| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Haplogroup E-M215 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11Auto-archiving period: 60 days
 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
It's significantly younger than E-M215 by tens of thousands of years and is more numerous as well. E-M215 obfuscates clarity on E-M35. Wadaad ( talk) 05:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
Wadaad: It would copy almost everything from this page. What we really need to do is mention M35 everywherewhere we know it's M35. --
Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (
talk) 12:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Sidoroff-B:I can do it later on, it's not that hard to do, just time-consuming. The problem with a wiki page on the E-M215 mutation is that it is uninformative about the precise origins of E-M35, which is more common and tells us more about anthropology (especially the Afro-Asiatic language family). I split up the uninformative page on
E-V38 for the same reason between West-Central African
E-M2 and Omotic/Southwest Ethiopian
E-M329 (more clear info on origins).
Wadaad (
talk) 13:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ Wadaad: Well, I guess we can just create a chapter on M35 and move everything about M35 there. -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 13:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Sidoroff-B:I can do it later on, it's not that hard to do, just time-consuming. The problem with a wiki page on the E-M215 mutation is that it is uninformative about the precise origins of E-M35, which is more common and tells us more about anthropology (especially the Afro-Asiatic language family). I split up the uninformative page on
E-V38 for the same reason between West-Central African
E-M2 and Omotic/Southwest Ethiopian
E-M329 (more clear info on origins).
Wadaad (
talk) 13:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
It is written in the Origin section that: "No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis." Now, my assertion is: Sub-Saharan Africa it's a geographical term. Not an ethniticy term. Hence, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and the like are all "Sub-Saharan". So, it's better to specify with which africans they have no affinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleistinos ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I deleted the part which I contested. Someone need to fix the terminology. It's misleading. Kleistinos ( talk) 20:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the term Sub-Saharan is misleading. Nowadays in genetics, the Yoruba of West Africa are usually the proxy for 'Sub-Saharan', the way the Basks are usually a proxy for European/Arabic/Modern Egyptian. West African would be much more accurate than Sub-Saharan. Another problem is that the Sahara is not always dry - from 7500-3500 BC it had a savannah-like climate. It is possible people who are in West Africa now came from the Sahara after it started to dry up. Nilotic dna is distinguishable from Yoruba dna although they both share eachother's dna too. 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 00:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Why was, "No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis," removed entirely? Inclduing the entire citations and refrence, "PMID 24901650. Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (2006). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers". doi:10.1101/059311. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1)." Sub-Saharan being a geographic ADJECTIVE describes the people, culture, language, genetics, etc that pertain and relate to the implied geography. To say so that you could never use things like 'European' either which would be beyond bizzare. Further more 'Sub-Saharan Africans' was not specified to Yoruba, or Nilotics, but instead removed entirely. How is 'Sub-saharan' not the correct descriptive adjective? It comes from the author/source directly no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.82.125 ( talk) 02:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
A person using a range of IP numbers that geolocate to Florence, Italy (62.19.*, 79.*, 80.116.211.147, 87.21.125.98, 87.17.131.74, etc.) and another (likely the same person, since they've made the same edits) to Milan (213.61.205.102), has repeatedly made seemingly-random changes to various numbers in the table in the "Distribution" section, without citing any source. The information in the table is sourced to this paper: [1], and the data can be found in the "Supplementary Material": click the link on the page, and download the file "evv118_Supplementary_Data.zip", inside is a spreadsheet file "Supplementary_Tables_1-7_Revised.xlsx", and within the spreadsheet, the data is found in "Supplementary table 7".
The unsourced changes have been happening since at least June, 2019, in this article, as well as in other articles about genetics. I've left warnings and requests to communicate in edit summaries and on the talk pages of several of the IPs, to no avail. The edits appear to me to be vandalism, that is, intentionally putting in false information. This article has now been protected from IP edits. If the person has any legitimate reason to make these changes, they'll need to explain it here... -- IamNotU ( talk) 16:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"the node separating E-V38 and E-M215 branches (47.5 ka; 95% CI: 41.3–56.8 ka)...Considering the spatial–temporal congruencies with other pieces of evidence coming from archaeology as well as genetics, we propose that the observed phylogeographic trajectories of haplogroup E-V1515 could be the consequence of multistep southward movements of early pastoralists from a northeastern African motherland across the equatorial belt." (Trombetta, et al [2])
"This and all other scenarios require migration out of E-M35 after 47,000 years ago (its origin) and before 28,500 years ago (its divergence) to explain its presence outside Africa (Figure 2, B–D)." (Haber, et al [3] [4] 142.116.178.22 ( talk) 21:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- But the first quote is about E-V1515, not E-M215??
- Concerning the age, why are we only using the oldest of the two numbers these papers give?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is our source for Northern Horn of Africa?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The original version is from December, since January there were changes to the frequencies that were simply altered, as well as insertions of POV which does not correlate with the references included. In particular, a user was inserting Somalia, and changing the numbers and figures dealing with Somalis and Berbers. Look at the 'Distribution' before January and the subsequent changes since then. The reverts made are restoring how it looked before any edits, not the other way around, check the history. The Watchlist Editor ( talk) 11:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Jingiby why is the map I added removed? The current map in the article is misleading and is irrelevant since it doesn’t show how E-M215 is distributed in the continent. Somalia is not even shown on the map? E-M215 is also present South Africa and the article states that aswell.
Wiilciise1 ( talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
-
Wiilciise1, I am sorry. I have re-added it. Greetings.
Jingiby (
talk) 21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. ❤️ Wiilciise1 ( talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Haplogroup E-M215 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11Auto-archiving period: 60 days
|
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
It's significantly younger than E-M215 by tens of thousands of years and is more numerous as well. E-M215 obfuscates clarity on E-M35. Wadaad ( talk) 05:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
Wadaad: It would copy almost everything from this page. What we really need to do is mention M35 everywherewhere we know it's M35. --
Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (
talk) 12:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Sidoroff-B:I can do it later on, it's not that hard to do, just time-consuming. The problem with a wiki page on the E-M215 mutation is that it is uninformative about the precise origins of E-M35, which is more common and tells us more about anthropology (especially the Afro-Asiatic language family). I split up the uninformative page on
E-V38 for the same reason between West-Central African
E-M2 and Omotic/Southwest Ethiopian
E-M329 (more clear info on origins).
Wadaad (
talk) 13:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ Wadaad: Well, I guess we can just create a chapter on M35 and move everything about M35 there. -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 13:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Sidoroff-B:I can do it later on, it's not that hard to do, just time-consuming. The problem with a wiki page on the E-M215 mutation is that it is uninformative about the precise origins of E-M35, which is more common and tells us more about anthropology (especially the Afro-Asiatic language family). I split up the uninformative page on
E-V38 for the same reason between West-Central African
E-M2 and Omotic/Southwest Ethiopian
E-M329 (more clear info on origins).
Wadaad (
talk) 13:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
It is written in the Origin section that: "No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis." Now, my assertion is: Sub-Saharan Africa it's a geographical term. Not an ethniticy term. Hence, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and the like are all "Sub-Saharan". So, it's better to specify with which africans they have no affinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleistinos ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I deleted the part which I contested. Someone need to fix the terminology. It's misleading. Kleistinos ( talk) 20:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the term Sub-Saharan is misleading. Nowadays in genetics, the Yoruba of West Africa are usually the proxy for 'Sub-Saharan', the way the Basks are usually a proxy for European/Arabic/Modern Egyptian. West African would be much more accurate than Sub-Saharan. Another problem is that the Sahara is not always dry - from 7500-3500 BC it had a savannah-like climate. It is possible people who are in West Africa now came from the Sahara after it started to dry up. Nilotic dna is distinguishable from Yoruba dna although they both share eachother's dna too. 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 00:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Why was, "No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis," removed entirely? Inclduing the entire citations and refrence, "PMID 24901650. Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (2006). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers". doi:10.1101/059311. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1)." Sub-Saharan being a geographic ADJECTIVE describes the people, culture, language, genetics, etc that pertain and relate to the implied geography. To say so that you could never use things like 'European' either which would be beyond bizzare. Further more 'Sub-Saharan Africans' was not specified to Yoruba, or Nilotics, but instead removed entirely. How is 'Sub-saharan' not the correct descriptive adjective? It comes from the author/source directly no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.82.125 ( talk) 02:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
A person using a range of IP numbers that geolocate to Florence, Italy (62.19.*, 79.*, 80.116.211.147, 87.21.125.98, 87.17.131.74, etc.) and another (likely the same person, since they've made the same edits) to Milan (213.61.205.102), has repeatedly made seemingly-random changes to various numbers in the table in the "Distribution" section, without citing any source. The information in the table is sourced to this paper: [1], and the data can be found in the "Supplementary Material": click the link on the page, and download the file "evv118_Supplementary_Data.zip", inside is a spreadsheet file "Supplementary_Tables_1-7_Revised.xlsx", and within the spreadsheet, the data is found in "Supplementary table 7".
The unsourced changes have been happening since at least June, 2019, in this article, as well as in other articles about genetics. I've left warnings and requests to communicate in edit summaries and on the talk pages of several of the IPs, to no avail. The edits appear to me to be vandalism, that is, intentionally putting in false information. This article has now been protected from IP edits. If the person has any legitimate reason to make these changes, they'll need to explain it here... -- IamNotU ( talk) 16:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"the node separating E-V38 and E-M215 branches (47.5 ka; 95% CI: 41.3–56.8 ka)...Considering the spatial–temporal congruencies with other pieces of evidence coming from archaeology as well as genetics, we propose that the observed phylogeographic trajectories of haplogroup E-V1515 could be the consequence of multistep southward movements of early pastoralists from a northeastern African motherland across the equatorial belt." (Trombetta, et al [2])
"This and all other scenarios require migration out of E-M35 after 47,000 years ago (its origin) and before 28,500 years ago (its divergence) to explain its presence outside Africa (Figure 2, B–D)." (Haber, et al [3] [4] 142.116.178.22 ( talk) 21:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- But the first quote is about E-V1515, not E-M215??
- Concerning the age, why are we only using the oldest of the two numbers these papers give?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is our source for Northern Horn of Africa?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The original version is from December, since January there were changes to the frequencies that were simply altered, as well as insertions of POV which does not correlate with the references included. In particular, a user was inserting Somalia, and changing the numbers and figures dealing with Somalis and Berbers. Look at the 'Distribution' before January and the subsequent changes since then. The reverts made are restoring how it looked before any edits, not the other way around, check the history. The Watchlist Editor ( talk) 11:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Jingiby why is the map I added removed? The current map in the article is misleading and is irrelevant since it doesn’t show how E-M215 is distributed in the continent. Somalia is not even shown on the map? E-M215 is also present South Africa and the article states that aswell.
Wiilciise1 ( talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
-
Wiilciise1, I am sorry. I have re-added it. Greetings.
Jingiby (
talk) 21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. ❤️ Wiilciise1 ( talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)