Talk:Haplogroup E-V68 (Y-DNA)

Origins

Is the Northeastern origin of E1b1b1a a water tight hypothesis. A few recent studies continue to suggest an East African origin such as Hassan et al. Seeing that Somalis have frequencies as high as 78%. What are the possible reasons explaining a back migration from Egypt/Sudan region back into East Africa, and then to dominate the preexisting E-M215 lineages. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is watertight in this particular science and hopefully we are not using words which implies that it is. I do not think it would shock anyone who knows this subject to see new evidence move the place of most likely origin around quite a bit. But Hassan et al. does not appear to be making any particular new argument, but just reviewing the literature when it says "is thought to have an origin in eastern African". Their comment implies that they missed something in the literature, but we can not reasonably ignore that we know that this is not what the most recent leading articles propose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, in this area of research these are best guesses, nothing is water tight. Probably the worst place to make a guess is in N and NE Africa. In the study of HLA there are a number of haplotypes of recent common origin that encircle northern africa but are absent at the center. The Eastern Sahara and parts of West Central Sahara were habitable 11,000 to 5,000 years ago (with a peak occupation from 9,000 to 5,500 years ago which are almost completely uninhabitable now. These populations have dispersed elsewhere including Northeast Africa. One study found that NW and NE african nomads are genetically linked, not through the Sahel but via North Africa. There is a pottery culture attibuted to this time and region, known as the wavy-line and dotted wavy-line pottery that existed from about 10,500. Within the vicinity of the nile there was evidence of Cattle husbandry debatably to about 10kya. Many of these finds are now in unihabitable places (except for the occasional nomadic peoples wandering by).PB666 ^yap 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to read more about that HLA pattern around the Sahara you mention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be correct to state that Battaglia et al interpret M78 has having dispersed from the refugium in Sudan, and therfore should we change the origins from Egypt and Libya to Egypt and Sudan per Battaglia. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Battaglia et al. do not opine about the place of origin of E1b1b1a, but only about where it dispersed from. There is a difference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Libya reference is a technicality, simply because it is listed in a table next to Egypt. Cruciani 2007 emphasize the regions in the vicinity of the Nile, so it is a little misleading to mention Libya as the origin which is far west of the Nile Valley. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your guess on the intention of the authors. However we can't source our guesses can we? I have moved the text around a little, which maybe helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

I am uncomfortable with this section for a few reasons: 1. It was mainly drawn out of the introduction, making both this section and also the intro very small. 2. There is a problem with the image inserted? 3. The new comments inserted about Guinea Bissau are taking data from one article and turning it into a general conclusion about all of West Africa. That seems wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not making a general conclusion about West Africa. I merely was stating that it is the only place where it has been found in very high frequency. If you do not like, it take it out. It does not mean that nowhere else in West Africa does it exist in higher number, only that Guinea Bissau has highest frequency so far. More population studies will be done. --192.172.8.13 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that your intentions might be fine, but here is what the words say: "Guinea-Bissau has the highest frequency of this Haplogroup E subclade in sub-Saharan West Africa." This certainly implies that West Africa has been extensively studied, which is unfortunately not true.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

The Image "Y Hap EM-78.PNG" shows Montenegro with up to 50% E1b1b1a. I have read all the studies, yet Montenegro is not mentioned in any of them. Was it probably confused with Kosovo? Kosovo has an 50% amount of E1b1b1a. Could someone correct the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansmartin34 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that that map is not up to scratch in many ways. Someone just needs to do it. In the meantime, would there be major objections to deleting it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon E3b Hole"

Bird's "Anglo-Saxon Hole" is contradicted by the E3b distibution maps published in Bird's own paper - the Norfolk area is shown as having a very high percentage of E3b which being the supposed "epicentre" of the supposed Anglian "invasion" disproves the conclusion. Suggest removal of such an obvious error. Jembana (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have seen mention somewhere of my having pointed this East Anglian blip out, and also some other concerns, to Steve? Anyway, although I am "on record" as getting your point, Steve's interpretation is not logically impossible, as I have seen him explain. And perhaps more to the point, what you are suggesting is that we select sources based on our personal theorizing, which we are not supposed to do. I'm hoping he'll publish something more up to date this year. My understanding of Steve's ideas is that more fortified areas during Roman times have more E1b1b, other things equal, possibly due to the types of soldiers posted in those regions. East Anglia (the Saxon shore) was heavily fortified.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not personal theorizing at all - his own results and faulty logic are so apparent that we should class this as an unreliable source. If Romano-British were "swept away" in a supposed "Anglo-Saxon" enough in the centre of England to create an E3b-free "hole" then why not the same in Norfolk where the supposed invaders entered and more so. Jembana (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I vote against removal on the basis given so far at least.

1. The observation you are making is clever and well-informed, not obvious. Even in that form it is not obviously right. See my explanation above: Steve, who is also clever and well-informed, thinks of E1b1b as not being typical Romano British, but rather associated with military frontiers.

2. It is clear that the real reason for removal for you would be the conflict between Bird's article and your above-mentioned observations (which I happen to think quite reasonable). That is a bad reason for removal both in terms of WP policy and repeated practical experience editing these haplogroup articles. A critical problem for these articles is that they are very reliant on summarizing WP:primary sources. But in such cases policy and experience tells us to be extra careful not to try anything which can be construed as cherry picking or filtering or interpreting those primary sources. (I could write a list of "obvious" holes for most of these sources. Can I then delete them?)

3. You are basically saying we should delete all mention of this article which is one of the few on the subject, certainly for this period and region, and certainly one people talk about as a serious one. It is also not in any conflict with anything from "higher level" academic peer-reviewed papers. While you seem to be now moving towards using words that would be reserved for a loony fringe style of article I do think that is exaggerated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the phylogenetic tree need to be updated in light of Trombetta et al. (2011)? It seems that the clade names of E-V12 and E-V13 in particular need to be updated. The article itself seems to contradict itself when it comes to the phylogenetic names of the two aforementioned haplogroups. The E-V32 clade of E-V12 is now referred to as E1b1b1a1b while the E-V13 clade is now E1b1b1a2. Yardalhirji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haplogroup E-V68 (Y-DNA)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

* The introduction of the article is very short and does not explain well what E1b1b1a is or its importance. The relationship between M78 and E1b1b1a needs to be explained to the common reader. Is it neccesary to call it E-M78, some use M78 others use E-M78, it reduces the jargon factor. The nile river map isn't very good for these purposes. Ancient Nilotic peoples would have hardly cared about state boundaries, these should be for reference only, what the reader needs to see are geographic considerations, where is the rift valley, where is the arid lands, forested areas, fertile river valleys. Sentences should be shortened and simplified for the common reader. mutations used in text should be carefully defined. Examples of poorly defined mutations are E-V12, EV-13, E-V65) Name dropping should be kept to a minimum. The topic is about E1b1b1a not what authors have worked of E1b1b1a External links within the text are frowned upon in Wikipedia, instead imbed the external link into a reference. Undifferentiated E-V12* lineages is pretty much wall-to-wall jargon. You might start with the fact that * clades are often in wait for defining mutations. E1b1b1a1a (E-M224) can probably be discussed under the header Sub Clades of E1b1b1a1 (E-V12) The entire paragraph is overreferenced since all authors draw the same conclusion, state the conclusion and combine all references under one footnote. E1b1b1a1b (E-V32) is wall to wall jargon. Percentages should be softened for the general audience. Editors should use their editing skills to encorperate material into text, and refrain from frequent quotations. What is STR data (Andrew I know what it is, but this is what your reader will say while clicking to another page) E1b1b1a2 (E-V13), Jargon - name dropping -quoting more jargon and name dropping, many footnotes mid-text, more or less a readers eye-sore. Another unexplained STR table. the phylogenetic tree should be converted to a cladogram with cladogram and clade templates. excessively long notes in the note section. References truncate authors to first author et al only, acceptable for mid text reference but lacking for the citation section. References should be expanded. Lead - Should discuss at least the major sections in the article and some aspects of the minor sections. Section headers - Each section header should be followed by at least one sentence describing the subsections that follow, indeed section headers are places were difficult technology can be explained. -Overpresentation- simplify, verbosity is for the sake of explaining, not mentioning every author who ever worked on a section of the phylogenetic tree. Beyond one inline text paragraph consider footnoting, certainly several inline (harvard references) in large sentences combine these into a ref tagged reference and rewrite sentence. PB666 yap 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)