature is a good contour map of up-to-date E-M123, which is a shame.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Many of these contour maps are developed using relatively small sample sizes, usually just a few hundred people. Very large data sets may be impractical at the moment. Consequently, they reflect general trends rather than being an accurate representation of the exact frequencies in a particular area. The most important issue demonstrated by the Cruciani map is that it does a good job of reflecting the two areas of concentration of M78. The rest of the information on the map is not specific, nor was it meant to be. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well the map from 2007 didn't take into account 3 studies that took place in Yemen all show that the main E1b1b in that region is mainly E1b1b(xM78). Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, while awaiting more studies, we can still use the map based on Cruciani et al. Yes they didn't study population from Yemen, but they didn't make any claims about Yemen. Since according to WP:VERIFY, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not necessarily truth, we can include the cruciani based map until a more comprehensive map is found. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
M78 in Yemen vs Yemeni Israelis
Even if you consider Yemenite Israelis as Yemenis they still only show 10% M78!
Now compare Y-DNA results of Yemeni Israelis vs Yemenis (combined 3 studies):
I know its very hard to draw an E1b1b map let alone an M78 map, but its not good to have a an incomplete map, maps should be updated on a study by study basis. Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please give the Malouf and Cerny references? (I ask because they are not currently in the article references, and if they have relevant information that make them interesting.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Cerny (Socotra)
45/63 = 71.4% J*(xJ1, J2)
9/63 = 14.3% J1
6/63 = 9.5% E
1/63 = 1.6% R*(xR1b)
1/63 = 1.6% F*(xJ, K)
1/63 = 1.6% K*(xO, P)
Malouf (Mainland)
28/40 = 70.0% J1-M267
6/40 = 15.0% J2a1b-M67
5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
1/40 = 2.5% G-M201
Cruciani et al. (2004) gives .94% of 106 Omanis, and 2.5% in UAE (40 people). Luis et al. (2004) found 2/121 Arab Omanis. The numbers are small but this could also be said about many parts of Europe where the map has a light colour? By the way, it would be interesting if you gave more accurate information than "~0%". I don't think using such simple methods to prove your point helps get understanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
So far its 0m78 of all E1b1b samples found, thats usually a good indication that M78 is as rare as T in Yemen, especially that E1b1b(xM78) was found in big %, you can't just guess by looking at UAE, Oman (both have very low % of M78 anyways) when you already have studies done on Yemen itself!
Yemen (Cadenas)
1/62 = 1.6% E-M215(xM35)
2/62 = 3.2% E-M35(xM78, M81, M123)
5/62 = 8.1% E-M34
8/62 = 12.9% E1b1b total
Yemen (Malouf)
5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b total.
I prefer a new map based on all studies by 2009 (including Hassan et al) something like the V13 neat map.
East Chad & North Darfur Masalit people have a big M78 frequency 71.9 % (23/32)
It is good that you raise the Hassan article. It helps explain my point. If there was one major problem with all current contour maps available to us, it is that they do not have data from Sudan and so it looks like there is a gap there. The Hassan article makes it clear that this was just due to lack of data. If you had pointed to this as a more obvious problem with the Cruciani contour maps I would absolutely agree. But I am still not sure we should make our own contour maps, given how important the assumptions are. I'm happy to see someone try, but I hope it does not lead to silly arguments later. And this implies that you should give a quite detailed explanation about how the map was made. Better to have one "respectable" contour map than an edit war. By the way, for a case where we don't even have a respectable map, you might be interested to see the collection of E-M123 data I put here: http://www.haplozone.net/index.php?title=E-M123. I think it is more complete than Misplaced Pages and in an easier format. Cruciani data is here http://www.haplozone.net/index.php?title=Cruciani_data also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
When the map gets criticized it only makes it better, if you want me to make a map I will do so, but only if you have a genuine desire to have a map in the article! if its going to bother you for whatever reason. Then by all means use the older map although I see clear data that needs to be updated in Sudan & Yemen Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
E-M123 data
I have posted quite a collection of E-M123 data, including null results, onto the E-M35 Project's Wiki. I've even made a start at putting in coordinates. I find this important because E-M123 is a clade that no one has yet written much about but the raw data in the literature tells a story. See http://www.haplozone.net/index.php?title=E-M123_data --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
New Study on Yemen shows M78
Hi Andrew,
Turns out Cruciani's map was not off after all :)
I am looking through the strs of a study that just came out this month, by the head of Dubai DNA Police Dr F. Shamali, her study shows some M78 I am not sure I am just looking at the STR but I can already see some M78 (V12 to be specific). I will give you the final total once I am done going through it. In the same study 11/106 Saudis are E1b1b, with 4 possible M34, 4 possible M78, the other 3 could be M35* or either. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
battaglia 2008
Does anyone have access to the full article to Battaglia et al. (2008) used in this article (V-13 section) ? Hxseek (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that for this article it is best to only include information about links to clearly defined entities such as the Cushitic language family. Whether this family has something to do with the biblical Kushites is something best discussed in the articles about those subjects. I believe Cushitic (the language family) is discussed quickly but fairly effectively in the present E1b1b article, and it has been mentioned in connection to E-V32 in Hassan et al. (2008). Also see my new review mentioned above which is not in the bibliography yet. Please have a look and see what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Coffman quote
Is quoted Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.
This statement is somewhat ambiguous and contradictory. On one hand the authors writes Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago and on the other the author states there is a missimpression regarding the origin. There is no standard method of describing haplogroups in relation to populations that harbor them. So in reality there are no African haplogroups, or European haplogroups or Asian haplogroups. There are haplogroups that are frequent in Africa, Asia, Europe, America or Australia but not elsewhere, and way may colloquially refer to them as African, Asian, European, American or Australian. This applies to all haplogroups not just e3b. We can also objectively refer to haplogroups by their most likely region of origin, in which case e3b is indeed "African". However this is complicated by the fact that haplogroups tend to move around and are continuously evolving. This obviously applies to e3b which is found in Africa, Asia and Europe.
From a scientific perspective, the Coffman quote is not really useful because the author does not describe what is incorrect about describing e3b as "African". If the origin is the criteria for describing a haplogroup, it is legitimate to describe e3b as African. In short the author prefers not to consider e3b as african but this a personal opinion or choice in how to describe a haplogroup. It may contain some social commentary but it serves no value from a scientific perspective. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You've posted the same comment on two articles, but I am going to be difficult and say that although you you had a case on the other article, you don't have a strong one here. I recommend that you please stop this habit you have of pasting generic remarks on different talk pages all over Misplaced Pages. What is relevant in one place does not automatically deserve to be pasted all over the place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone cut and paste the same remarks from this article onto the Genetic history of Europe. The Coffman statement is somewhat inflammatory. I can see from the previous posting, that this issue has been raised before, and for good reason. This article can do without it as it is a magnet for controversy. Coffman's opinion on what is or not African is purely subjective and trivial in a similar manner to the Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Trivia_section discussed above. Furthermore, I don't know what she is referring to when she says the media refers E3b as African. As far as I know, the media doesn't cover population genetics. Except for a few popular science publications, and the occasional mention on Natgeo or discovery, the specific details on human haplogroups are almost never discussed. I have never heard E3b being discussed on TV. It seems that she is whining about the fact that E3b is indeed African.
A thread that I started on the Genetics project page I think should be taken seriously. At the root of all the numerous and current disputes regarding these genetics articles are attempts to politicize these haplogroups and this leads to a lot of unbalanced and unscientific material in these articles. I will restate a quote from Genetics and Tradition as Competing Sources of Knowledge of Human History
Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin
It is my hope that some wikipedians can step up and depoliticize some of these articles and simply state the current scientific consensus.
All very well but don't you realize that others accuse you of the same? And with good reason? Consider your constant attempt to delete discussion about the possible non African origins of DE and M, which are clearly real theories in the literature. I pointed out before, you always take the same side, so how can other editors see your editing as anything other than political? Concerning the Coffman quote you'll be aware from looking at the archives that I share some of your doubts about the clarity and meaning of it. However, I have learnt that what she was talking about was precisely the fact that E3b has been politicized by racists, sometimes leading people to misunderstandings. For example consider a Jew, Arab or Albanian who is told by internet propaganda that his Y lineage is African in the sense of not being Jew, Arab, Albanian etc. The sense she intended for the term African was, as I understand it, African in an excluding sense that an E1b1b person is less Jewish, Arab, or anything else non African than they might have thought. This is of course a real problem, and quite wrong, but it is out there. Whether it can be explained clearly in this article is something I would kindly ask you of all people to consider because you have expressed concern about social responsibility before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL You of all people talking about "depoliticizing" an article. Will wonders never cease... FYI, this issue has already been thoroughly discussed and long resolved. Ellen Coffman herself visited this page and explained in plain language exactly what she meant by that quote, and it predictably bears nary a resemblance to your self-serving mischaracterization of it and its author. And indeed, the passage has everything to do with the Origins section. There'll be no spinning this quote to mean something it doesn't, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I doesn't matter whether Jesus himself came and discussed an issue, there is no such thing as permanent resolution on wiki. See WP:CCC. The quote has nothing to do with the origins of E, which is purely a scientific matter. How people or the media discuss e-m35 is another issue. Maybe there can be a section on media portrayal, which discusses such thing. But as I can see from the above threads, it is quite trivial. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Causteau that Wapondaponda should be more self aware about being political. But I agree with Wapondaponda about the more fundamental issue that there is no closing of the books on any issue here on Misplaced Pages. Wapondaponda has raised real issues about whether the Coffman quote as it is now explained on the article is giving any clear and correct message. I've tried to explain a counter position but I guess everyone realizes that I basically agree with Wapondaponda. I've tried to explain how the citations might be interpreted in a clear way, but I am not sure anyone can get that interpretation from the Coffman article itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
My statement was not intended to get Wapondaponda to be more self-aware, but to get him to stop removing reliable sources. I notice that in my absence he has repeatedly reverted a series of different editors over this one quote, and in an ostensible attempt to "address his concerns" as you put it (but curiously not those of the four other editors that support its inclusion, myself included), you added some original research attempting to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers. There are two problems with this: First, it has already been demonstrated by the author's own comments that you actually have no idea what her quote means. Second, WP:NOR makes it clear that adding original analysis of a source is not permitted:
"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
As for the quote allegedly having nothing to do with the origins of E1b1b, I already posted a detailed explanation of what the quote meant, which went as follows:
"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."
In response to this, Coffman-Levy asserted that my post above "restated argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. I'm afraid you guys are on the wrong end of the demonstrated consensus, which is to keep the quote in the Origins section, and in its unadulterated, NPOV state. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
where E1b1b SNP mutated .
Who know where SNP mutation defining this group appear? Plants rooted to ground move around the world in evolution its obvious: man can too.
a) In light of this uncertainty all soured thesis about the geographic location of mutation should be valid. There are at lest following possibilities:
It happen in the place where is today the highest concentration (no movement)
it happen in other place (then moved).
b) If 'in other place' it can be:
south
north
west
east (we can skip up and down consideration:)
c) The present distribution of genetic markers may be result of: (in any case with or without movement)
bottlenecks when somehow only newer moved out of 'mother/father'-genland
outgrow of newer generations caring newer markers(and perhaps other gens) pushing out the older markers eg. to pathogenicco-evolutionrefugia . see also genome lineages .Thesis/point c2 is valid to all other present day genetic markers distribution.
I think the place where a haplogroup is most common is not so important. What people really look at more to try to estimate place of origin (or at least the place where dispersal started leading to modern people) is the diversity. The Horn of Africa has the highest diversity of E-M35. Frequency is not the key point. For example nobody is arguing that the Western Sahara is the home of E-M35. It has an extremely high E-M35 level, but all close relatives along the male line.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sourced Material
Citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005
This info is scientific and sourced yet Wapondaponda will not stop deleting it.
SOPHIAN (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC).
See the above threads, yes it is sourced. But[REDACTED] is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The statement has nothing to do with the scientific methods used to determine the geographic origins of gene variants. Discussing what the media says about a haplogroup isn't relevant to determining the origins of the haplogroup. My suggestion has been that the quote can be placed elsewhere in a section or article that deals with media "misimpressions". Wapondaponda (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that defending the quote needs more than just "it was sourced". The citation is done in such a way to give quite a specific impression about what it might mean, which anyone reading the original article will not recognize. The end result is to say the least very ambiguous, and therefore to say the least anyone defending it can at least go the effort of suggesting a better wording. It is certainly not a simple case that can be judged on the basis of whether it is cited or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tried re-wording the citation. My aim is to try to clarify the Coffman-Levy quote. Wapondaponda is right the citation is very ambiguous. It implies that Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the African origins of E1b1b, and this is clearly not the case. There is no reason to keep the quote ambiguous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The quote does not imply that Ellen Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the origins of E1b1b in Africa. This is a nonsensical argument that was already raised before and thoroughly debunked. As SOPHIAN has shown, the quote actually plainly states that "citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". There is nothing amibiguous about that. Wapondaponda: I'm afraid no amount of gaming the system on your part (your new strategy after badmouthing the author as a "whiner" didn't work out) will eliminate the quote. It's high time you gave your POV a rest. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The quote does imply doubts about E1b1b being African in origin, because "African in origin" is one of the most obvious meanings of the term "African" which the quote says would be a WRONG word to use. I repeat: there is no need to keep ambiguity. So why is this a problem to fix??? Of course many people think that the ambiguity you always try to get into this article always goes in one direction - precisely because you WANT to imply something which was not in the original text. The new version made no changes in substance, so why do you have a problem with it unless you want that confusion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand and what you didn't understand back then either is that you can't analyze the statement for readers. You have repeatedly shown that you have literally no clue what Coffman-Levy means. Take your latest "intepretation":
"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example,Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".
All the section of highlighted above (i.e. your "explanation") is pure original research. Nowhere does Coffman-Levy state or even imply anything of the sort. You want to know what she means by that quote? Again, refer to this section, where all your concerns have already been thoroughly addressed (and via direct quotes from the author herself). Lastly, in our previous discussion from months ago when Coffman-Levy dropped by, I asked her the following, among other things:
"However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"" Please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written."
To which, again, she responded that my post above "restated argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Please let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. It's getting very annoying, and several other editors have already indicated to you the importance of the passage. Kindly stop tampering with it. Causteau (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You are as usual insisting on writing about me and you and not about the text of the Misplaced Pages article. I have not altered the content of the paragraph, nor removed it. I have only tried to make sure that there is no ambiguity. Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages, and even if she did it would not matter, because this discussion right now is only about the English being used to cite her, as is the tiny snippet you quote from our discussion. I repeat my question: if you truly want the article to say clearly that E1b1b originated in Africa, then why do you want to insert an ambiguous which says it is wrong to call it African? Such a remark can clearly mean to any English speaker that E1b1b does NOT have African origins. You know very well that we get frequent editors visiting this article who rightly object to the wording I've replaced. Why do you want to make it sound like there is some doubt about the African origin of E1b1b? So often you argue for confusing English! Always in section concerning something to do with African or Asian origins. And funnily enough you always want to make African origins unclear, never Asian. Why would that be? Your editing is certainly much more POV than Wapondaponda's. BTW to imply that adding describing Ellen's article as comment as being about a modern ethnic identity is OR. For goodness sake look at the title of that article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it is interesting to re-read the summary you cite which you made about what you supposedly think Ellen meant, and that she called eloquent. Funnily enough, it is very close to what I have said on many occasions about this passage, even though when I have said it, you dispute it! It is very funny. The key question is what is meant by African, and why it would be wrong. Have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I overreacted a little, but looking at your comments above, it's clear I wasn't the only one. Yes, I realize that you were just trying to explain the quote as best you could. But in doing so, you completely missed its essence since it has already been demonstrated that you didn't really understand the quote to begin with. You write above that "Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages". That is absurd. Of course she did. You and I were involved in a dispute, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what was trying to convey": mine, not yours. I don't mean to sound snotty, but those are the facts. You suggest that this quote is "ambiguous", yet I didn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the quote -- only you did. But curiously, you now apparently believe that you understand the quote well enough to interpret it for readers? Does that make any sense??? The "frequent editors to the page who rightly object to the quote" that you allude to are yourself, an anonymous IP from months back when the quote in question used to flank a statement indicating that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" (which it no longer does, and which was what he originally objected to), and a blocked serial sockpuppeteer. You call that company? Have a look at the article's recent history, and you'll see that there is plenty of support for Ellen's quote & in its unadulterated form -- not against it. The latter distinction, once again, actually falls on just you. You can try and affix the "POV" tag on me, but it won't stick just like it didn't stick last time you accused me of wanting "to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects", only to have the author herself say that my analysis you ridiculed actually perfectly captured what it is she was trying to convey -- not yours. I'm not going to indulge this nonsense any longer. Let me demonstrate exactly how completely off-base your edit is (which, as I've already pointed out, is also all original research). Here's what you wrote:
"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"."
Here's what Coffman-Levy actually writes:
"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
And here's the direct paraphrase of her quote that you replaced with your OR:
"Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media."
It doesn't take a genius to see that, unlike the direct paraphrase you replaced with your edit, you are adding something to the article which Ellen in fact does not mean. For starters, you attempt to limit Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole! Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African", not the genetic diversity of non-Africans that carry it. That's an astonishingly audacious understatement. Again, here is what Ellen actually means:
"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."
From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
Your original argument regarding so-called "ambiguity" in the quote revolved around the notion that it immediately prefaced the aforementioned statement on ISOGG & the Genographic Project which indicated that E3b may have originated in the Near/Middle East ("To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East."). Now that you fought tooth and nail to have those sources removed and that they are indeed long gone, you effectively have no argument and on this front either. And none of the forgoing of course changes the fact that your latest edit is OR & completely misses the point, to put it mildly. Causteau (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here, for reference, is Causteau's own summary of what he thinks can be non-controversially said about what Coffman-Levy specifically means by saying that E1b1b should not always be called African:
From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
So we see that what she means can be defined in an uncontroversial way according to Causteau himself, because everything in this "eloquent" summary is quite similar to wording I have tried over a long time to insert into the Misplaced Pages article. For example saying that Ellen's point had to do with some sub-clades was something Causteau has specifically disallowed, even though it appears in his own summary, and in Coffman-Levy's article. (Causteau argued that it was irrelevant because a few paragraphs away from the passage he wants cited!). This seems a particularly tendentious and argumentative approach. How can Causteau say both that it is obvious how the term is being used, and then accuse people who he basically agrees with of OR for trying to explain this in the Misplaced Pages article? The basic theme of Causteau's defense of the present wording of this passage is one he uses quite often and is extremely tendentious: the passage has been discussed before and it uses some direct quotes, therefore any attempt to improve it should be reverted. While Causteau allows himself the luxury of being able to use such circular arguments there is a problem, because this passage is being kept deliberately vague and ambiguous, so that it implies things which it most certainly should not be implying.
So that's what you're reduced to again, I see? Third person narratives & personal attacks? I don't blame you seeing as how my post above is pretty damn incriminating. Say what you will, you haven't refuted a thing; you haven't demonstrated that your "interpretation" isn't OR (how could you?); & that you have, in fact, captured part (nevermind all) of what Coffman-Levy means. All you've done is demonstrate that you're not above falling back on those trusty personal attacks of old when stumped. Causteau (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Coffman-Levy citation: trying one more time to discuss
Yes, let's stop the personal stuff. Let's just look at the passage you want to revert. Please can you restrict your remarks entirely to that? Here it is:
Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".
...and here is the version you are defending...
Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.
...both quotes use the same source material, so obviously just complaining that "sourced material" is being removed is wrong. I see the difference this way:
One of these versions tries to make it clear in what sense the author intended to say that E1b1b should not be called "African", and what sorts of confusions in the media were being described. What this latest attempt also does (in order to achieve the aim of providing more clarity and context) is that it adds an uncontroversial (in my opinion) new remark about E1b1 raises issues in the ways in which genetics and ethnicity sometimes interact, leading into the fact that the Coffman-Levy article as an example of a discussion about genetics and ethnicity of one group. That cited part of the article is about this, and that it refers to other discussion on the internet/ media, is clear.
The other version does not try to address the ambiguity. Indeed it insists on increasing the ambiguity and potential to create false impressions by reverting to an old version which implies that the citation concerns "the media" right now, which is not possible given that the article is several years ago. (See Ellen's own remarks on these talk pages which are all in the past tense.) This potential to mislead is obviously a big problem, even if some readers like you, who wrote it, claim not to see any ambiguity. But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article. Indeed this is the passage you always cite yourself in order to explain how the citation should be understood. You wrote:
From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".
Obviously if this is how you defend the passage, and you argue that it is clear in the original article, then it should be possible to insert something like this into the article itself. Sourcing should not just be on the talk pages! So, let's please develop a passage which inserts soemthing into the Misplaced Pages article and removes ambiguity about why the particular sense of "African" which Coffman-Levy intended, and the particular type of confusion in public discussion which she was concerned about.
I want to make it clear that if we can not do that then the very Misplaced Pages norms you keep repeating require us to remove this entire passage. Just because a series of words was lifted from an article does not mean that they are clear enough to be pasted into Misplaced Pages in any form at all. They have to actually be able to be brought into a format which shows a clear and uncontroversial meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go. I am, however, familiar with the policy that goes:
"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. "
While I commend you for getting back to non-personal stuff (why are you still talking in the third person?), your edit above distorts what Ellen says. Perhaps this indeed wasn't your intention, but that is the net effect. Again, your edit limits Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole. Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African": not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. This has already been explained above with direct quotes, including one from Ellen herself; please stop defending this indefensible edit. Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:
"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "
Instead of rehashing the same old stale arguments of yore & going at it for weeks again, I therefore propose we just go back to our previous arrangement that settled this dispute in the past i.e. the passage that went as follows and which you yourself added way back when:
"Citing Cruciani et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCruciani_et_al.2004 (help), Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005.
I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go.
The problem is that if the discussion is about whether the Misplaced Pages article's summary of an article is written badly, or unclearly, then there is no authority we can appeal to apart from other editors. So to ignore other editors in such discussions is very clearly tendentious editing.
The version as it stands after our tweaks today recovers some of the compromise we had before your round of edits celebrating the blocking of Wapondponda. But I still find this section very dissatisfying for the simple reason that I still think it is being kept deliberately ambiguous.
The current way of citing Ellen's article specifically insists that it is "incorrect" to call E1b1b "African" but obviously any normal usage of English must take account of the fact that "African" will very often, perhaps most often, mean "African in origin". You claim that you do not intend this to be in the article, and yet you resist any efforts to explain exactly what sense of "African" is intended. How can that make sense?
It is very ironic to me that your own summary which you made only on talk pages, shows exactly that it is possible and necessary to spell some things out about the terms used if this passage is to be clear. So why refuse to allow this on the article itself?
In discussion here, you always refer to this summary, and Ellen's agreement, as your defense of versions of this citation which include no such explanatory summary? How weird is that? So we can explain things and agree on the meaning here on the talk page, but not on the article itself?
If you saying that your summary was reading too much into Ellen's article, that is quite odd. Who said that? Surely not you?
Anyway, if it were true that you thought that your own summary contains too much unsourced OR, how can we take you seriously?
Personally, I never found your talk page summary very controversial. To me it does seem that you can understand these types of things from the original article. No one I can think of has disputed this with you. It is very strange that you want to argue BOTH that your summary is just an obvious reading of the article, and that it is OR which we should not be reading into the source. Which is it? You can choose only one of these two options I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If you don't appreciate being on the receiving end of sarcasm, then don't practice it yourself ("But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article.").
I did not propose ignoring other editors. That's a strawman argument & something you have quite literally made up.
What you lament as a "celebration", I call reverting POV changes by a blocked user.
No offense, but we aren't here to "satisfy" any one editor's wishes. There's a lot about this article that I tooo wouldn't mind changing for my own personal "satisfaction", but WP:NPOV just doesn't work that way.
Like I told you at least fifty other times over the past few months & literally just finished telling you minutes ago above, we can't add original analyses into the article because that is original research. Please start showing more respect for this important policy.
Great. Another strawman. I did not say that my talk page explanation was "OR which we should not be reading into the source". You did. Here is what I did write: Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:
"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "
Causteau, that was not sarcasm. Please come back to the subject again?
If your summary is unsourced, and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then this clearly means that you do not think it is obvious enough to put in a Misplaced Pages article? Obviously if it can not itself be put in Misplaced Pages, then this applies doubly to anything which is based upon your reading of the Coffman-Levy article (as per the summary). And yet in all discussion over many months, when called upon to explain why the citation is not ambiguous and misleading, you have cited your summary and said that the obviousness of the material in this summary makes it no problem to include citation as it stands with no further clarification. That is a key part of your argument for not allowing anyone to clarify the wording. Let's put it this way:
The accusation is that the wording in the Misplaced Pages article is ambiguous and misleading.
Your consistent response is to say that the Misplaced Pages citation needs no help, because the snippet taken from the cited article as per the summary that you cite, or any similar ones, none of which are that different from anything I have said.
But then when asked if we can put such obvious explanation into the Misplaced Pages article, you get very strict and suddenly claim that the summary you are making is not an obvious reading at all, and should not be included in Misplaced Pages.
And yet you continue to want it both ways. You want the citation which you can only defend on the basis of the un-usable summary being obvious, to remain unchanged.
We have two options. You can only pick one:-
1. If the summary of your reading is unsourced and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then the whole citation as it currently stands is unsourced and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, and needing original research just to interpret it. That means we need to remove it.
2. If the summary describes an obvious reading of a well-informed reader, something which your fellow editors seem not to be disputing, then there is no such problem. But this also means that there is no problem tweaking the wording on the basis of what we all think the original article meant, in order to remove all possible accusations that this citation is ambiguous and misleading.
What are you on about? Did I not just clearly tell you that my analysis is what Ellen meant in that quote? Did Ellen herself not say it perfectly captured what it is she was trying to communicate? And now you insinuate that I think my summary is not "obvious enough"???? Your little mind games are leave much to be desired. Look, I'm not going to add that analysis for the same reason that I wouldn't add any original analysis placed here: it hasn't been published by a reliable source (Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source). Do I have to explain to you again Wiki policies? How many times must I requote WP:NOR until you finally get it?
"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "
If it's not published, it's OR -- get it? You're trying to pressure me into accepting original research into the article, but it simply won't happen. Only you find that quote ambiguous; the other recent editors have indicated with their own edits that they believe the quote to be valuable as it is. And with the statement that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" which used to flank the Coffman-Levy quote long gone, you effectively have no real argument left (repetition & strawmen arguments don't count). Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think you do not understand what case I am making, or you are trying hard not to show any understanding. I am not pushing for anything at all to be included. The simplest answer if it is OR is that we have to remove this paragraph. In summary, your various statements are effectively stating that the citation in the article is OR, because you are saying it would not be possible for us to agree on what the words in the direct quote means, at least in any form which we can include in Misplaced Pages. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In effect you have created an absurd pair of diametrically opposed extreme definitions of what good sourcing practice is - for the existing citation, all that is necessary is that snippet of direct quote, no matter what amount of controversial twisting of the meaning it entails. But for a text which is agreed by everyone to be more clear, no amount direct quoting will do. Here is a caricature of the discussion just trying to make this clear to you how the discussion appears to be for me...
AL: This looks ambiguous and misleading.
C: No it's not, because anyone can see that it REALLY means...X.
AL: Oh, that sounds clear, and that's also how I read the original article, so why don't we use words like those?
C: We can't use those words which you find more clear, because that would be unsourced interpretation and original research. Your opinion about what is clear is not important anyway.
AL: But didn't you say it was just a clear summary of the original article, and isn't that all we want? Isn't that also what the present paragraph is supposed to be? We can still use similar sets of direct quotes etc.
C: Of course it is a clear summary of the source being cited, but the exact selection of words being used is unsourced original research.
AL: This implies that you think no clear agreement is possible about how to summarize the original article, so we should drop this reference. If clear and agreed-upon wording would be original research, then the controversial, misleading and ambiguous version, which introduces implications that were not in the original article, is far more of a problem, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes Andrew, you've already make it clear in our previous encounter over this same issue that you ultimately wished to get rid of the quote altogether. But let me save you some trouble this time around and state things plainly: the quote isn't going anywhere. The demonstrated consensus is to keep it. As a reliable source, WP:VER also ensures its inclusion, even if you don't think what it states is "true":
"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Above, you've invented some technicality wherein its permissible to remove sourced material that's a direct quote from a reliable scholarly journal under the pretext that one user (i.e. you) believes it is ambiguous. We both know no such policy exists. I've already demonstrated above that that "ambiguous" tag does not hold water in this case either. Your "dilute or delete" ultimatum, I'm afraid, is a no go. Causteau (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is entirely up to you Causteau. We need to clarify the ambiguous wording or remove the quote. It was you yourself who came up with the absurd hypocritical logic which says that clarifying wordings are OR. If you insist on that then we must remove it. That's your choice. I have no bias one way or the other. My position is very consistent. BTW how do you get to always call your own opinions a consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Andrew, you have neither the policies nor the consensus to back up such a unilateral decision. I asked you to quote for me the passage in Wiki's rulebook that justifies such a removal and of course you have avoided doing so because no such policy exists. You're also well aware that most recent editors to this page actually value the quote in its present form which is why they have fought for its inclusion. This leaves you yet again on the wrong end of consensus (not my "own opinion", I'm afraid; stop projecting!). Causteau (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no such strict rulebook. Stop wikilawyering. I can edit Misplaced Pages just like you can.
your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.
Guess what? There is no big secret. You are right. Trying to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin is indeed what I have consistently said would be wrong, because the article states that E1b1b originated in Africa. What is strange is that in discussion on this talkpage, for example when you summarized what Ellen really meant and Ellen and I agreed with that wording, you have consistently insisted that the quote does not imply that E1b1b has a non African origin. The case is closed as far as I am concerned. You have argued this (anyone can check) only since I showed you long age that Ellen's article takes the normal line in the literature and says it has an East African origin. Your true intention is now clear. I'll delete this paragraph but if you can find a better way to cite Ellen's article I'd be happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't back up a bloody thing. I exposed your lies above like I have many, many times before and typically on your own talk page. Take the latest haplogroup M1 debacle on the Genetic History of Europe article. That's just a drop in the bucket. When I came to you in that revert war with that blocked user, I asked you specifically to intervene -- that's the very term I used. I can't say I'm surprised you'd attempt to pervert it into something else though given your record with the truth and all. And look at you still whining about the Coffman-Levy quote; still smarting about not having been able to sway the author to your way of thinking like you had undoubtedly been hoping to do when she first showed up; still disappointed that the quote means exactly what you wish it didn't. "True colors"? Newsflash: my analysis=Ellen's view per her own comments. Love it or hate it, those are the facts. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ellen agreed to a summary you made. You refuse to allow the citation to say what that summary said because you want it to say something else. Ellen never disagreed with anything I said, and your summary was in conflict with the edit your defend, and all the arguments you had with me. I'll move a copy of this to the E1b1b article also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was not trying "to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin", you disgraceful opportunist. What I meant to say was that the quote also discusses E1b1b in a non-African context, which is something you have already demonstrated terrifies you. That statement I made was after a long typically pointless discussion with you defending sources from your pathological need to remove them if they assert anything other then your preferred African origin -- just like you attempted right now, only to have your edit rightly reverted, and twice (1, 2). It's your POV that's getting the best of you, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is what you reveal as your true understanding of this discussion...
your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.
As I asked already many times, if your summary of Ellen's argument, that she and I agreed with, proves that you are not trying to imply that E1b1b does not have an African origin, then why do you refuse to allow the wording in the article to be cleared up? See the posting you just tried to delete. No one is arguing for more or less sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Because doing so is a) unnecessary, b) original research, c) something you have already proven yourself incapable of successfully doing in our previous discussion since its already been demonstrated that you don't even really understand what the quote means to begin with, and d) inserting OR as you are proposing is a slippery slope that can only lead to more instances of people asking for exceptions to include OR in the article. Bad idea. Also, you can keep trying to make a meal out of my verbal slip-up, but if you leveled with yourself for a minute you'd know that we had been discussing the Asian origins of haplogroup DE for hours at that point and it was a simple mental mix-up. Causteau (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to point out that if I "prefer" that the article says that E1b1b originated in Africa this is also what Causteau has claimed to prefer many times. Of course he has had to says this because this is what all the literature says. There is not even a fringe that says otherwise. To the extent that it "terrifies" me that people would slip another theory into the article, the word is an exaggeration, but it is abhorrent to see Misplaced Pages used to push for something like this. Causteau should supposedly also be worried about it, but the above outburst let's the cat out of the bag. He has clearly always seen this as a war of inches to try to get his wording in despite what the literature in this field says. Fellow editors might like to check User:Causteau's and User:SOPHIAN's talkpages for signs that they share an agenda which does not have sticking to the mainstream as its highest goal. We'll soon see again. After their tag team efforts to revert my recent deletion of this paragraph, I have included a new version which gives more direct quotation than the previous one. Will it be reverted despite the cries of horror that I deleted "sourced material"? Will careful edits insist on making it ambiguous? In the meantime Causteau has tried for a second time to censor my quotation of him here on this talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Push what, Andrew? Are you calling Ellen Coffman-Levy herself a POV-pusher? And you do understand that she described my analysis of her post as "precisely what was trying to convey", don't you? How am I then harboring some "sinister" view when the author of the study herself admitted that my analysis of her quote was indeed what she was implying? Your grasping for straws dude. Instead of just admitting that your edits are OR additions to the Coffman-Levy quote, you demonize the editors who have refused to allow you to insert it into the article. You write that I hooked up with SOPHIAN to gang up on you or whatever, but actually, I very casually solicited his input on his talk page regarding this discussion since he himself has in the past edited this article and was involved in a dispute over this same issue. You know this, yet why do you pretend otherwise? As for "censoring" information, what actually happened was that you copy and pasted select portions of a rather heated conversation we were having on the haplogroup DE article's talk page onto this talk page's completely separate, unrelated conversation. On the haplogroup DE talk page, you wrote a nasty edit (the one dated 18:10, 22 June 2009) to which I naturally responded in kind (my post dated 18:37, 22 June 2009), but you then opportunistically only quoted on this talk page my response to your unprovoked personal attack as well as a deceptively "angelic" follow up to that on your part to try and make yourself appear as innocent as possible. And when I tried to expose what you were doing on this talk page, you reverted that edit of mine as well! All in all, that was very low and uncalled for. We have successfully resolved disagreements through discussion many times in the past (particularly the recent past), yet you still felt you had to resort to these underhanded tactics? Not cool. Causteau (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As you know, Ellen never disagreed with me on anything on these talkpages, and the big agreement she had with you was concerning a summary paraphrase which you made that actually looks like the kind of thing I'd been proposing. In other words she agreed with precisely what you keep fighting to keep out of the Misplaced Pages article. Please stop calling whatever you've pushed for a "consensus", and please stop trying to invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it. It is an enormous distraction from discussion of the content. The controversy is about the wording you've been pushing on the E1b1b article. Talk about that? My concerns and the concerns of others are clear and easy to fix, and as discussed many times we do not need to use your summary because they can be installed by looking at more than one or two sentences in the article being quoted itself. (Concerning your stance that sourced material should never be removed it is interesting to note that you have repeatedly refused to let me quote from the detailed section of the cited article concerning E1b1b. You want everything centred on a vague introductory sentence which implies by a strange bit of wording that implies E1b1b might not be African in origin.) A simple fix can remove all doubts about the quote. You don't want to deliberately create doubts do you?. Concerning SOPHIAN, nearly all edits I've seen that new editor make have been quick reverts, without discussion, in favour of text originally fought for by you. I also had a vandalism accusation posted by SOPHIAN for trying to change this citation! Whatever your relationship should be described as, the effect on Misplaced Pages editing is not positive, and that is the simple fact of the matter. However the reason I referred to your talkpages was specifically concerning the agenda you share, which is to look for articles where African origins of anything at all can be questioned. If you are always taking the same side, then you are not being neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That is a bald-faced lie. Ellen at no point ever disagreed with me on anything; quite the opposite, actually. Not only that, I hereby dare you to post a quote from her where you believe she did! We both know you never could cause she didn't. The truth is, you and I were involved in a dispute regarding the aforementioned quote by Ellen Coffman-Levy, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what was trying to convey": mine, not yours. You also write that I "pushed" something or other. Actually, the past 48 hours have been the story of you relentlessly attempting to replace a direct quote from Ellen Coffman-Levy with original research that attempts to dilute the potency and significance of her quote. This has already been amply demonstrated by me in post after post in this talk page's two penultimate sections. You have a very nasty habit of misrepresenting what other people write, and especially when you believe them to be too far away from a computer to correct you. For example, you write that I "invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it". I've already debunked above your many previous attempts at misrepresenting what I have actually written. But this time, I'm not going to do that; you're going to have to prove your baseless accusations with actual evidence in the way of direct quotes. If you fail in producing this (which you will), we will have no other option than to conclude that you are yet again manipulating the facts to suit your ends. You write that the controversy surrounding the Coffman-Levy quote "is about the wording been pushing on the E1b1b article". Another untruth. I haven't been "pushing" anything, and the "controversy", as you so disingenuously put it, is over two things: 1) Your addition of original research to the Coffman-Levy quote (1, 2, 3), which you have tried to make me believe only helps "explain" it, but in reality, is a rather transparent attempt by you to rob the quote of its potency, since it does, after all, indicate that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". 2) Your repeated attempts at removing the quote altogether. In fact, you even gave me an ultimatum, basically threatening me to either allow you to insert OR into the text, or that you would remove the quote altogether (your posts dated 11:38, 22 June 2009 & 17:57, 22 June 2009)! And since I of course refused your offer to add OR & rejected your threat to remove the quote -- quoting the appropriate WP:NOR and WP:VER policies to you along the way --- you opted to go it along and just remove the quotes altogether (1, 2) When SOPHIAN reverted you (1, 2), he was right to do so because you had no business removing that reliable source, and you know it. You also contradict yourself when you indicate that SOPHIAN reverting your edits contitutes supporting "my" version of the quote, but in the next breath you insist that there is no consensus on the matter. Make up your mind already! Fact is, you've been trying to remove that Coffman-Levy quote since the day I first added it months ago, and strictly because it discusses E3b in a non-African context, which is something you vehemently oppose for some reason. But of course, in your head, that opposition doesn't constitute a POV, but "neutrality". Please. Hxseek, Alun, etc.: those are neutral editors -- not you. Causteau (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Coffman-Levy continued again
Once again I need to start new sections in order to edit. I expect Causteau will accuse me again of doing this for some special tactical reason, but it is only a technical limitation. I remind him pre-emptively of WP:AGF.
Dear Causteau, please stop going off subject?? The opening sentence of your last post above is so misleading and comic-book-lawyeresque as to be comical. I did not say Ellen disagreed with you, so your outrage is unconvincing. I said she only ever commented upon your summaries on the talkpage which you made for her. But these summaries are very different from what you've been pushing on the Misplaced Pages article itself, which is that you've wanted to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa. This is something you originally argued for more openly, going to great lengths to say that Ellen herself wanted to express such doubts (15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)). In fact her point about the use of the word African was very specific and needed explanation, which she gives in her own article. One of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph! You only changed your tune (on these talk pages, not in editing the article) after I went through a lot of effort, including inviting Ellen to come and discuss things here. However the fact of the matter is that you did not take the opportunity to discuss the text you actually want in the article, but rather asked her to confirm a summary of her article which is actually the opposite of what you want in the Misplaced Pages article. So can you now pleas15:17, 29 October 2008 e stick to writing about the pros and cons of different versions of the text for the Misplaced Pages article itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."
As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph". That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against). In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)). That's why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?). Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":
"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."
Here's what was written. Andrew: "It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet." Causteau: "No... it's Coffman-Levy's view. And you've really lost it this time. Per WP:PA"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph".
Here what's was written: Causteau: "You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). ... However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b." Andrew: "Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what?" Causteau: "Coffmany-Levy's discussion of the controversy surrounding E3b is not "spread over a few paragraphs". It is discussed in only one paragraph, which I've already quoted for you above."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against).
Can you please name, for the first time ever, which original research I am inserting. Not every change of wording in a quotation changes the meaning of a sentence. You claim my edit is not needed, because the old word meant the same thing, so how can I be inserting original research? You can have the cake and eat it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).
When you've been in edit wars with other extremists you've often called for my intervention and showed you see me as neutral. You've certainly described nothing non-neutral? Is it non-neutral to disagree with someone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?).
So tell everyone in a clear way, for the first time, how I have changed the meaning the passage?? If the passage did not previously question E1b1b's African origins, and it still doens't, then no problem right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.
The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again).
I did indeed remove it! Thank you for finally coming back to the subject of the wording. The practical disagreement between us is indeed that you want to insist on saying that E1b1b "is often incorrectly described as African". And I and other editors say you either remove that part or we take the whole passage out because in normal English usage, "haplogroup X is incorrectly described as African" would NORMALLY mean "haplogroup X did not originate in Africa". So these are the words that say that E1b1b might not have African origins. Why do you insist on those particular words, and show no interest in other ones, direct quote or not? See the discussion between you and User:SOPHIAN on your talkpages. This is part of your pursuit of trying to question any African origins theory wherever they appear in Misplaced Pages articles, irrespective of what mainstream literature really says. If this is not the case and I have somehow misunderstood then sorry but of course there should then be no problem accepting a wording change, because you and I and Ellen all supposedly agree that anyone who reads her article in context will agree that it is not intended to question the African origin of E1b1b. So the English language is what sets the rules here, because the English language tells us the current words would normally be read to mean something we apparently agree they do not mean. Before you start posting pages of Misplaced Pages rules, please note that we do not need to directly quote wording ambiguities from original sources, if the meaning is clear enough in context. (Even in the citation of this passage, you've had no problem with you or other editors reducing or changing what words are directly quoted, in order to make meaning clear.) And concerning this particular passage, you have now insisted many times that you do accept that there should be no implication that E1b1b is not African in origin. So you should be able to accept the wording changes being requested now for so long. If not, why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you've chopped up my post again, just like the good 'ol days. But would you believe it, there it is back again in its entirety right above your post. Just like magic. But who exactly are these "other editors" you speak of that wish to see Ellen Coffman-Levy's statement that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" gone as badly as you do? Cause all I see above is the one same editor who has been trying very hard to get rid of that quote in its entirety from the moment it was first added to the article. And that's in addition to every single source that asserts anything other than an African origin for haplogroup E1b1b, a haplogroup which you have already admitted to belonging to. Above, you disingenously "thank" me for what you describe as "finally coming back to the subject of the wording" ("wording" was never what the dispute was about, but meaning), yet can't help yourself from again bringing up my talk page discussion with SOPHIAN that, besides not even concerning you (see WP:Wikistalking), dealt with Out of Africa (an article I've actually never even edited) -- not E1b1b. Moving on, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with the rubbish you've written above. It has to do with two things that you are simulataneously omitting in not including it:
The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):
"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."
E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:
"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."
Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.
E1b1b is more a Mediterranean Middle-easterner&north African haplotype than African one.
Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.
So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)
Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.
Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.
For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.
So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.
Well if nothing else, I see that there certainly is ambiguity and misunderstanding out there concerning E1b1b, which of course means that the Misplaced Pages article should avoid creating any extra confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll go through what I can follow, but honestly I think you could have written more carefully and clearly...
Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.
I don't think that African mean "sub-Saharan" even if some people mistakenly mix their words up this way. Misplaced Pages needs to use standard English geographical terms, and really everyone should. This raises the question of whether E1b1b really is not sub-Saharan and I have to say this is also not clear. There are some quite significant pockets of it all the way down to South Africa, and one of the biggest concentrations of all is in Ethiopia and Somalia. Some may argue that the Horn of Africa is not sub-Saharan, but I think this is debatable, and indeed this raises a question of how clear the term "sub-Saharan" is.
So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)
Every assertion in this paragraph is wrong unfortunately.
No article has ever been published arguing that E-M35 originated in the Middle East, and the idea that it might have goes back to days when it seemed to be part of haplogroup D. The distribution is also not particularly heavy in the Middle East at all compared to nearby parts of Africa such as Somalia and the Western Sahara.
Greece is not Middle Eastern, and certainly Albania and Macedonia aren't either.
Once again please note normal definitions. In casual and unclear speech some people do include parts of Africa in the Middle East, but this is not the standard we must follow on Misplaced Pages.
There is significant E1b1b in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.
Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.
Sure. I think the article currently does not rely on any such strong links being assumed, and is fairly careful about that sort of thing? But it is hard to write an article if we can't use ANY geographical or cultural terms?
For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.
You would save people a lot of effort if you wrote more carefully. Can you explain how the Sahara seperates Eastern Africa from "the remnant" - by which I understand that you mean sub-saharan Africa???
So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.
Sure, but which ones exactly? I am sure everyone can agree that we should take them into consideration, but that does not yet define what we should do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference Chandrasekar2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005) A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33. From pp.22-23: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005) A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33. From pp.22-23: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
Talk:Haplogroup E-M215: Difference between revisions
Add topic
.jpg)
