===Central Asia=== There are big differences in R1a frequency between populations in Central Asia. Exceptionally high frequencies of M17 are found among the [[Ishkashimi]] (68%), the [[Tajik people|Tajik]] population of [[Khujand|Khojant]] (64%), and the [[Kyrgyz]] (63%), but are likely "due to drift, as these populations are less diverse, and are characterized by relatively small numbers of individuals living in isolated mountain valleys."<ref name=Wells2001/> (The frequency of the Tajik/Dushanbe population is, at 19%, far lower than the 64% frequency of the Tajik/Khojant population.)<ref name=Wells2001>{{Harvcoltxt|Wells et al.|2001}}</ref> Haplogroup R1a is also common among [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]]- and [[Turkic languages|Turkic]]-speaking populations of [[Northwestern China]], such as the [[Bonan]], [[Dongxiang people|Dongxiang]], [[Salar]], and [[Uyghur people|Uyghur]] peoples.<ref name=Wang2003>{{Harvcoltxt|Wang et al.|2003}}</ref><ref name=Zhou2007>{{Harvcoltxt|Zhou et al.|2007}}</ref> [[File:Distribution Haplogroup R1a Y-DNA.svg|left|300px|thumb|Haplogroup R1a distribution <ref>[[Kalevi Wiik]], ''Where did European Men Come From ?'', Journal of Genetic Genealogy 4:35-85, 2008</ref>]] {{Harvcoltxt|Wells et al.|2001}} note that Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among [[Altaic]] speakers R1a1-M17 haplotypes. {{cquote|Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement.}}
This section needs help.
NorthEast Asia was merged into Central Asia and Northeast Asia, the anecdotal comment about Costa Rica was removed. There were a substantial numbers of turkic people amoung the leadership of the moors, I know of hispanics who can trace their ancestry back to turkic peoples, so . . . PB666 yap 17:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While I applaud efforts to elucidate this piece, one needs to keep in mind that its intended audience is the general public. Such sentences as "The phylogenetic analyses indicate a high degree of population admixture and a greater genetic proximity for the studied population groups when compared with other world populations" are beyond the reach of the average audience. This piece needs to be edited to conform with normal everyday English usage, and the thicket of verbiage needs to be pruned. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Moving on to the origins section next, if anyone feels that my edits are too overwhelming please feel free to condense. PB666 yap 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone have this? http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2009194a.html (I do not.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Marker M434 has a low frequency and a late origin in West Asia bearing witness to recent gene flow over the Arabian Sea. Conversely, marker M458 has a significant frequency in Europe, exceeding 30% in its core area in Eastern Europe and comprising up to 70% of all M17 chromosomes present there. The diversity and frequency profiles of M458 suggest its origin during the early Holocene and a subsequent expansion likely related to a number of prehistoric cultural developments in the region.
Hi all,
Hate to be a stickler on the details and what not but does the Kurgan hypo. map need to be in here? Hate constatnly pointing things like this out but it clutters up the body of the article in a very unappealing fashion, isn't a genetic map but rather archaeological, and seems to add undue weight to the hypo. since no other maps for other hypo's are in the body of the text. Need feedback essentially as to why it needs to be here as it is presented already in the Kurgan Hypo. article where it has its most relevance and really belongs. Best.
Geog1 ( talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Right yeah...I was thinking about making a map that shows the kurgan hypothesis in relationship to recent Ancient DNA findings but then I'd have to do a map for every section but since no other archaeological theory has been espoused for Out of India or anywhere else leading into Europe I'm afraid that such an endeavor is really pointless. Graphics are good but the best way to represent them and how they fit into the scope of the article is always most challenging.
Maybe a comprehensive theory map is most appropriate showing R1a being spread originally from multiple locations. I think this would resolve our cartographic origins dilemma. 71.179.199.39 ( talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Like I said before I haven't read Underhill 2009 but hopefully will get around to it. I'm not really interested in making a chloropleth/frequency map as much as I'd like to make a multiple origins map. That said here's a cartographic to do list:
1) Multiple Origins Map
2) New Frequency Map
Anyone else have any other mapping suggestions? Geog1 ( talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I propose we should delete the Haplotypes and Popular Science sections. Certainly the way they stand now is not acceptable, so if anyone wants these to stay please do something about them quickly. They have been in a sorry state, with tags, for a long time.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Eastern European and Central Asian origin theories can essentially be reduced to 1 sentence under the major heading "Origins", with its references. That will leave the South and West Asian origin Theory and hypothesis, respectively. The whole section on the Kurgan hypothesis and image is obsolete, if it needs to be mentioned lets reduce it to a note.
I have added more space of the cladogram, I understand there is one more subclade that needs to be added on an existing peripheral clade, I will add it on monday or so. PB666 yap 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I should remind everyone that the very popular anthropologist have gotten alot of traction out of these theories, however the goal of the encyclopedia is not to serve the career of molecular pundits, but produce an encyclopedic page based on the weighed information on hand. I cannot repeat this enough that even as R1 is one of the most covered Y chromosomal types, so many more types are missing discerning mutations, and yet pundits have a great variety of theories with these things. We are not here to propogate theories or promote points of view based on bad data. PB666 yap 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This comment is specifically for Andrew. Read the paper carefully, they are claiming that the origin in in Western India approximately 17,000 years ago. That is close to the end of the LGM; There are seven clades branching off of a single type. This represents a major expansion in a relatively short period of time, otherwise we would see short branching clades. This may be due to some missing SNPs, however at 7 I find that unlikely that a large number of tiers can be created. Consequently we must assume that this is an expansion. The question they stipulate becomes when, and so the mode in which they calibrated the mutation rate is everything to the argument.
To keep this short, read the mitochondrial Eve page, particular the section on comparison to Y chromosome. There is a claim that Y is evolving at 55% of the commonly stated rate based on chimpanzee sperm evolution. Others are claiming the recent mutations are pruned from the population. An expansion date of 17,000 years ago could become 31,000 years ago, entry dates of the M458 at 7000 years ago could become entry dates that approximate the end of the Younger Dryas.
There is cultural evidence of the spread of culture from the East, from eastern black sea region into Central Europe during the epipaleolithic early mesolithic period, this was deemed to be a seasonal migratory culture. Some authors have argue that the Neolithic spread on preexisting mesolithic transmigration routes. IOW, we can present their data, but lets not lock the page into a new set of 'theorization' errors. PB666 yap 23:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The most distantly related R1a chromosomes, that is, both R1a* and R1a1* (inset, Figure 1), have been detected at low
frequency in Europe, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Caucasus and Iran14,41 (Supplementary Table S1). The highest STR diversity of
R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes are observed outside Europe, in particular in South Asia (Figure 1, Supplementary Table S4), but given the lack of informative SNP markers the ultimate source area of haplogroup R1a dispersals remains yet to be refined.
With each of these scenarios there is no real explanation why the sharp cline exists from west central India to south India although the second (short chronology) is most compatible. Why East-Central Iranian levels are so low, etc?
I think it is clear now that the M458 migrated in response to earlier events, for all intents and purposes it erases the most of the current theories. I have a problem with the very low information regarding M1a* and M1a1*. These categories of mutations also identify places of origin, if they are spread loosely about all over the place, it lowers the certainty of their conclusions. PB666 yap 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Question/discussion point:
How did the Haak study demonstrate that R1a spread during or with CWC? The strontium isotope analysis suggested the males were local inhabitants and I can't recall any genetic analysis that proved it spread during or with the horizon. Geog1 ( talk) 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
CWC is still the way the Anglo archaeological world abbreviates Corded Ware Horizon (or "culture"). But don't get me started on the whole persistent archaeological horizons/persistent frontier debate in archaeology and its usefulness.
As for the study in question Haak did indeed identify R1a as the lineage extracted from the analysis among the males. So the Haak reference is fine and should be there but there is another reference next to the Haak ([22] I believe) that I don't think has any relevance to the debate. The real issue is whether or not Haak actually said R1a spread with CWC which I know from reading the article he did not.
The only article that I know of that claims R1a spread with CWC is Dupuy 2006 and this was based on modern population samples.
I think that statement in the article needs to change as its still up in the air whether or not R1a made it further west during or before the Neolithic. Geog1 ( talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
The Underhill et al 2009 (U2009) suggests that R1a1a7 (M458) may have spread with LKB or expanded with CWC culture. They imply but have not directly tested the 3 male skeletal remains at Eulau, Germany are likely R1a1a7.
U2009 dates the expansion to 7.9 Ka. The LKB expansion begins in earnest as a prototypic culture at around 8.5 Ka, by 8.2 Ka IIRC it had a presence in the Iron gourges region, by 7.5 Ka it was present within the Loess belt. Some cattle culture had reached England by 7.1 Ka, and there is evidence of cultural admixing within the paris basin previous. In spite of evidence supporting in-situ cultural evolution, the HLA suggests some contributions to Germany and Chech regions specifically from populations to the East. Recent evidence for mtDNA suggests that there was cultural replacement as a consequence of LKB cultural expansion.
The problem is getting R1a1a7 into the Iron gorges region. The cattle for this culture appear to have been of Thessalonian stock, the wheat varieties appear to have been of Anatolian/Balkan stock, so there in lies one of the problems with that theory.
I have to disagree with these authors on one point, there appears to have been alot of genetic replacement within Poland, possibly due to the effects of the Hunnic invasion of the 4th to 5th century AD. I think that while they can establish R1a1a7 earlier types found in Scandinavia but not found to any degree in Ireland and at low levels in England are more than likely of more recent migrations. I would not attribute Polands Y chromosome to ancient migrations if other theories might explain these Y.
My reasoning is this the Irish and Scandinavians share many common HLA haplotypes, these are deemed the Ancestral Haplotypes of likely Canto-Iberian origin, In addition there is a cross gradient of Asian haplotypes that declines from about 25% in Swedes to about 5% in Ireland and has nothing to do with India or any known or historic migration, it tends to align with cultural evidence of East Asian like cultures (Tibet, Yakuts, Koreans, Japanese, Orochon, etc) hunting at the boundaries of glacial retreat around the pliestocene holocene boundary. While Ireland has had more recent influences from Eastern Atlantic cultures on the Western boundary, Scandinavia shows somewhat more recent influences from the SE. Poland in particular has a large number of haplotypes that are inconsistent with western, northern or central European origin and set them apart from any other European group, these haplotypes might be more consistent with Greek, Bulgar, Romanian, Anatolian, Caucasus, or other external origin, there is no specific origin within any typed people and these haplotypes could be of an untyped group within the Russian republic or within a subgroup within Eastern Europe. Has anyone bothered to type the Zoroastrian communities, yet? PB666 yap 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Good converstion but I think we need more ancient DNA studies like Keyser et al. 2009 to shed more light on the subject here. I remain skeptical as to the validity that modern population studies make for macro-level demographic changes during a specific archaeological horizon.
Haak's 2005 study was particularly good for supporting the "Paleolithic Survial" theory in that most Europeans were descended from indigenous groups during the LBK though 25% of ancient specimens sampled were from mtDNA haplogroups that could be reasonably be regarded as Near Eastern. So some genetic contribution was given to Europe from the Near East that corresponded with the spread of agriculture. Again this becomes most clear from the methodology used. Regardless I'll check out Underhill to hear what the study says. Geog1 ( talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I was merely stating my opinion on the current state of research Andrew. And really the way the modern population sample studies are done is not enough to effectively prove anyone theory or stance. As a result of trying to cram every bit of modern population studies into articles like this withought any proper attention to Ancient DNA findings we constantly get endless revisions and an article that never has a well established body which is more of the point for an encyclopedic entry. Therefore a degree of skepticism or disgression is justly due rather than dumping in, and I must be brutally honest, the same old garbage. There was even a NY times article that interviewed members of the genetic community and it said that these modern population studies for genetics are no sure fire way to prove time, depth, or spread. The Haak study from 2005 (not the one from 2008) was the one I was referring to in regards to LBK and demographic change and continuance. I suggest you read it if you havn't already. Geog1 ( talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I think what is too speculative is the notion that you can base what is a paleolithic vs. what is a mesolithic vs. what is a neolithic gene on modern population samples. So my problem for the past few years has been the generaly methodology used as a result to make such claims. Other problems that abound regard marrying some of these hypothetical migrations/spreads to archaeological horizons or even paleolithic "techno-complexes". Take for instance the whole Late Glacial stance for R1a. Its actually been fairly traditional among those who specialize in eastern European late paleolithic archaeology to view the situation as stadial without any firm archaeological evidence from any refugium where in long distance expansion/migration from west to east or even east to west was occuring (see Hoffecker 2002). Likewise there is no archaeological evidence for a migration Out of India and into Russia, Ukraine, and then Scandinavia during the various phases of the Paleolithic. Their is no ancient Y-chromosome data from Kostenki, Khavalynsk, Sredny Stog, or Yamna archaeological cultural blocs to confirm a particularly early date for R1a on the Pontic Caspian steppes and likewise none from India which is the only way I believe one could really effectively date these lineages (or at least begin to). Essentially hard evidence is missing from all this and again its really more of the methodology used over the years which I have a problem with. It should be noted that this problem is obviously not relegated simply to R1a but also R1b, J, and countless other haplogroups. At this point there isn't really much we can do except sit back and wait for more Ancient DNA studies to come out. Hope this makes more sense now where I am coming from. However I am not saying that we should censor the modern population studies...I just in all do honesty feel they are not that useful in pinpointing origins and establishing migration patterns for some areas though obviously Y-chromosome haplogroup Q's spatial distribution illuminates the crossing of Beringia and a significant peopling of America. Geog1 ( talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Inetersting. Yeah it seems like every once in a while there's an approach used like "coalescence theory", microsatellite diversity and what not to try and pinpoint a temporal date but none of these methods seem concrete. I'm unaware of the Zhivitovsky method but will have to read more on that so thanks for the heads up on that one. Also in relation to the problems of archaeological horizons and marrying the modern population genetic data to them, Pdeitker brings up an interesting point regarding the spread of certain cattle associated with LBK in that such breeds strengthen a south to north "agro. wave of advance" and would invite greater possibility for near Easterns to have accompanied such movement or migration. Archaeologists usually speak of LBK as stemming from the "Danubian" sphere alluding to more southern farming groups and thus would have spread along the river. Connections are sometimes linked to Starcevo Cris horizon again strengthening the view that LBK, Lengyel, and Rossen archaeological groups would have in turned resulted from southern farming influence in Europe. Therefore, the spatial distribution of R1a would in essesnce not correspond with it spreading via the LBK horizon all that well. So I would agree with what Pdeitker is essentially alluding to. However who knows for sure if the prehistoric record always can clearly illuminate migration or directional influence or if it masks it in some cases. So many problems and not enough seemingly good data. Geog1 ( talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I think that this has been a good conversation. Thanks everyone for sharing your views. Just to verify though in relation to what the title of this section was about: Haak simply discovered R1a among CWC males. Underwood said it may have expanded during the LBK or CWC using his own methodology. Dupuy is currently the only one that I know of who said the lineage spread with CWC based on modern population samples. Kasperaviciute (2004) is the only study that I know that discusses R1a arriving in the Baltic area during the time of the CWC as a possibility based on modern population samples.
So this statement: "The discovery demonstrated the spread of R1a with Corded Ware culture into Central Europe."...is it technically correct? Geog1 ( talk) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Ok I made a minor change then. Glad we could talk this out. Geog1 ( talk) 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Sorry I present a bit of original research, but Andrew brought up the issue of calibration and their technique brings up issues all by itself, STR clocking is highly subject to lineage specific rate variances (evident in their stated confidence interval). To test which of these is likely correct I counted all the SNPs between the Y seqMRCA and R1a1a7 as 52 mutations. In agreement with White et al 2009, I set the CHLCA for humans and chimps, aged, at 8 Ma this reset Soares mtDNA TMRCA at 236,000 years ago. I set the Y TMRCA as the time of L0k-L0d/mt-else (Khoisan/East African) split at 169,000 years using the above long chronology (Soares et al. 138 kya for L0k/L0k split * 8/6.5, liberally high estimate of Y chromosome MRCA, this will make all Y values high, but not as high as Soares or Gonders estimate of the mtDNA TMRCA, and allows for a lower male population size prior to expansion). For example with this chronology L3 expands 100 ka with an effectively larger population leaving a constrict period of 135 ka, with Ne Y 1/2 of mtDNA that would be 65 Ka + 100 Ka or 165 Ka, consistent with gender estimates.
These are the dates for various mutations that I came up with:
Again these timings come from someone very critical of Y-chromosomal molecular clock and who strongly favors a long chronology, and one should imply great variances. The mutation counts are very similar to those I obtained from the E1b1b1a1a1-seqMRCA distance. Even with that strong favoritism I cannot approach the aged timing of Underhill for Indian M1a1a diversity.
On face value I would argue that Andrew is correct, however does this hold up to scrutiny of various issues in the technique.
If we argue that CT is about the same time as first Y leaving Africa, then Y left Africa 134,000 years ago that would place the exodus about 30,000 years before the expansion of L3 mtDNA lineage using the same anchors. There are two possible explanations: Many missing mutations in the basal Y clades or the Y TMRCA is much more recent. If one packs the basal branches with mutations then 52 increases and the mutation rate increase and if one sets the Y TMRCA more recent then also the mutation rate is faster. Increased mutation rates means decreased times between branch points: t = 1 / f .
OTOH there could be a number of missing mutations in the R1a1a subclade which make the dates much older, however given the above. In this circumstance they would have to be hopeful that cryptic basal mutations or lower TMRCAs would be compensated for a much higher relative number of mutations found in the peripheral clades in order for their early dating to hold up. Generally I find this plausible, but specifically I would warn against an 'If and If argument' when both premises are unknown and when one relies on two specific premises to be true for ones argument to also be true, particular in this case when there has been much more study of peripheral clades than inter-comparisons between basal clades. Therefore with critique of potential errors it seems likely that Andrew is correct. We have to be very judicious with our wording on the main page:
I recommend a rewritten Origins section:
1. Using this paper to pair down the various regional origin hypotheses. Both the Central/East European and Central Asian origin can be eliminated (However one might mention the Northern Caucasus and Hindu-Kush as two possibilities) while mentioning these two in passing.
2. Since no R1a* or R1a1* has been found in India yet, but a center of diversity exists on the Iranian/Armenian border region for R1a basal clades and since the center of diversity in about the East Indus region supports at least an early entry of the R1a1 clade, I think we can effectively limit the points of origin from the Northern Caucasus to Anatolia to S.Iran and the E. Indus river in a single section. While explaining the limitations in the sampling (only 117 R1a typed in India for example). E.g. South or West Asian origin hypothesis. I think the problems can be described as being under a single umbrella, a single section.
3. If anyone has published critiqued of their clocking method then we can present their U2009 approach and also the critique and suggest other expansion chronologies, I had a paper about 2 years back that criticized STR clocking, however I am not sure where it is now. If we cannot find a current critique of the method then we have to be very careful about how chronology is discussed otherwise the article takes on non-NPOV. PB666 yap 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Secretly Cardenas2008 created the main for this page. I have edited this new page, and moved all the discussions regarding this topic to the appropriate talk page. Also copied origins section from this main to that main, editing for R1a --> R1a1a changes where appropriate, I am sure I did not do it perfectly, Andrew and Marmaduke so please feel free to correct and balance.
In addition I completely rewrote the Origin section to reflect the 2009 understanding, since these previous studies were talking about R1a, that remains here and that page discusses R1a1a which is relatively new, all origin theories were eliminated and the discussion focuses on what is gleemed from Underhill et al. 2009.
Now we have two articles to bring up to B-class. I will redo the phylogenetics this evening to reflect and link to that new page.
Cheers PB666 yap 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to hear what others think, but I am not really sure I can agree with either of the following:-
I believe each article should make sense on its own, and as much as possible so should each talk page. There might come a day when R-SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2 and R-M17/R/M198 need to be discussed separately but I believe we have not reached it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(UTC)
If it is such an emotional obstacle to split now, then revert the page back to where it was, however Wikipedia does not allow for content forks or page duplication. What this means is that the R1a1a pages that was created must be blanked and redirected to R1a. And frankly I spent alot of time of the cladograms, and creating a single comprehensive clade for R1a now is not going to look encyclopedic nor attractive, and I would probably leave it split along the lines that these two currently exist. I really think Andrew should read through both pages, particularly the old version of the R1a page and consider heavily that the origins section was not divided very logically, there was not clear delineation of the discussion of R1a and R1a1 or R1a1a, these are three different and well separated nodes. I have waited for almost a month for the R1a page particularly the origin section to be improved, it has not moved along a direction toward becoming more encyclopedia. Just old sets of contrasting facts replaced with a combination of new and old hard to follow facts. I do appreciate the work Andrew has put into this, however its time we moved this along and get it up to stuff, there has been far too much discussion on this talk page for this article to remain a start class, there are many other pages in the project that need work.
In response to Andrews suggestion; Articles should make sense on their own, I would point out Andrew that the ISOGG 2009 created the problem, a situation that needs to be solved, Underhill adds to the problem within 9 new defining mutations. The problem existed is a natural situation that needs to be explained, simply because the complexity is difficult for you to deal with during this breif transitory period does not mean the page is more or less coherant it will be less coherant unless you begin organizing it along the branch structure from the lowest to the highest branch. I find mixing the discussion of R1a and R1a1 and R1a1a origin in a single page the most incoherant situation. In contrast to the R1b page that has a cohesive population structure (more or less unimodal) R1a has a multi-tier multi-modal structure.
The highest tier is R1a1a7 which is spread in a given direction across Europe, and R1a1a6 is spread across the Arabian Gulf. The next Highest tier is spread from Iceland to China to S. India and into Arabia. The R1a1*(xR1a1a) tier is spread from Greece to Scandinavia to Kashmir to North central India, to Oman and Back to Greece. There appear to be two modes also in this structure, one in NC India and Another between Iran and the Caucasus. The lowest tier (xR1a1) is spread about Southwest Asia. In discussing all of these relationships on one page one has to be careful not to confuse or mix up the discussion. PB666 yap 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
just a coulpe of notes here I thought I would share.. frequencies of Underhill(2009) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2009194x4.pdf
also sharma (2009) study with posted here also discusses R1a*, R1a1* and R1a1a (R1a1a1), R1a1b (R1a1a2), and R1a1c (R1a1a3):
"However, there is a scanty representation of Y-haplogroup R1a1 subgroups in the literature as well as in this study. The known subgroups (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c), which are defined by binary markers M56, M157 or M87, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1), were not observed. In such a situation, it is likely that this haplogroup (R1a1*) is a polyphyletic (or paraphyletic) group of Y-lineages. It is,therefore, very important to discover novel Y chromosomal binary marker(s) for defining monophyletic subhaplogroup(s) belonging to Y-R1a1* with a higher resolution to confirm the present conclusion."
hope this helps you guys in anyway. thanks! HonestopL 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666, there is no emotional issue, and this is not a content issue as such. Your edits created two articles which are both garbled. You seem to think it is normal to allow articles to become unusable while you play with them and try to find what you are looking for, but this is not true, and this was an extreme case. You mentioned yourself that you should have tried working on a draft somewhere. The problem with this particular proposal for splitting, which you proposed on this talkpage (you ignored the responses), is that as you have mentioned yourself, it is difficult to find discussions which make anything but side remarks concerning the clades within R1a. All discussion we can cite mixes discussion about the broader defined R1a with the more narrow but dominating M17/M198. If you have a way to split things up neatly you certainly have not shown it with your recent edits! Blaming ISOGG or Underhill et al for publishing new information, and confusing you, or blaming Cadenas2008 for making the original article you used to move material to, is a bit unrealistic.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A few responses on particular points made above:-
Replying to Andrew and taking into consideration what HonestopL has stated. I want to be brief as to not dilute the point.
This process has gone on to long for the small amount of construction that has taken place. I have no vested interest in any origin theory, simply stated I reject placing speculation and belief as origin. R1b and R1a, as these are the only two R1 subclades, along with the placement of R1a basal branches has everything to do with R1as origin. The fact that Andrew still does not get this is problematic.
The flaws in the R1a have been obvious for quite some time and to many people. The problems have not gone corrected, IMHO. As long as there is destructive speculation marching around as theory this page will never achieve a B-class rating according to criteria (copy of which is also on my user page).
As HonestopL has stated, more descriminating mutations of R1a* and R1a1* are needed, the fact that these have not been discriminated has created bias within those involved in the current discussion. Since R1a1a* has at least three potent subclades and a cogent and encyclopedic discussion can be had, and because this process on this page has gone on for so long, I am setting a concise deadline, if by Saturday, the problems that I have stated about the origins section have not been cleaned up to at least a C-class standard, I will exercise my solution and revert the R1a1a page back to my last edit and work on an improved version in my sandbox. The last version is better than the one Cardenas2008 dropped their on the 23rd. There is an inevitability about the indistinction in the literature Andrew mentioned will be clarified. That is the way evolutionary biology works and for me and that is not and should not be an issue, the article mistated factual points.
Saturday. PB666 yap 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
*R1a1* (old R1a*) SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2 positive, but M17 and/or M198 negative. 1/51 in Norway, 3/305 in Sweden, 1/57 Greek Macedonians, 1/150 Iranians, 2/734 Ethnic Armenians, 1/141 Kabardians. Sharma et al. (2009) also found 13/57 people tested from the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh, and 2/51 amongst Kashmir Pandits.
however for the R1a, a whole slew of factual inaccuracies need to be dealt with, including the treatment of Central and West Asian origins as a Theory. Why argue with me about this, fix the page, I told you, I think the most constructive means of fixing the origin section is to split the page. If you have a better solution WP:SOFIXIT, and if you can't it means you don't have a solution in mind. I have not set a dealine, what I am doing is giving you guys an opportunity to correct long held problems with the page, you have all the info that you need, it should already be done. Both of you guys should read the A and B-class guidelines, follow the examples of B-class pages in the MCBR project and make some tough decisions about what is worthy of being kept and what needs to go. Enough discussion, spend your time improving the article. PB666 yap 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666 has now placed comments within the text, eccentric as usual, but I will try take this as a chance for discussion!
I have been trying to understand the concerns, and I see one thing that keeps repeating: Pdeitiker is concerned that all discussion (age estimates, migration theories etc) should explain which PART of the R1a clade was being discussed in any particular article. I do of course understand this concern, but with all due respect I think this is totally ignoring the challenge that reality confronts us with on this subject, which is by the way not all that difficult...
It is my belief that we can avoid most misunderstanding simply by adding the odd extra word to remove any vagueness. I've been trying to do so this evening, but have not completed the task. Do others think this is a worthwhile effort?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The meter on the blogosphere and Wikipedia always goes off the charts when there is a publication about European male history. No such excitement occurs when publications concerning female mitochondrial DNA lineages are published. Much worse for Non-European lineages. A case of WP:BIAS, I suppose. However, R1a is an important haplogroup, at least concerning prehistory, and who wouldn't be obsessed with their own genetic history. Nonetheless this obsession is what causes some of these disputes. Within a few days there were over 140 comments on Dienekes blog concerning the Underhill publication, which is unusually high, most of it is bloggers talking past each other, almost everyone was an expert. I don't have a stake in this haplogroup so I could be of some use here. Wapondaponda ( talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Andrew Lancaster writes: This section was posted but not signed by P Deitiker (PB666). As there is no consistent signing, or indentation, and indeed he likes to keep re-editing his remarks, it is very difficult to break down and respond to. So I am going to try quotation boxes like this. I hope it works. For the time being whatever is not in such a box is written by PB666.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Not correct. One of the papers is from 2009, and has Underhill as a co-author (so they would have been aware of the other paper which we are looking at which came out a little later. Sticking to the old papers here, the comment which you made while editing, that the data in the old papers have been superseded, is also not correct. They based their argument on frequencies, Central Asia being between the two high frequency areas of today, and also containing high frequency areas. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using geometry to help guess where a clade originated. People were not migrating by matter transporter, and there is no surefire way to guess place of origin, only imperfect hints.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Therefore the conclusion is that R1a1a evolved in Central Asia. Good thinking, completely wrong and out of step with molecular phylogenetics, but who needs that, we are talking about the Y.
User:Andrew Lancaster writes: Here is what the authors wrote (emphasis added): "Network age estimations from this study suggest that two separate groups exist within R1a1 with similar ages for populations found at the western (Serbia 17.3±5.4) and eastern (South Pakistan 18.7±4.7) poles of the expansion. These results along with time estimates for several other populations across Europe and Asia support the findings by Sengupta et al18 regarding the central Asian origins of the mutation. NETWORK projections also support an Asian origin to this haplogroup, given the plethora of STR haplotypes present in these groups versus those found in European populations (Figure 4a)." FWIW my take on this is that it is a bit like your opinion mentioned below, that we can not distinguish South Asian and West Asian origins. These authors are also saying that we can not really distinguish Central Asian from South Asian either? In any case their words are quite clear, and the summary I proposed for the article is not "vague" but also quite short and clear. The article is also not a "fringe" article by any means. How can we ignore it? You remark about no basal haplotypes is not very convincing because both these authors and readers who know the subject would know that R-M173* haplotypes are fairly widespread, and not yet widely types for M420. Furthermore basal haplotypes are extremely rare in pretty much all places - just singletons and small local clusters - so it is not as if there is a strong case to be made for one part of Asia against another so far.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Sheer speculation does not belong in Wikipedia, if god says it, it still does not belong in Wikipedia unless its part of a biography on god. PB666 yap 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
{{Quotation|[[User:Andrew Lancaster writes: And when there is disagreement which Wikipedian gets to say whether god is right or wrong? I am taking it that you see yourself as fit for this task? Obviously Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this matter. We do not get to judge in this way, for better or worse.|-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)}}
I will repeat the whole passage found in the Discussion (i.e. speculation) part of the paper. First lets go through the results that support the discussion: "It is readily observed that the diversity of Asian haplotypes is far greater than that found in the European population". Last month yes, today no. The Central European and proximal Eastern Europeans have the highest level of SNP diversity of any R1a1a bearing group, M458 diversity stop at the Ural Mountain. By SNP diverisity, Poland is more diverse than any other place for R1a1a and The Persian Gulf is the most diverse with regard to the broader clade. So it is not observed any more. In addition both R1a1a* and R1a1* is found scattered about Europe, in the North, in the Caucasus, in Greece and In Turkey. STR diversity is greater in Southern Asia, however here are the 95% confidence intervals for Northern India and Southern Pakistan: 2.1 to 58.7 Ka and 0.4 to 53 Ka. Not real confident.
"There are several clades exclusive to Asia groups; however, the same is not true for Europeans." False, M458 is specific to Europeans so is M334. The microsatellite distributions are especially interesting in Turkey (the only Anatolian group included), given the plethora of haplotypes present in the population." Variance = .298, for serbia .295. This is pretty much the results they draw on to make the following 'discussion'. Point making statements in argument from ignorance as many of the papers cited in the main page do, future proves generally wrong, exactly as the above.
Alternatively, Sengupta et al [2006] and Wells et al [2001] have proposed that the haplogroup originated in Northwestern India and in the Central Asia steppes [both places, at once, a rare homoplastic Y mutation (actually 7 homoplastic mutations but who is counting)], respectively, given the wide variety of R1a1 Y-STR haplotypes throughout the areas.[..talk about age estimates we all agree are useless.....].These results along with time estimates for several other populations across Europe and Asia support the finding of Sengupta et al regarding the central[Sic] Asian origins of the mutation.
Note STR based dates for central Asia are ~10 kya compared to ~18 kya for India, Pakistan, Serbia and Turkey.
Now I am not so great in English, however isn't central supposed to be capitalize if the meaning is Central Asia, and lower case if it means central, for example core, or constitutive. Was this double talk (note the vaque template at the end of the sentence on the Main page, put there for a reason)? PB666 yap 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Shall we move to the next section . . . . . . . . . . . One last thing. From Underhill et al. "Also noteworthy is the drop of R1a1a* diversity away from the Indus Valley toward central Asia (krygystan 5.6 KYA) and the Altai reigon (8.1 KYA)." Clearly, Underhill does not believe R1a1a originated in Central Asia.
Andrew Lancaster replies: nevertheless he signed his name on a paper which mentioned that the data is at least consistent with such a possibility. (He is a co-author of the Mirabal paper also.) BTW I certainly agree that no author is strongly fighting for Central Asia versus South Asia. If you think the article is saying this then we should tweak the wording to de-emphasize it.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
First off, there is no R1a* (xSYR1532.2) so the question is should we be talking about R1a origins, generally, when basal diversity is outside of Europe? If R1b or R1* showed a increasing presence and diversity in Eastern Europe, there is the possible use of the Carpathian Ice Age refuge, however Andrew says don't bring R1b into the discussion. Without R1b diversity there is no basis to place basal R1 in Europe and without basal R1 in Europe, it is unlikely it R1a evolved in Europe. Lets see what we have got.
User:Andrew Lancaster replies: Firstly I have not said we should not bring R1b into it, but I have expressed confusion at what your point about R1b is. Secondly, I personally agree that there is currently very little evidence to place basal R1 in Europe, nor basal R1a (M420, or any of the other levels down to M198/M17). Does the current version of the article give another impression?
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"Researchers using this estimation method therefore believe any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a diversity must be specific to certain sub-clades, such as R-M458."
Hmmmm, this is what Underhill stated. ",whereas the R1a1a* diversity declines toward Europe where its maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia, and Crete." This does not discuss the contribution of R458 and R334 diversity. European Ages.
Conservatively Underhill would argue for a Mesolithic origin, and they discuss Neolithic expansion of R1a1a* in central Asia. "Haplogroup R1a1a7-M458 diversity and frequency are highest in River Basins known to be associated with several late and early Neolithic cultures." That would be LBK culture. However as discussed here their moecular clocking technique is prone to excessive variance. So that we adhere to the implication that the Bronze age datings are the latest time R1a1a could have reached Europe. So between the Epipaleolithic and Early Bronze age R1a1a* reached Central Europe (11,200 to 4.6 Ka).
"Researchers using this estimation method therefore believe any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a diversity [R1a1a* diversity] must be specific to certain sub-clades, such as R-M458." Right but the introduction to that is that R1a1a* entered Europe between 11,200 to 4.6 Ka.
Perhaps you are being confused by the "such as M458". The point is that any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a diversity [R1a1a* diversity] must NOT be affecting the whole clade. Do you see what is intended? If the wording is misleading we can work on that. Anyone want to try?
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Bronze Age (Indo Europeans, Indo-Aryans, Kurgans and Horses) I thought we were going to get rid of the Kurgan hypothesis? And now we are discussing horse? What is the evidence for Horse use before the early bronze age? When was the IE expansion supposed to have taken place 4500 KA, R1a1a had already spread into Europe by that time. Spread from Europe to S. Siberia is evidence of Indo-Aryan gene flow?
We have certainly de-emphasized the Kurgan hypothesis, but we can not simply ignore it. We know very well that to totally dismiss it would be to ignore the fact that both new papers use the controversial Zhivitovsky method of dating. Because there are big differences in dating methods which are considered acceptable, we can not just say that the two new papers supersede all previous ideas. The point is that people disagreeing with the method can use the SAME data and come to different conclusions.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Historic era (Slavic languages): Movements within Europe I have no big problem with this section, however the evidence is based upon expansions in Lithuania and Czech republic, however no R1a*2009 or R1a1*2009 has been uncovered in either place, so that any expansion of R1a that we are discussing is more specifically R1a1a*. Otherwise the discussion is Vague. How R1a1* got into Scandinavians is a matter for which we have no information. BTW the period you are discussion is called, properly, the Migration Age or Migration Period. I removed the 'factual Accuracy' tage and replaced with 'vague' sentence tag.
I think this paragraph shows how weak and vague the basis of your very strong sounding proclamations on this subject are. That there are basal paraclades found in Scandinavia is just what we would expect, because there are effectively VERY RARE traces of such basal paraclades all over the range of M17/M198. To try to pretend that we have some sort of distinct frequency or STR variance map for the paraclades outside of M17/M198 is sophistry. We have almost nothing, except that we know they exist. (This by the way implies that modern R1a distribution is principally caused by something more recent than the ancient distribution. This is another reason why we should not ignore more recent millenia like the Bronze Age.)
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with this section except that it is once again vaque in several places and is to be considered factually inaccurate. In my view South Asian and West Asian origin should be combined. Segregating these two sections is like talking apples and oranges.
You are a bit inconsistent aren't you? Concerning Mirabal et al's implication that we can not rule out Central Asia or separate Central Asia from the case for Asia more generally, you think this is not acceptable. But concerning this one, you want to do exactly the same. Here's the Wikipedia policy though: we should say what the published authors say, and not cherry pick based on our personal preferences. You have tagged the section and described it above as factually inaccurate though, which would be something different. However where is it factually inaccurate please?
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A broken clock is correct at least 2wice a day.
I don't give a damn how many posts you make pointing out various 'data' and 'subclades.' Because you don't know how to write a proper sentence in English. You also don't do your homework. You confused a central point in the Underhill paper concerning the Eulau remains. So your language skills are deficient; your science is lacking; and like many doctors and scientists, you hide behind a thicket of verbiage. For all your protestations about the value of ancient y-Dna, you confused the only mention in the Underhill report of a-Dna and got it backwards. My point is this: Your arrogance notwithstanding, you need help conveying your ideas. You also need to tone down your jibberish. Perhaps you're a scientist. That's nice. I know some scientists and I know some geneticists. Take a deep breath, learn to interact with other breathing humans and cooperate in this process. You are becoming the obstruction. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Pdeitker I know you prefer SW Asia as well but are you saying West Asia is a Wikipedia (WP) standard? I'm just not following the whole logic behind the stance. Usually in the field of Geography the Middle East is referred to as South-West Asia rather than West Asia. Even archaeologists who specialize in Middle Eastern archaeology will refer to their area of speciality as "South-West Asian archaeology". West Asia is still rather ambiguous/confusing. Geog1 ( talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I noticed that this article has been nominated -- I'm not quite ready to sign up to review it, but thought I would give my first reaction. It seems to me that the article is not accessible to a broad enough class of readers. It is easily possible that a reader interested in anthropology will come to this article, but such a reader won't be able to make sense of it, and doesn't get any guidance toward the necessary background. The main background needed is to understand the special features of inheritance of the Y chromosome, and what a haplogroup is. Most of the related Wikipedia articles are totally unreadable for non-specialists -- the genetic geneology article is the most helpful, so a pointer to it would be a start. The best thing, though, would be for this article itself to sketch the basic facts that a reader needs to know. Looie496 ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666 has posted notes directly into the text, after I adapted it in many places today, in an attempt to meet his concerns, so now I'll respond to those:-
Cordaux et al. (2004) argued, citing data from Wells et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2000), and Quintana-Murci et al. (2001) that...“Given the high frequency of R-M17 in central Asia (typically 20%–40% [9]), its rarity in west Asia [9, 13] and its absence in east Asia [14], Indian R-M17 Y chromosomes most probably have a central Asian origin [8, 9]. ” This position is also considered likely by Mirabal et al. (2009) after their larger analysis of recent data.[vague]
Cordaux et al. (2004) argued, citing data from Wells et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2000), and Quintana-Murci et al. (2001) that R-M17 Y chromosomes most probably have a central Asian origin. Central Asia is still considered a possible place of origin by Mirabal et al. (2009) after their larger analysis of more recent data. However these authors do not clearly distinguish the case being made for Central Asia for the case being made for Asia, particularly South Asia, more generally.
Do to recent edits on the main page and in concert with the comments I made on 14 October 2009 and 22 October 2009 ( listed here), most of the problems on the main page that prevented this article from being promoted have been satisfied (and I still have a few hairs left on may head to boot). I am promoting this article to C-class, since the two remaining issues are dealing with how to handle the most recent literature. If anyone has any comments that they think would demote the page back to a start class or changes need to promote the article please place the there. I do not want to be seen as 'raising the hoop' Ad libitum. Since these recent criteria have been passed I think the page should be promoted. The attention needed tag has also been removed. Congratulations. PB666 yap 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Other tasks available. WP:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History/to_do. Please take some time to scan the article for grammatical and spelling errors.
“ | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | ” |
The article meets the nine B-Class criteria when:
I do not wish to be negative about your good intentioned and positive efforts to start grading genetics articles, but let's all please be a bit more clear. You have recently been grading these articles yourself, so when you cite the grades, you are just citing yourself. Please make it clear when you are doing so, especially when it concerns articles where you have been editing yourself. Now you are giving rules also but what is the source of these criteria, for example the preference concerning citation method (which oddly seem like your personal preferences)? I note how you have even explicitly pointed to my name. Here is what I see on the appropriate Wikipedia page:- the six B-Class criteria:
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). tags is encouraged.Notice the differences? Who is the source of the changes, and in particular the ones which say "Phil's referencing method is better than Andrew's"? I presume some sections of what you present above as Wikipedia guidelines are actually your personal notes about them? Looking to the Wikipedia guidelines as I have just quoted them, my own opinion is as follows...
I do not demand others to agree with my opinion, but opinions are being called for I take it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For ease of reference, here is the previous discussion PB666 and I (and others) had about how to reference this exact type of article: [5]. Note that this discussion also touched upon the last criterium for quality mentioned above (accessibility), and also note the last sentence of the discussion where I wrote "A hybrid system where different parts of the article work different ways is a poor system". This point was a PRACTICAL point which was very similar to the concerns recently raised by the unilateral article split: making a major edit which PARTIALLY rebuilds the whole structure of an entire article and then demanding other editors to finish off the work, simply does not work in practice. You end up with a mixture of structures. See quality criteria above about structure. In other words, every proposal about an article's basic structure or referencing system should ALWAYS take into account that the structure should be easy to maintain for editors in the future.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Bberri template filler (or as many in WPMed refer to it, a godsend). Where I simply cut the PMID off the Pubmed abstract or search-resluts page, past it into the text box next to [Submit] and click, You have a fully formed ((Cite journal)) reference. This takes about 6 seconds and replaces a couple of minutes of typing. Next I replace ((cite journal | .... in the reference with ation and now you have a citation,if you do nothing more it will work, however if you want it to work with Harvard Referencing templates you will need to modify the name stream._{{Citation and now you have a citation, if you do nothing more it will work, however if you want it to work with Harvard Referencing templates you will need to modify the name stream. Replace the list of authors | author = with |last1 = Doe |First1 = J |last2 = Smith |first2 = J |last3 = Jonese |first3 = B| last4 = Chan |first4= J|. . . . . This is a little work, however I just then cut and past the names into {{Harvtxt|[[last1]]|[[last2]]|[[last3]]|[[last4]]|2009}} and walla, beautiful, complete, accurate Harvard Citation capable citations. I assume you misunderstand what I was saying above and so I am not going to pester you about this anymore. (although I spent several hours trying to figure it out just to see things from your point of view, can this really improve articles). And that is the bottom line, too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing (Master Pi), highly dense use of harvard referencing is not encyclopedic it can be a distraction. I would argue one other thing, linking an article once per section is adequate, multiple linkings increase the size of the article, WP:MOS indicates to limit same Wikilinks to 1 or few per page. Within a section if a person has a Harvtxt link for a paper and one references the author a second time, non-hyperlinked Doe et al.(2015) is fine. PB666 yap 19:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyway that's good enough for me, B-class it is. Lets try to keep it there. PB666 yap 19:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
B-class articles have some reward. Portal:Molecular_Anthropology------> Portal:Molecular_Anthropology/Selected_article (Also hint: This as a lead?) PB666 yap 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I spend an enormous amount of time putting them in already and see it as a job which might otherwise simply would not be done at all. So lets please be a bit realistic.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I will time it for you.
From the beginning of the search until the full reference. 6:01 PM to 6:02:15
{{cite journal |author=Underhill PA, Myres NM, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Zhivotovsky LA, King RJ, Lin AA, Chow CE, Semino O, Battaglia V, Kutuev I, Järve M, Chaubey G, Ayub Q, Mohyuddin A, Mehdi SQ, Sengupta S, Rogaev EI, Khusnutdinova EK, Pshenichnov A, Balanovsky O, Balanovska E, Jeran N, Augustin DH, Baldovic M, Herrera RJ, Thangaraj K, Singh V, Singh L, Majumder P, Rudan P, Primorac D, Villems R, Kivisild T |title=Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a |journal=Eur. J. Hum. Genet. |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=2009 |month=November |pmid=19888303 |doi=10.1038/ejhg.2009.194 |url=}}
6:03:22 to 6:06:10 reformat reference.
Underhill, PA,; Myres, NM; Rootsi, S; Metspalu, M; Zhivotovsky, LA; King, RJ; Lin, AA; Chow, CE (2009), "Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a", Eur. J. Hum. Genet.,
doi:
10.1038/ejhg.2009.194,
PMID
19888303 {{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
6:07:09 to 6:08:07
Underhill et al. (2009)
done. ~5 minutes, filled three different templates.
Now, as you say, I have never added a reference to a 'damn article', how is it that it only takes me a few minutes to come up with a full harvard reference of the latest article and the footnote version? BTW, where did you get that article from.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History/Mt-DNA. Here is an example of a featured article in which I have made major contributions
Coeliac_disease, do you see a single reference that is Doe et al., Cause its going to seem like a damn shame that other Wikiprojects core articles are promoted to feature article status, but we are not able to promote articles beyond a certain level because our foolish pride gets too easily hurt. Stop whining - man up.
PB666
yap
00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A while back we split the article into two sections, BOTH of which go through the full range of geographical regions - first just discussing the distributions and the second concerning origins and migrations theories relevant to those areas. Although this might sound odd, it cleaned up the flow of thought a lot because previously the migration theories had been mixed together in a confusion of raw data and original thinking. NOW, I note that there have been some small edits which are causing the Middle Eastern DISTRIBUTION section to become a bit disorganized. It also means the section is starting to cover migration theories. PB666 just made this remark also so he also noticed it. In the long run we might want to consider reviewing the structure, but only when someone is ready to change it fully and not leave the job half done. Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For the time being my advice is that people should always be careful about pasting in snippets into sentences bit by bit. It makes sentences longer and longer. It is better to look EVERY time at whether the sentences also need to be rearranged in order to avoid them becoming bloated. Always check to make sure how your edits FIT.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A related problem that I see has now developed is that PB666 has forced a whole new phylogeny section into the beginning of the origins section, and then apparently unaware of the irony he has posted a note in the original phylogeny section pointing out that it is redundant! I can see how it is tempting to start an origins section with a phylogeny discussion though, just as I can fully understand why editors want to make sure the interesting case of Iran gets full discussion, and so this problem also raises the question of whether the origins section should be re-merged into the other sections - with this new phylogeny discussion moved to the other, and each migration section merged back into the relevant geographical distribution sections.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Other people trying to follow the discussions about this article will surely find it even more difficult than me, because there are bits and pieces all over the place. Concerning the cladogram question, people trying to follow will need to see this prior discussion, dropped as usual, just before PB666 went into unilateral mode without trying to understand the point... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Pdeitiker&diff=325814200&oldid=325801439 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_Lancaster#Cladogram -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
===Central Asia=== There are big differences in R1a frequency between populations in Central Asia. Exceptionally high frequencies of M17 are found among the [[Ishkashimi]] (68%), the [[Tajik people|Tajik]] population of [[Khujand|Khojant]] (64%), and the [[Kyrgyz]] (63%), but are likely "due to drift, as these populations are less diverse, and are characterized by relatively small numbers of individuals living in isolated mountain valleys."<ref name=Wells2001/> (The frequency of the Tajik/Dushanbe population is, at 19%, far lower than the 64% frequency of the Tajik/Khojant population.)<ref name=Wells2001>{{Harvcoltxt|Wells et al.|2001}}</ref> Haplogroup R1a is also common among [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]]- and [[Turkic languages|Turkic]]-speaking populations of [[Northwestern China]], such as the [[Bonan]], [[Dongxiang people|Dongxiang]], [[Salar]], and [[Uyghur people|Uyghur]] peoples.<ref name=Wang2003>{{Harvcoltxt|Wang et al.|2003}}</ref><ref name=Zhou2007>{{Harvcoltxt|Zhou et al.|2007}}</ref> [[File:Distribution Haplogroup R1a Y-DNA.svg|left|300px|thumb|Haplogroup R1a distribution <ref>[[Kalevi Wiik]], ''Where did European Men Come From ?'', Journal of Genetic Genealogy 4:35-85, 2008</ref>]] {{Harvcoltxt|Wells et al.|2001}} note that Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among [[Altaic]] speakers R1a1-M17 haplotypes. {{cquote|Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement.}}
This section needs help.
NorthEast Asia was merged into Central Asia and Northeast Asia, the anecdotal comment about Costa Rica was removed. There were a substantial numbers of turkic people amoung the leadership of the moors, I know of hispanics who can trace their ancestry back to turkic peoples, so . . . PB666 yap 17:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While I applaud efforts to elucidate this piece, one needs to keep in mind that its intended audience is the general public. Such sentences as "The phylogenetic analyses indicate a high degree of population admixture and a greater genetic proximity for the studied population groups when compared with other world populations" are beyond the reach of the average audience. This piece needs to be edited to conform with normal everyday English usage, and the thicket of verbiage needs to be pruned. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Moving on to the origins section next, if anyone feels that my edits are too overwhelming please feel free to condense. PB666 yap 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone have this? http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2009194a.html (I do not.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Marker M434 has a low frequency and a late origin in West Asia bearing witness to recent gene flow over the Arabian Sea. Conversely, marker M458 has a significant frequency in Europe, exceeding 30% in its core area in Eastern Europe and comprising up to 70% of all M17 chromosomes present there. The diversity and frequency profiles of M458 suggest its origin during the early Holocene and a subsequent expansion likely related to a number of prehistoric cultural developments in the region.
Hi all,
Hate to be a stickler on the details and what not but does the Kurgan hypo. map need to be in here? Hate constatnly pointing things like this out but it clutters up the body of the article in a very unappealing fashion, isn't a genetic map but rather archaeological, and seems to add undue weight to the hypo. since no other maps for other hypo's are in the body of the text. Need feedback essentially as to why it needs to be here as it is presented already in the Kurgan Hypo. article where it has its most relevance and really belongs. Best.
Geog1 ( talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Right yeah...I was thinking about making a map that shows the kurgan hypothesis in relationship to recent Ancient DNA findings but then I'd have to do a map for every section but since no other archaeological theory has been espoused for Out of India or anywhere else leading into Europe I'm afraid that such an endeavor is really pointless. Graphics are good but the best way to represent them and how they fit into the scope of the article is always most challenging.
Maybe a comprehensive theory map is most appropriate showing R1a being spread originally from multiple locations. I think this would resolve our cartographic origins dilemma. 71.179.199.39 ( talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Like I said before I haven't read Underhill 2009 but hopefully will get around to it. I'm not really interested in making a chloropleth/frequency map as much as I'd like to make a multiple origins map. That said here's a cartographic to do list:
1) Multiple Origins Map
2) New Frequency Map
Anyone else have any other mapping suggestions? Geog1 ( talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I propose we should delete the Haplotypes and Popular Science sections. Certainly the way they stand now is not acceptable, so if anyone wants these to stay please do something about them quickly. They have been in a sorry state, with tags, for a long time.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Eastern European and Central Asian origin theories can essentially be reduced to 1 sentence under the major heading "Origins", with its references. That will leave the South and West Asian origin Theory and hypothesis, respectively. The whole section on the Kurgan hypothesis and image is obsolete, if it needs to be mentioned lets reduce it to a note.
I have added more space of the cladogram, I understand there is one more subclade that needs to be added on an existing peripheral clade, I will add it on monday or so. PB666 yap 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I should remind everyone that the very popular anthropologist have gotten alot of traction out of these theories, however the goal of the encyclopedia is not to serve the career of molecular pundits, but produce an encyclopedic page based on the weighed information on hand. I cannot repeat this enough that even as R1 is one of the most covered Y chromosomal types, so many more types are missing discerning mutations, and yet pundits have a great variety of theories with these things. We are not here to propogate theories or promote points of view based on bad data. PB666 yap 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This comment is specifically for Andrew. Read the paper carefully, they are claiming that the origin in in Western India approximately 17,000 years ago. That is close to the end of the LGM; There are seven clades branching off of a single type. This represents a major expansion in a relatively short period of time, otherwise we would see short branching clades. This may be due to some missing SNPs, however at 7 I find that unlikely that a large number of tiers can be created. Consequently we must assume that this is an expansion. The question they stipulate becomes when, and so the mode in which they calibrated the mutation rate is everything to the argument.
To keep this short, read the mitochondrial Eve page, particular the section on comparison to Y chromosome. There is a claim that Y is evolving at 55% of the commonly stated rate based on chimpanzee sperm evolution. Others are claiming the recent mutations are pruned from the population. An expansion date of 17,000 years ago could become 31,000 years ago, entry dates of the M458 at 7000 years ago could become entry dates that approximate the end of the Younger Dryas.
There is cultural evidence of the spread of culture from the East, from eastern black sea region into Central Europe during the epipaleolithic early mesolithic period, this was deemed to be a seasonal migratory culture. Some authors have argue that the Neolithic spread on preexisting mesolithic transmigration routes. IOW, we can present their data, but lets not lock the page into a new set of 'theorization' errors. PB666 yap 23:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The most distantly related R1a chromosomes, that is, both R1a* and R1a1* (inset, Figure 1), have been detected at low
frequency in Europe, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Caucasus and Iran14,41 (Supplementary Table S1). The highest STR diversity of
R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes are observed outside Europe, in particular in South Asia (Figure 1, Supplementary Table S4), but given the lack of informative SNP markers the ultimate source area of haplogroup R1a dispersals remains yet to be refined.
With each of these scenarios there is no real explanation why the sharp cline exists from west central India to south India although the second (short chronology) is most compatible. Why East-Central Iranian levels are so low, etc?
I think it is clear now that the M458 migrated in response to earlier events, for all intents and purposes it erases the most of the current theories. I have a problem with the very low information regarding M1a* and M1a1*. These categories of mutations also identify places of origin, if they are spread loosely about all over the place, it lowers the certainty of their conclusions. PB666 yap 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Question/discussion point:
How did the Haak study demonstrate that R1a spread during or with CWC? The strontium isotope analysis suggested the males were local inhabitants and I can't recall any genetic analysis that proved it spread during or with the horizon. Geog1 ( talk) 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
CWC is still the way the Anglo archaeological world abbreviates Corded Ware Horizon (or "culture"). But don't get me started on the whole persistent archaeological horizons/persistent frontier debate in archaeology and its usefulness.
As for the study in question Haak did indeed identify R1a as the lineage extracted from the analysis among the males. So the Haak reference is fine and should be there but there is another reference next to the Haak ([22] I believe) that I don't think has any relevance to the debate. The real issue is whether or not Haak actually said R1a spread with CWC which I know from reading the article he did not.
The only article that I know of that claims R1a spread with CWC is Dupuy 2006 and this was based on modern population samples.
I think that statement in the article needs to change as its still up in the air whether or not R1a made it further west during or before the Neolithic. Geog1 ( talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
The Underhill et al 2009 (U2009) suggests that R1a1a7 (M458) may have spread with LKB or expanded with CWC culture. They imply but have not directly tested the 3 male skeletal remains at Eulau, Germany are likely R1a1a7.
U2009 dates the expansion to 7.9 Ka. The LKB expansion begins in earnest as a prototypic culture at around 8.5 Ka, by 8.2 Ka IIRC it had a presence in the Iron gourges region, by 7.5 Ka it was present within the Loess belt. Some cattle culture had reached England by 7.1 Ka, and there is evidence of cultural admixing within the paris basin previous. In spite of evidence supporting in-situ cultural evolution, the HLA suggests some contributions to Germany and Chech regions specifically from populations to the East. Recent evidence for mtDNA suggests that there was cultural replacement as a consequence of LKB cultural expansion.
The problem is getting R1a1a7 into the Iron gorges region. The cattle for this culture appear to have been of Thessalonian stock, the wheat varieties appear to have been of Anatolian/Balkan stock, so there in lies one of the problems with that theory.
I have to disagree with these authors on one point, there appears to have been alot of genetic replacement within Poland, possibly due to the effects of the Hunnic invasion of the 4th to 5th century AD. I think that while they can establish R1a1a7 earlier types found in Scandinavia but not found to any degree in Ireland and at low levels in England are more than likely of more recent migrations. I would not attribute Polands Y chromosome to ancient migrations if other theories might explain these Y.
My reasoning is this the Irish and Scandinavians share many common HLA haplotypes, these are deemed the Ancestral Haplotypes of likely Canto-Iberian origin, In addition there is a cross gradient of Asian haplotypes that declines from about 25% in Swedes to about 5% in Ireland and has nothing to do with India or any known or historic migration, it tends to align with cultural evidence of East Asian like cultures (Tibet, Yakuts, Koreans, Japanese, Orochon, etc) hunting at the boundaries of glacial retreat around the pliestocene holocene boundary. While Ireland has had more recent influences from Eastern Atlantic cultures on the Western boundary, Scandinavia shows somewhat more recent influences from the SE. Poland in particular has a large number of haplotypes that are inconsistent with western, northern or central European origin and set them apart from any other European group, these haplotypes might be more consistent with Greek, Bulgar, Romanian, Anatolian, Caucasus, or other external origin, there is no specific origin within any typed people and these haplotypes could be of an untyped group within the Russian republic or within a subgroup within Eastern Europe. Has anyone bothered to type the Zoroastrian communities, yet? PB666 yap 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Good converstion but I think we need more ancient DNA studies like Keyser et al. 2009 to shed more light on the subject here. I remain skeptical as to the validity that modern population studies make for macro-level demographic changes during a specific archaeological horizon.
Haak's 2005 study was particularly good for supporting the "Paleolithic Survial" theory in that most Europeans were descended from indigenous groups during the LBK though 25% of ancient specimens sampled were from mtDNA haplogroups that could be reasonably be regarded as Near Eastern. So some genetic contribution was given to Europe from the Near East that corresponded with the spread of agriculture. Again this becomes most clear from the methodology used. Regardless I'll check out Underhill to hear what the study says. Geog1 ( talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I was merely stating my opinion on the current state of research Andrew. And really the way the modern population sample studies are done is not enough to effectively prove anyone theory or stance. As a result of trying to cram every bit of modern population studies into articles like this withought any proper attention to Ancient DNA findings we constantly get endless revisions and an article that never has a well established body which is more of the point for an encyclopedic entry. Therefore a degree of skepticism or disgression is justly due rather than dumping in, and I must be brutally honest, the same old garbage. There was even a NY times article that interviewed members of the genetic community and it said that these modern population studies for genetics are no sure fire way to prove time, depth, or spread. The Haak study from 2005 (not the one from 2008) was the one I was referring to in regards to LBK and demographic change and continuance. I suggest you read it if you havn't already. Geog1 ( talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I think what is too speculative is the notion that you can base what is a paleolithic vs. what is a mesolithic vs. what is a neolithic gene on modern population samples. So my problem for the past few years has been the generaly methodology used as a result to make such claims. Other problems that abound regard marrying some of these hypothetical migrations/spreads to archaeological horizons or even paleolithic "techno-complexes". Take for instance the whole Late Glacial stance for R1a. Its actually been fairly traditional among those who specialize in eastern European late paleolithic archaeology to view the situation as stadial without any firm archaeological evidence from any refugium where in long distance expansion/migration from west to east or even east to west was occuring (see Hoffecker 2002). Likewise there is no archaeological evidence for a migration Out of India and into Russia, Ukraine, and then Scandinavia during the various phases of the Paleolithic. Their is no ancient Y-chromosome data from Kostenki, Khavalynsk, Sredny Stog, or Yamna archaeological cultural blocs to confirm a particularly early date for R1a on the Pontic Caspian steppes and likewise none from India which is the only way I believe one could really effectively date these lineages (or at least begin to). Essentially hard evidence is missing from all this and again its really more of the methodology used over the years which I have a problem with. It should be noted that this problem is obviously not relegated simply to R1a but also R1b, J, and countless other haplogroups. At this point there isn't really much we can do except sit back and wait for more Ancient DNA studies to come out. Hope this makes more sense now where I am coming from. However I am not saying that we should censor the modern population studies...I just in all do honesty feel they are not that useful in pinpointing origins and establishing migration patterns for some areas though obviously Y-chromosome haplogroup Q's spatial distribution illuminates the crossing of Beringia and a significant peopling of America. Geog1 ( talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Inetersting. Yeah it seems like every once in a while there's an approach used like "coalescence theory", microsatellite diversity and what not to try and pinpoint a temporal date but none of these methods seem concrete. I'm unaware of the Zhivitovsky method but will have to read more on that so thanks for the heads up on that one. Also in relation to the problems of archaeological horizons and marrying the modern population genetic data to them, Pdeitker brings up an interesting point regarding the spread of certain cattle associated with LBK in that such breeds strengthen a south to north "agro. wave of advance" and would invite greater possibility for near Easterns to have accompanied such movement or migration. Archaeologists usually speak of LBK as stemming from the "Danubian" sphere alluding to more southern farming groups and thus would have spread along the river. Connections are sometimes linked to Starcevo Cris horizon again strengthening the view that LBK, Lengyel, and Rossen archaeological groups would have in turned resulted from southern farming influence in Europe. Therefore, the spatial distribution of R1a would in essesnce not correspond with it spreading via the LBK horizon all that well. So I would agree with what Pdeitker is essentially alluding to. However who knows for sure if the prehistoric record always can clearly illuminate migration or directional influence or if it masks it in some cases. So many problems and not enough seemingly good data. Geog1 ( talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I think that this has been a good conversation. Thanks everyone for sharing your views. Just to verify though in relation to what the title of this section was about: Haak simply discovered R1a among CWC males. Underwood said it may have expanded during the LBK or CWC using his own methodology. Dupuy is currently the only one that I know of who said the lineage spread with CWC based on modern population samples. Kasperaviciute (2004) is the only study that I know that discusses R1a arriving in the Baltic area during the time of the CWC as a possibility based on modern population samples.
So this statement: "The discovery demonstrated the spread of R1a with Corded Ware culture into Central Europe."...is it technically correct? Geog1 ( talk) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Ok I made a minor change then. Glad we could talk this out. Geog1 ( talk) 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Sorry I present a bit of original research, but Andrew brought up the issue of calibration and their technique brings up issues all by itself, STR clocking is highly subject to lineage specific rate variances (evident in their stated confidence interval). To test which of these is likely correct I counted all the SNPs between the Y seqMRCA and R1a1a7 as 52 mutations. In agreement with White et al 2009, I set the CHLCA for humans and chimps, aged, at 8 Ma this reset Soares mtDNA TMRCA at 236,000 years ago. I set the Y TMRCA as the time of L0k-L0d/mt-else (Khoisan/East African) split at 169,000 years using the above long chronology (Soares et al. 138 kya for L0k/L0k split * 8/6.5, liberally high estimate of Y chromosome MRCA, this will make all Y values high, but not as high as Soares or Gonders estimate of the mtDNA TMRCA, and allows for a lower male population size prior to expansion). For example with this chronology L3 expands 100 ka with an effectively larger population leaving a constrict period of 135 ka, with Ne Y 1/2 of mtDNA that would be 65 Ka + 100 Ka or 165 Ka, consistent with gender estimates.
These are the dates for various mutations that I came up with:
Again these timings come from someone very critical of Y-chromosomal molecular clock and who strongly favors a long chronology, and one should imply great variances. The mutation counts are very similar to those I obtained from the E1b1b1a1a1-seqMRCA distance. Even with that strong favoritism I cannot approach the aged timing of Underhill for Indian M1a1a diversity.
On face value I would argue that Andrew is correct, however does this hold up to scrutiny of various issues in the technique.
If we argue that CT is about the same time as first Y leaving Africa, then Y left Africa 134,000 years ago that would place the exodus about 30,000 years before the expansion of L3 mtDNA lineage using the same anchors. There are two possible explanations: Many missing mutations in the basal Y clades or the Y TMRCA is much more recent. If one packs the basal branches with mutations then 52 increases and the mutation rate increase and if one sets the Y TMRCA more recent then also the mutation rate is faster. Increased mutation rates means decreased times between branch points: t = 1 / f .
OTOH there could be a number of missing mutations in the R1a1a subclade which make the dates much older, however given the above. In this circumstance they would have to be hopeful that cryptic basal mutations or lower TMRCAs would be compensated for a much higher relative number of mutations found in the peripheral clades in order for their early dating to hold up. Generally I find this plausible, but specifically I would warn against an 'If and If argument' when both premises are unknown and when one relies on two specific premises to be true for ones argument to also be true, particular in this case when there has been much more study of peripheral clades than inter-comparisons between basal clades. Therefore with critique of potential errors it seems likely that Andrew is correct. We have to be very judicious with our wording on the main page:
I recommend a rewritten Origins section:
1. Using this paper to pair down the various regional origin hypotheses. Both the Central/East European and Central Asian origin can be eliminated (However one might mention the Northern Caucasus and Hindu-Kush as two possibilities) while mentioning these two in passing.
2. Since no R1a* or R1a1* has been found in India yet, but a center of diversity exists on the Iranian/Armenian border region for R1a basal clades and since the center of diversity in about the East Indus region supports at least an early entry of the R1a1 clade, I think we can effectively limit the points of origin from the Northern Caucasus to Anatolia to S.Iran and the E. Indus river in a single section. While explaining the limitations in the sampling (only 117 R1a typed in India for example). E.g. South or West Asian origin hypothesis. I think the problems can be described as being under a single umbrella, a single section.
3. If anyone has published critiqued of their clocking method then we can present their U2009 approach and also the critique and suggest other expansion chronologies, I had a paper about 2 years back that criticized STR clocking, however I am not sure where it is now. If we cannot find a current critique of the method then we have to be very careful about how chronology is discussed otherwise the article takes on non-NPOV. PB666 yap 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Secretly Cardenas2008 created the main for this page. I have edited this new page, and moved all the discussions regarding this topic to the appropriate talk page. Also copied origins section from this main to that main, editing for R1a --> R1a1a changes where appropriate, I am sure I did not do it perfectly, Andrew and Marmaduke so please feel free to correct and balance.
In addition I completely rewrote the Origin section to reflect the 2009 understanding, since these previous studies were talking about R1a, that remains here and that page discusses R1a1a which is relatively new, all origin theories were eliminated and the discussion focuses on what is gleemed from Underhill et al. 2009.
Now we have two articles to bring up to B-class. I will redo the phylogenetics this evening to reflect and link to that new page.
Cheers PB666 yap 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to hear what others think, but I am not really sure I can agree with either of the following:-
I believe each article should make sense on its own, and as much as possible so should each talk page. There might come a day when R-SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2 and R-M17/R/M198 need to be discussed separately but I believe we have not reached it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(UTC)
If it is such an emotional obstacle to split now, then revert the page back to where it was, however Wikipedia does not allow for content forks or page duplication. What this means is that the R1a1a pages that was created must be blanked and redirected to R1a. And frankly I spent alot of time of the cladograms, and creating a single comprehensive clade for R1a now is not going to look encyclopedic nor attractive, and I would probably leave it split along the lines that these two currently exist. I really think Andrew should read through both pages, particularly the old version of the R1a page and consider heavily that the origins section was not divided very logically, there was not clear delineation of the discussion of R1a and R1a1 or R1a1a, these are three different and well separated nodes. I have waited for almost a month for the R1a page particularly the origin section to be improved, it has not moved along a direction toward becoming more encyclopedia. Just old sets of contrasting facts replaced with a combination of new and old hard to follow facts. I do appreciate the work Andrew has put into this, however its time we moved this along and get it up to stuff, there has been far too much discussion on this talk page for this article to remain a start class, there are many other pages in the project that need work.
In response to Andrews suggestion; Articles should make sense on their own, I would point out Andrew that the ISOGG 2009 created the problem, a situation that needs to be solved, Underhill adds to the problem within 9 new defining mutations. The problem existed is a natural situation that needs to be explained, simply because the complexity is difficult for you to deal with during this breif transitory period does not mean the page is more or less coherant it will be less coherant unless you begin organizing it along the branch structure from the lowest to the highest branch. I find mixing the discussion of R1a and R1a1 and R1a1a origin in a single page the most incoherant situation. In contrast to the R1b page that has a cohesive population structure (more or less unimodal) R1a has a multi-tier multi-modal structure.
The highest tier is R1a1a7 which is spread in a given direction across Europe, and R1a1a6 is spread across the Arabian Gulf. The next Highest tier is spread from Iceland to China to S. India and into Arabia. The R1a1*(xR1a1a) tier is spread from Greece to Scandinavia to Kashmir to North central India, to Oman and Back to Greece. There appear to be two modes also in this structure, one in NC India and Another between Iran and the Caucasus. The lowest tier (xR1a1) is spread about Southwest Asia. In discussing all of these relationships on one page one has to be careful not to confuse or mix up the discussion. PB666 yap 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
just a coulpe of notes here I thought I would share.. frequencies of Underhill(2009) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2009194x4.pdf
also sharma (2009) study with posted here also discusses R1a*, R1a1* and R1a1a (R1a1a1), R1a1b (R1a1a2), and R1a1c (R1a1a3):
"However, there is a scanty representation of Y-haplogroup R1a1 subgroups in the literature as well as in this study. The known subgroups (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c), which are defined by binary markers M56, M157 or M87, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1), were not observed. In such a situation, it is likely that this haplogroup (R1a1*) is a polyphyletic (or paraphyletic) group of Y-lineages. It is,therefore, very important to discover novel Y chromosomal binary marker(s) for defining monophyletic subhaplogroup(s) belonging to Y-R1a1* with a higher resolution to confirm the present conclusion."
hope this helps you guys in anyway. thanks! HonestopL 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666, there is no emotional issue, and this is not a content issue as such. Your edits created two articles which are both garbled. You seem to think it is normal to allow articles to become unusable while you play with them and try to find what you are looking for, but this is not true, and this was an extreme case. You mentioned yourself that you should have tried working on a draft somewhere. The problem with this particular proposal for splitting, which you proposed on this talkpage (you ignored the responses), is that as you have mentioned yourself, it is difficult to find discussions which make anything but side remarks concerning the clades within R1a. All discussion we can cite mixes discussion about the broader defined R1a with the more narrow but dominating M17/M198. If you have a way to split things up neatly you certainly have not shown it with your recent edits! Blaming ISOGG or Underhill et al for publishing new information, and confusing you, or blaming Cadenas2008 for making the original article you used to move material to, is a bit unrealistic.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A few responses on particular points made above:-
Replying to Andrew and taking into consideration what HonestopL has stated. I want to be brief as to not dilute the point.
This process has gone on to long for the small amount of construction that has taken place. I have no vested interest in any origin theory, simply stated I reject placing speculation and belief as origin. R1b and R1a, as these are the only two R1 subclades, along with the placement of R1a basal branches has everything to do with R1as origin. The fact that Andrew still does not get this is problematic.
The flaws in the R1a have been obvious for quite some time and to many people. The problems have not gone corrected, IMHO. As long as there is destructive speculation marching around as theory this page will never achieve a B-class rating according to criteria (copy of which is also on my user page).
As HonestopL has stated, more descriminating mutations of R1a* and R1a1* are needed, the fact that these have not been discriminated has created bias within those involved in the current discussion. Since R1a1a* has at least three potent subclades and a cogent and encyclopedic discussion can be had, and because this process on this page has gone on for so long, I am setting a concise deadline, if by Saturday, the problems that I have stated about the origins section have not been cleaned up to at least a C-class standard, I will exercise my solution and revert the R1a1a page back to my last edit and work on an improved version in my sandbox. The last version is better than the one Cardenas2008 dropped their on the 23rd. There is an inevitability about the indistinction in the literature Andrew mentioned will be clarified. That is the way evolutionary biology works and for me and that is not and should not be an issue, the article mistated factual points.
Saturday. PB666 yap 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
*R1a1* (old R1a*) SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2 positive, but M17 and/or M198 negative. 1/51 in Norway, 3/305 in Sweden, 1/57 Greek Macedonians, 1/150 Iranians, 2/734 Ethnic Armenians, 1/141 Kabardians. Sharma et al. (2009) also found 13/57 people tested from the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh, and 2/51 amongst Kashmir Pandits.
however for the R1a, a whole slew of factual inaccuracies need to be dealt with, including the treatment of Central and West Asian origins as a Theory. Why argue with me about this, fix the page, I told you, I think the most constructive means of fixing the origin section is to split the page. If you have a better solution WP:SOFIXIT, and if you can't it means you don't have a solution in mind. I have not set a dealine, what I am doing is giving you guys an opportunity to correct long held problems with the page, you have all the info that you need, it should already be done. Both of you guys should read the A and B-class guidelines, follow the examples of B-class pages in the MCBR project and make some tough decisions about what is worthy of being kept and what needs to go. Enough discussion, spend your time improving the article. PB666 yap 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666 has now placed comments within the text, eccentric as usual, but I will try take this as a chance for discussion!
I have been trying to understand the concerns, and I see one thing that keeps repeating: Pdeitiker is concerned that all discussion (age estimates, migration theories etc) should explain which PART of the R1a clade was being discussed in any particular article. I do of course understand this concern, but with all due respect I think this is totally ignoring the challenge that reality confronts us with on this subject, which is by the way not all that difficult...
It is my belief that we can avoid most misunderstanding simply by adding the odd extra word to remove any vagueness. I've been trying to do so this evening, but have not completed the task. Do others think this is a worthwhile effort?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The meter on the blogosphere and Wikipedia always goes off the charts when there is a publication about European male history. No such excitement occurs when publications concerning female mitochondrial DNA lineages are published. Much worse for Non-European lineages. A case of WP:BIAS, I suppose. However, R1a is an important haplogroup, at least concerning prehistory, and who wouldn't be obsessed with their own genetic history. Nonetheless this obsession is what causes some of these disputes. Within a few days there were over 140 comments on Dienekes blog concerning the Underhill publication, which is unusually high, most of it is bloggers talking past each other, almost everyone was an expert. I don't have a stake in this haplogroup so I could be of some use here. Wapondaponda ( talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Andrew Lancaster writes: This section was posted but not signed by P Deitiker (PB666). As there is no consistent signing, or indentation, and indeed he likes to keep re-editing his remarks, it is very difficult to break down and respond to. So I am going to try quotation boxes like this. I hope it works. For the time being whatever is not in such a box is written by PB666.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Not correct. One of the papers is from 2009, and has Underhill as a co-author (so they would have been aware of the other paper which we are looking at which came out a little later. Sticking to the old papers here, the comment which you made while editing, that the data in the old papers have been superseded, is also not correct. They based their argument on frequencies, Central Asia being between the two high frequency areas of today, and also containing high frequency areas. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using geometry to help guess where a clade originated. People were not migrating by matter transporter, and there is no surefire way to guess place of origin, only imperfect hints.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Therefore the conclusion is that R1a1a evolved in Central Asia. Good thinking, completely wrong and out of step with molecular phylogenetics, but who needs that, we are talking about the Y.
User:Andrew Lancaster writes: Here is what the authors wrote (emphasis added): "Network age estimations from this study suggest that two separate groups exist within R1a1 with similar ages for populations found at the western (Serbia 17.3±5.4) and eastern (South Pakistan 18.7±4.7) poles of the expansion. These results along with time estimates for several other populations across Europe and Asia support the findings by Sengupta et al18 regarding the central Asian origins of the mutation. NETWORK projections also support an Asian origin to this haplogroup, given the plethora of STR haplotypes present in these groups versus those found in European populations (Figure 4a)." FWIW my take on this is that it is a bit like your opinion mentioned below, that we can not distinguish South Asian and West Asian origins. These authors are also saying that we can not really distinguish Central Asian from South Asian either? In any case their words are quite clear, and the summary I proposed for the article is not "vague" but also quite short and clear. The article is also not a "fringe" article by any means. How can we ignore it? You remark about no basal haplotypes is not very convincing because both these authors and readers who know the subject would know that R-M173* haplotypes are fairly widespread, and not yet widely types for M420. Furthermore basal haplotypes are extremely rare in pretty much all places - just singletons and small local clusters - so it is not as if there is a strong case to be made for one part of Asia against another so far.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Sheer speculation does not belong in Wikipedia, if god says it, it still does not belong in Wikipedia unless its part of a biography on god. PB666 yap 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
{{Quotation|[[User:Andrew Lancaster writes: And when there is disagreement which Wikipedian gets to say whether god is right or wrong? I am taking it that you see yourself as fit for this task? Obviously Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this matter. We do not get to judge in this way, for better or worse.|-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)}}
I will repeat the whole passage found in the Discussion (i.e. speculation) part of the paper. First lets go through the results that support the discussion: "It is readily observed that the diversity of Asian haplotypes is far greater than that found in the European population". Last month yes, today no. The Central European and proximal Eastern Europeans have the highest level of SNP diversity of any R1a1a bearing group, M458 diversity stop at the Ural Mountain. By SNP diverisity, Poland is more diverse than any other place for R1a1a and The Persian Gulf is the most diverse with regard to the broader clade. So it is not observed any more. In addition both R1a1a* and R1a1* is found scattered about Europe, in the North, in the Caucasus, in Greece and In Turkey. STR diversity is greater in Southern Asia, however here are the 95% confidence intervals for Northern India and Southern Pakistan: 2.1 to 58.7 Ka and 0.4 to 53 Ka. Not real confident.
"There are several clades exclusive to Asia groups; however, the same is not true for Europeans." False, M458 is specific to Europeans so is M334. The microsatellite distributions are especially interesting in Turkey (the only Anatolian group included), given the plethora of haplotypes present in the population." Variance = .298, for serbia .295. This is pretty much the results they draw on to make the following 'discussion'. Point making statements in argument from ignorance as many of the papers cited in the main page do, future proves generally wrong, exactly as the above.
Alternatively, Sengupta et al [2006] and Wells et al [2001] have proposed that the haplogroup originated in Northwestern India and in the Central Asia steppes [both places, at once, a rare homoplastic Y mutation (actually 7 homoplastic mutations but who is counting)], respectively, given the wide variety of R1a1 Y-STR haplotypes throughout the areas.[..talk about age estimates we all agree are useless.....].These results along with time estimates for several other populations across Europe and Asia support the finding of Sengupta et al regarding the central[Sic] Asian origins of the mutation.
Note STR based dates for central Asia are ~10 kya compared to ~18 kya for India, Pakistan, Serbia and Turkey.
Now I am not so great in English, however isn't central supposed to be capitalize if the meaning is Central Asia, and lower case if it means central, for example core, or constitutive. Was this double talk (note the vaque template at the end of the sentence on the Main page, put there for a reason)? PB666 yap 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Shall we move to the next section . . . . . . . . . . . One last thing. From Underhill et al. "Also noteworthy is the drop of R1a1a* diversity away from the Indus Valley toward central Asia (krygystan 5.6 KYA) and the Altai reigon (8.1 KYA)." Clearly, Underhill does not believe R1a1a originated in Central Asia.
Andrew Lancaster replies: nevertheless he signed his name on a paper which mentioned that the data is at least consistent with such a possibility. (He is a co-author of the Mirabal paper also.) BTW I certainly agree that no author is strongly fighting for Central Asia versus South Asia. If you think the article is saying this then we should tweak the wording to de-emphasize it.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
First off, there is no R1a* (xSYR1532.2) so the question is should we be talking about R1a origins, generally, when basal diversity is outside of Europe? If R1b or R1* showed a increasing presence and diversity in Eastern Europe, there is the possible use of the Carpathian Ice Age refuge, however Andrew says don't bring R1b into the discussion. Without R1b diversity there is no basis to place basal R1 in Europe and without basal R1 in Europe, it is unlikely it R1a evolved in Europe. Lets see what we have got.
User:Andrew Lancaster replies: Firstly I have not said we should not bring R1b into it, but I have expressed confusion at what your point about R1b is. Secondly, I personally agree that there is currently very little evidence to place basal R1 in Europe, nor basal R1a (M420, or any of the other levels down to M198/M17). Does the current version of the article give another impression?
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"Researchers using this estimation method therefore believe any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a diversity must be specific to certain sub-clades, such as R-M458."
Hmmmm, this is what Underhill stated. ",whereas the R1a1a* diversity declines toward Europe where its maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia, and Crete." This does not discuss the contribution of R458 and R334 diversity. European Ages.
Conservatively Underhill would argue for a Mesolithic origin, and they discuss Neolithic expansion of R1a1a* in central Asia. "Haplogroup R1a1a7-M458 diversity and frequency are highest in River Basins known to be associated with several late and early Neolithic cultures." That would be LBK culture. However as discussed here their moecular clocking technique is prone to excessive variance. So that we adhere to the implication that the Bronze age datings are the latest time R1a1a could have reached Europe. So between the Epipaleolithic and Early Bronze age R1a1a* reached Central Europe (11,200 to 4.6 Ka).
"Researchers using this estimation method therefore believe any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a diversity [R1a1a* diversity] must be specific to certain sub-clades, such as R-M458." Right but the introduction to that is that R1a1a* entered Europe between 11,200 to 4.6 Ka.
Perhaps you are being confused by the "such as M458". The point is that any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a diversity [R1a1a* diversity] must NOT be affecting the whole clade. Do you see what is intended? If the wording is misleading we can work on that. Anyone want to try?
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Bronze Age (Indo Europeans, Indo-Aryans, Kurgans and Horses) I thought we were going to get rid of the Kurgan hypothesis? And now we are discussing horse? What is the evidence for Horse use before the early bronze age? When was the IE expansion supposed to have taken place 4500 KA, R1a1a had already spread into Europe by that time. Spread from Europe to S. Siberia is evidence of Indo-Aryan gene flow?
We have certainly de-emphasized the Kurgan hypothesis, but we can not simply ignore it. We know very well that to totally dismiss it would be to ignore the fact that both new papers use the controversial Zhivitovsky method of dating. Because there are big differences in dating methods which are considered acceptable, we can not just say that the two new papers supersede all previous ideas. The point is that people disagreeing with the method can use the SAME data and come to different conclusions.
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Historic era (Slavic languages): Movements within Europe I have no big problem with this section, however the evidence is based upon expansions in Lithuania and Czech republic, however no R1a*2009 or R1a1*2009 has been uncovered in either place, so that any expansion of R1a that we are discussing is more specifically R1a1a*. Otherwise the discussion is Vague. How R1a1* got into Scandinavians is a matter for which we have no information. BTW the period you are discussion is called, properly, the Migration Age or Migration Period. I removed the 'factual Accuracy' tage and replaced with 'vague' sentence tag.
I think this paragraph shows how weak and vague the basis of your very strong sounding proclamations on this subject are. That there are basal paraclades found in Scandinavia is just what we would expect, because there are effectively VERY RARE traces of such basal paraclades all over the range of M17/M198. To try to pretend that we have some sort of distinct frequency or STR variance map for the paraclades outside of M17/M198 is sophistry. We have almost nothing, except that we know they exist. (This by the way implies that modern R1a distribution is principally caused by something more recent than the ancient distribution. This is another reason why we should not ignore more recent millenia like the Bronze Age.)
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with this section except that it is once again vaque in several places and is to be considered factually inaccurate. In my view South Asian and West Asian origin should be combined. Segregating these two sections is like talking apples and oranges.
You are a bit inconsistent aren't you? Concerning Mirabal et al's implication that we can not rule out Central Asia or separate Central Asia from the case for Asia more generally, you think this is not acceptable. But concerning this one, you want to do exactly the same. Here's the Wikipedia policy though: we should say what the published authors say, and not cherry pick based on our personal preferences. You have tagged the section and described it above as factually inaccurate though, which would be something different. However where is it factually inaccurate please?
— -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A broken clock is correct at least 2wice a day.
I don't give a damn how many posts you make pointing out various 'data' and 'subclades.' Because you don't know how to write a proper sentence in English. You also don't do your homework. You confused a central point in the Underhill paper concerning the Eulau remains. So your language skills are deficient; your science is lacking; and like many doctors and scientists, you hide behind a thicket of verbiage. For all your protestations about the value of ancient y-Dna, you confused the only mention in the Underhill report of a-Dna and got it backwards. My point is this: Your arrogance notwithstanding, you need help conveying your ideas. You also need to tone down your jibberish. Perhaps you're a scientist. That's nice. I know some scientists and I know some geneticists. Take a deep breath, learn to interact with other breathing humans and cooperate in this process. You are becoming the obstruction. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Pdeitker I know you prefer SW Asia as well but are you saying West Asia is a Wikipedia (WP) standard? I'm just not following the whole logic behind the stance. Usually in the field of Geography the Middle East is referred to as South-West Asia rather than West Asia. Even archaeologists who specialize in Middle Eastern archaeology will refer to their area of speciality as "South-West Asian archaeology". West Asia is still rather ambiguous/confusing. Geog1 ( talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Geog1
I noticed that this article has been nominated -- I'm not quite ready to sign up to review it, but thought I would give my first reaction. It seems to me that the article is not accessible to a broad enough class of readers. It is easily possible that a reader interested in anthropology will come to this article, but such a reader won't be able to make sense of it, and doesn't get any guidance toward the necessary background. The main background needed is to understand the special features of inheritance of the Y chromosome, and what a haplogroup is. Most of the related Wikipedia articles are totally unreadable for non-specialists -- the genetic geneology article is the most helpful, so a pointer to it would be a start. The best thing, though, would be for this article itself to sketch the basic facts that a reader needs to know. Looie496 ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666 has posted notes directly into the text, after I adapted it in many places today, in an attempt to meet his concerns, so now I'll respond to those:-
Cordaux et al. (2004) argued, citing data from Wells et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2000), and Quintana-Murci et al. (2001) that...“Given the high frequency of R-M17 in central Asia (typically 20%–40% [9]), its rarity in west Asia [9, 13] and its absence in east Asia [14], Indian R-M17 Y chromosomes most probably have a central Asian origin [8, 9]. ” This position is also considered likely by Mirabal et al. (2009) after their larger analysis of recent data.[vague]
Cordaux et al. (2004) argued, citing data from Wells et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2000), and Quintana-Murci et al. (2001) that R-M17 Y chromosomes most probably have a central Asian origin. Central Asia is still considered a possible place of origin by Mirabal et al. (2009) after their larger analysis of more recent data. However these authors do not clearly distinguish the case being made for Central Asia for the case being made for Asia, particularly South Asia, more generally.
Do to recent edits on the main page and in concert with the comments I made on 14 October 2009 and 22 October 2009 ( listed here), most of the problems on the main page that prevented this article from being promoted have been satisfied (and I still have a few hairs left on may head to boot). I am promoting this article to C-class, since the two remaining issues are dealing with how to handle the most recent literature. If anyone has any comments that they think would demote the page back to a start class or changes need to promote the article please place the there. I do not want to be seen as 'raising the hoop' Ad libitum. Since these recent criteria have been passed I think the page should be promoted. The attention needed tag has also been removed. Congratulations. PB666 yap 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Other tasks available. WP:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History/to_do. Please take some time to scan the article for grammatical and spelling errors.
“ | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | ” |
The article meets the nine B-Class criteria when:
I do not wish to be negative about your good intentioned and positive efforts to start grading genetics articles, but let's all please be a bit more clear. You have recently been grading these articles yourself, so when you cite the grades, you are just citing yourself. Please make it clear when you are doing so, especially when it concerns articles where you have been editing yourself. Now you are giving rules also but what is the source of these criteria, for example the preference concerning citation method (which oddly seem like your personal preferences)? I note how you have even explicitly pointed to my name. Here is what I see on the appropriate Wikipedia page:- the six B-Class criteria:
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). tags is encouraged.Notice the differences? Who is the source of the changes, and in particular the ones which say "Phil's referencing method is better than Andrew's"? I presume some sections of what you present above as Wikipedia guidelines are actually your personal notes about them? Looking to the Wikipedia guidelines as I have just quoted them, my own opinion is as follows...
I do not demand others to agree with my opinion, but opinions are being called for I take it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For ease of reference, here is the previous discussion PB666 and I (and others) had about how to reference this exact type of article: [5]. Note that this discussion also touched upon the last criterium for quality mentioned above (accessibility), and also note the last sentence of the discussion where I wrote "A hybrid system where different parts of the article work different ways is a poor system". This point was a PRACTICAL point which was very similar to the concerns recently raised by the unilateral article split: making a major edit which PARTIALLY rebuilds the whole structure of an entire article and then demanding other editors to finish off the work, simply does not work in practice. You end up with a mixture of structures. See quality criteria above about structure. In other words, every proposal about an article's basic structure or referencing system should ALWAYS take into account that the structure should be easy to maintain for editors in the future.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Bberri template filler (or as many in WPMed refer to it, a godsend). Where I simply cut the PMID off the Pubmed abstract or search-resluts page, past it into the text box next to [Submit] and click, You have a fully formed ((Cite journal)) reference. This takes about 6 seconds and replaces a couple of minutes of typing. Next I replace ((cite journal | .... in the reference with ation and now you have a citation,if you do nothing more it will work, however if you want it to work with Harvard Referencing templates you will need to modify the name stream._{{Citation and now you have a citation, if you do nothing more it will work, however if you want it to work with Harvard Referencing templates you will need to modify the name stream. Replace the list of authors | author = with |last1 = Doe |First1 = J |last2 = Smith |first2 = J |last3 = Jonese |first3 = B| last4 = Chan |first4= J|. . . . . This is a little work, however I just then cut and past the names into {{Harvtxt|[[last1]]|[[last2]]|[[last3]]|[[last4]]|2009}} and walla, beautiful, complete, accurate Harvard Citation capable citations. I assume you misunderstand what I was saying above and so I am not going to pester you about this anymore. (although I spent several hours trying to figure it out just to see things from your point of view, can this really improve articles). And that is the bottom line, too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing (Master Pi), highly dense use of harvard referencing is not encyclopedic it can be a distraction. I would argue one other thing, linking an article once per section is adequate, multiple linkings increase the size of the article, WP:MOS indicates to limit same Wikilinks to 1 or few per page. Within a section if a person has a Harvtxt link for a paper and one references the author a second time, non-hyperlinked Doe et al.(2015) is fine. PB666 yap 19:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyway that's good enough for me, B-class it is. Lets try to keep it there. PB666 yap 19:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
B-class articles have some reward. Portal:Molecular_Anthropology------> Portal:Molecular_Anthropology/Selected_article (Also hint: This as a lead?) PB666 yap 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I spend an enormous amount of time putting them in already and see it as a job which might otherwise simply would not be done at all. So lets please be a bit realistic.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I will time it for you.
From the beginning of the search until the full reference. 6:01 PM to 6:02:15
{{cite journal |author=Underhill PA, Myres NM, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Zhivotovsky LA, King RJ, Lin AA, Chow CE, Semino O, Battaglia V, Kutuev I, Järve M, Chaubey G, Ayub Q, Mohyuddin A, Mehdi SQ, Sengupta S, Rogaev EI, Khusnutdinova EK, Pshenichnov A, Balanovsky O, Balanovska E, Jeran N, Augustin DH, Baldovic M, Herrera RJ, Thangaraj K, Singh V, Singh L, Majumder P, Rudan P, Primorac D, Villems R, Kivisild T |title=Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a |journal=Eur. J. Hum. Genet. |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=2009 |month=November |pmid=19888303 |doi=10.1038/ejhg.2009.194 |url=}}
6:03:22 to 6:06:10 reformat reference.
Underhill, PA,; Myres, NM; Rootsi, S; Metspalu, M; Zhivotovsky, LA; King, RJ; Lin, AA; Chow, CE (2009), "Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a", Eur. J. Hum. Genet.,
doi:
10.1038/ejhg.2009.194,
PMID
19888303 {{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
6:07:09 to 6:08:07
Underhill et al. (2009)
done. ~5 minutes, filled three different templates.
Now, as you say, I have never added a reference to a 'damn article', how is it that it only takes me a few minutes to come up with a full harvard reference of the latest article and the footnote version? BTW, where did you get that article from.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History/Mt-DNA. Here is an example of a featured article in which I have made major contributions
Coeliac_disease, do you see a single reference that is Doe et al., Cause its going to seem like a damn shame that other Wikiprojects core articles are promoted to feature article status, but we are not able to promote articles beyond a certain level because our foolish pride gets too easily hurt. Stop whining - man up.
PB666
yap
00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A while back we split the article into two sections, BOTH of which go through the full range of geographical regions - first just discussing the distributions and the second concerning origins and migrations theories relevant to those areas. Although this might sound odd, it cleaned up the flow of thought a lot because previously the migration theories had been mixed together in a confusion of raw data and original thinking. NOW, I note that there have been some small edits which are causing the Middle Eastern DISTRIBUTION section to become a bit disorganized. It also means the section is starting to cover migration theories. PB666 just made this remark also so he also noticed it. In the long run we might want to consider reviewing the structure, but only when someone is ready to change it fully and not leave the job half done. Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For the time being my advice is that people should always be careful about pasting in snippets into sentences bit by bit. It makes sentences longer and longer. It is better to look EVERY time at whether the sentences also need to be rearranged in order to avoid them becoming bloated. Always check to make sure how your edits FIT.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A related problem that I see has now developed is that PB666 has forced a whole new phylogeny section into the beginning of the origins section, and then apparently unaware of the irony he has posted a note in the original phylogeny section pointing out that it is redundant! I can see how it is tempting to start an origins section with a phylogeny discussion though, just as I can fully understand why editors want to make sure the interesting case of Iran gets full discussion, and so this problem also raises the question of whether the origins section should be re-merged into the other sections - with this new phylogeny discussion moved to the other, and each migration section merged back into the relevant geographical distribution sections.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Other people trying to follow the discussions about this article will surely find it even more difficult than me, because there are bits and pieces all over the place. Concerning the cladogram question, people trying to follow will need to see this prior discussion, dropped as usual, just before PB666 went into unilateral mode without trying to understand the point... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Pdeitiker&diff=325814200&oldid=325801439 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_Lancaster#Cladogram -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)