This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Haplogroup R1a article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Haplogroup R1a, or haplogroup R-M420, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup" - is misleading, because R1a also can exist as mtDNA. To avoid these frequent misunderstandings, we genereally should set "Y-" before "Haplogroup" and even the Name itselve. HJJHolm ( talk) 09:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan removed list of notable carriers. Did the same at R1b. Here he gave no explanations, there he said "undue trivia". Lists of "notables" are accepted and widespread in Wikipedia. If stuff has sources why removing list? 151.38.149.52 ( talk) 11:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
After getting some much needed rest, I now feel prepared to start the gradual process of sorting out what the studies in this article say about R1a origins, as well as clearing out the unreliable sources (such as blogs or tweets) in the article and general tidying.
I would also like to acknowledge my mis-characterization of the studies on 21:16 16 July 2023. I implied with this comment that most of the studies say the haplogroup originated in West Asia. As I will show below by compiling quotes from all of the studies, that was incorrect. I also hinted that we should specify that Wells (2001) was talking about R1a1, when the article already does. These errors might reflect my insufficent sleeing patterns and general laziness; at least that is what I am hoping for.
I will create sub-sections below tallying the studies for their proposed geographical origin of R1a.
I will start this section off by saying is that there is a problematic statement in the "R1a origins" section that reads:
The ancient DNA record has shown the first R1a during the Mesolithic in Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (from Eastern Europe),[5][6] and the earliest case of R* among Upper Paleolithic Ancient North Eurasians,[7] from which the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers predominantly derive their ancestry.[8]
Haak, et al. (2015) (
[6]) do mention the mesolithic R1a individual from Karelia, who they describe as the "oldest known" R1a specimen found to date, but not "the first". And yet they also acknowledge that the modern R1a was brought to Europe from the East and that Karelia did not belong to the derived lineage M417 within R1a
.
These statements, while interesting and notable, don't explicitly support an Eastern European origin. They just note that mesolithic hunter gatherers had R1a and that a Karelian HG is the oldest sample of R1a yet identifed. Saag, et al. (2016) also suggest that it may have been a common haplogroup among EHG.
There is seemingly one citation in the body that does directly support an Eastern European origin: Semino, et al. (2000), who do say on page 1156:
... haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19 as signaatures of expansions from isolated population nuclei in the Iberian peninsula and the present
Ukraine, following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). In fact, during this glacial period (20,000 to 13,000 years ago), human groups
were forced to vacate Central Europe, with the exception of a refuge in the northern Balkans (16). Similar discrete patterns of the flora and fauna in Europe have been attributed to glaciation-modulated isolation followed by dispersal from climatic sanctuaries (18). This scenario is also supported by the finding that the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 is
found in Ukraine (19).
This beings my tally of studies supporting an Eastern European origin for haplogroup R1a to a grand total of 1. If anyone has more studies that support an Eastern European origin of R1a, go ahead and cite them, but until then I see no rationale for listing it as the first (and therefore, most supported, according to convention) location in the infobox. - Hunan201p ( talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
|Possible place of origin=
parameter" before some newb editor replaced it with various regions . I wouldn't have a problem if we revert back to it and/or use some arrangement like this → "[[Haplogroup_R1a#Origins|see here]]" for the parameter. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
12:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)@ Plumeater2: "South Asia is the preferred terminology. Pinging Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark for input. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert diff, edit-summary
It doesn't explain the relationship between older TMRCA datings and high populations, nor can we accept an opinion piece from a newspaper without any academic study supporting such extraordinary genetic claims.
and this revert diff, edit-summary
Blatant POV pushing using an opinion piece. Discrediting all the studies mentioned before it. If anyone else wants to investigate the sources they are free to do it. Thsi is my last revert.
Tony Joseph refers to recent research, qouting dr. Richards, co-author of "“A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals,” who rejects the idea that Indian R1a is very diverse. Anyone with even superficial knowledge of DNA-research knows that this research confirms the introduction of Indo-European related R1a into India around 2000 BCE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the highest frequencies and most diversity of R1a in South Asia, along with the oldest TMRCA datings
, the research you cherish is outdated, and rejected by more recent research, such as Underhill et al. (2015) and Narasimhan et al. (2019), conducted with much better methods. Regarding biased indian newspapers
, what you call 'an opinion piece' was published in the science-section of The Hindu. That Hindu nationalists have problems with appreciating scientific insights does not mean that their opponnts are suffering from the same deficiency.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest”. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” available in the internet, do we have a link? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
According to Martin P. Richards, co-author of Silva et al. (2017), the prevalence of R1a in India was "very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India."[19][note 2]" - should be removed.
offering proof that R1a arrived in India with multiple waves of migration, including Iranian hunter-gatherers and the Indo-Aryans." - don't see any of the sources associating this hg with Iranian HGs. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Haplogroup R1a article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Haplogroup R1a, or haplogroup R-M420, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup" - is misleading, because R1a also can exist as mtDNA. To avoid these frequent misunderstandings, we genereally should set "Y-" before "Haplogroup" and even the Name itselve. HJJHolm ( talk) 09:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan removed list of notable carriers. Did the same at R1b. Here he gave no explanations, there he said "undue trivia". Lists of "notables" are accepted and widespread in Wikipedia. If stuff has sources why removing list? 151.38.149.52 ( talk) 11:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
After getting some much needed rest, I now feel prepared to start the gradual process of sorting out what the studies in this article say about R1a origins, as well as clearing out the unreliable sources (such as blogs or tweets) in the article and general tidying.
I would also like to acknowledge my mis-characterization of the studies on 21:16 16 July 2023. I implied with this comment that most of the studies say the haplogroup originated in West Asia. As I will show below by compiling quotes from all of the studies, that was incorrect. I also hinted that we should specify that Wells (2001) was talking about R1a1, when the article already does. These errors might reflect my insufficent sleeing patterns and general laziness; at least that is what I am hoping for.
I will create sub-sections below tallying the studies for their proposed geographical origin of R1a.
I will start this section off by saying is that there is a problematic statement in the "R1a origins" section that reads:
The ancient DNA record has shown the first R1a during the Mesolithic in Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (from Eastern Europe),[5][6] and the earliest case of R* among Upper Paleolithic Ancient North Eurasians,[7] from which the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers predominantly derive their ancestry.[8]
Haak, et al. (2015) (
[6]) do mention the mesolithic R1a individual from Karelia, who they describe as the "oldest known" R1a specimen found to date, but not "the first". And yet they also acknowledge that the modern R1a was brought to Europe from the East and that Karelia did not belong to the derived lineage M417 within R1a
.
These statements, while interesting and notable, don't explicitly support an Eastern European origin. They just note that mesolithic hunter gatherers had R1a and that a Karelian HG is the oldest sample of R1a yet identifed. Saag, et al. (2016) also suggest that it may have been a common haplogroup among EHG.
There is seemingly one citation in the body that does directly support an Eastern European origin: Semino, et al. (2000), who do say on page 1156:
... haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19 as signaatures of expansions from isolated population nuclei in the Iberian peninsula and the present
Ukraine, following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). In fact, during this glacial period (20,000 to 13,000 years ago), human groups
were forced to vacate Central Europe, with the exception of a refuge in the northern Balkans (16). Similar discrete patterns of the flora and fauna in Europe have been attributed to glaciation-modulated isolation followed by dispersal from climatic sanctuaries (18). This scenario is also supported by the finding that the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 is
found in Ukraine (19).
This beings my tally of studies supporting an Eastern European origin for haplogroup R1a to a grand total of 1. If anyone has more studies that support an Eastern European origin of R1a, go ahead and cite them, but until then I see no rationale for listing it as the first (and therefore, most supported, according to convention) location in the infobox. - Hunan201p ( talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
|Possible place of origin=
parameter" before some newb editor replaced it with various regions . I wouldn't have a problem if we revert back to it and/or use some arrangement like this → "[[Haplogroup_R1a#Origins|see here]]" for the parameter. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
12:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)@ Plumeater2: "South Asia is the preferred terminology. Pinging Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark for input. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert diff, edit-summary
It doesn't explain the relationship between older TMRCA datings and high populations, nor can we accept an opinion piece from a newspaper without any academic study supporting such extraordinary genetic claims.
and this revert diff, edit-summary
Blatant POV pushing using an opinion piece. Discrediting all the studies mentioned before it. If anyone else wants to investigate the sources they are free to do it. Thsi is my last revert.
Tony Joseph refers to recent research, qouting dr. Richards, co-author of "“A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals,” who rejects the idea that Indian R1a is very diverse. Anyone with even superficial knowledge of DNA-research knows that this research confirms the introduction of Indo-European related R1a into India around 2000 BCE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the highest frequencies and most diversity of R1a in South Asia, along with the oldest TMRCA datings
, the research you cherish is outdated, and rejected by more recent research, such as Underhill et al. (2015) and Narasimhan et al. (2019), conducted with much better methods. Regarding biased indian newspapers
, what you call 'an opinion piece' was published in the science-section of The Hindu. That Hindu nationalists have problems with appreciating scientific insights does not mean that their opponnts are suffering from the same deficiency.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest”. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” available in the internet, do we have a link? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
According to Martin P. Richards, co-author of Silva et al. (2017), the prevalence of R1a in India was "very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India."[19][note 2]" - should be removed.
offering proof that R1a arrived in India with multiple waves of migration, including Iranian hunter-gatherers and the Indo-Aryans." - don't see any of the sources associating this hg with Iranian HGs. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)