Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

M78 Map

I noticed its showing a high requency in Yemen & Western Oman? (more than that in Iraq). In Oman & Yemen M34 & basically M215(xM78) is the most dominant, with 0% M78 in 2 studies done on Yemenis? & only 1%~2% in Omanis. In Iraq M78 is actually higher 2%~5% but the map is not showing it.

An M78 map has to show that M78 radiates north to South (both sides) from the Levant (or elsewhere) & becomes equal with M34 in Southern Emirates, in Oman M34 picks up all the way to Yemen. If you want to make an E1b1b M78, M34 & M81 map we can all work on it, but we have to be more specific on frequencies & clearly mark the low frequency regions, just like we marke the high frequency regions.

File:Haplogroup E-M78 Cruciani 2007.png

Distribution density of E1b1b1a (E-M78) according to Cruciani et al. (2007).

Cadenas2008 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks just like the one from Cruciani et al. 2007? Oman also does not seem to be showing the high levels you mention? See http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/24/6/1300 which seems to show that the levels in Yemen are probably mainly E-V12 and E-V32. Concerning E-M81 I've posted a scan here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robino_algeria_M81.png from another recent article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the Robino contour map for E-M81, but am not sure if that is going to be found acceptable. If anyone wants to make a rendering of it, that sounds great. Concerning E-M78 I see nothing wrong with the Cruciani map which has currently been removed, although with any contour map there are always assumptions. Concerning the E-V13 map, I'd like to remind that it is clearly not a rendering of the Cruciani map which it claims to be. It should be changed, removed or corrected I think. I personally think that an adaptation of the E-V65 map from Cruciani would be very interesting in the correct place also. What is not in the literature is a good contour map of up-to-date E-M123, which is a shame.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of these contour maps are developed using relatively small sample sizes, usually just a few hundred people. Very large data sets may be impractical at the moment. Consequently, they reflect general trends rather than being an accurate representation of the exact frequencies in a particular area. The most important issue demonstrated by the Cruciani map is that it does a good job of reflecting the two areas of concentration of M78. The rest of the information on the map is not specific, nor was it meant to be. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the map from 2007 didn't take into account 3 studies that took place in Yemen all show that the main E1b1b in that region is mainly E1b1b(xM78). Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, while awaiting more studies, we can still use the map based on Cruciani et al. Yes they didn't study population from Yemen, but they didn't make any claims about Yemen. Since according to WP:VERIFY, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not necessarily truth, we can include the cruciani based map until a more comprehensive map is found. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

M78 in Yemen vs Yemeni Israelis

Even if you consider Yemenite Israelis as Yemenis they still only show 10% M78!

Now compare Y-DNA results of Yemeni Israelis vs Yemenis (combined 3 studies):

• Hap-------------------------------Yemeni Israelis (Shen)-----------------Yemenis (Cadenas, Malouf & Cerny)
• Q3 -----------------------------------------15%------------------------------------ ~ 0%
• E-M78 ------------------------------------10%------------------------------------ ~ 0% *not tested by Cerny* E = 9.5%
• J2b! ----------------------------------------10%------------------------------------ ~ 0%
• R1b!----------------------------------------10%------------------------------------ ~ 0%

E1b1b in Yemen & Oman is in large E1b1b(xM78)

I know its very hard to draw an E1b1b map let alone an M78 map, but its not good to have a an incomplete map, maps should be updated on a study by study basis. Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give the Malouf and Cerny references? (I ask because they are not currently in the article references, and if they have relevant information that make them interesting.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cerny (Socotra)
• 45/63 = 71.4% J*(xJ1, J2)
• 9/63 = 14.3% J1
• 6/63 = 9.5% E
• 1/63 = 1.6% R*(xR1b)
• 1/63 = 1.6% F*(xJ, K)
• 1/63 = 1.6% K*(xO, P)

• Malouf (Mainland)
• 28/40 = 70.0% J1-M267
• 6/40 = 15.0% J2a1b-M67
• 5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
• 1/40 = 2.5% G-M201

Cruciani et al. (2004) gives .94% of 106 Omanis, and 2.5% in UAE (40 people). Luis et al. (2004) found 2/121 Arab Omanis. The numbers are small but this could also be said about many parts of Europe where the map has a light colour? By the way, it would be interesting if you gave more accurate information than "~0%". I don't think using such simple methods to prove your point helps get understanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So far its 0m78 of all E1b1b samples found, thats usually a good indication that M78 is as rare as T in Yemen, especially that E1b1b(xM78) was found in big %, you can't just guess by looking at UAE, Oman (both have very low % of M78 anyways) when you already have studies done on Yemen itself!

• Yemen (Cadenas)
• 1/62 = 1.6% E-M215(xM35)
• 2/62 = 3.2% E-M35(xM78, M81, M123)
• 5/62 = 8.1% E-M34
• 8/62 = 12.9% E1b1b total

• Yemen (Malouf)
• 5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b1c1-M34
• 5/40 = 12.5% E1b1b total.

I prefer a new map based on all studies by 2009 (including Hassan et al) something like the V13 neat map.

• East Chad & North Darfur Masalit people have a big M78 frequency 71.9 % (23/32)
• Including Central Darfur -Fur-65.6 % (42/64). Cadenas2008 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you raise the Hassan article. It helps explain my point. If there was one major problem with all current contour maps available to us, it is that they do not have data from Sudan and so it looks like there is a gap there. The Hassan article makes it clear that this was just due to lack of data. If you had pointed to this as a more obvious problem with the Cruciani contour maps I would absolutely agree. But I am still not sure we should make our own contour maps, given how important the assumptions are. I'm happy to see someone try, but I hope it does not lead to silly arguments later. And this implies that you should give a quite detailed explanation about how the map was made. Better to have one "respectable" contour map than an edit war. By the way, for a case where we don't even have a respectable map, you might be interested to see the collection of E-M123 data I put here: http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M123. I think it is more complete than Wikipedia and in an easier format. Cruciani data is here http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Cruciani_data also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When the map gets criticized it only makes it better, if you want me to make a map I will do so, but only if you have a genuine desire to have a map in the article! if its going to bother you for whatever reason. Then by all means use the older map although I see clear data that needs to be updated in Sudan & Yemen Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

E-M123 data

I have posted quite a collection of E-M123 data, including null results, onto the E-M35 Project's Wiki. I've even made a start at putting in coordinates. I find this important because E-M123 is a clade that no one has yet written much about but the raw data in the literature tells a story. See http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M123_data --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Study on Yemen shows M78

Hi Andrew,

Turns out Cruciani's map was not off after all :) I am looking through the strs of a study that just came out this month, by the head of Dubai DNA Police Dr F. Shamali, her study shows some M78 I am not sure I am just looking at the STR but I can already see some M78 (V12 to be specific). I will give you the final total once I am done going through it. In the same study 11/106 Saudis are E1b1b, with 4 possible M34, 4 possible M78, the other 3 could be M35* or either. Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

battaglia 2008

Does anyone have access to the full article to Battaglia et al. (2008) used in this article (V-13 section) ? Hxseek (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me know how to get it to you. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this: http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Battaglia_et_al._(2008) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A reference that will hopefully be handy

To make it clear, I am the author of this review: http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Lancaster.pdf I think it contains a lot of good references and summaries that will also allow others to search further. Let's hope it helps improve the quality of knowledge and discussion on this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Can haplogroup E1b1b be identified with ancient Kushites?

Can haplogroup E1b1b be identified with ancient Kushites? Humanbyrace (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that for this article it is best to only include information about links to clearly defined entities such as the Cushitic language family. Whether this family has something to do with the biblical Kushites is something best discussed in the articles about those subjects. I believe Cushitic (the language family) is discussed quickly but fairly effectively in the present E1b1b article, and it has been mentioned in connection to E-V32 in Hassan et al. (2008). Also see my new review mentioned above which is not in the bibliography yet. Please have a look and see what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

where E1b1b SNP mutated .

Who know where SNP mutation defining this group appear? Plants rooted to ground move around the world in evolution its obvious: man can too.

a) In light of this uncertainty all soured thesis about the geographic location of mutation should be valid. There are at lest following possibilities:

1. It happen in the place where is today the highest concentration (no movement)
2. it happen in other place (then moved).

• b) If 'in other place' it can be:

1. south
2. north
3. west
4. east (we can skip up and down consideration:)

• c) The present distribution of genetic markers may be result of: (in any case with or without movement)

1. bottlenecks when somehow only newer moved out of 'mother/father'-genland
2. outgrow of newer generations caring newer markers(and perhaps other gens) pushing out the older markers eg. to pathogenic co-evolution refugia . see also genome lineages .Thesis/point c2 is valid to all other present day genetic markers distribution.

I rev to the previous Andrew Lancaster edit to include fragment which seem to adres the 'a' uncertainty. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the place where a haplogroup is most common is not so important. What people really look at more to try to estimate place of origin (or at least the place where dispersal started leading to modern people) is the diversity. The Horn of Africa has the highest diversity of E-M35. Frequency is not the key point. For example nobody is arguing that the Western Sahara is the home of E-M35. It has an extremely high E-M35 level, but all close relatives along the male line.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman quote

Is quoted [1] Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.

This statement is somewhat ambiguous and contradictory. On one hand the authors writes Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago and on the other the author states there is a missimpression regarding the origin. There is no standard method of describing haplogroups in relation to populations that harbor them. So in reality there are no African haplogroups, or European haplogroups or Asian haplogroups. There are haplogroups that are frequent in Africa, Asia, Europe, America or Australia but not elsewhere, and way may colloquially refer to them as African, Asian, European, American or Australian. This applies to all haplogroups not just e3b. We can also objectively refer to haplogroups by their most likely region of origin, in which case e3b is indeed "African". However this is complicated by the fact that haplogroups tend to move around and are continuously evolving. This obviously applies to e3b which is found in Africa, Asia and Europe. From a scientific perspective, the Coffman quote is not really useful because the author does not describe what is incorrect about describing e3b as "African". If the origin is the criteria for describing a haplogroup, it is legitimate to describe e3b as African. In short the author prefers not to consider e3b as african but this a personal opinion or choice in how to describe a haplogroup. It may contain some social commentary but it serves no value from a scientific perspective. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've posted the same comment on two articles, but I am going to be difficult and say that although you you had a case on the other article, you don't have a strong one here. I recommend that you please stop this habit you have of pasting generic remarks on different talk pages all over Wikipedia. What is relevant in one place does not automatically deserve to be pasted all over the place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone cut and paste the same remarks from this article onto the Genetic history of Europe. The Coffman statement is somewhat inflammatory. I can see from the previous posting, that this issue has been raised before, and for good reason. This article can do without it as it is a magnet for controversy. Coffman's opinion on what is or not African is purely subjective and trivial in a similar manner to the Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Trivia_section discussed above. Furthermore, I don't know what she is referring to when she says the media refers E3b as African. As far as I know, the media doesn't cover population genetics. Except for a few popular science publications, and the occasional mention on Natgeo or discovery, the specific details on human haplogroups are almost never discussed. I have never heard E3b being discussed on TV. It seems that she is whining about the fact that E3b is indeed African.

A thread that I started on the Genetics project page I think should be taken seriously. At the root of all the numerous and current disputes regarding these genetics articles are attempts to politicize these haplogroups and this leads to a lot of unbalanced and unscientific material in these articles. I will restate a quote from Genetics and Tradition as Competing Sources of Knowledge of Human History

Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin

It is my hope that some wikipedians can step up and depoliticize some of these articles and simply state the current scientific consensus.

Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All very well but don't you realize that others accuse you of the same? And with good reason? Consider your constant attempt to delete discussion about the possible non African origins of DE and M, which are clearly real theories in the literature. I pointed out before, you always take the same side, so how can other editors see your editing as anything other than political? Concerning the Coffman quote you'll be aware from looking at the archives that I share some of your doubts about the clarity and meaning of it. However, I have learnt that what she was talking about was precisely the fact that E3b has been politicized by racists, sometimes leading people to misunderstandings. For example consider a Jew, Arab or Albanian who is told by internet propaganda that his Y lineage is African in the sense of not being Jew, Arab, Albanian etc. The sense she intended for the term African was, as I understand it, African in an excluding sense that an E1b1b person is less Jewish, Arab, or anything else non African than they might have thought. This is of course a real problem, and quite wrong, but it is out there. Whether it can be explained clearly in this article is something I would kindly ask you of all people to consider because you have expressed concern about social responsibility before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL You of all people talking about "depoliticizing" an article. Will wonders never cease... FYI, this issue has already been thoroughly discussed and long resolved. Ellen Coffman herself visited this page and explained in plain language exactly what she meant by that quote, and it predictably bears nary a resemblance to your self-serving mischaracterization of it and its author. And indeed, the passage has everything to do with the Origins section. There'll be no spinning this quote to mean something it doesn't, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I doesn't matter whether Jesus himself came and discussed an issue, there is no such thing as permanent resolution on wiki. See WP:CCC. The quote has nothing to do with the origins of E, which is purely a scientific matter. How people or the media discuss e-m35 is another issue. Maybe there can be a section on media portrayal, which discusses such thing. But as I can see from the above threads, it is quite trivial. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Causteau that Wapondaponda should be more self aware about being political. But I agree with Wapondaponda about the more fundamental issue that there is no closing of the books on any issue here on Wikipedia. Wapondaponda has raised real issues about whether the Coffman quote as it is now explained on the article is giving any clear and correct message. I've tried to explain a counter position but I guess everyone realizes that I basically agree with Wapondaponda. I've tried to explain how the citations might be interpreted in a clear way, but I am not sure anyone can get that interpretation from the Coffman article itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My statement was not intended to get Wapondaponda to be more self-aware, but to get him to stop removing reliable sources. I notice that in my absence he has repeatedly reverted a series of different editors over this one quote, and in an ostensible attempt to "address his concerns" as you put it (but curiously not those of the four other editors that support its inclusion, myself included), you added some original research attempting to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers. There are two problems with this: First, it has already been demonstrated by the author's own comments that you actually have no idea what her quote means. Second, WP:NOR makes it clear that adding original analysis of a source is not permitted:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

As for the quote allegedly having nothing to do with the origins of E1b1b, I already posted a detailed explanation of what the quote meant, which went as follows:

"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

In response to this, Coffman-Levy asserted that my post above "restated [her] argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. I'm afraid you guys are on the wrong end of the demonstrated consensus, which is to keep the quote in the Origins section, and in its unadulterated, NPOV state. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourced Material

Citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005 This info is scientific and sourced yet Wapondaponda will not stop deleting it. SOPHIAN (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

See the above threads, yes it is sourced. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The statement has nothing to do with the scientific methods used to determine the geographic origins of gene variants. Discussing what the media says about a haplogroup isn't relevant to determining the origins of the haplogroup. My suggestion has been that the quote can be placed elsewhere in a section or article that deals with media "misimpressions". Wapondaponda (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that defending the quote needs more than just "it was sourced". The citation is done in such a way to give quite a specific impression about what it might mean, which anyone reading the original article will not recognize. The end result is to say the least very ambiguous, and therefore to say the least anyone defending it can at least go the effort of suggesting a better wording. It is certainly not a simple case that can be judged on the basis of whether it is cited or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. Sophian please state what is scientific about the quote. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried re-wording the citation. My aim is to try to clarify the Coffman-Levy quote. Wapondaponda is right the citation is very ambiguous. It implies that Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the African origins of E1b1b, and this is clearly not the case. There is no reason to keep the quote ambiguous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote does not imply that Ellen Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the origins of E1b1b in Africa. This is a nonsensical argument that was already raised before and thoroughly debunked. As SOPHIAN has shown, the quote actually plainly states that "citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". There is nothing amibiguous about that. Wapondaponda: I'm afraid no amount of gaming the system on your part (your new strategy after badmouthing the author as a "whiner" didn't work out) will eliminate the quote. It's high time you gave your POV a rest. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote does imply doubts about E1b1b being African in origin, because "African in origin" is one of the most obvious meanings of the term "African" which the quote says would be a WRONG word to use. I repeat: there is no need to keep ambiguity. So why is this a problem to fix??? Of course many people think that the ambiguity you always try to get into this article always goes in one direction - precisely because you WANT to imply something which was not in the original text. The new version made no changes in substance, so why do you have a problem with it unless you want that confusion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand and what you didn't understand back then either is that you can't analyze the statement for readers. You have repeatedly shown that you have literally no clue what Coffman-Levy means. Take your latest "intepretation":

"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".

All the section of highlighted above (i.e. your "explanation") is pure original research. Nowhere does Coffman-Levy state or even imply anything of the sort. You want to know what she means by that quote? Again, refer to this section, where all your concerns have already been thoroughly addressed (and via direct quotes from the author herself). Lastly, in our previous discussion from months ago when Coffman-Levy dropped by, I asked her the following, among other things:

"However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa""[...] Please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written."

To which, again, she responded that my post above "restated [her] argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Please let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. It's getting very annoying, and several other editors have already indicated to you the importance of the passage. Kindly stop tampering with it. Causteau (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are as usual insisting on writing about me and you and not about the text of the Wikipedia article. I have not altered the content of the paragraph, nor removed it. I have only tried to make sure that there is no ambiguity. Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages, and even if she did it would not matter, because this discussion right now is only about the English being used to cite her, as is the tiny snippet you quote from our discussion. I repeat my question: if you truly want the article to say clearly that E1b1b originated in Africa, then why do you want to insert an ambiguous which says it is wrong to call it African? Such a remark can clearly mean to any English speaker that E1b1b does NOT have African origins. You know very well that we get frequent editors visiting this article who rightly object to the wording I've replaced. Why do you want to make it sound like there is some doubt about the African origin of E1b1b? So often you argue for confusing English! Always in section concerning something to do with African or Asian origins. And funnily enough you always want to make African origins unclear, never Asian. Why would that be? Your editing is certainly much more POV than Wapondaponda's. BTW to imply that adding describing Ellen's article as comment as being about a modern ethnic identity is OR. For goodness sake look at the title of that article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it is interesting to re-read the summary you cite which you made about what you supposedly think Ellen meant, and that she called eloquent. Funnily enough, it is very close to what I have said on many occasions about this passage, even though when I have said it, you dispute it! It is very funny. The key question is what is meant by African, and why it would be wrong. Have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I overreacted a little, but looking at your comments above, it's clear I wasn't the only one. Yes, I realize that you were just trying to explain the quote as best you could. But in doing so, you completely missed its essence since it has already been demonstrated that you didn't really understand the quote to begin with. You write above that "Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages". That is absurd. Of course she did. You and I were involved in a dispute, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what [she] was trying to convey": mine, not yours. I don't mean to sound snotty, but those are the facts. You suggest that this quote is "ambiguous", yet I didn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the quote -- only you did. But curiously, you now apparently believe that you understand the quote well enough to interpret it for readers? Does that make any sense??? The "frequent editors to the page who rightly object to the quote" that you allude to are yourself, an anonymous IP from months back when the quote in question used to flank a statement indicating that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" (which it no longer does, and which was what he originally objected to), and a blocked serial sockpuppeteer. You call that company? Have a look at the article's recent history, and you'll see that there is plenty of support for Ellen's quote & in its unadulterated form -- not against it. The latter distinction, once again, actually falls on just you. You can try and affix the "POV" tag on me, but it won't stick just like it didn't stick last time you accused me of wanting "to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects", only to have the author herself say that my analysis you ridiculed actually perfectly captured what it is she was trying to convey -- not yours. I'm not going to indulge this nonsense any longer. Let me demonstrate exactly how completely off-base your edit is (which, as I've already pointed out, is also all original research). Here's what you wrote:

"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"."

Here's what Coffman-Levy actually writes:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

And here's the direct paraphrase of her quote that you replaced with your OR:

"Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media."

It doesn't take a genius to see that, unlike the direct paraphrase you replaced with your edit, you are adding something to the article which Ellen in fact does not mean. For starters, you attempt to limit Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole! Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African", not the genetic diversity of non-Africans that carry it. That's an astonishingly audacious understatement. Again, here is what Ellen actually means:

"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Your original argument regarding so-called "ambiguity" in the quote revolved around the notion that it immediately prefaced the aforementioned statement on ISOGG & the Genographic Project which indicated that E3b may have originated in the Near/Middle East ("To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East."). Now that you fought tooth and nail to have those sources removed and that they are indeed long gone, you effectively have no argument and on this front either. And none of the forgoing of course changes the fact that your latest edit is OR & completely misses the point, to put it mildly. Causteau (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, for reference, is Causteau's own summary of what he thinks can be non-controversially said about what Coffman-Levy specifically means by saying that E1b1b should not always be called African:

From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

So we see that what she means can be defined in an uncontroversial way according to Causteau himself, because everything in this "eloquent" summary is quite similar to wording I have tried over a long time to insert into the Wikipedia article. For example saying that Ellen's point had to do with some sub-clades was something Causteau has specifically disallowed, even though it appears in his own summary, and in Coffman-Levy's article. (Causteau argued that it was irrelevant because a few paragraphs away from the passage he wants cited!). This seems a particularly tendentious and argumentative approach. How can Causteau say both that it is obvious how the term is being used, and then accuse people who he basically agrees with of OR for trying to explain this in the Wikipedia article? The basic theme of Causteau's defense of the present wording of this passage is one he uses quite often and is extremely tendentious: the passage has been discussed before and it uses some direct quotes, therefore any attempt to improve it should be reverted. While Causteau allows himself the luxury of being able to use such circular arguments there is a problem, because this passage is being kept deliberately vague and ambiguous, so that it implies things which it most certainly should not be implying.

Causteau, perhaps we should reference to your eloquent summary on the talk page archives???--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So that's what you're reduced to again, I see? Third person narratives & personal attacks? I don't blame you seeing as how my post above is pretty damn incriminating. Say what you will, you haven't refuted a thing; you haven't demonstrated that your "interpretation" isn't OR (how could you?); & that you have, in fact, captured part (nevermind all) of what Coffman-Levy means. All you've done is demonstrate that you're not above falling back on those trusty personal attacks of old when stumped. Causteau (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy citation: trying one more time to discuss

Yes, let's stop the personal stuff. Let's just look at the passage you want to revert. Please can you restrict your remarks entirely to that? Here it is:

Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".

...and here is the version you are defending...

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

...both quotes use the same source material, so obviously just complaining that "sourced material" is being removed is wrong. I see the difference this way:

• One of these versions tries to make it clear in what sense the author intended to say that E1b1b should not be called "African", and what sorts of confusions in the media were being described. What this latest attempt also does (in order to achieve the aim of providing more clarity and context) is that it adds an uncontroversial (in my opinion) new remark about E1b1 raises issues in the ways in which genetics and ethnicity sometimes interact, leading into the fact that the Coffman-Levy article as an example of a discussion about genetics and ethnicity of one group. That cited part of the article is about this, and that it refers to other discussion on the internet/ media, is clear.
• The other version does not try to address the ambiguity. Indeed it insists on increasing the ambiguity and potential to create false impressions by reverting to an old version which implies that the citation concerns "the media" right now, which is not possible given that the article is several years ago. (See Ellen's own remarks on these talk pages which are all in the past tense.) This potential to mislead is obviously a big problem, even if some readers like you, who wrote it, claim not to see any ambiguity. But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article. Indeed this is the passage you always cite yourself in order to explain how the citation should be understood. You wrote:

From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

Obviously if this is how you defend the passage, and you argue that it is clear in the original article, then it should be possible to insert something like this into the article itself. Sourcing should not just be on the talk pages! So, let's please develop a passage which inserts soemthing into the Wikipedia article and removes ambiguity about why the particular sense of "African" which Coffman-Levy intended, and the particular type of confusion in public discussion which she was concerned about.

I want to make it clear that if we can not do that then the very Wikipedia norms you keep repeating require us to remove this entire passage. Just because a series of words was lifted from an article does not mean that they are clear enough to be pasted into Wikipedia in any form at all. They have to actually be able to be brought into a format which shows a clear and uncontroversial meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go. I am, however, familiar with the policy that goes:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. "

While I commend you for getting back to non-personal stuff (why are you still talking in the third person?), your edit above distorts what Ellen says. Perhaps this indeed wasn't your intention, but that is the net effect. Again, your edit limits Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole. Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African": not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. This has already been explained above with direct quotes, including one from Ellen herself; please stop defending this indefensible edit. Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "

Instead of rehashing the same old stale arguments of yore & going at it for weeks again, I therefore propose we just go back to our previous arrangement that settled this dispute in the past i.e. the passage that went as follows and which you yourself added way back when:

"Citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005.

Causteau (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This sarcasm is not really very useful...

I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go.

The problem is that if the discussion is about whether the Wikipedia article's summary of an article is written badly, or unclearly, then there is no authority we can appeal to apart from other editors. So to ignore other editors in such discussions is very clearly tendentious editing.

The version as it stands after our tweaks today recovers some of the compromise we had before your round of edits celebrating the blocking of Wapondponda. But I still find this section very dissatisfying for the simple reason that I still think it is being kept deliberately ambiguous.

The current way of citing Ellen's article specifically insists that it is "incorrect" to call E1b1b "African" but obviously any normal usage of English must take account of the fact that "African" will very often, perhaps most often, mean "African in origin". You claim that you do not intend this to be in the article, and yet you resist any efforts to explain exactly what sense of "African" is intended. How can that make sense?

It is very ironic to me that your own summary which you made only on talk pages, shows exactly that it is possible and necessary to spell some things out about the terms used if this passage is to be clear. So why refuse to allow this on the article itself?

In discussion here, you always refer to this summary, and Ellen's agreement, as your defense of versions of this citation which include no such explanatory summary? How weird is that? So we can explain things and agree on the meaning here on the talk page, but not on the article itself?

If you saying that your summary was reading too much into Ellen's article, that is quite odd. Who said that? Surely not you?

Anyway, if it were true that you thought that your own summary contains too much unsourced OR, how can we take you seriously?

Personally, I never found your talk page summary very controversial. To me it does seem that you can understand these types of things from the original article. No one I can think of has disputed this with you. It is very strange that you want to argue BOTH that your summary is just an obvious reading of the article, and that it is OR which we should not be reading into the source. Which is it? You can choose only one of these two options I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't appreciate being on the receiving end of sarcasm, then don't practice it yourself ("But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article.").
• I did not propose ignoring other editors. That's a strawman argument & something you have quite literally made up.
• What you lament as a "celebration", I call reverting POV changes by a blocked user.
• No offense, but we aren't here to "satisfy" any one editor's wishes. There's a lot about this article that I too wouldn't mind changing for my own personal "satisfaction", but WP:NPOV just doesn't work that way.
• Like I told you at least fifty other times over the past few months & literally just finished telling you minutes ago above, we can't add original analyses into the article because that is original research. Please start showing more respect for this important policy.
• Great. Another strawman. I did not say that my talk page explanation was "OR which we should not be reading into the source". You did. Here is what I did write: Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "

Causteau (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, that was not sarcasm. Please come back to the subject again?

If your summary is unsourced, and inappropriate for Wikipedia, then this clearly means that you do not think it is obvious enough to put in a Wikipedia article? Obviously if it can not itself be put in Wikipedia, then this applies doubly to anything which is based upon your reading of the Coffman-Levy article (as per the summary). And yet in all discussion over many months, when called upon to explain why the citation is not ambiguous and misleading, you have cited your summary and said that the obviousness of the material in this summary makes it no problem to include citation as it stands with no further clarification. That is a key part of your argument for not allowing anyone to clarify the wording. Let's put it this way:

• The accusation is that the wording in the Wikipedia article is ambiguous and misleading.
• Your consistent response is to say that the Wikipedia citation needs no help, because the snippet taken from the cited article as per the summary that you cite, or any similar ones, none of which are that different from anything I have said.
• But then when asked if we can put such obvious explanation into the Wikipedia article, you get very strict and suddenly claim that the summary you are making is not an obvious reading at all, and should not be included in Wikipedia.
• And yet you continue to want it both ways. You want the citation which you can only defend on the basis of the un-usable summary being obvious, to remain unchanged.

We have two options. You can only pick one:-

1. If the summary of your reading is unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia, then the whole citation as it currently stands is unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia, and needing original research just to interpret it. That means we need to remove it.

2. If the summary describes an obvious reading of a well-informed reader, something which your fellow editors seem not to be disputing, then there is no such problem. But this also means that there is no problem tweaking the wording on the basis of what we all think the original article meant, in order to remove all possible accusations that this citation is ambiguous and misleading.

Which do you choose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? Did I not just clearly tell you that my analysis is what Ellen meant in that quote? Did Ellen herself not say it perfectly captured what it is she was trying to communicate? And now you insinuate that I think my summary is not "obvious enough"???? Your little mind games are leave much to be desired. Look, I'm not going to add that analysis for the same reason that I wouldn't add any original analysis placed here: it hasn't been published by a reliable source (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Do I have to explain to you again Wiki policies? How many times must I requote WP:NOR until you finally get it?

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "

If it's not published, it's OR -- get it? You're trying to pressure me into accepting original research into the article, but it simply won't happen. Only you find that quote ambiguous; the other recent editors have indicated with their own edits that they believe the quote to be valuable as it is. And with the statement that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" which used to flank the Coffman-Levy quote long gone, you effectively have no real argument left (repetition & strawmen arguments don't count). Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think you do not understand what case I am making, or you are trying hard not to show any understanding. I am not pushing for anything at all to be included. The simplest answer if it is OR is that we have to remove this paragraph. In summary, your various statements are effectively stating that the citation in the article is OR, because you are saying it would not be possible for us to agree on what the words in the direct quote means, at least in any form which we can include in Wikipedia. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In effect you have created an absurd pair of diametrically opposed extreme definitions of what good sourcing practice is - for the existing citation, all that is necessary is that snippet of direct quote, no matter what amount of controversial twisting of the meaning it entails. But for a text which is agreed by everyone to be more clear, no amount direct quoting will do. Here is a caricature of the discussion just trying to make this clear to you how the discussion appears to be for me... AL: This looks ambiguous and misleading. C: No it's not, because anyone can see that it REALLY means...X. AL: Oh, that sounds clear, and that's also how I read the original article, so why don't we use words like those? C: We can't use those words which you find more clear, because that would be unsourced interpretation and original research. Your opinion about what is clear is not important anyway. AL: But didn't you say it was just a clear summary of the original article, and isn't that all we want? Isn't that also what the present paragraph is supposed to be? We can still use similar sets of direct quotes etc. C: Of course it is a clear summary of the source being cited, but the exact selection of words being used is unsourced original research. AL: This implies that you think no clear agreement is possible about how to summarize the original article, so we should drop this reference. If clear and agreed-upon wording would be original research, then the controversial, misleading and ambiguous version, which introduces implications that were not in the original article, is far more of a problem, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Andrew, you've already make it clear in our previous encounter over this same issue that you ultimately wished to get rid of the quote altogether. But let me save you some trouble this time around and state things plainly: the quote isn't going anywhere. The demonstrated consensus is to keep it. As a reliable source, WP:VER also ensures its inclusion, even if you don't think what it states is "true":

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Above, you've invented some technicality wherein its permissible to remove sourced material that's a direct quote from a reliable scholarly journal under the pretext that one user (i.e. you) believes it is ambiguous. We both know no such policy exists. I've already demonstrated above that that "ambiguous" tag does not hold water in this case either. Your "dilute or delete" ultimatum, I'm afraid, is a no go. Causteau (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely up to you Causteau. We need to clarify the ambiguous wording or remove the quote. It was you yourself who came up with the absurd hypocritical logic which says that clarifying wordings are OR. If you insist on that then we must remove it. That's your choice. I have no bias one way or the other. My position is very consistent. BTW how do you get to always call your own opinions a consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Andrew, you have neither the policies nor the consensus to back up such a unilateral decision. I asked you to quote for me the passage in Wiki's rulebook that justifies such a removal and of course you have avoided doing so because no such policy exists. You're also well aware that most recent editors to this page actually value the quote in its present form which is why they have fought for its inclusion. This leaves you yet again on the wrong end of consensus (not my "own opinion", I'm afraid; stop projecting!). Causteau (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such strict rulebook. Stop wikilawyering. I can edit Wikipedia just like you can.

More importantly this whole issue can be resolved. I'll just cross reference here to your outburst on another talkpage about this subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)#Chandrasekar_continued_again Here is what you reveal as your true understanding of this discussion...

your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.

Guess what? There is no big secret. You are right. Trying to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin is indeed what I have consistently said would be wrong, because the article states that E1b1b originated in Africa. What is strange is that in discussion on this talkpage, for example when you summarized what Ellen really meant and Ellen and I agreed with that wording, you have consistently insisted that the quote does not imply that E1b1b has a non African origin. The case is closed as far as I am concerned. You have argued this (anyone can check) only since I showed you long age that Ellen's article takes the normal line in the literature and says it has an East African origin. Your true intention is now clear. I'll delete this paragraph but if you can find a better way to cite Ellen's article I'd be happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Further copy from DE Haplogroup talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&action=edit&section=13 :--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't back up a bloody thing. I exposed your lies above like I have many, many times before and typically on your own talk page. Take the latest haplogroup M1 debacle on the Genetic History of Europe article. That's just a drop in the bucket. When I came to you in that revert war with that blocked user, I asked you specifically to intervene -- that's the very term I used. I can't say I'm surprised you'd attempt to pervert it into something else though given your record with the truth and all. And look at you still whining about the Coffman-Levy quote; still smarting about not having been able to sway the author to your way of thinking like you had undoubtedly been hoping to do when she first showed up; still disappointed that the quote means exactly what you wish it didn't. "True colors"? Newsflash: my analysis=Ellen's view per her own comments. Love it or hate it, those are the facts. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellen agreed to a summary you made. You refuse to allow the citation to say what that summary said because you want it to say something else. Ellen never disagreed with anything I said, and your summary was in conflict with the edit your defend, and all the arguments you had with me. I'll move a copy of this to the E1b1b article also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying "to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin", you disgraceful opportunist. What I meant to say was that the quote also discusses E1b1b in a non-African context, which is something you have already demonstrated terrifies you. That statement I made was after a long typically pointless discussion with you defending sources from your pathological need to remove them if they assert anything other then your preferred African origin -- just like you attempted right now, only to have your edit rightly reverted, and twice (1, 2). It's your POV that's getting the best of you, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you reveal as your true understanding of this discussion...

your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)#Chandrasekar_continued_again

As I asked already many times, if your summary of Ellen's argument, that she and I agreed with, proves that you are not trying to imply that E1b1b does not have an African origin, then why do you refuse to allow the wording in the article to be cleared up? See the posting you just tried to delete. No one is arguing for more or less sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because doing so is a) unnecessary, b) original research, c) something you have already proven yourself incapable of successfully doing in our previous discussion since its already been demonstrated that you don't even really understand what the quote means to begin with, and d) inserting OR as you are proposing is a slippery slope that can only lead to more instances of people asking for exceptions to include OR in the article. Bad idea. Also, you can keep trying to make a meal out of my verbal slip-up, but if you leveled with yourself for a minute you'd know that we had been discussing the Asian origins of haplogroup DE for hours at that point and it was a simple mental mix-up. Causteau (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that if I "prefer" that the article says that E1b1b originated in Africa this is also what Causteau has claimed to prefer many times. Of course he has had to says this because this is what all the literature says. There is not even a fringe that says otherwise. To the extent that it "terrifies" me that people would slip another theory into the article, the word is an exaggeration, but it is abhorrent to see Wikipedia used to push for something like this. Causteau should supposedly also be worried about it, but the above outburst let's the cat out of the bag. He has clearly always seen this as a war of inches to try to get his wording in despite what the literature in this field says. Fellow editors might like to check User:Causteau's and User:SOPHIAN's talkpages for signs that they share an agenda which does not have sticking to the mainstream as its highest goal. We'll soon see again. After their tag team efforts to revert my recent deletion of this paragraph, I have included a new version which gives more direct quotation than the previous one. Will it be reverted despite the cries of horror that I deleted "sourced material"? Will careful edits insist on making it ambiguous? In the meantime Causteau has tried for a second time to censor my quotation of him here on this talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Push what, Andrew? Are you calling Ellen Coffman-Levy herself a POV-pusher? And you do understand that she described my analysis of her post as "precisely what [she] was trying to convey", don't you? How am I then harboring some "sinister" view when the author of the study herself admitted that my analysis of her quote was indeed what she was implying? Your grasping for straws dude. Instead of just admitting that your edits are OR additions to the Coffman-Levy quote, you demonize the editors who have refused to allow you to insert it into the article. You write that I hooked up with SOPHIAN to gang up on you or whatever, but actually, I very casually solicited his input on his talk page regarding this discussion since he himself has in the past edited this article and was involved in a dispute over this same issue. You know this, yet why do you pretend otherwise? As for "censoring" information, what actually happened was that you copy and pasted select portions of a rather heated conversation we were having on the haplogroup DE article's talk page onto this talk page's completely separate, unrelated conversation. On the haplogroup DE talk page, you wrote a nasty edit (the one dated 18:10, 22 June 2009) to which I naturally responded in kind (my post dated 18:37, 22 June 2009), but you then opportunistically only quoted on this talk page my response to your unprovoked personal attack as well as a deceptively "angelic" follow up to that on your part to try and make yourself appear as innocent as possible. And when I tried to expose what you were doing on this talk page, you reverted that edit of mine as well! All in all, that was very low and uncalled for. We have successfully resolved disagreements through discussion many times in the past (particularly the recent past), yet you still felt you had to resort to these underhanded tactics? Not cool. Causteau (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know, Ellen never disagreed with me on anything on these talkpages, and the big agreement she had with you was concerning a summary paraphrase which you made that actually looks like the kind of thing I'd been proposing. In other words she agreed with precisely what you keep fighting to keep out of the Wikipedia article. Please stop calling whatever you've pushed for a "consensus", and please stop trying to invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it. It is an enormous distraction from discussion of the content. The controversy is about the wording you've been pushing on the E1b1b article. Talk about that? My concerns and the concerns of others are clear and easy to fix, and as discussed many times we do not need to use your summary because they can be installed by looking at more than one or two sentences in the article being quoted itself. (Concerning your stance that sourced material should never be removed it is interesting to note that you have repeatedly refused to let me quote from the detailed section of the cited article concerning E1b1b. You want everything centred on a vague introductory sentence which implies by a strange bit of wording that implies E1b1b might not be African in origin.) A simple fix can remove all doubts about the quote. You don't want to deliberately create doubts do you?. Concerning SOPHIAN, nearly all edits I've seen that new editor make have been quick reverts, without discussion, in favour of text originally fought for by you. I also had a vandalism accusation posted by SOPHIAN for trying to change this citation! Whatever your relationship should be described as, the effect on Wikipedia editing is not positive, and that is the simple fact of the matter. However the reason I referred to your talkpages was specifically concerning the agenda you share, which is to look for articles where African origins of anything at all can be questioned. If you are always taking the same side, then you are not being neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a bald-faced lie. Ellen at no point ever disagreed with me on anything; quite the opposite, actually. Not only that, I hereby dare you to post a quote from her where you believe she did! We both know you never could cause she didn't. The truth is, you and I were involved in a dispute regarding the aforementioned quote by Ellen Coffman-Levy, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what [she] was trying to convey": mine, not yours. You also write that I "pushed" something or other. Actually, the past 48 hours have been the story of you relentlessly attempting to replace a direct quote from Ellen Coffman-Levy with original research that attempts to dilute the potency and significance of her quote. This has already been amply demonstrated by me in post after post in this talk page's two penultimate sections. You have a very nasty habit of misrepresenting what other people write, and especially when you believe them to be too far away from a computer to correct you. For example, you write that I "invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it". I've already debunked above your many previous attempts at misrepresenting what I have actually written. But this time, I'm not going to do that; you're going to have to prove your baseless accusations with actual evidence in the way of direct quotes. If you fail in producing this (which you will), we will have no other option than to conclude that you are yet again manipulating the facts to suit your ends. You write that the controversy surrounding the Coffman-Levy quote "is about the wording [I have] been pushing on the E1b1b article". Another untruth. I haven't been "pushing" anything, and the "controversy", as you so disingenuously put it, is over two things: 1) Your addition of original research to the Coffman-Levy quote (1, 2, 3), which you have tried to make me believe only helps "explain" it, but in reality, is a rather transparent attempt by you to rob the quote of its potency, since it does, after all, indicate that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". 2) Your repeated attempts at removing the quote altogether. In fact, you even gave me an ultimatum, basically threatening me to either allow you to insert OR into the text, or that you would remove the quote altogether (your posts dated 11:38, 22 June 2009 & 17:57, 22 June 2009)! And since I of course refused your offer to add OR & rejected your threat to remove the quote -- quoting the appropriate WP:NOR and WP:VER policies to you along the way --- you opted to go it along and just remove the quotes altogether (1, 2) When SOPHIAN reverted you (1, 2), he was right to do so because you had no business removing that reliable source, and you know it. You also contradict yourself when you indicate that SOPHIAN reverting your edits contitutes supporting "my" version of the quote, but in the next breath you insist that there is no consensus on the matter. Make up your mind already! Fact is, you've been trying to remove that Coffman-Levy quote since the day I first added it months ago, and strictly because it discusses E3b in a non-African context, which is something you vehemently oppose for some reason. But of course, in your head, that opposition doesn't constitute a POV, but "neutrality". Please. Hxseek, Alun, etc.: those are neutral editors -- not you. Causteau (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy continued again

Once again I need to start new sections in order to edit. I expect Causteau will accuse me again of doing this for some special tactical reason, but it is only a technical limitation. I remind him pre-emptively of WP:AGF.

Dear Causteau, please stop going off subject?? The opening sentence of your last post above is so misleading and comic-book-lawyeresque as to be comical. I did not say Ellen disagreed with you, so your outrage is unconvincing. I said she only ever commented upon your summaries on the talkpage which you made for her. But these summaries are very different from what you've been pushing on the Wikipedia article itself, which is that you've wanted to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa. This is something you originally argued for more openly, going to great lengths to say that Ellen herself wanted to express such doubts (15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)). In fact her point about the use of the word African was very specific and needed explanation, which she gives in her own article. One of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph! You only changed your tune (on these talk pages, not in editing the article) after I went through a lot of effort, including inviting Ellen to come and discuss things here. However the fact of the matter is that you did not take the opportunity to discuss the text you actually want in the article, but rather asked her to confirm a summary of her article which is actually the opposite of what you want in the Wikipedia article. So can you now pleas15:17, 29 October 2008 e stick to writing about the pros and cons of different versions of the text for the Wikipedia article itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":

"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."

As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph". That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against). In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)). That's why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?). Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.

The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":

"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."

Here's what was written. Andrew: "It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet." Causteau: "No... it's Coffman-Levy's view. And you've really lost it this time. Per WP:PA"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph".

Here what's was written: Causteau: "You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). ... However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b." Andrew: "Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what?" Causteau: "Coffmany-Levy's discussion of the controversy surrounding E3b is not "spread over a few paragraphs". It is discussed in only one paragraph, which I've already quoted for you above."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against).

Can you please name, for the first time ever, which original research I am inserting. Not every change of wording in a quotation changes the meaning of a sentence. You claim my edit is not needed, because the old word meant the same thing, so how can I be inserting original research? You can have the cake and eat it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).

When you've been in edit wars with other extremists you've often called for my intervention and showed you see me as neutral. You've certainly described nothing non-neutral? Is it non-neutral to disagree with someone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?).

So tell everyone in a clear way, for the first time, how I have changed the meaning the passage?? If the passage did not previously question E1b1b's African origins, and it still doens't, then no problem right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what [I] want in the Wikipedia article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.

The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again).

I did indeed remove it! Thank you for finally coming back to the subject of the wording. The practical disagreement between us is indeed that you want to insist on saying that E1b1b "is often incorrectly described as African". And I and other editors say you either remove that part or we take the whole passage out because in normal English usage, "haplogroup X is incorrectly described as African" would NORMALLY mean "haplogroup X did not originate in Africa". So these are the words that say that E1b1b might not have African origins. Why do you insist on those particular words, and show no interest in other ones, direct quote or not? See the discussion between you and User:SOPHIAN on your talkpages. This is part of your pursuit of trying to question any African origins theory wherever they appear in Wikipedia articles, irrespective of what mainstream literature really says. If this is not the case and I have somehow misunderstood then sorry but of course there should then be no problem accepting a wording change, because you and I and Ellen all supposedly agree that anyone who reads her article in context will agree that it is not intended to question the African origin of E1b1b. So the English language is what sets the rules here, because the English language tells us the current words would normally be read to mean something we apparently agree they do not mean. Before you start posting pages of Wikipedia rules, please note that we do not need to directly quote wording ambiguities from original sources, if the meaning is clear enough in context. (Even in the citation of this passage, you've had no problem with you or other editors reducing or changing what words are directly quoted, in order to make meaning clear.) And concerning this particular passage, you have now insisted many times that you do accept that there should be no implication that E1b1b is not African in origin. So you should be able to accept the wording changes being requested now for so long. If not, why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you've chopped up my post again, just like the good 'ol days. But would you believe it, there it is back again in its entirety right above your post. Just like magic. But who exactly are these "other editors" you speak of that wish to see Ellen Coffman-Levy's statement that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" gone as badly as you do? Cause all I see above is the one same editor who has been trying very hard to get rid of that quote in its entirety from the moment it was first added to the article. And that's in addition to every single source that asserts anything other than an African origin for haplogroup E1b1b, a haplogroup which you have already admitted to belonging to. Above, you disingenously "thank" me for what you describe as "finally coming back to the subject of the wording" ("wording" was never what the dispute was about, but meaning), yet can't help yourself from again bringing up my talk page discussion with SOPHIAN that, besides not even concerning you (see WP:Wikistalking), dealt with Out of Africa (an article I've actually never even edited) -- not E1b1b. Moving on, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with the rubbish you've written above. It has to do with two things that you are simulataneously omitting in not including it:

• The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

• E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.

Here's where you return with more personal attacks & attempts to water-down that Coffman-Levy quote. Causteau (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b is more a Mediterranean Middle-easterner&north African haplotype than African one.

Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.

So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)

Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.

Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.

For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.

So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Humanbyrace (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if nothing else, I see that there certainly is ambiguity and misunderstanding out there concerning E1b1b, which of course means that the Wikipedia article should avoid creating any extra confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through what I can follow, but honestly I think you could have written more carefully and clearly...

Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.

I don't think that African mean "sub-Saharan" even if some people mistakenly mix their words up this way. Wikipedia needs to use standard English geographical terms, and really everyone should. This raises the question of whether E1b1b really is not sub-Saharan and I have to say this is also not clear. There are some quite significant pockets of it all the way down to South Africa, and one of the biggest concentrations of all is in Ethiopia and Somalia. Some may argue that the Horn of Africa is not sub-Saharan, but I think this is debatable, and indeed this raises a question of how clear the term "sub-Saharan" is.

So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)

Every assertion in this paragraph is wrong unfortunately.

No article has ever been published arguing that E-M35 originated in the Middle East, and the idea that it might have goes back to days when it seemed to be part of haplogroup D. The distribution is also not particularly heavy in the Middle East at all compared to nearby parts of Africa such as Somalia and the Western Sahara.

Greece is not Middle Eastern, and certainly Albania and Macedonia aren't either.

Once again please note normal definitions. In casual and unclear speech some people do include parts of Africa in the Middle East, but this is not the standard we must follow on Wikipedia.

There is significant E1b1b in Eastern and Southern Africa.

Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.

Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.

Sure. I think the article currently does not rely on any such strong links being assumed, and is fairly careful about that sort of thing? But it is hard to write an article if we can't use ANY geographical or cultural terms?

For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.

You would save people a lot of effort if you wrote more carefully. Can you explain how the Sahara seperates Eastern Africa from "the remnant" - by which I understand that you mean sub-saharan Africa???

So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.

Sure, but which ones exactly? I am sure everyone can agree that we should take them into consideration, but that does not yet define what we should do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy citation again

Causteau, your posts are so long and repetitive that I need to start a new section again. Sorry. I am also sorry for messily inserting quotations in response to the multitude of incorrect statements you made. I won't bother this time.

Please come to your point? Please state what difference in "MEANING" you think I am introducing into the text?

All versions under discussion have now and always included the concept that the term African can be used incorrectly in the specific sense of "over simplistically". This is exactly what Ellen intended. She clearly did not intend to say that it would be incorrect in a strict and literal sense, as her article, and your summary for her on these talk pages, and her comments on these talk pages, all confirm.

The current version explains this very subtle and important point in the author's own words, in a way your preferred versions do not. Your selection of words changed the meaning, deliberately, in order to imply that E1b1b might not have originated in Asia. My selection of words from the more detailed explanation does not.

So what's the problem? You say I am introducing original research, so what is it? Which new unsourced idea am I adding in? Just say it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop creating new sections. Try as you might, they won't obscure the discussions that have already taken place above. And don't ask me to "come to my point". You have just been shown in no uncertain terms with Ellen's own words the importance of the phrase you keep omitting. This means you have no legitimate reason for omitting it, like I keep saying. The version you edited did not capture the meaning at all. In fact, the current version doesn't either since it falsely concludes that Ellen is talking about the past (i.e. "at least until the time of writing in 2005") when my post above clearly demonstrates via her own words that she is talking about the present. Your claim that my edit changes the meaning to imply other origins is false, and was false from the minute you first uttered it. When I asked Ellen to "let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what [she had] written", that post included the following:

"Basically, the situation is that I have included in the Origins section of this E1b1b article a paraphrase from your 2005 study that goes:

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa."

And her response to that post was of course that it was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey." Causteau (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Causteau wrote "And don't ask me to "come to my point".". I think that says it all! You've claimed I am introducing original research by quoting different words, but you refuse to define any difference in meaning which you see. I have on the other hand repeatedly defined a difference which I see which makes your preferred citations change the meaning, and yes, any review of the talk page history for this article will show that it has been frequently remarked upon by others. There is no point talking about anything else because that is the core of the whole conversation. BTW can you try to reduce the number of blockquotes where you cite yourself? Citing yourself adds nothing but distraction to this discussion and your replies are currently about 70% you citing yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was "And don't ask me to "come to my point". You have just been shown in no uncertain terms with Ellen's own words the importance of the phrase you keep omitting." You only do yourself a disservice by quoting me out of context like you just did. Fact is, Ellen has indicated herself through her own words a) the importance of the quote you keep trying to omit (covered in my post above dated 13:23, 23 June 2009), and b) the fact that the quote I've inserted into this article in no way creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East like you've repeatedly claimed (covered in post above from 14:23, 23 June 2009). In fact, I've also demonstrated (in my post dated 13:23, 23 June 2009), again, through Ellen's own words, the erroneousness of the current edit; specifically the part you added back the other day to the article asserting that there is no longer any such confusion surrounding the discussion of E3b. Errr, not according to the reliable source, Ellen Coffman-Levy. How's that for irony? I'm sorry if my posting actual details bugs you, but those are the breaks. Causteau (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an answer. You are just telling me I quote Ellen's article using some different words. We already know that obviously. But what is the difference in MEANING between the two quotes? I've told you what I think. I think that the wording you've selected implies doubt about E1b1b being African in origin, and mine removes that. But you've specifically said that you don't want such a meaning implied into the text, so in that case there should be no problem if I tweak the quote to remove the ambiguity I and others read in your construction. Is there any other difference in MEANING between the two ways of quoting and paraphrasing the article? Just say what difference there is. What is the MEANING I am removing or adding or changing? You can't argue BOTH that the meaning is the same, AND that the meaning is different. Which is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your entire post above is based on the presumption that, as you say, you "think that the wording [I've] selected implies doubt about E1b1b being African in origin". However, I've told twice now that the author herself has indicated that she doesn't find that the way the quote is presented in this article creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East (covered in post above from 14:23, 23 June 2009) -- only you do. And to ask how the two versions (i.e. yours vs. the one you keep trying to get rid of) differ is to ask how is one is superior or inferior to the other since Wikipedia can't accomodate two versions at once. It's an either/or proposition. I've indicated to you in my post above dated 13:23, 23 June 2009 the importance of the version which includes Ellen's key phrase that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"", again, using Ellen's own talk page comments. Your improvised phrases are necessarily inferior to Ellen's quote because they omit the important meaning imparted by that phrase above (the meaning in question is also covered in the aforecited post, BTW). And as we've seen, your argument asserting the superiority of your improvised text which omits that key phrase rested on the notion that including that key phrase creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East. But as we've also already seen, that simply is not the case. Causteau (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are refusing to make your own case. For example now you say that my "improvised phrases [sic] are necessarily inferior to Ellen's quote because they omit the important meaning imparted by that phrase above". And yet you refuse to explain what the important omitted meaning is! I've explained the only difference I've seen. Now you explain. If you have no case you can explain, then forget it. You've already said that you supposedly think your wording means the same thing as mine, so why is it so important to you that you need to accuse me of original research and all those other things you accused me of? There are editors with a concern about your wording, let them make things clear. Let them make the wording say what you say you think it already says?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer screen, then, because I quite clearly did explain it (in post 13:23, 23 June 2009, for example). Of course, it's much easier to feign incomprehension when one has successfully obscured older text by continuously starting new topic sections. Again, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with what you've previously suggested. It has to do with two things that you are simultaneously omitting in not including said passage:

• The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

• E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in this or any other comment you have made gives any explanation about the difference in meaning between the texts I am proposing, for example the current one, and any other. What am I missing? The current text also says that the word African has problems. The only difference is that it specifies those problems more clearly than you want. Just say what the difference in meaning is? Stop pretending that I am arguing with Ellen's paper. I am not. We are talking about the wording for this Wikipedia article. We are talking about your wording and my wording. Stick to topic, please!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're seeing what you want to see, Andrew. Ellen -- with her own words -- has demonstrated the importance of the very key words in that quote which you have been trying very hard to get rid of (that would be the italicized ones above). The edits you champion, which, by contrast, aren't direct quotes from the author in question but instead very much your own, specifically leave out these same points. For one thing, you've essentially robbed the article & therefore its readers of knowledge of the fact that this mistreatment of E3b in the public & the media is ongoing (not of the past), and that it is incorrect to describe E3b as simply "African" per the author herself. Again:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Like I wrote, Ellen knows whereof she speaks. Causteau (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit which your SOPHIAN is currently reverting once more for you (though he asks below, after reverting, what the discussion is about) contains more direct quoting and explanations about these details than the particular sentence you want to put in, except of course that I can not accept pretending that the article was not written years ago. BTW you can't cite her words in 2008 on this talkpage as an update, even if they agreed with you. I repeat that you are not giving any justification for the reverts you and Sophian are making. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never asked SOPHIAN to do anything of the sort, nor did I even notice he did. Unlike some people, I actually like to think before I write, so I don't always have time to mind other people's business for them. I will say, though, that the desperation in your arguments is almost tragic at this point. You're making literally no sense. It makes no difference whether Ellen were to have said that the mistreament of E3b in the media and public is still ongoing in her study or in her Wikipedia talk page posts. The point is, she, the author of both opinions, said it and emphatically. This of course completely debunks your fabricated notion that this mistreatment is no longer in effect, which is something you have then attributed to the author (if not the author, then who exactly? Yourself? Cause we all know what that would be, don't we?: Original research. And once again. More to be found on post 17:27, 23 June 2009. Causteau (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Material was moved from here to the section about the appropriate subject, along with a new reply. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Was_Coffman-Levy_a_fortune_teller.3F --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew why are you so against the wording: E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” ? sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I've moved this question to right place. You inserted it into a post of Causteau and I almost missed it. Second, to answer you: to say that it is incorrect to call E1b1b "African" begs the question of which sense is implied for the word "African". The sentence is taken out of the context it was originally in and can mean a lot of different things. The most obvious thing it would mean is that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. However, the original article being discussed makes clear that the author believes that it DID originate in Africa, and it also makes clear (as Causteau has agreed many times) that the special sense intended was that calling E1b1b African is over-simplified, and not actually wrong as such. In other words, the author felt that discussions based too much on these prehistoric origins gave people silly ideas. The author, who has been a correspondent of mine since long before she wrote that article, is absolutely right about this. And it is this idea which I have no problem including in the Wikipedia article. But any quote which implies that she said that E1b1b does not originate in Africa has to go, because that is nonsense. Please let me know if this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Ellen certainly is an eminently sensible woman, as she has amply shown in her talk page posts. But you are again mistaken when you suggest that the statement was taken out of context. It most certainly was not, and I have repeatedly demonstrated this above (for example, in my post dated 14:23, 23 June 2009). Causteau (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Ellen say that it is wrong in every way to call E1b1b African, or did she specify a very particular sense? Yes or no? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that, as you yourself have explained on these talk pages, that she noted a very specific sense, and certainly did not mean it in the most obvious and literal sentence. Indeed her article makes it absolutely clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Ellen ever express any opinion that the key sentence in her whole article was the one which said that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African? No she did not. And yet you continue to imply that she did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Ellen ever make any remarks about any versions of text being proposed for the article? No she did not. And yet you continue to imply that she did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's say Ellen had agreed on this talkpage with your opinions on everything, and said that E1b1b might not have an African origin. What then? It still would make no difference. Her article does not raise any doubts about it. Her article says directly that E1b1b originated in Africa, ie, "E1b1b is African". You can't use the talkpages as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellen said this:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Notice the allusions she makes. 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. What she says is similar to what I want the article to say, and similar to what you summarized for her in 2008. It is very specific about the particular sense she intends by saying that E1b1b is wrong to be referred to in discussion as simply African. She very definitely did NOT intend the most obvious meaning, which would be that E1b1b did not originate in Africa (remember the context in her article is about Jews who are E1b1b). Do you agree or not? Just answer. How can we edit if you are only trying to win an argument? Do we have common ground or not? Or do you say that she doubts E1b1b is African in this sense of where it originated? Why not give clear answers?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellen does not mean "E3b is ofen incorrectly described as African" strictly in the context of Jews. This is actually one of the misimpressions that currently plagues the article. She means E3b as a whole. I know this because that is precisely in what context I discussed the clade in my analysis of her quote, which she felt captured what it is she was trying to communicate:

"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:"

Also, do not interpret non-acquiescence as "trying to win". My many edits on this talk page over these past few days alone show I am sincere. So sincere, in fact, that I refuse to settle for an edit that in no way, shape or form fully captures (or indeed even cites) what it is the author actually writes. Causteau (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking you to acquiesce. I just think you need to clearly explain your position. The aim is that we all win. I have no problem, once more, with the kind of detailed explanation you give in your first paragraph here once again on talk pages, but just how do you argue that this is best reflect by compressing everything into one sentence which says that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African? By the way, just to keep our eye on the picture this sentence is what you want to appear in a section marked as being about E1b1b ORIGINS. My only concern, to repeat, is that if the author meant anything BUT origins then it would be very wrong to imply otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, just look at what you wrote: the quote does compress everything into one sentence. So it's not a question of whether the quote is wrong. It is now a question of whether it is appropriate, given where in the article it is featured. This is something that Ellen has thankfully also already answered and which I have already pointed out to you several times (post from 14:23, 23 June 2009). I don't see how Ellen's view regarding the ultimate place of origin of E1b1b is misrepresented when a) we state in literally the same sentence at hand that she indicates the clade originated in East Africa, and b) she herself has indicated that not only is her view not misrepresented, it is actually well presented. Causteau (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before this is simply a question of English, so let's use another example. Let's say someone snips a quote from a newspaper article saying that someone, let's say a football player who plays in Israel, is incorrectly called an African, with a full stop after it. The clear implication of this quote taken on its own, and no matter what else is written, is that this person was neither born in Africa nor has or had any nationality there. But let's say that the article is actually all about the them of how complicated the origins of all Jewish people are. And let's say that the article actually goes on to make an extended point over many paragraphs that what it means is that this football player is often discussed in an over-simplified way, but actually he is African - African and Jewish. Would it be appropriate in this case for a Wikipedia editor, writing a section in an article specifically concerning this football player's origins, should deliberately choose to use the sentence which says the player "is incorrectly called an African" as the focus sentence? This is what you are doing. You have yourself said that you see these words as the critical ones that you want as much as possible to be the core of the paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That analogy of someone snipping a quote from a newspaper has no bearing on the present situation since in invoking it you are presupposing that Ellen's quote was taken out of context, when I've just explained to you that she herself has indicated that it was not. We also don't need to speculate on the meaning of Ellen's quote, since I've already provided a concise analysis of it, an analysis which the author herself has of course said was ""precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Also, when Ellen writes that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"", she does not mean it strictly in the context of Jews. She means E3b as a whole, which is something that I've also already pointed out (see my post from 21:54, 23 June 2009). Causteau (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We have defined a meaning on these talkpages, which was that the cited article is saying that calling E1b1b African in discussions in the media has led to over-simplification. We have long apparently agreed that the cited article did not intend to question status in terms of ORIGINS. But you will not allow the wording in the Wikipedia article to say the same thing. You want the Wikipedia article's ORIGINS section to centre around a sentence which says it is incorrect to call E1b1b African. You chose those words from an article which says that E1b1b's ORIGINS (the subject of the Wikipedia article section we are dealing with) are in "East Africa". So ins summary the analogy above looks perfect to me. If the analogy was wrong, please say how. Why do you never answer anything directly??????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Your analogy is completely irrelevant for the reasons clearly outlined above (see the word "since" in the first two sentences; that usually prefaces an explanation). Actually read my post this time and follow through on the other post I also linked you to. I also see you've fallen back on your argument that the key words "incorrectly" and "often" in the quote "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" are disposable, an argument which was debunked quite some time ago as well (post from 19:37, 23 June 2009). Since you are falling back on your arguments of old now, it's clear you have no new ones to put forth. Which begs the question: what's left to talk about? Are you writing just for the sake of writing or do you also have an actual argument to prove? Causteau (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is very difficult if the only justification you ever want to make is that you already "debunked" the positions of other people long ago. I asked you what was wrong with the analogy, which by the way is not an old analogy, so it can not have been debunked long ago. I don't see your debunking of it anywhere. This is a question of giving the right wording to get the right meaning. The section of the Wikipedia article is about the Origins of E1b1b. The article being cited says E1b1b originated in East Africa. You want to cherry pick a sentence which says it is incorrect to call E1b1b African, and you want the wording to be such that this sentence is the prime giver of meaning. That's where we are. Just justify that, for the first time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Coffman-Levy a fortune teller?

Causteau, I see that as hinted above you have decided to take action to (re-)open a second front on the Coffman-Levy citation. Here is your edit. Once again this is a repeat of an old edit you've been trying to force into this article for a long time. Once again I am afraid it can only be interpreted as part of a deliberate effort to create an impression of doubt about the mainstream scientific understanding that E1b1b is African in origin. I'll explain in detail before reverting...

Previous version:

In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005. She cited E1b1b...

Causteau version:

In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media. She cites...

The problem is simple. The article was written in 2005, which in the DNA world was a long time ago. Your new wording implies that the article was written now, or at least that it discussed what is happening now, in the future so to speak. This is obviously absurd. Please, if anyone thinks I am missing something, can you tell me?

For the record, because I think this is now a case of clear disruptive editing I think it is worth making clear the fact that when Ellen Coffman-Levy attended this talk page one thing she did make clear to Causteau and the rest of us reading editing this article at the time was that she had very specific cases in mind which were in the past already one year ago. It was about that time that Causteau finally allowed this implication of recentness to be removed the first time around. So this new edit is quite cynical. It is tit for tat. I at least see no other way to understand it?

I also note that amongst his reverts Causteau has even insisted to go back and change the haplogroup name to E3b again, using an outdated name just because this is how it was referred to in this article many years ago. This is also (believe it or not) something Causteau has fought for before! So this also looks like a tit for tat.

Just in case anyone is wondering User:Wapondaponda, whose blocking apparently triggered Causteau's latest sweep of a bunch haplogroup articles in order to changes references to Africa, had no impact on some of the reverts Causteau is making. They go back well before he appeared.

I would appreciate feedback from other editors than Causteau. Am I being too pessimistic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Andrew, my edit was based on the following comments by Ellen Coffman-Levy herself on her visit to this talk page from just a few months ago, comments which I hadn't paid close enough attention to in the past:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.

I realize that a) you have contacted other editors, b) you believe that you therefore have a captive albeit silent audience, and c) are hoping that I lash out so that d) I may then be consequently reprimanded. Actually, I've been aware of this for quite a few posts now. But I'm afraid you just don't have a leg to stand on. You see, not only do Ellen's own comments above about her own study & world-view belie your own assertions, your entire argument that her comments are dated is based upon your own desire and not the author herself, much less her study. In fact, the passage in the study in question is also very much written in the present tense, just like the author's later talk page comments:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

And that says it all. Causteau (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are a bad faith editor. I am not hiding that. I've explained the case above and I do not make the accusation lightly. Indeed others should please read through the evidence for themselves. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming from you of all people Andrew, that means very little and is deliciously ironic given the above. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you are in these modes you use gloating and "tough guy" words. Can you ever stick to the topic, ever?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose you are on topic right now too, eh? You know what they say about the pot & the kettle... Causteau (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think asking people to stick to topic is not really going off topic in the sense people normally when they raise it as a concern. I was seriously asking you to come back to topic. Can you do so please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I never left it. See post 19:04, 23 June 2009 for who did, then compare that to the section in question's heading. Causteau (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Following is moved/copied from inappropriate section, where the discussion continued...

The edit which your SOPHIAN is currently reverting once more for you (though he asks below, after reverting, what the discussion is about) contains more direct quoting and explanations about these details than the particular sentence you want to put in, except of course that I can not accept pretending that the article was not written years ago. BTW you can't cite her words in 2008 on this talkpage as an update, even if they agreed with you. I repeat that you are not giving any justification for the reverts you and Sophian are making. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never asked SOPHIAN to do anything of the sort, nor did I even notice he did. Unlike some people, I actually like to think before I write, so I don't always have time to mind other people's business for them. I will say, though, that the desperation in your arguments is almost tragic at this point. You're making literally no sense. It makes no difference whether Ellen were to have said that the mistreament of E3b in the media and public is still ongoing in her study or in her Wikipedia talk page posts. The point is, she, the author of both opinions, said it and emphatically. This of course completely debunks your fabricated notion that this mistreatment is no longer in effect, which is something you have then attributed to the author (if not the author, then who exactly? Yourself? Cause we all know what that would be, don't we?: Original research. And once again. More to be found on post 17:27, 23 June 2009. Causteau (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can you cite a 2008 article in order to say what happened after 2008? Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a very weak argument (and I hestitate to call it that). Ellen showed up only a few months ago. And when she showed up, she maintained the exact same position she took up in her study from three whole years prior. Your argument tries to pit hope against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. Very doubtful. And certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words. Causteau (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are citing the talk page? BTW I did not read her that way concerning what had happened since 2005.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not citing anything because to cite something would imply that there was a legitimate argument extant to begin with that merited address, when in fact, there never was. Nowhere does Ellen testify or even so much as allude to anything of the sort. Neither in her study -- which is written in the present tense, and does not set a time limit of any sort on the mistreatment -- nor in her talk page posts i.e. the two venues where she has testified on this matter. We can't very well fish from thin air that which the author herself never asserts. It's not only wrong, it's like speaking for her but without her consent. Actually, I would argue that it's speaking for her against her consent, since she has already clearly expressed a diametrically opposed view: that the mistreatment of E3b in the media & public is still very much going on. Causteau (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is any disagreement between me and Ellen, but in any case please remember this is nothing to do with anything. Her article is the source, not her personally. We can talk to her in a common sense way about how to interpret her article, but there is not formal Wikipedia rule that authors can come in and update their arguments, which in any case Ellen did not do.

The real question is, what is your source for specifically wanting to add wording so as to change the meaning away from saying that the article described what was the case up until the time the article was written, and towards saying that it specifically remains true until today? Ellen's 2005 article can not be used as a source for what happened after 2005. Ellen's 2008 comments on this talkpage can not be used as a source at all, and in case do not back you up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? You write that Ellen's "article is the source, not her personally", yet you have ironically been pushing for a time limit on her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" that the study itself never makes. Here is your edit:

"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005."

Your additions above in bold are not cited in Ellen's study. If you think they are, prove it with a direct quote(s) from her study asserting as much. Didn't think so. I, by contrast, am quoting directly from the study itself -- that is my reliable source (what's yours again?)! Here is my edit:

"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media."

And here is the statement in Ellen's study that it is sourced to:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

As can clearly be seen and verified by anyone, my edit is directly drawn from the reliable source in question -- not your edit.

If your argument, then, is that Ellen is instead implying in her study that her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" only applies, as you've written, "at least until the time of writing in 2005", that too is clearly untrue since the author herself indicated in her own talk page posts from just a couple of months ago when she dropped by to shed light on the matter that the problem is still very much ongoing:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. If you don't think it still applies, then you are necessarily hoping against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. That, of course, is very doubtful, and certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words.

And there you have it. Either you are asserting that Ellen directly states in her study what you have attributed to her in this Wikipedia article (she doesn't) or you are implying that she does (she doesn't do that either, as just shown). Either way, your edit is based on neither the author nor her study, but strictly on yourself. Causteau (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that the misimpressions continued past 2005? You should be able to answer in a few words. It can not be an article written in 2005, and it can not be Wikipedia itself, right? So what is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you took a lot of time to process my post above (joke). My edit does not say that "the misimpressions continued past 2005". This is something you have indicated, so you are in effect answering a remark of your own design -- not my words (see strawman argument). Refer to the long post above for what I did actually say. And when you're through with that, answer my questions for a change. Good luck. Causteau (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not take long, because the subject is simple and you write about irrelevant things. You now claim that your edit did not even "say that "the misimpressions continued past 2005". This is amazing. The change we are talking about here is the change from "continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005" to "continues to pervade the public and media". By the way I have told you before that these very long sections are difficult to edit on some computers so I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the subject were as simple as you claim, then you wouldn't have had any difficulty actually understanding what Ellen's quote meant to begin with, would you? The truth is, it does not take you long to post responses because you are not answering what has been presented before and asked of you (as you still are not). It also does not hurt that more text means more visual confusion on the page, which thus makes it easier to obscure older arguments, as do the new talk page sections you keep starting. This, in turn, allows you to ask questions, post arguments, and make accusations that have already been thoroughly addressed and/or debunked as if they were being leveled for the very first time (which is then, at least in theory, supposed to frustrate the other debating party i.e. me). I know the drill, Andrew. Now quit stalling and answer the questions I put before you in my post above from 19:37, 23 June 2009:

• When you "write that "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005", where in Ellen's study does it support the bold part? And where is that passage written in the past tense, as you have rewritten it to?

• If your argument is that Ellen doesn't actually write what you've claimed she does in her study but only implies as much, where then in her study or talk page posts does she do this? Again, I wish you the best of luck with answering those points.

Oh, and before I forget, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by "this discussion", "a separate edit" and "this section" in your post above? You see, I'm no good with vague talk. Also, please produce a dif proving that I moved said things you claim I've moved (after having first clarified what you mean by them, of course). Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to bait me into moving whatever talk page section you are talking about back to where it originally was after you promised to move it ("I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject") -- something you would then undoubtedly complain about to an administrator. Diabolical. Causteau (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)