Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

split off E-M78

At the suggestion of User:PDeitiker I have created a new article for E-M78 (E1b1b1a). Eventually this should allow us to safely reduce the size of the E-M78 section in this article. Have a look at how many sub-section levels we have and you will understand why this was becoming a necessity according to the normal way in which Wikipedia evolves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets reduce E-M78 to a synopsis so that we don't WP:POVFORK, lets all cooperate with Andy on this reduction so that it can happen as quickly as possible.PB666 ^yap 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Related studies

Halder et al A panel of ancestry informative markers for estimating individual biogeographical ancestry and admixture from four continents: utility and applications. The study states,

We observed patterns of apportionment similar to those described previously using sex and autosomal markers, such as European admixture for African Americans (14.3%) and Mexicans (43.2%), European (65.5%) and East Asian affiliation (27%) for South Asians, and low levels of African admixture (2.8-10.8%) mirroring the distribution of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations.

Another study by Auton et al, Global distribution of genomic diversity underscores rich complex history of continental human populations, Supplementary material

Our analyses also have direct relevance to current debates in human population genetics regarding the extent of historical gene flow among Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Our observation of a north–south gradient in diversity with the highest estimates of diversity in the southern part of the continent is consistent with the initial founding of Europe from the Middle East, the influence of Neolithic farmers within the last 10,000 yr, or migrations south followed by a recolonization of Europe after the last glacial maximum. The unusually high number of haplotypes in South Western Europe is indicative of recurrent gene flow into these regions. Furthermore, when we considered the extent of haplotype sharing with the HapMap YRI population in Europe, we found that the South and South-Western subpopulations showed the highest proportion of shared haplotypes. If gene flow had occurred solely through the Middle East, we would expect the South-Eastern subpopulations to have the highest haplotype diversity and sharing of YRI haplotypes. These two results therefore suggest that while the initial migrations into Europe came via the Middle East, at least some degree of subsequent gene flow has occurred directly from Africa. A potential concern is that the HapMap YRI are not representative of diversity in North Africa, and the levels of haplotype sharing must be interpreted with this in mind. It is currently unclear how patterns of genetic diversity in the Yoruba are representative of the wider region, although genetic similarity appears to decline with distance. Nonetheless, the haplotype sharing between Europe and the YRI are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa and not necessarily North Africa. Future studies will hopefully be able to better resolve this question by comparing haplotypes from further populations around the Mediterranean.

Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The molecular determination of HLA-Cw alleles in the Mandenka (West Africa) reveals a close genetic relationship between Africans and Europeans

A comparison of Cw allele frequencies among several populations of different origins, Mandenka, Swiss, English, Ashkenazi Jews from the UK and Japanese, reveals a high genetic heterogeneity among them, but also a much closer relationship between Mandenka, Europeans and Ashkenazi than between any of these populations and Japanese. The results possibly support a close historical relationship between Africans and Europeans as compared to East Asiatics.

Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, not filling the talkpage with OT stuff? Anyway I find this interesting, but concerning HLA how do you tell directionality of migration if there are so few variants? Perhaps better to reply somewhere else like one of our talkpages though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't. In general recombination is more likely to occur where the templates for recombination are highest. So for example if you have an A3-Cw7-B7-DR15-DQ6.2 AH7.3 and A2-Cw5-B44 you wont be surprised if you find new recombinants of A3-Cw5-B44 or A2-Cw7-DR15-DQ6.2. HLA generally (synonomous mutations) evolve by gene conversion 90% of the time, so that in general you have to have both templates in a local population for new haplotype recombinants to form or new alleles to form. Tracing the origins of older HLA through western Africa is a problem. The serious nature of climate change disperses peoples allows different people back in, and disperses them again. It brings two groups of people together allowing for new recombinants, and then flushes them across halfway across the planet. An excellent example of this is A33-B58-DR3-DQ.25. Both of these are found in West Africa at high frequencies, but not as one haplotype (A node jumps for both). There is a trace amount of this in Sudan, there is an anti-node of in the middle east, the frequency Jumps in the lower Indus and some level of these are found up into the Turkic republics for DQ2.5 (Though not AH8.1) and the frequency subsides to the East. It was dispersed by Mongols/Jurchen and later Chinese all the way down to Thailand. This is why i am rather suspicious about claims made of things coming from or originating from one part of North Africa and not another. Do a search on Hemachromatosis (HFE) and A3-B7 on pubmed you should find some interesting reading. I will refactor my posts above in a couple of days.PB666 ^yap 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Genographic

If Genographic project is unreliable why does it link to so many articles about mtdna and y-dna in so many articles on this wiki(such as haplogroup H mtdna and Haplogroup R1B y-dna ect?)The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN, please sign your talkpage postings. I am not directly aware of any articles citing the Genographic project as a source for anything controversial, because I do not work equally as much on every Wikipedia article. There are of course many articles on Wikipedia that need a lot of work to bring them to reasonable standard. There are articles also linking to blogs and so on. Of course this only becomes an urgent problem when such sources are being used to defend something controversial. Otherwise it is just a case of someone needing to find a BETTER source for the same information. Anyway, if another article links to a source, that does not make the source reliable. By all means if you think that editors of those other articles can defend this source, go ask them. But in discussions on this talkpage (look back through the archives too), no one could come up with a good defense. You could also call for opinions at for example WP:HGH or you could make a Wikipedia "Request for Comment" on "Reliable Sources". At the moment you are the only one left defending this particular piece of information on this particular article, so you should in any case not just keep pushing it back in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN, also, please do not insert your answers into your original posts! How on Earth can anyone follow that? OK, so you say this source is cited on the R1b and H articles? Is it used to source anything controversial? And why should we care if it is used on another article? What is your point? Do you have ANY other argument for using this source? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Genographic project is run by Spencer Wells, the specific website has not been updated and is based on old data. The data in the Genographic project is based on data before Semino et al 2004 and Cruciani et al 2004. Spencer Wells acknowledges this as he is a co-author to this article which states

The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was also suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago.

So even the author of the genographic site now acknowledges an African origin of E and E3b. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Then let spencer change his site and notice he uses the word was. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes he should change his site, however it is a private commercial website, so the owners can do whatever they want with it. It is obviously better to cite peer reviewed publications because they have a methodology and discuss how they reach their conclusions. So great care should be taken when citing information from private commercial websites. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you think he should change his site just like you probably want everyone who is not afrocentric to change however he does not appear to be afrocentric so he does not change his site. And remember he said was also suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago not is also suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not Afrocentric to say E3b originated in Africa. Underhill, Semino, and Cruciani are the people who argue that E3b is originated in Africa, and they are not Afrocentrists. It is only people here and on blogs who want to turn this into a debate about Afrocentrism. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN, it is not Spencer Wells' website as such. It is just an old National Geographic webpage. He probably had next to nothing to do with that selection of text, which I believe was copied from 10 year old text which FT DNA used to use when DE and E and E-M35 were all still new concepts. It is silly to say "let him change his site" if he has appeared in public and explained himself clearly. The internet is full of old information. If you really think everyone is being unfair, then please go and defend your case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard ?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just so there is no misunderstanding, I really do not suggest asking for opinions on the RS Noticeboard. It is most likely you'll be told this is a content dispute that should be handled by editors who know most about these subjects, on the relevant talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Does this haplogroup E1b1b have any impact on determining how much a person looks like one of the racial social-constructs or not? A certain debate here Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy may be greatly impacted by the POV assumption that inheritance of this haplotype may indicate whether one is part of the racial group black or the Caucasoid skeletal group. If an inheritance of this haplogroup has no bearing on this, I do not think relying on it as an indicator of one's race is valid. I'm sure in ancient times, in areas bordering on the concentrated inheritance boundary people on both sides of any exclusive grouping would have high preponderance of this haplogroup or the converse. --Panehesy (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Simple answer concerning appearance: No, not one little bit. Concerning "race" no simple answer is possible because there are no simple definitions of such things. Identifying race or nationality or ethnic group or anything with a Y haplogroup is pure nonsense, but in police profiling you can say that this haplogroup is statistically more common for an Albanian or a Somali than for a person from the Ukraine or Uganda, but what does that mean? You could also say that there is nothing weird about having this haplogroup and being from the Kola peninsula or Angola or India.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Haplogroup Nomenclature is very confusing. Haplogroup E is older then haplogroup F. And it should be noted that haplogroup R is closer related to haplogroup O then haplogroup E3B is to haplogroup E3a. Does this mean R is Mongoliod? No. Does this mean that O is caucasion? no. Does this mean that E3B is Sub-saharan African ? no. Does this mean that E3a is caucasion ? no. Mtdna is much more useful for defining race then Y-dna (mainly due to the fact that mtdna haplogroups are much older then y-dna haplogroups) so I don't think the ancient sculls in the near east that look black look black becuase of E3b they probably look black because of haplogroup L(mtdna) which has been found in ancient remains in the near east.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Frequency of haplogroup E1b1b in select Afro-Asiatic speakers

Language/Region	Frequency
Cushitic/Amhara	32 - 81%
Egyptian languages	38 - 60%
Berber languages	70 - 91%
Semitic languages/non Jewish	7 - 29%
Omotic languages	75%
Ashkenazim	22%
Sephardim	30%

Why do we have to mention only that E1b1b is found in Jewish males. It is found in almost all Afroasiatic speakers, so I see no reason why we should single out one ethnic group. I suggest that we mention all Afroasiatic ethnic groups or none in the lead. Better non in the lead and a description of frequencies in the body of the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jewish DNA is a special and complex question because they have moved around so much, and so their connection to E-M35 is especially complex and interesting. It is not self evident at all that because a haplogroup is found amongst other Afro asiatic speaking communities that it will be found in Jewish communities. The fact that it is note worthy is also something we can see in the focus of published materials.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it should come as a surprise, noting that Hebrew is Semitic and Afroasiatic, but what it does do is confirm the Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazim, and their relation to other Afro-Asiatic speakers. I am not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but rather, the lead may not be the best place, as it may give undue weight, seeing that many other populations may also have "special and complex" histories. If we are to mention it in the lead, then I think we should explain why they have been singled out. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the lead needs to be rewritten, I was waiting for the split off of E1b1b1a so that it would set a more appropriate tone, the Jewish ancestry bit is overstated, however it is a topic of interest from the literature so that it needs to be somewhat described.PB666 ^yap 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Soon I will add a Compromise to the info box East africa(Majority view) Near East (Minority View)The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a minority view, because even Spencer Wells, from Natgeo, supports an African origin. Basically nobody reputable supports a Near Eastern view. No compromise is necessary on discarded theories. If you would like to include the Near East origin, then you would have to find a recent mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journal/publication that supports the Near East origin. If you did, I would not dispute its inclusion. So far I haven't seen any in all the literature concerning E1b1b. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Spencer wells thinks now is irrelevent.This is about reliable sources: so far I have not seen any evidence that Natgeo is Unreliable (why is it used on the Haplogroup H mtdna and R1B y-dna articles?) If you have any evidence that the source is unreliable

please tell me. The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What he thinks now is relevant. We are not supposed to use obsolete information as if it is current. Take my advice. Read Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, which states

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

If you want to quote a reliable source find a peer reviewed scientific publication. Articles published by notable publishers such as Nature Magazine or Oxford University Press. You may use Google scholar to search for such information. The sources supporting the African origin are all recent mainstream peer reviewed scientific publications. So the editors won't accept anything of lower quality for any other theory. We need studies that have methods, materials, results discussion and conclusion and even the data they have used to reach their conclusions. Natgeo doesn't have all this. If you find such a study, present it to the community and if it is appropriate, we can add it to the article. At the moment, this is what everyone has been doing. Information from just any website won't do. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New refs we need to add

reminder to self or others. we need these refs... http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=El-Sibai_et_al._%282009%29 http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Zalloua_et_al._%282008b%29 http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Zalloua_et_al._%282008a%29 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a hangover from Wapondaponda's socking days, now thankfully ended. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

E-M123

This particular article by Ana Gonzalez et al., Mitochondrial DNA variation in Jordanians and their genetic relationship to other Middle East populations is the mtDNA analysis of the same Jordanian samples analyzed by Isolates in a corridor of migrations: a high-resolution analysis of Y-chromosome variation in Jordan authored by Flores et al. 2005, which is cited in this article. Interestingly Gonzalez et al. state

On the contrary, Dse shows the highest south-Saharan African maternal influence (19%) in the Middle East and also the highest frequency of Y-chromosome E-M123 south-Saharan African lineages (31%). Furthermore, analysis of G6PD in the same region showed that the rate of G6PD deficiency and the south-Saharan A- variant have a higher incidence in the Dse than in Amm, which was attributed to selection against malaria and to a probable African ancestral origin for the Dse population (Karadsheh et al. 2005). These autosomal data are also in agreement with the lower variation and higher south-Saharan influence found for uniparental markers in Dse. Another striking feature of the Dse male genetic composition was its overwhelming frequency of ancestral Y-chromosome R*M173 lineages (40%) that are very scarce or absent in the rest of the area (2% in Amman, 1% in Anatolia). Until now similar frequencies have only been found in northern Cameroon (Cruciani et al. 2002), which suggested the possibility that Dse and Cameroon are isolated remains of a past broad human expansion (Flores et al. 2005).

The also suggest:

Taking Y-chromosome markers A-M13 and E-M123 as a signature of male south-Saharan African gene flow into Jordan (Flores et al. 2005), this amounts to 6% in Amm and 31% in the Dse, a percentage not significantly different from the respective 10% and 19% female contributions.

Cruciani 2004 hypothesize that E-M123 originated in the Levant and migrated back to Ethiopia. However, E-M123 has been found alongside, haplogroup A and haplogroup L lineages in the Dead Sea region. Haplogroup A is frequent in Ethiopia, and the L lineages detected are Northeast African specific. This is consistent with Northward migration of E-M123 lineages from South of the Sahara to the Levant, rather than the other way around. The article also has some information on the haplogroup M1. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But who is arguing against the fact that the lineages leading to modern E-M123 all came from the southerly direction, beyond Egypt? Perhaps many misunderstandings come from focusing too much on these exact mutations: where exactly the mutation M123 happened is really just a subject for pointless speculation, but the best guess about the overall pattern of movement seems to be pretty much unanimous. So this is one more case where just associating a haplogroup with one place in its history is the wrong approach. This haplogroup "belongs" to lots of places. The next question is concerning the timing of the movements. WHEN did E-M123 (or an ancestor who did not yet have the mutation, it makes no difference) come from Egypt to the Levant? Is there a clear answer in the literature? I'd say there is a tolerably clear answer if you compare all papers. It seems to have happened before the Neolithic. Perhaps this generally held idea is based not so much on genetic "calculations" (pretty tenuous with such a thin spread clade) but more on an assumption that this fits archaeology? Anyway, that does seem to be what people think? I'd say E-M123, E-M78, and E-M81 most likely all originated in the area of Egypt and had split from each other before the Neolithic. I include Israel and the Dead Sea area as "in the area of Egypt" and personally I feel that arguing over such relatively small geographical distances at such great time depths is pointless. By the way, the E-M35 project does have a good enough database to be able to do some calculations which have not been done in published form yet, and these are guiding some of my comments. E-M81 is of course younger in the sense that it dispersed from a more recent common ancestor, but that does not mean it is younger in terms of when it's lineage has its own common ancestors with E-M123 and E-M78.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The origins of this lineage are of interest because it is found in Ethiopia and the Levant with an apparent gap in between. Though it wasn't subtyped in Sudan by Hassan et al. So the Ethiopia to levant distance is not a "relatively small geographic distance". The issue is whether the findings of L lineages along with this haplogroup have any bearing on the theory of a back migration of M123 back to Ethiopia from the Levant. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is INTERESTING "off wiki" to speculate about M123 in Sudan, but right now the M123 which is found in PART of the Horn of Africa looks like a back migration and is described this way by everyone who has written about it. So other theories are not something we can yet put in wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone, the above quote states Dse shows the highest south-Saharan African maternal influence (19%) in the Middle East and also the highest frequency of Y-chromosome E-M123 south-Saharan African lineages (31%)

The implication here is that E-M123 had already come into being South of the Sahara. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No it does not say that at all (it does not mention the mutation specifically, which would be odd, and it is talking about a region within the Sahara, not outside it, "south Saharan, not "sub Saharan") and if it did it would still not matter. There is no debate about the two key points which are (a) approximately where the lineage comes from originally and (b) approximately where it dispersed from. And there is no one arguing that the M123 found today in parts of Ethiopia is not a back migration, which is apparently what you are trying to twist this into. Until something else gets published there is no discussion to be had on this. Please stop flogging every dead horse you can find, and please consider WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Abu-Amero 2009

A new study just out concerning the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions. Some stuff I agree with, others I disagree. On E-M123

So, from an Arabian Peninsula perspective, E1-M123 could have come from Ethiopia, across the Horn of Africa, or from the Levant, or even from both sources,

On the dates, the study counters the Richards et al. suggestion that African lineages in the region are due to the slave trade, instead arguing for a preshistoric entrance of these lineages into Arabia, along with other E clades On haplogroup DE, the study, for the first time suggests an Arabian origin of haplogroup DE. The author himself is Arabian I gather. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote you mention is specifically about the E-M123 in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. If that is what you wish to include in this article, then no problem of course. Will you do so? But please refrain from any attempt to try to imply that this mean that they are saying that all M123 comes from the Horn of Africa. The authors clearly try to stay agnostic on this point: (1) they speak of an East African origin, but they include Egypt in East Africa which we clearly can not do on Wikipedia (we need to use clear geographical terms); (2) they also specifically leave things open, saying that southern Arabian E-M123 might come have come from both the Horn, and from the Egypt/Levant cruxus which is most often seen as a point of dispersal. BTW thanks for bringing this article to attention!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Small sample, but the frequency of E-M35 lineages is somewhat low relative to other middle eastern populations. Most notable, E-M78 is almost absent in Saudi Arabia. Only M34 and V22 were detected. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not so surprising in my opinion, based on what we have seen in studies of the countries around Saudi Arabia. M34 and V22 are basically found in similar places I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The splitting of E1b1b into two articles should be reverted.

I have also posted to this effect on the E1b1b1 article. Please note that nearly everything on what remains of E1b1b is about E1b1b1, except maybe about one sentence worth of information. With the current state of scientific knowledge, the two subjects can not be handled separately in any reasonable way that would match Wikipedia norms and policies. Please see WP:MERGE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From WP:MERGE, under rationales for merging: - Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

I have removed some of the material which was ONLY about E1b1b1, currently in a separate article. What is left is entirely the same as equivalent passages in the E1b1b1 article. I repeat that I see no rationale for having such duplication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears I did the revert by accident?? Weird. Anyway, please note I did not intend to seem closed to discussion by doing this so quickly. I'll leave it I guess but the other aspect to this proposal is the reversion of E1b1b1 to a redirect page, which I have not yet done at the present time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups

The above article has been listed for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b doesnt reach 80% in Maghreb , but only in some Berber groups of Middle-Atlas. For example , in Algiers (capital of Algeria) or Oran (second city of Algeria) , E1b1b is up to 44% , and other haplogroups can also be found (J = 35% , F=10% R1b=11%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.96.27 (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So, in some parts of the Maghreb, it is lower, and in some parts higher. In some parts it gets up to 80%.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

why the Australian study is reliable.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JHP-4XMTJX4-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1440450800&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e96f699ccdba9ac59616162d945156ca Investigation of population structure in the Victorian Italian and Greek population using Y chromosome STR haplotype analysis Department of Genetics, Thank you Southernaussie (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

I do not have access to this text (unless you can get me a copy) but honestly, the title says it is about Greeks and Italians in Melbourne. It does sound like an article claiming to present a new theory about the very ancient origins of E1b1b. Does it really present a new theory about the origins of E1b1b or does it just say something in passing referring to work done by others? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was from E1b1b?

Check this out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html

It is quite interesting. However, more reliable source would be needed. Miraceti (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one: [1] Stonemason89 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of interesting, but also kind of a side issue for the subject, and additionally it is currently very hard to know how to source in a way which will satisfy. A lot of famous people were E1b1b. Previous debate about mentioning famous people, which you can find in the archives, led to the situation of today which is none of them being mentioned. I do not think it should go in the article itself? It would certainly raise a lot of issues if we did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a news Item, but I haven't seen whether there is an actual scientific article published. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think indeed that it the reliability of the claims can't really be said to be high in the first place. My above comments are assuming that they are found to be reliably published. I know people are interested in this kind of thing, although I must say this interest is often a bit weird and even creepy. I have seen internet forums urging that it is really important to find out what Y haplogroup Hitler was. I don't think his Y haplogroup will tell us anything about him or his haplogroup apart from that they intersect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Most haplogroups articles include a section "Famous members" (see haplogroup T with Jefferson, Haplogroup C with Gengis Khan, Haplogroup G with Statlin for exemple and so on). So either you remove the section from all articles .... but no reason to remove the section from e1b1b just because Hitler is included... Moreover this analysis was commented by Ronny Decorte, a renown geneticists, head of the Laboratory for Forensic Genetics and Molecular Archaeology, lecturer in Forensic Genetics at the K.U.Leuven and member of the National Commission on Forensic DNA analysis in Belgium. So this is for sure much more reliable than the sections related to Gengis Khan, Stalin or Jefferson haplogroups ...90.36.146.39 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been in this kind of argument before, and I think I'll stay out of it. I'll just point out that the famous people section idea has been controversial and many such sections have been deleted. I do have some sympathy with both sides of the argument. What I would ask is that whatever you post you source it as well as you can, and you write it as neutrally as you can. You will get controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for posting here on the talk page. That also helps. I would also suggest that you'll be taken more seriously by some Wikipedians if you register yourself as an editor rather than posting anonymously.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so to avoid controversy, I have created a wikiquote page related to Eb1b that will list all sourced quotes related to famous members and many others. So it is maybe better to create a link to this page and to remove the section from the article if you prefer. A quote is neither right or wrong but just a quote ... so people are still free to disagree ... Moreover interesting quotes about Eb1b1 from different studies can also be listed other sections. Don't hesitate to add some as long as they are sourced.Antoine17 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Let's see how it goes. You might want to look through the archives here. There are a number of famous people likely to be E1b1b, but it is not easy to source most of them to WP standards. Thanks for your constructive approach!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Coffman-Levy quote

Amongst recent editing on this article I notice a slow edit war of deletions of the Coffman-Levy quote from JOGG. User:Jayjg has been deleting on the basis of WP:RS. Relevant to understanding Jayjg's position are some other discussions:-

• I have been discussing genetics sourcing on Jayjg's talk page: [2].
• Jayjg was involved in a discussion at RS/N about genetics sourcing [3].

It is as clear as I think it will ever be that by implying that JOGG citations can be deleted without even considering content is ignoring the RS/N consensus (and I would say also ignoring all normal WP policies concerning how to edit by consensus, as well as common sense). HOWEVER, a less tendentious argument Jayjg has offered is clearly needing consideration, and that is that JOGG material can indeed sometimes come under WP:REDFLAG, meaning that it is too controversial and technical and would need a more technical source. JOGG is not by default a strong technical source for genetics as such. In this particular case (as I have tried to discuss on Jayjg's talk page) there is however nothing technical or controversial as it was just a passage about word usage which maybe did not even need sourcing.

As a next step however, I have not resisted the deletion, but instead replaced the passage with a similar one with no special sourcing. My justification for doing this, which anyone who reads through the archives of this article will understand, is that the Coffman-Levy quote itself sounded more controversial and complicated than it really was, which led to many different debates over the history of this article about what the passage was trying to say, and in a way maybe that is what has led to Jayjg's deletion. So to avoid future problems it seems simpler to just simplify the text so that it just observes what needs to be observed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the RS/N conclusion was the opposite of what you claim it is, that the "slow edit war" was imaginary, that my edits in no way violated any policies - but rather upheld them, and that the claim that my argument was "tendentious" is itself "tendentious". That said, I have no objection to the edit you made here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes WP works in practice not in theory, I once saw someone say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please use the talk page here

There are edits being made by User:Southernaussie which really need discussion here on the article talk page. (I'd try already giving some comments, but actually it is not even always clear what these edits are trying to achieve.) They are messy, leaving things "broken" and a big part of the edits involves blanked inline comments. That is not the correct way to propose things. Please don't put comments into the real article. Use this talk page. That is what it is for. Looking forward to discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pereira et al. 2010

Pereira; et al. (2010). "Linking the sub-Saharan and West Eurasian gene pools: maternal and paternal heritage of the Tuareg nomads from the African Sahel" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 76 (help) This paper was published early this year, though only the abstract was available for free. There is a free copy online now. The study has some new stats, for E-M81, E3a and R1b among others. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Einstein, Hitler & Napoleon, all E1b1b

This seems notable enough to be mentioned that these three all belong to the, rather sparse for European, Y-haplogroup E1b1b. 66.243.215.2 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Such things have been discussed many times. Check the archives. Some people are strongly against it, but most argument has been about the fact that it is difficult to find good publications to confirm these things. So theoretically speaking if a strong source can be found I see no reason not to have a "famous people" section. It has however been argued occasionally that DNA articles should not have sections about famous people because that is too scientific. What sourcing would you propose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ISOGG shows 2 subclades for E-M215 and NOT 4 as introduction implies

The substructure of EM215 in ISOGG currently shows 2 main bifurcating subclades and not 4 as implied in the introduction piece of this article. These 2 subclades are E-M35.1 and E-M281. E-M35.1 itself has 4 primary subclades that we know of as of now: E-Z827, E-V68, E-V92 and E-V6, of which the first two contain the vast majority of known E-M215 lineages, this is the current substructure, and is somewhat correctly explained in the main article, however the introduction is misleading to this fact, when trying to revert, WP editor: Andrew Lancaster would not allow. Another issue is the nitpicking of ethnic groups with high frequency of E1b1b and displaying them in the introduction section, this is simply arbitrary, as there are multitudes of Ethnic groups in the horn of Africa with high levels of E1b1b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.60.165 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using the talk page, but please remember to sign your talk page posts. First to make the differences clear:

the older version	your proposal
E-M215 is especially common among Oromos and Somalis in the Horn of Africa, as well as Berbers, Egyptians and Tuareg in North Africa. It is also frequently observed in West Asia, from where it spread into the Balkans and the rest of Europe. E-M215 has at least four common subclades: E-V68, E-V257, E-M123, E-M293, the last of which spreads from Ethiopia to South Africa.	E-M215 has two common subclades: E-M35.1 and E-M281, in turn, E-M35.1 has 4 common subclades: E-V68,E-Z827,E-V6 and E-V92, of which the two subclades, E-V68 and E-Z827, contain the vast majority of E-M215 bearers.

And now to summarize the edit summaries (which are a bad way to have a discussion):

• I wrote: old version of this was better. It explains the most common clades (irrespective of artificial ideas about which ones are on the same level) in terms that can be found in main sources
• You wrote: Disagree, if the mentioned substructure is 'artificial' then it should not even be mentioned in the main article below, either stick with Trombetta '11 or current ISOGG
• I wrote: Nothing in this disagrees with Trombetta! Here clades are broken up as per same authors to explain what is most comm in mod'n populations
• You wrote: Never said it disagreed with Trombetta, rather it disagrees with current ISOGG, which is the same as the substructure below
• I wrote: It does not disagree with ISOGG either. You clearly do not understand ISOGG? Please use talkpage and do not revert again
• You wrote: I do understand ISOGG, please see talk page

Thirdly, to address your points, in as far as I understand them from your comments so far:

• There is no fixed number of sub-clades within any version of this family tree. But I do agree that you can of course describe the number of sub-clades at each particular level, as long as you mention that this is just the current state of knowledge. In this we seem to agree. But please note that the number and relationship of sub-clades on each known level is discussed in many places in the article already. There is not much point having this paragraph if it is just going to name the clades at one specific level that are named elsewhere anyway.
• All the sub-clades on all the "levels" are really sub-clades of E-M215. They do not have to be immediately under E-M215 to be a sub-clade of E-M215. For example E-V13 is a sub-clade of E-M215. It is also a sub-clade of E-V68 and E-M78. This is how authors write about it. Still, if you think it causes confusion, you can propose a wording tweak to fix this specific problem. However this is not what you have done, and this problem is pretty clearly not your biggest concern.
• What you have done instead is made the paragraph meaningless, or at least removed all indication of its original meaning. Originally it was, as you say yourself, a quick description of the most highest frequency populations in the world, giving the names of geographic/ethnic groups, and the clades involved (at whichever "level" they happen to be in, for example V257 is not related to any simple geographic area or linguistic or ethnic group, while M293 clearly is.)
• Your new version of the paragraph is not about what is common at all anymore, although it still uses the word "common". It trus now very incorrectly implies that for example V6 is similarly common as V68. No point having a paragraph which only make a misleading remark like this?

My conclusion: I think what you really need to justify is your assertion that a paragraph in the intro about highest frequency areas is "nitpicking" and "simply arbitrary". That seems to be your real issue? But isn't it one of the most basic things anyone coming to this article will want to know before they start reading further? Isn't it indeed how a lot of published articles start out when they introduce discussion of a specific clade? Please comment on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you should not simply assume which of the 2 separate issues is my biggest concern, as I have not given you any premise to undertake this assumption, in any event I will start with issue # 2, the arbitrary nitpicking and display of geographical and ethinic groups with high levels of E-M35.

First of all let's start with the horn of Africa, the Cruciani '04 article shows E-M215 being present in both the Amhara and Wolayta at equal levels with the Ethiopian Oromo, although it is true that higher levels were seen in the Borana oromo and Somalis, but why aren't the Wolayta and Amhara also stated if the Oromo, without any specification, are included, there are close to 100 Ethno-lingusitic groups in the horn of Africa, with E-M215/M35 SNP tests being carried out on only a handful of these groups, why then would the Oromos and Somalis be nitpicked? The fact that the lineage itself likely originates in this area is further reason that it would be widespread throughout the whole region, is it not?

Going on to Berbers, which type of Berbers? Siwa Berbers in Egypt have much less E-M215 than North West African Berbers for instance, again arbitrary. Why specify some and not specify others.

Next, let's go to Egyptians, again which Egyptians? Studies have shown different frequencies of E-M215 throughout Egypt, why no specifics and nitpicking on the Egyptians?

Next let's look at the Balkans, is E-M215 spread evenly throughout the Balkans, why aren't their populations pulled apart like those from Africa, surely, the frequency of E-M215 in Kosovar Albanians and Greeks is not at the same level as that of say Croatians is it?

So all the above is to say that the best way to relay this information is to display or link to the actual population samples that have been surveyed thus far (like it shows in the E-V68 Wikipedia page for instance) and/or may be even an interpolated or contour map of the frequency of E-M215 (like that shown in the Cruciani '04 publication) and just simply leave it at that, any other verbal description of what is 'common', mind you common is undefined here, is it 50%, 30% , 80%??, is unnecessary and simply will cause more confusion.

Now let me go to issue # 1, the issue which you wrongly thought was less important to me, lets revisit the sentence again: “E-M215 has at least four common subclades: E-V68, E-V257, E-M123, E-M293, the last of which spreads from Ethiopia to South Africa. “

Why am I insisting that current knowledge of E-M215's substructure should be unambiguously incorporated in the above sentence? Because the sentence makes little sense without incorporating the substructure, in-fact, I could re-write the above sentence as :

“E-M215 has at least four common subclades: E-M78, E-M81, E-M34, E-M293.....”

and be equally correct, so which subclade to choose? well the more downstream you go the more ambiguity is introduced, therefore, the correct and only choice is to start from as close to the root of the tree being described as possible, that is, as much as current knowledge can afford us.

One last thing with respect to the sentence “the last of which spreads from Ethiopia to South Africa”, although true, it makes it seem as if the others are not spread from Ethiopia to North Africa/Levant, which is the wrong impression, because we know that both E-V68 and E-M123 are spread from Ethiopia to NA/Levant as well, hence why I omitted it. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not simply assumed what your concerns are. I read your comments and edits, and did my best. Your latest post above seems to have almost nothing to do with any concerns you have raised previously, and so you should have come out with them way earlier. Let me go through them:

• Why specify the Borona, Oromo and Somalis? Because (a) they form one single ethno-linguistic group, in contrast to the many other groups in the Horn area who have been tested and because (b) they consistently turn out to have some of the highest frequency levels of all groups tested in that area, and this is frequently remarked upon. There is nothing illogical or arbitrary about this. Please also note that there have been more than one study of groups from that area. Short answer: the paragraph just follows the literature, and that is how Wikipedia works. My question to you: if this was your concern, why not just tweak the words to say "and other groups from the Horn of Africa"?
• Berbers. Again, the reasoning is simple: while there might be Berbers with lower and higher frequencies, Berbers have a whole are frequently reported as having one of the highest levels of E-M215 in any ethno-linguistic or geographic grouping. There is nothing arbitrary or wrong about remarking this. It is quite a simple, correct and logical description, and it follows what published experts say.
• Egyptians. Same again: whatever details will be discussed later in the article, there is nothing arbitrary about saying Egypt as a whole is one of the places in the world with one of the highest overall numbers of E-M215 men, either compared to the population as a whole, or just counted up.
• Is the paragraph derived from a contour map? No. Look at the size of the bibliography of the article. Regional distributions are discussed in the body of this article and its daughter articles. This is just the lead.
• Is it confusing what "common" means? Well, you left the word in, so I presume this was not your original concern, but the answer is no. In the areas named, E-M215 is common in every possible sense, when compared to other parts of the world. The areas named have the highest absolute numbers and relative numbers (ignoring small areas such as individual villages).
• There is in fact nothing ambiguous about “E-M215 has at least four common subclades: E-M78, E-M81, E-M34, E-M293.....”. What is the problem with that sentence? There is little difference between E-M78 and E-V68 in terms of how common they are for example, so either could be used. You seem to be saying that it is obviously illogical to make two statements such as "big cats are common here" and "lions and leopards are common here" as approximately equivalent. But such sentences are in fact approximately equivalent.
• "the correct and only choice is to start from as close to the root of the tree being described as possible, that is, as much as current knowledge can afford us". Why? This is not a logical or necessary thing at all as far as I can see. Going as close as possible to the root means going to E-M35, and that would be meaningless. To divide something into useful categories you have to by definition go away from the root.
• "“the last of which spreads from Ethiopia to South Africa”, although true, it makes it seem as if the others are not spread from Ethiopia to North Africa/Levant". How can you get that implication out of those words? In effect you are saying that "spreads from point A to the south" implies "spreads from point A to the north"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have explained at length both issues of (a) substructure and (b) Pointing to arbitrary ethnic groups in the lead.

Incidentally, I went through a few haplogroup articles here on WP, like R1b,R1a and E1b1a and this is the only article that I have seen thus far that proposes to include nitpicked ethnic groups in the lead, with out exception, all the articles show MACRO-REGIONAL distributions of the relevant lineage.

That being said, I see no point of repeating the arguments I stated over again, however I will acknowledge a couple of points that were raised by you (1) The usage of the word 'common' in the context of my proposal is unnecessary (2) some type of a general frequency snapshot of E-M215 carriers around the world can be useful if included, therefore here is my new proposal:

E-M215 has two basal branches: E-M35.1 and E-M281, in turn, E-M35.1 has four branches: E-V68, E-Z827, E-V6 and E-V92, of which the first two, E-V68 and E-Z827, contain the vast majority of E-M215 bearers whom are to be more frequently observed in the East, South and North of Africa and to a lesser extent in the Near East and Europe.

138.88.60.165 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that concerning our bullet point discussion above, the summary is that your edits do not match the discussion. Your new reply now reverts to what you previously implied was not your main concern, but which obviously is. Here it is: your main concern is that you do not think there should be a paragraph in the lead about which variants (note: the word sub-clade is easy to avoid) are most common in which ethnic and/or linguistic and/or geographic areas. You think it is arbitrary and nitpicking to do this. So you turned the paragraph into a useless repetition of a description of part of the family tree. Why not just delete the paragraph? Anyway, it strikes me we can save a lot of time and energy by directly discussing your real concern, which is whether it is a bad idea to describe where you find the thing that the article is about. Please address this point. I can not see why you think this is nitpicking or arbitrary and you have not yet given any explanation to this key point. If a person looks up Lions on Wikipedia, would it be arbitrary and nitpicking if they would find a paragraph in the lead which attempted to mention the regions where they can be found? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, of course the R1a and R1b articles have sentences in their leads concerning where they are most common. You must not have looked very hard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a new draft, in case it helps:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

the older version

my new proposal

E-M215 is especially common among Oromos and Somalis in the Horn of Africa, as well as Berbers, Egyptians and Tuareg in North Africa. It is also frequently observed in West Asia, from where it spread into the Balkans and the rest of Europe. E-M215 has at least four common subclades: E-V68, E-V257, E-M123, E-M293, the last of which spreads from Ethiopia to South Africa.

E-M215 is especially common in the Horn of Africa, and in North Africa, for example amongst some Berbers and Egyptian poulations. It is also frequently observed in parts of West Asia, the Mediterranean and Balkans, from which areas it is thought to have spread into Europe. Two of the most common variants of E-M215 in modern populations are E-V68 and E-V257. South of the Horn of Africa however E-M293 is the main variant found, stretching as far as South Africa

Note that I see no point trying to write out a description of the family tree in the lead, because this is exactly what the body of the article does, and we should avoid repetition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• “Anyway, it strikes me we can save a lot of time and energy by directly discussing your real concern, which is whether it is a bad idea to describe where you find the thing that the article is about. Please address this point.”

Its not a bad idea, I never said it was a bad idea, however what is a bad idea is the way you are choosing to describe it, which I termed as nitpicking and arbitrary, I have no problem using Macro-Regional descriptions that roughly depict E-M215's distribution like in most other WP haplogroup pages, alternatively or additionally, an interpolated or contour map for E-M215 can also be used, I see that other WP haplogroup pages use this as well. I have also told you to stop assuming what my real (and by implication not so real) concerns are, but you seem intent on continuing to assume so, I have raised 2 issues that I would like to be BOTH addressed equally, so I will again ask you to stop assuming which one you think is more important.138.88.60.165 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• “BTW, of course the R1a and R1b articles have sentences in their leads concerning where they are most common. You must not have looked very hard”

And you must have not looked very hard at what I wrote.138.88.60.165 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• “Note that I see no point trying to write out a description of the family tree in the lead, because this is exactly what the body of the article does, and we should avoid repetition.”

Yet, you see a point in mentioning about frequencies in the lead ? even-though the body of the article describes where E-M215 variants are found in detail as well. This makes no sense.138.88.60.165 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My Original Proposal	My Modified Proposal
E-M215 has two common subclades: E-M35.1 and E-M281, in turn, E-M35.1 has 4 common subclades: E-V68,E-Z827,E-V6 and E-V92, of which the two subclades, E-V68 and E-Z827, contain the vast majority of E-M215 bearers.	E-M215 has two basal branches: E-M35.1 and E-M281, in turn, E-M35.1 has four branches: E-V68, E-Z827, E-V6 and E-V92, of which the first two, E-V68 and E-Z827, contain the vast majority of E-M215 bearers whom are to be more frequently observed in the East, South and North of Africa and to a lesser extent in the Near East and Europe.

I have redone my proposal in the table format above 138.88.60.165 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see no point in putting a paragraph in the lead which is almost identical to a several parts of the article, but I do see value in putting a basic comment in the lead about where a person would expect to find the thing which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. I have asked you to explain why you do not. Please explain. Please try to address the points I make.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only have I explained above, but I have also incorporated it into my modified proposal. Please read again. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I only see comments insisting that it is the "correct and only choice" to do what you want, and that what existed previously in the article is "nit picking" and "arbitrary". That is not an argument, and adding more words by answering indirectly is not going to help you make your case. This kind of stuff can work on internet forums but you can quickly find yourself categorized if you try it too often on Wikipedia. Help yourself out please, and give a real argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have decided to go ahead and edit the page, you have also put in a semblance of substructure, which is good, however, I would like to change the reference to the Horn of Africa to Eastern Africa, (a) for directional uniformity with Northern Africa, (b) most studies use Eastern Africa (Cruciani '04, Cruciani '07) when discussing E-M215. I would also like to take out the reference to Egyptians and Berbers, for reasons discussed above, the Macro-Regional description: North Africa is enough. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• On your first point: Horn of Africa is a geographical term which is clear and can not be interpreted any other way. East Africa, as a term for Horn of Africa is not clear, because East Africa generally refers to places like Kenya and Tanzania where E-M35 is much less common and where the unique clades being discussed have never been found. It is Wikipedia policy concerning geographical names that we should use the most commonly used name, and not necessarily what individual sources use.
• On your second point: I see no reason to remove references to Egyptians or Berbers. As mentioned, you have given no argument above, only repetitions of your faith in your own veracity. I'll restrict to many Berber populations as a compromise because I think there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that published sources refer to this and the high levels amongst them is obvious and striking. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Point1- Not at all, there are times where Horn of Africa can mean just Somalia for instance, the name literally describes the peninsula that sticks out of Eastern Africa, but the term is also used as a collective for Ethiopia, Somalia, Djbouti and Eritrea at other times as well, however, you have no proof that Horn of Africa is more commonly used to describe these countries than East Africa is, the UN for instance does not designate these countries as Horn of Africa but rather Eastern Africa, ditto for several other International Organizations. Also, the reference of East Africa to Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda only comes from the colonial possessions of Britain in that region, i.e. British East Africa and has nothing to do with the fact that countries included in the Horn of Africa are not also commonly called East African countries, or within geographical East Africa. This is in addition to all the scientific sources that use the East Africa designation for E-M215's distribution that I mentioned earlier and I am re-iterating again.

Point2- I have already discussed why arbitrarily nit picking certain ethnic groups and leaving out others is not only unnecessary in the lead but also pretty much uncommon, if ever seen, in the lead of other WP haplogroup articles, we already have a list of all or most of the population samples taken from the scientific studies detailed out for any user that is wanting to dig deeper to see, either in this article or articles related to it, apparently you only want to see what you are wanting to see with respect to this issue, but this is not my problem and I refuse to re-enter my arguments all over again. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Point 1. Please see our articles for Horn of Africa and East Africa, which are both well sourced. If you can convince the editors on those pages to change, then we can change here, but not before. I can see no way to accept your position otherwise, which I'm afraid seems quite silly to me. I have never seen the Horn of Africa used in a way which would be unclear for this article, while it is absolutely certain that East Africa is a term that normally always includes many large countries where E-M35 is not common and where the rare clades of E-M35 have never been found.

Point 2. You never made an argument, and mentioning Berbers simply follows the sources, and simply states the blindingly obvious, as well as years of consensus on this article. If you do not like the compromise we can go back to my original proposal. At this stage you have not convinced any single other editor that I am aware of.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to further discuss point2 because it is done, I will therefore go to point 1 only.

• This is an article about a lineage, E-M215, which based on all authoritative scientific articles written on it, describe BOTH its origin and where it is frequently observed as East Africa and NOT the Horn of Africa, however here on this Wikipedia article regarding this lineage we see a contradiction, or rather an inconsistency, while its origin is stated as East Africa, its frequency, in which data for its origin is also derived from, is being described as Horn of Africa. We need some consistency, and hopefully a consistency that is inline with the scientific articles written on the subject matter.
• Here are a list of quotes from authoritative scientific articles describing where the lineage is distributed and/or originated:

“EM78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted to northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002).”

“Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b”

“Haplogroup E-M78 was observed over a wide area, including eastern (21.5%) and northern (18.5%) Africa”

“The cluster E-M78g was found in eastern Africa at an average frequency of 17.7%”

The above taken from Cruciani (2004) (Not one mention of Horn of Africa in that article)

“because the present high frequencies of E-V12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32”

“In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa”

“that represents about 82% of the eastern African E-M78 chromosomes,”

The above taken from Cruciani (2006) (Again, Not one mention of Horn of Africa in that article)

“Among the most differentiated lineages carrying the M35 mutation, haplotype 30 (M34) is present in eastern Africa, as is haplotype 33 (M78), which is also found at high frequency in northern Africa, whereas haplotype 37 (M81) is found at high frequencies only in northern Africa.”

“The only notable exceptions are represented by the haplotypes bearing the M78 (common in northern and eastern Africa) and the M35 (common in eastern and southern Africa) mutations.”

The above taken from Cruciani (2002) (Again, Not one mention of Horn of Africa in that article)

So here I have produced for you 3 of the most authoritative articles on E-M215 and not one of them even mentions the Horn of Africa, I think it is high time for you to produce your sources stating that E-M215 is described as most commonly observed in the Horn of Africa rather than East Africa.

• You said, verbatim, “It is Wikipedia policy concerning geographical names that we should use the most commonly used name, and not necessarily what individual sources use.” where is your source that the most COMMONLY used name for the region that we are discussing, and in the context that we are discussing, is the 'Horn of Africa' and NOT East Africa ? Again, I would like for you to produce the sources showing this most 'common' usage.138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, our Wikipedia articles concerning the terms Horn of Africa and East Africa are clear and well sourced. And point 2 is not closed just because you say it is. You are obviously being tendentious, and adding length to your posts in order to pretend to have made an argument is pretty easy to spot. I know what the Cruciani articles say, and we both know it is irrelevant concerning this point. (And it has been discussed to death over several years of editing on this article.) I am currently considering you to have stopped rational discussion. I'll edit based on what I can see is most correct and if necessary we can call for broader community opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the DIRECT sources as I have requested above, I am willing to change my mind if there are indeed a majority of scientific articles describing E-M215's distribution in East Africa as Horn of Africa, instead of East Africa , however I am not willing to change my position until you do so.138.88.60.165 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As you have already read and understood, concerning geographical names, what terms specific sources use is not relevant in WP policy. You can not simply announce your own policy demands.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to make it simple:

• If you look at our East Africa article it gives "United Nations Statistics Division - Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications" as one source that makes it clear that "East Africa" includes such countries as Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique. If you want to play the game of asking for more sources, that would be a waste of time. I think this is enough.
• If you look at the context in the Cruciani articles, you will see in contrast that it makes clear that the authors definitely intend NOT to include any countries outside the Horn of Africa, such as Kenya or anything further south.

To ignore the above very simple logic is either deliberate tendentiousness, or else shows extreme problems of editing judgement. As mentioned before, this can be quickly resolved by bringing in more community members to confirm that the above is indeed simple common sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The "United Nations Statistics Division - Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications" shows that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti along with other East African countries are designated within the East African region, that is all, besides the fact that I had already mentioned this earlier, what is this supposed to prove?, certainly not your position, as it stands, you still have not provided a source that supports what the commonly used name for E-M215's distribution (and origin) is, while I provided 3 sources stating East Africa as the most commonly used name for the region that E-M215 is spread in and originates, you have simply just stated what you the think most commonly used name for the spread of this lineage is, or maybe even what you want the most commonly used name to be, this is not adequate.138.88.60.165 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the Authoritative sources I provided above, here below are less authoritative (commercial) sources that use East Africa as the terminology for the region where E-M215 is spread. While these do not carry as much weight as the Authoritative sources cited above, nevertheless it further shows what is commonly used with respect to the lineage in question:

“One of these branches is haplogroup E1b1b1, which originated in a group of people living in eastern Africa.”

“Today the many branches of E1b1b1 are seen in populations throughout parts of northern and eastern Africa, as well as the Near East and eastern Europe.”

“One branch of E1b1b, E1b1b1a, originated in a population that moved from eastern Africa into northeastern Africa about 14,000 years ago”

Personal Genetics Testing Company 23andME

“BRANCH:M35.1

AGE:20,000-24,000 YEARS AGO

LOCATION OF ORIGIN: EAST AFRICA”

National Geographic, Genographic Project, Geno 2.0

"With origins in East Africa or the Middle East, E1b1b1 has spread among North and East African populations, the Middle East, and into Europe from the Mediterranean."

Personal Genetics Testing Company FTDNA

Again, the above is only to show what terminology is commonly used for the spread of E-M215 in the region of question and not as some authoritative scientific source regarding the theory on the origin and migration of the lineage.138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To repeat this is not a sourcing question. The Horn of Africa is the name of the part of East Africa which the Cruciani papers refer to as East Africa. As far as I know, the name "East Africa" has probably NEVER been used as a term for that PART of East Africa (which everyone including you knows normally as the Horn of Africa) except as a name of a particular DATA SET in those genetics articles you mention. I know the authors never would have expected that a data set name created by some Italians in a genetics article would somehow become someone's idea of a gold standard source for a geographical region! LOL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW just to make it clear, the sources you now give such as testing companies are clearly just paraphrasing the Cruciani articles, as I am sure you realize, and are not reliable sources for this discussion and nor are they presenting any results or defining what they mean. The Cruciani et al articles DO define what they mean, and that makes it easy for us to see that they do not mean what is normally referred to as East Africa. Anyway, surely no genetics source is a reliable source for geographical names.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Break: the geography terminology question

138.88.60.165 above and in your reverting you are demanding I produce sources. Sources for what? What point of disagreement between us needs sourcing? If your demand is not clear, we can make no progress. As far as I can see...

• There is no disagreement between us about what the Cruciani articles say (East Africa).
• There is no disagreement between us about which specific part of East Africa these authors show as having the highest frequencies, and the most unique basal clades. (It is the part of East Africa called the Horn of Africa, whether they call it that or not.)
• There is no disagreement between us about the fact that the authors themselves (unlike the paragraph you want to put in our article) make it quite clear that in the rest of East Africa, apart from the Horn, there is much less frequency and diversity of E-M215.

So I think this is not a serious sourcing question. Perhaps your edit demands amount to trying to argue the following:

• A group of Italian geneticists can be seen as a reliable source for a novel use (in English) of geographic terms (using the term "East Africa", to refer to only the Horn of Africa, which I understand is probably an Italian terminology, given that Italy once had colonial interests in the Horn, as their area of influence in colonial East Africa).

If you want, we can take this to WP:RSN. But please check if this is really your position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking over how unconstructive the discussion has been already, I have not waited. I posted to WP:RSN. Please feel free to comment there. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• May I suggest using the geographic subregions for for English WP articles used in the English Subregion article? I know that some authors/sources use other definitions. If you use those authors, cite how they define the subregion in questions.--RebekahThorn (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems a very reasonable suggestion in a general way. But I do not think there is any dispute about what "East Africa" normally means, nor how it is being used as a peculiar article-specific technical term in Cruciani et al's genetic sample collection. I just think this is a practical editing question about finding neat wording. Suggestions welcome. We should keep in mind that the Cruciani et al articles, and other relevant articles such as Semino et al, Luis et al, and Henn et al, are all discussed in detail in the body of the article and this is not being disputed. My aim has been to give a very quick summary of some key points discussed in the body, especially:-

• There are several quite basal types of E-M215 which have only ever been found in Ethiopia (examples: E-M281, E-V92, E-V6, E-V42; see the tree in the sub-clades section).
• Highest frequencies of E-M215 in the world, at least for any large population, are consistently found in North Africa (for example in many Berber speaking populations) and the Horn of Africa (for example in speakers of Lowland East Cushitic languages such as Somali and Oromo speakers, which has by the way not only been reported by the Cruciani team).
• In other parts of East Africa, to the south of the Horn of Africa, the situation is very different from in the Horn of Africa. Only E-M293 is found, and then only in much more limited frequency than E-M215 is found in the Horn of Africa. The main source for this is of course not the Cruciani team at all, but Henn et al.

So that just as a point of making ourselves clear this is a case where there is a good reason to distinguish the Horn of Africa from the rest of East Africa. As far as I can see, WP:RS does not disallow such a wording decision. What do you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is very simple, you said, “It is Wikipedia policy concerning geographical names that we should use the most commonly used name, and not necessarily what individual sources use.” I am asking you for a source for the most commonly used name for the lineage in the region, I have provided 6 sources (3 Authoritative and 3 Commercial), you have provided none but your own opinion, thus far, I am waiting till you bring something to the table. The other issue, which I unfortunately have to re-iterate again, is an issue with consistency, again the lineage's origin says East Africa on the same page, why is this different from the frequency distribution description, and why are you not objecting to the origin being specified as East Africa? It is all based on the same samples -Dataset. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I asked you to explain your sourcing request clearly and you have again failed. Apparently your effort to try to fit geographical naming into the realm of genetics articles is getting you lost. Your first sentence makes no sense? We are discussing a geographical name, and nothing to do with "lineages". The problem is that a reliable source for a geographical name is not a dataset name in a series of Italian genetics article.
• You have not provided 6 sources. You have named the one series of Italian articles which all use the same data set and therefore obviously use the same data set names. But to do this you are ignoring the context in those articles which shows how the data sets are defined. (Terms in technical articles are often idiosyncratic. We do not have to use them the same way.) You have also given names of testing companies who paraphrase those articles. But you already admitted that these are not appropriate sources for this purpose. In summary, you have not provided any appropriate sources for novel geographical names.
• You mention the Origins section, and indeed many of your quotations from Cruciani et al mention things like this. But apparently you long ago lost sight of the fact that the Wikipedia paragraph that you are trying to change is not about this subject. It is just a summary paragraph in the lead about where E-M215 and some of its variants are mainly found. And it does not only rely on Cruciani et al but also all the other articles we use in the body of the article such as Henn et al and Semino et al and Luis et al. And concerning that very simple target you are distorting it by trying to imply that E-M215 as a whole, and also its rare basal variants such as E-M281, E-V92, E-V6, E-V42, are all found equally in places like Tanzania and not only places like Ethiopia. I am absolutely sure that the Cruciani team would be surprised to see their article used this way! They certainly never say anything like what you want to say in this article. Anyone reading their article will see everything explained out, even though unusual terms are used. Why do want to describe things in a deliberately inaccurate way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did explain my sourcing request, you either did not understand or are pretending like you don't understand, here it is again - Provide all the sources that use the terminology 'Horn of Africa' for the region where E-M215 is spread in that part of the world. Provide ANY source that you can for starters, we will then weigh which source has more or less authority. The point would then be to aggregate these sources to find the most commonly used terminology and use that, UNIFORMLY, in this article.
• Well, I have provided 3 separate publications and 3 separate sources from different DNA testing companies. Here is another one:

"Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe"

Scheinfeldt (2010), "Working toward a synthesis of archaeological,linguistic, and genetic data for inferring African population history"

• I was not referring to the origins section but the little box at the top right of the page that says "Possible place of origin - Eastern Africa[2][3]"138.88.60.165 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• This request still isn't clear. Let me exemplify a few possible interpretations:

example 1. You are claiming you have never heard of the region in the north of East Africa which contains Ethiopia and Somalia being called "The Horn of Africa". But surely if you just google Horn of Africa, open a dictionary, etc you'll thousands of sources. It is just a normal English term. We do not normally need to source basic English terms. So surely this is not what you mean right?

example 2. You want to see geneticists using the word. But of course they: Semino et al, Luis et al. Again this can not be what you mean.

example 3. You claim that you have seen no evidence that any geneticists believe that the Horn of Africa is a region with high E-M215 frequencies. But that can't be what you are claiming either. Cruciani et al make it clear as long as you look at their data table which defines what they mean. But then there are many other papers such as Sanchez et al, Semino et al, etc etc. And concerning the unusual clades only found in the Horn, well in fact Cruciani et al are more specific. They say Ethiopia. So you can't be arguing this surely?

• Your new source Scheinfeldt does not appear to mention anything relevant to this discussion?
• It does not matter which discussion of origins you are looking at. My point was that the paragraph you keep trying to change is simply not about origins, and not attempting to describe any particular source. It is a quick summary of some key points which are in the body of the article, and which any reader coming to the article is likely to what to see quickly, like what thing is this article about and where would normally come across one. This is a normal way to write leads for WP articles. Before you start changing things, you should be try to understand what the aim was of the thing you will change.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reverts of myself and another editor continue despite unanimity on the WP:RSN noticeboard. Before this starts being handled as a behavioral question, which would probably include investigation of who the IP editor is in past WP manifestations (which is pretty obvious), are you actually able to make any constructive response to the above post?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

E-M35.1 vs E-M35.2

Outside of direct quotes, I think it is wise to distinguish between these branches as one is a descendant of the other. Even with direct quotes, the article text should explain which (likely E-M35.1) is meant.--RebekahThorn (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. E-M35.2 does not appear in most sources for a reason. It is a private mutation and would not be included in the ISOGG tree under current rules. Therefore we can and should spare readers the obvious confusion we would create by using a different mutation name to all the best sources. Policy is quite clear that WP is not a place for clearing up confusion, but for following what has been published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

starting again concerning new punishment revert

Recent discussion about the edit demands in the lead of 138.88.60.165 (presumably the same as User:Causteau) has been on WP:RSN, because 138.88.60.165 claimed that the demands concerning the words "Horn of Africa" versus "East Africa" were sourcing policy based. Discussion there has been unanimously against the position of 138.88.60.165. Other issues now arise with 138.88.60.165's latest edit. I will simply list the obvious problems:

• The edit summary is "Going with a modification of my original proposal since Andrew Lancaster changed the compromised paragraph that was being worked on for a few days." The idea of going back to a less compromising edit as a kind of revenge or punishment for my recent attempt to do an edit which was not a simple revert, is obviously troubling, but matches the tendentious tone of all discussion since this IP recently appeared. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to try to improve things, and when reverts have been happening, it is generally seen as good to try out edits which are not simple reverts.
• As discussed the repetitive opening words inserted into the paragraph need to be removed: E-M215 has two basal branches: E-M35 and E-M281, the only branch that is found outside of East Africa, E-M35, in turn has four branches: E-V68, E-Z827, E-V6 and E-V92. This exact information is already covered much more clearly in several places nearby in the article, and it now distracts from the aim of this paragraph. In contrast, a simple distribution summary is needed here because the E-M215 article has in recent times been split into several daughter articles. So the distribution information is not as quickly to hand for any new reader.
• As discussed already above, there is simply no reason to forbid ourselves from mentioning what the literature identifies as the two most common clades within E-M215, such as E-M78, just because these clades are not "basal". Clades are simply parts of a family tree (fancy name: phylogeny). It is as if 138.88.60.165 is saying that it is impossible to say that "the Duke of Marlborough and Winston Churchill were the two most famous Churchills", simply because these two famous Churchills are not in the same generation.
• The replacement of the words Horn of Africa with East Africa is being discussed at WP:RSN where 138.88.60.165's is unanimously rejected. But also, 138.88.60.165 now inserts a demand that we state quite wrongly that Southern Africa has one of the highest frequencies of E-M215 in the world. This is obviously unacceptable.
• My words "Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia" has been replaced by "E-V6 and E-V92 are to be primarily observed in the Ethiopian region only". Why only mention these two variants when there are many more? And secondly, the wording is obviously illogical ("primarily...only" it can be one or the other; obviously primarily is not appropriate).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT Causteau, please stop being paranoid, I will respond when I get a chance138.88.60.165 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any problem whether you are or are not Causteau, for me in any case. It is a concern that you are by now clearly not a new editor, but someone with some sort of axe to grind (as was also remarked about you at WP:RSN), writing under IP. As it stands right now your editing behaviour under this identity is going way beyond the pale, but you are ignoring all consensus and attempts at rational discussion. So it certainly looks like you have chosen to do this under IP name. Just pointing to the obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

'Axe to grind' ? Please, anyway, enough of the small talk and let's get back to the meat of the topic, here is why I think my proposal is better,

• It quickly shows for the new and amateur user on E-M215 the most up-to date substructure of E-M215 and incorporates substructure information throughout the whole lead.
• It shows (per the substructure) where the macro-regional distribution of the lineage is roughly, inline with how most haplogroup articles in WP explain their distributions
• It uses geographic terminology that is used by all the published studies on the E-M215 lineage, as well as peripheral scientific articles, in addition to commercial testing companies, I have provided eight sources so far: Cruciani (2002),Cruciani (2004), Cruciani (2006), Semino (2004), Scheinfeldt (2010), 23andME, National Geographic and FTDNA.
• It uses geographic terminology that is CONSISTENT with the geographic terminology that is used in the article for the region of origin of the lineage.138.88.60.165 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No it does not show the structure in any useful way. It is a rushed and partial version of what is already explained very nearby in the article. By inserting this and deleting other information, more importantly, you also effectively deleted the original paragraph that was here when you arrived as an IP. The original paragraph served a use in the context of the article it was part of. All your edits have sought to make that impossible as a way of slipping your Southern Africa story which is no sources.

Your aim, as expressed in your last two bullet points, of trying to equate the part of East Africa with the most E-M215 with the place where E-M215 is thought to have originated, is clearly what this is all about and you have no source for doing that. So unless you have some other explanation your punishment edit is clearly just a edit war strategy in the same issue being discussed on WP:RSN, where you have been unanimously been told you are wrong.

At what point will you stop edit warring in deference to community consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Only thing of substance that I can see from your comments on my latest proposal is that to do with the South African mention, which I have modified.138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not read very carefully then, because you are effectively insisting on grammatical errors which are easily fixed. I think that says a lot. It seems perhaps you might be User:Muntuwandi and not Causteau?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No I am not 'Mutuwandi' either. Well, as it stands right now (at the time of this time stamp) I think we have come to a resolution regarding the lead, I will accept the 'Northern' plug on the East Africa portion that you put in, although it maybe a little confusing. Hopefully you will not change the content, again.138.88.60.165 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think if this is a compromise you can accept, there is no reason to be opposed to the normal English term for the same thing, "The Horn of Africa".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Starting again with trying to erase "The Horn of Africa"

Now that the lead has has been modified to exclude the "Horn of Africa" term, the body needs to follow, I see 10 instances of the use of the terminology "Horn of Africa" throughout the body that need to be changed to the consistent term that is aligned with all other publications on E-M215, i.e., "East Africa". Egenetics (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No it does not, and it never did. There is not even one other Wikipedian who agrees with you on that. There is absolutely no justification for such a silly crusade against a standard English term. Get off your hobby horse.

If you see specific cases where this article paraphrases a source article wrongly, then show exactly how, but just to remind you, the source has to be talking about the same subject as our article!

• You have never had sources saying that the highest frequencies of E-M215 are found in Eastern Africa.
• We also have no source saying that the highest frequencies are found in the northern part of Eastern Africa (the current wording which you accept).
• The sentence in the lead which you edit warred about is written by a Wikipedian, me, and not claiming to be paraphrasing any source. It is a description of what the sources show us, using standard English terminology.
• This position was accepted unanimously on WP:RSN.

If you are unable to work according to a clear consensus you should not be editing on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your title says that I am 'starting again' but rather what I am doing is finishing off what I started.Here below are all 10 instances where the non-sourced terminology 'Horn of Africa' is being used in this article:

• (1)The E-M215 clade is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern, Western, and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).[2][3][11][12]

• (2)E1b1b1b* (E-M35 *). By latest definition in Trombetta et al. 2011, now rare outside Horn of Africa.

• (3)E1b1b1a1 (E-M78). North Africa, Horn of Africa, West Asia, Europe. (Formerly "E1b1b1a".)

• (4)although other branches still exist in the Horn of Africa, such as E-V6

• (5)E-M123 is less common but widely scattered, with significant populations in specific parts of the Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, Iberia, and Anatolia.

• (6)Many smaller subclades, such as those defined by mutations V6, V42 and V92, appear to be unique to the Horn of Africa region.

• (7)E-M78 is a commonly occurring subclade, widely distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, (the Middle East and Near East) "up to Southern Asia",[1] and all of Europe.[23]

• (8)But there is no autochthonous presence of E-M81 in the Near East, indicating that M81 most likely emerged from its parent clade M35 either in the Maghreb, or possibly as far south as the Horn of Africa.[15]*

• (9)Semino et al. 2004 had proposed the Horn of Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78.

• (10)Cruciani et al. 2007 were able to study more data, including populations from North Africa who were not represented in the Semino et al. 2004 study, and found evidence that the E-M78 lineages in the Horn of Africa were relatively recent branches (see E-V32 below).

As I have by now mentioned countless of times, none of the Sources shown above or anywhere else in the publications use the 'Horn of Africa' as this Wikipedia entry does for the context it is being used in, except for quote # 8 referring to Source #15, where Shomarka Keita, does passingly so use the term the 'horn'. So you can use 'the horn' term for the paragraph that is citing #15, all the rest however must go. It does not matter what the supposed 'consensus' says when it is in direct terminological conflict with the published articles you are citing, as I have mentioned before this is a scientific article that primarily relies on publications and not consensus, it does so for the terminology used for the area of origin of E-M215, and it will so for all other regional terminology uses as well. Wikipedia consensus may come in handy when the publications are not clear about which terminology they use, but this is not the case for what we are discussing as it is CRYSTAL CLEAR what terminology they use.Egenetics (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, you are wrong about how Wikipedia works. Please note especially that it is you that has chosen (after initially trying other arguments) to argue that your East Africa crusade is an issue about Wikipedia sourcing policy (at least on this particular article). To say that a WP:CONSENSUS of experienced editors can be ignored about Wikipedia policy itself is obviously incorrect. For better or worse, this community works based on such consensus, and if you do not accept it, then you are free to publish elsewhere such as on a blog or whatever.
• Secondly, please notice how all of the above sentences are about different things. To make a claim that any of them have sourcing problems, you need to find sources about each of the subjects addressed which make it clear that the Horn of Africa is truly incorrect. You need to do this one at a time. You can not logically make blanket demands if you truly want to argue that this is a sourcing concern.
• Thirdly, just because sources do not use the term Horn of Africa still does not mean we can not, so if "lack of evidence" is your only evidence, it is not real evidence. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack".
• Fourthly, as was pointed out to you by consensus, Horn of Africa is a standard English term, and its definition is clear. The countries which are in the Horn of Africa can be compared to the countries which are mentioned in the various source articles in each case. You clearly understand such logic because in one case only you were able to use it (in regards to V6 being found outside of Ethiopia).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• You started the whole consensus thread with an intentionally misleading premise, making it look as if only an Italian team was using the East African term, then when I brought some proof that discarded your misleading premise, you quickly started using other arguments as to why you think Horn of Africa is a better terminology, according to you, but most certainly not according to the sources, both expert and commercial, both Italian and non-Italian, cited. The 'experienced editors' also need to show some demonstrated knowledge and familiarity with the subject, which is E-M215, and not just geographic terminology usages. You do not own this or any other page on WP, I am free to edit here as much as I want.
• They are not about different things, they are all about describing the specific region where E-M215 or some of its variants are found in the world. This specific region is described as East Africa by the vast majority of people who actually study the lineage, this is found in the very same sources you cite, however, you and two or three other editors here want to call that region Horn of Africa, that is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article that is purely based on published Scientific articles.
• Then why on earth are you using the Eastern Africa term for the area where E-M215 originated? Why are you not using horn of Africa for the origin ? Why are you insisting that the Sources must be followed for the location of the origin but not for the location of the distribution of the lineages or some variants thereof? It is clear who is pushing a POV here.
• Whether or not it is a standard English term is not the question, the question is whether or not we should use it in this article at the expense of the academically used term East Africa. Both terms, Horn of Africa and East Africa can have varied meanings and definitions, that is why we have to stick with what is most commonly used in the context of the subject of this article, the context is E-M215.-Egenetics (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did not intend to mislead anyone. The suggestion by me that not being Italian speakers might play a role is in my opinion true, but was only meant to be secondary to the bigger discussion; and the responses which were made on WP:RSN clearly also understood that and pointed to other really deep problems with your argument. (See the fourth bullet below for one of the main ones.)
• They are about different things, obviously, so there is no single "this specific region". Not every mention of a place is saying the same thing about this place? Honestly this line of argument is really amazing to me.
• Because we do have clear sourcing about "East Africa" for some subjects, but not all. Origins is one subject where do have clear statements. Highest frequency is a different subject and it is one where we have no simple statement, but we do have clear data tables and the English language. That is all we need. (As was pointed out to you on WP:RSN, the level of wording copying you demand would actually, if used consistently, which you do not, force us to violate WP:COPY.)
• This Wikipedia is made in standard English. So even if there was such a thing as an "genetics" definition of East Africa, we would have to "translate".
• You have now returned to your original non-wikilawyering argument that Horn of Africa has no clear definition. Actually I think you should have stuck with this argument from the beginning. If it were true it would be worth considering, but as far as I see it is not true. It is simply your assertion. Can you name one example of an alternative definition of the Horn of Africa? East Africa is fuzzy. But as an editor choosing an English word one of the attractions to me of the "Horn of Africa" is how clear it is. (It is also a handy size, not too large or too small.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you may not have noticed that below I have done as I say should be done, and gone through each specific case. This is the way WP:RS should be handled (not just my opinion, or logic, but actually part of the community consensus that has been committed to written form).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Going through the actual and proposed uses of the word in the article

(0) E-V68 and E-Z827 are [...] most frequently observed in North Africa and the northern part of East Africa; and to a lesser extent in Southern Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

• Argument for "Horn of Africa". The "northern part of East Africa" is normally called "the Horn of Africa" and it should not be controversial to use whatever the clearest and shortest English term is. (This is also the consensus of experienced editors at WP:RSN concerning how WP:RS should be understood.) Concerning the fact that highest frequencies are in fact found only in the Horn of Africa within Eastern Africa, just see the frequency table now included in the article. Indeed Egenetics you have admitted that it is only the northern part of Eastern Africa, and that this area is called (by others) the Horn of Africa. I want to say that out of all the changes you demand this is actually one that simply seems to have no possible justification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any quotation or counter argument about this one? I know two arguments: Do you still claim that Cruciani et al's comments about possible origins are just the same as a comment about highest frequencies? Or do you still claim that you have evidence that the term Horn of Africa is unclearly defined and/or less clearly defined than "East Africa"? As these two arguments are very unconvincing, it would be good if you go beyond them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the sources for determining the terminology for the location of origin then you must also follow the same sources for determining the terminology for the region of distribution, if being consistent is unconvincing to you then so be it, I will be sticking to that argument. As to the second part, you can open an encyclopedia and find out what the broad and strict definitions for Horn of Africa are, there are some cases where Uganda and Kenya are included, in the lately South Sudan is also included sometimes, but again this is really secondary, look below, I am only interested in using what the sources are saying and not really arguing with you what is right or wrong.Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please give any kind of evidence that high frequency means place of origin. I know this is a common mistake amongst non-geneticists, but certainly Cruciani et al do not make this equation do they? Some geneticists actually propose that places of highest frequency tend to be places where a haplogroup is new and has entered with some kind of wave of movement. (This is indeed what has been proposed for M81 in NW Africa and the V32 amongst Somalis.) That is the exact opposite of what you consider obvious isn't it?
• I have looked at reference works, as we discussed before, and I found no variation in the definition at all. Just bring some evidence. Furthermore of course if the definition were to include only a little MORE than the normal definition it would cause no problem for us anyway. Your original argument was that it sometimes did not even include Ethiopia, and that would have been important. Anyway, prove it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: you have no source at all saying anything clear in words about where E-M215 is most common. You have no source showing that the Horn of Africa is ever defined in a way which does not include Ethiopia, or is defined in any way which would make it more unclear and inaccurate than "East Africa".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(1)The E-M215 clade is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern, Western, and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).[2][3][11][12]

• Remarks. Logically, Horn of Africa is not needed here because it is part of East Africa and East Africa is also mentioned. So it is a wording question only. But arguably this emphasis and separating out of the Horn of Africa is justified because it is clear from the sources that the northern part of the East Africa which is called the Horn of Africa has a completely different distribution of E-M35 than the rest of East Africa. That is the case for keeping Horn of Africa here, as far as I can see. What is wrong with this argument if anything?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (1)

"The Pathans were the only population among the three that claim Greek ancestry in which clade E was present. This branch is observed in Europe, Middle East, North and East Africa with a suggested origin in East Africa.24 Sub-clade E3b is common in Europe and probably originated in Africa." Firasat (2006)-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"The second basal branch of E1b1, E-M215, has a broad geographic distribution from southern Europe to northern and eastern Africa where it has been proposed to have originated [8]." Trombetta (2011)

Comments: Sources are self explanatory for what we should use.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

These sources do not disagree with the text we have. This is clearly a case where you should read my actual remarks and respond. Please explain what is wrong with the current wording and the reasoning given. Otherwise you are just talking past me. (BTW Firasat is only citing Semino et al and is not an independent source. It is also only referring to a branch of haplogroup E, which by looking to Semino must mean E-M78, not E-M35. Firasat is also not a strong source in the sense it has been contested more than once and is not a highly cited source, or frequently published author in this field.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean they don't disagree? The sources that are cited in the Article use East Africa, while the Article chooses to use Horn of Africa, it is clear that they are different terminologies, whether you think they mean the same or not is besides the point (and also debatable). In this case it is very simple what you should do, take out horn of Africa and just leave East Africa in there.If Firasat is not a dependable source then take it out of the article and don't cite itEgenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but disagreement means different meanings, and never ever just means different word use. Indeed this is what you were told on WP:RSN. If you say there is some relevant debate about the meaning of Horn of Africa, please prove that. (Also your comment about Firasat is tendentious. Firasat was not even writing about this subject.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: See (0) above which is similar. You have no source showing disagreement with the fact that the Horn of Africa has obviously much more E-M35 than the rest of East Africa, and in fact the sources you mention show this to be strikingly true, and obviously worthy of remark.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(2)E1b1b1b* (E-M35*). By latest definition in Trombetta et al. 2011, now rare outside Horn of Africa.

• Argument for "Horn of Africa". The sentence appears to be true, according to the source named, which is pretty much the only one we can use anymore for true E-M35*. Those relevant frequencies of E-M35* are also now in our new frequency table: Ethnic Somalis, Wolayta (Ethiopia), Ethiopian Oromo, Mixed Ethiopians.
• Remarks. Logically correct would also be "Ethiopia and Somalia" wouldn't it? But that seems silly given that the 2 other small Horn of Africa countries (Eritrea and Djibouti) are not tested, whereas Kenya to the south has been tested and shows no E-M35*. But I do note that actually E-M35* is now arguably rare everywhere (except amongst Cushitic populations?) and also that it has been found in tiny amounts in Europe. So logically "outside Horn of Africa" could be removed, but shouldn't we mention something about the distinct pattern of Somalis and Oromo/Borana?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• (2)

"All the sixteen Y chromosomes from southern Africa and 4/19 Y chromosomes from eastern Africa described by Cruciani et al. [8] as belonging to paragroup E-M35* turned out to carry the M293 mutation." Trombetta (2011)

Comments: What this translates to is that the remaining 15 E-M35* chromosomes are also being described as being from East Africa, this will remain so even after resolution/refinement.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This passage is from 2004 and before the main article about the rest of East Africa, which is Henn et al. It is also referring to sample results which are no longer considered to be E-M35* by the up-to-date standards our article is using, and indeed that is what it is announcing. So it gives no direct statement about where the remaining E-M35* are found, and the mention of East Africa is again a case of just referring to a name of a section on that one data table which in essence is your source for most of your arguments regarding "East Africa". We are not stupid and we can also look at the data table and use the English language to describe it. Please also note that the seminal study of most of East Africa is Henn et al, and we have no right to ignore that and focus on only one secondary source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is again only your point of view that you are writing about, Trombetta (2011) clearly refer to all the E-M35* lineages as East African, it is YOUR POV that we should call them Horn of African, correct? Your POV is different from what the publishers are using Correct? that is the only point that I would like to drive and not whether or not your POV is accurate or not, which like I said is debatable.Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, a different POV would mean a difference of real opinion, not just a different word. I am not trying to get any particular POV into this article. I am just trying to describe what the literature says. Trombetta et al is one of my key sources and they clearly show the which countries they tested in and found M35* in. I do not need a genetics source for how to use the English language to describe those countries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I should remind that in this particular case the source does not directly say what you want the source to say. So your cherry picking literalism argument is not even relevant here. This passage needs interpretation one way or the other. This passage is about E-M293, not E-M35 by its latest definition. There is no dispute from me that E-M293 is common in East Africa (and before Henn et al, this means the old definition of E-M35* was common in East Africa. Perhaps you have missed that point of changing definitions?). So please find a source about E-M35 NOT INCLUDING E-M293, which our article treats separately. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: Your claim comes down to ignoring the discovery of M293, which changed the definition of E-M35*.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(3)E1b1b1a1 (E-M78). North Africa, Horn of Africa, West Asia, Europe. (Formerly "E1b1b1a".)

• Proposal. The sources make it clear that E-M78 is not found is almost all of East Africa, but it is found in very high frequencies in the Horn of Africa. I can see that it is found in smallish but significant levels in Kenya, and not only amongst Cushitic speakers. This is perhaps a case where we can put "the northern part of East Africa". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• (3)

"In particular, from among its subgroups, E-M78 (fig. 1E) is present in Europe, the Middle East, and North and East Africa." Semino (2004)

"Haplogroup E-M78 was observed over a wide area, including eastern (21.5%) and northern (18.5%) Africa, the Near East (5.8%), and Europe (7.2%), where it represents by far the most common E3b subhaplogroup." Cruciani (2004)

Comments: Sources are self explanatory for what we should use for E-M78 as well.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The mention of East Africa is again a case of just referring to a name of a section on that one data table which in essence is your source for most of your arguments regarding "East Africa". We are not stupid and we can also look at the data table. We can see that Cruciani et al did not sample most of East Africa, whereas the later article of Henn et al did. We can see that in any case Cruciani et al's own data shows a major difference between the Horn of Africa and the rest of East Africa. Anyway, please go beyond saying something is obvious. How does the literature as a whole (not one term in one table) disagree with our text, and my reasoning given above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clear what the sources use and what you want to use are different terminologies.If you want your terminology used then get it published and peer-reviewed and I would have no problems having it is incorporated in this article. You seem to think that I want to argue with you whether you are right or wrong, I do not, I am simply saying stick to the sources terminology.Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that M78 has been found in significant amounts in the part of East Africa which is not normally called the Horn of Africa? Please just name any source for this specific thing which is what you want Wikipedia to say. It is certainly not the papers you keep citing, because they are my source for saying that it is not common there. What is most important is getting the meaning of our sources, not using the exact words, and that is not just my opinion but Wikipedia consensus and policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: You have no source for saying that M78 has been found in significant amounts in the part of East Africa which is normally called the Horn of Africa. To cherry pick words from papers in order to give this impression would not be a true representation of those papers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(4)although other branches still exist in the Horn of Africa, such as E-V6

• Proposal. Given the new Dugoujon et al source you have given we could just remove the words "in the Horn of Africa" and either have nothing or else "Africa"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (4)

"Haplogroup E-V6 was observed only in eastern Africa (8.9% in Ethiopia, with a single occurrence in both Somalia and Kenya)" Cruciani (2004)

Comments: Sources are again self explanatory for what we should use for E-V6 as well.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet you previously pointed out to me that another publication has since found V6 in Egypt. Again, we have no right to act stupid and focus upon one term in one article. We know that citing this one 2004 article would mean we would be giving outdated information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Outdated information ?? This is the ONLY descriptive information we have on E-V6 with respect to the contentious terminology we are talking about here, it is offcourse once again clear what the authors are using for it.Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you now ignoring Dugoujon et al (2009)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: Your use of a 2004 citation to answer me, and your ignoring a 2009 article is striking! You also show no sign of having considered my proposal yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(5)E-M123 is less common but widely scattered, with significant populations in specific parts of the Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, Iberia, and Anatolia.

• Argument for "Horn of Africa". Just look at the data. I can not accept East Africa here because that area is far larger than the area we want to identify, and I think that saying Ethiopia would be silly given that the tested ethnic groups with highest levels are also closest related to the two small untested countries. Is there anything wrong with this reasoning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (5)

"Although the frequency distribution of E-M34 could suggest that eastern Africa was the place in which the haplogroup arose," Cruciani (2004)

Comments: Sources corroborate using East Africa for E-M123/M34 as well.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

E-M123 and E-M34 are obviously not the same. Also this passage is not making a clear statement about frequency but is about possible places of origin. So this citation is simply not clear enough, and certainly it is easier to just look at the literature as a whole and see what the data says, and describe it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Most E-M123 belongs to E-M34, just as most E-M215 belongs to E-M35. It is making a statement about both frequency and possible place of origin, not either or.Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is your original research. You might be right, or you might be wrong, but you are going far beyond what is obvious in the sources. I thought you wanted to strictly stick to wordings found in sources? Sorry but I think you have no case here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: You have no source with clear wording relevant to this matter, so we need to look at reported frequencies and describe them in our own words. But you also have no source which would justify us saying that M123 is common in any part of East Africa apart from the Horn of Africa.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(6)Many smaller subclades, such as those defined by mutations V6, V42 and V92, appear to be unique to the Horn of Africa region.

• Argument for "Horn of Africa". Given the new Dugoujon source, we can perhaps say "almost unique". But this is once again a case where East Africa is far bigger than the area we are identifying, and Ethiopia is probably too small. So as responsible editors we need to choose good words. Please also note that the word "region" allows some flexibility of interpretation already. Is there anything wrong with this reasoning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (6)

"The E-M35* undifferentiated state of two Jews and one Amhara from Ethiopia previously reported [8] has now been resolved by two mutations (V42 and V92, respectively), that identify two additional clades within the E-M35 haplogroup." Trombetta (2011)

Comments: For this case I suggest we use Ethiopia, directly.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

But once again this mean ignoring the Dugoujon information which you brought to attention? What about "almost unique to the region of Ethiopia"? Again, please actually read and respond in good faith to the proposals and reasoning being given.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can accept "almost unique to the region of Ethiopia"Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. One small step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: I just realized that this citation you gave tricked me up. It is about E-V42 and E-V92, not E-M35* by its current definition, which is the one our article uses. So looking at what we do have, our frequency table, it is clear that true M35* is also common amongst Somalis, and not only Ethiopians. So the sources make it clear that we need to pick a geographical terms which includes these two countries but excludes other East African countries where we know M35* has never been found at all. Any proposals about a good term for that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(7)E-M78 is a commonly occurring subclade, widely distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, (the Middle East and Near East) "up to Southern Asia",[1] and all of Europe.[23]

• Argument for "Horn of Africa". See (3).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (7)

Comments: See (3)-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See my remarks at (3).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See my remarks at (3)Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: See (3). You have no source which shows high M78 in the part of East Africa which is not the Horn of Africa. There is no such source, and to cherry pick words from papers to give this impression would be to say something different from what those papers teach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(8)But there is no autochthonous presence of E-M81 in the Near East, indicating that M81 most likely emerged from its parent clade M35 either in the Maghreb, or possibly as far south as the Horn of Africa.[15]

• Argument for "Horn of Africa". Egenetics has already noted that the source Keita specifically says this. So I see no possible sourcing argument here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (8)

Comments: Already discussed above-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify. Are you agreeing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I will accept the Horn of Africa for that paragraph, so long as the Keita footnote is attached to it.Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, another small step. By the way do you think Keita seriously disagrees with Cruciani, Trombetta etc? I do not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far:

Resolved

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(9)Semino et al. 2004 had proposed the Horn of Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78.

• Proposal. It is true that this old paper uses the word East Africa, so I suppose if we want to mention it we need to be careful about not ignoring the context both within the article itself and considering more recent articles, so I propose: Based upon Ethiopian data, Semino et al. 2004 had proposed the East Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78. The text actually not only mentions Ethiopia but also points the reader for explanation to Figure 3, where Ethiopia is used to name the whole region.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (9)

"In conclusion, high-resolution Y-chromosome haplotyping and particular microsatellite associations reveal regional population differentiations, an East Africa homeland for E-M78, Semino (2004)"

Comments: Sources are self explanatory for what we should use.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read and respond to what is written. Reading in context, the authors also use the term Ethiopia. But in any case this one can be changed as I said. See also my comment in (10).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we use the term Ethiopia? The authors use this term in the same passage and diagram for some reason, and according to you we must use words blindly without considering meaning right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: I think you never gave a clear response to my proposal above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(10)Cruciani et al. 2007 were able to study more data, including populations from North Africa who were not represented in the Semino et al. 2004 study, and found evidence that the E-M78 lineages in the Horn of Africa were relatively recent branches (see E-V32 below).

• Proposal. This is actually connected to (9) and should be adjusted to fit (9) but also according to my reading this footnote needs cleaning up anyway, as it repeats itself in different words (once with Horn of Africa and once with East Africa). I suppose the second one needs to be deleted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• (10)

"The other common eastern African sub-haplogroup, E-V32, that represents about 82% of the eastern African E-M78 chromosomes, is a relatively recent terminal branch of E-V12 (8.5 ky, fig. 1) Cruciani (2007)"

Comments: Sources are self explanatory for what we should use.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, please do not put your hands over your ears as a way of trying to get what you want. There is no point citing Cruciani et al's data set names over and over again and ignoring what other editors on Wikipedia say about WP:RS (most clearly on WP:RSN), because this will just keep discussion going in circles. For better or worse you can not ignore other editors on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please give a source which says that E-V32 is common in the parts of East Africa which are not referred to as being in the Horn of Africa. That is the meaning you want to insert in Wikipedia, and you need to find a source for it. The source is not Cruciani et al, because anyone reading that paper will be informed that Cruciani et al do not say this at all. You seem to be trying to cherry pick single terms in a way that will CHANGE the meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary so far: You have no source for saying that V32 is common in the parts of East Africa which are not in the Horn of Africa. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

general argument

Since my argument for using East Africa is in essence to stick with what the sources say, I will just simply quote relevant source/s for each of the points as my argument.-Egenetics (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have re-formatted my point by point post, and your responses so that we can properly discuss each citation. Concerning sticking to what the sources say, I make a general note that in most cases you are of course only sticking to what one source says, not any consensus in the whole literature. An isolated use of one English term is not a strong reason to ignore what we know about the English language, or about other articles. I also note that you have not commented about (0), which is the original citation under discussion. Just ignoring my arguments is not going to lead to any consensus, so please try to avoid that. But see above for more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The main point that I can't seem to get through to you is that I am not interested in arguing whether your usage of the term is correct or not, I just want to show that your terminology usage is DIFFERENT from what is cited in the primary sources, If I am sticking to one source it is because it is the only source that we have and not because other sources use your terminology. With respect to (0) it is very similar to (1) in nature hence the sources I provided for (1) should also suffice for (0)Egenetics (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You have gotten through to me with your point. But me and everyone else have explained to you that it is not relevant or correct. You can't just proclaim that there is a genetics re-definition of a clear and well known English term. And you can not proclaim that a just because "East Africa" is mentioned in sources concerning one subject, that this means "Horn of Africa" should be removed from every place in a long article, even if they are not all about that same subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)