Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Starting fresh

All previous threads on this page have been moved to Archive 2. Now, with a clean slate, can we please try again? My recommendations are:

• Read WP:CIVIL, and keep the discussions polite
• Keep posts very short (300 words, max)
• Focus on one specific part of the article. How about we pick one paragraph, or even just one sentence, and go from there?

--Elonka 05:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to raise some concerns...

1. The basic problem with this article is not about anything that would bare any level of constructive work, but rather that no one can edit it without being reverted or without seeing one's work get mangled by someone who sees himself as the guardian of this article, but who is not a constructive contributor himself, nor a person who knows the subject matter well, nor a person who writes well. This can only be shown with reference to what is in the archives - not just the new one, but also the older one.

2. Trying to make sure there was no other problem, I spent a lot of time on the weekend writing detailed explanations about any particular words and sentences which Causteau has been referring to as concerns in order to justify his control of the article, and the emergency situation that it is in. He wants the situation to remain controversial, because in such a situation he can claim that edits are inappropriate until things cool down. I put in this effort because nothing else has worked. Now those explanations are all in the archives, and Elonka is implying that writing at length on the talk page is part of the problem, which is what was suggested to her on her talk page by Causteau.

3. Elonka also knows that Causteau's revert stands as the current article, having reverted 5 edits which do not necessarily have anything to do with anything Causteau has said on the archived talk page. Causteau believes that he may revert any edits for the time being based on his interpretation of Elonka. I have asked Elonka to make a clear statement about whether Causteau really should interpret her that way several times.

So when can people other than Causteau start editing Elonka? I realize it was not your intention but you are in the middle of this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A practical question also: there is no longer a contents box on this page. I am not sure how to get it back in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

The previous RfC attempt didn't work, so let's try again. To start with, could you each suggest a one- or two-sentence description of the dispute? For ideas, check how other RfCs list things: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. --Elonka 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should first try one more time to address some issues that you could already have responded on Elonka...

The problem is that my edits are being deleted, which is also what other editors experience on this article. It is not really about any details we can discuss. Most recently, Causteau deleted five edits on the weekend, claiming to be doing Elonka's bidding, and not claiming anything specific about any of those edits. So Causteau is working on a general principle. Here's what Causteau was writing just before the open discussions were cut off by being archived...

What I would really like is for Lancaster to quit playing so loose with sourcing and just stick to what the studies actually say. I realize doing so is a lot more challenging than just dreaming up what a study one apparently never even had full access to until now says, but that's the only way of ensuring encyclopedicity.

I think when pushed Causteau's entire justification for full reverts etc all comes down to something like the quote above: an accusation of loose sourcing in general requiring severe reverts in general and an understanding by Causteau that this is what Elonka demands, and what Wikipedia norms demand.

But even taking this argument seriously, there are two problems with it: first many of the reverts being made have nothing to do with anything claimed by Causteau to be un-sourced, all edits are deleted if there is any part of an edit Causteau does not like, which is nearly always, and that is even if the offending part itself gets changed; and secondly, the claims of poor sourcing, used as a justification for all types of reverts and edits, are frankly petty and wrong, and have been for months.

Here are just two current examples of the types of cases used to claim that the problem involves something to do with sourcing...

1. Causteau equates the putting an geographical adjective (eg Russian) next to a category name (eg cars) in any part of a sentence to actually making a statement that in all the category share the characteristic. In other words, to use the words "Russian cars" in a sentence means that a person is making a claim that all cars are Russian. Here is the sentence. For anyone who can read English, please someone comment...

The fourth major sub-clade of E-M35 to be announced is E-M293, in Henn et. al. (2008) which is claimed to include a majority of sub-Saharan E-M35.

As evidence of Causteau's remarks on this sentence, it is now difficult to cite Causteau's comments because they are archived. But in his talk page entries of 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) he wrote:

Like most people, I'm not a mind reader. If Lancaster puts the term "sub-Saharan" beside the clade E-M35 so that his edit reads "sub-Saharan E-M35" as it indeed does, I'm afraid it is not obvious to non-psychics that what he actually means is "sub-Saharan M293"

...and...

Umm, that quote quite clearly says "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa". It does not describe E-M35 as sub-Saharan ("sub-Saharan E-M35") like Lancaster has in his actual edit. The problem with Lancaster's edit is that he described an entire clade (E-M35) as sub-Saharan while that quote he just produced only ever describes one SNP (namely, M293 -- not even M35) as "only found in sub-Saharan Africa". It doesn't describe the M293 mutation as "sub-Saharan", but its distribution area as sub-Saharan Africa. What's most disturbing about all of this, however, is that Lancaster still refuses to admit that he is wrong and that the study in no way, shape or form describes the E1b1b1/E-M35 clade as "sub-Saharan" like he has very clearly written.

I am sorry to write at length on this, but this is what is important evidence to Causteau of my bad sourcing, and is being used to justify reverts of edits which do not even have anything to do with the above language, which by the way is no longer in the article.

2. Causteau claims that to use the Y clade terminology E-"x" where "x" is an SNP name is "synthesis" unless an editor can cite a source where someone has already used the exact combination before, even if we are talking about a new SNP. I have addressed that, and tried to get discussion about it, in my entry, now archived, of 12:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC), and here and here.

Apart from the above 2 cases, many more examples can be given, going back to May, a lot of which is archived in the first archive. The problems of this article can not be understood properly without seeing that this situation has repeated over some months, every time that editing occurs. When editing is not happening, that is because no one dares.

By the way, May, in the first archive, it can be seen that indeed we eventually went through the whole article line by line. I did all that work. I am the person who always tried to initiate discussion on the talk page. (Of course all that work meant long posts on the talk page Elonka!) But it will also be seen that the conversation was at least as awkward and silly as the present one. It was not a success by any means. Causteau clearly felt bitter about having to reply to things on a factual basis like that, rather than in terms of general reverts and general accusations of bad sourcing. Here is one of the posts he made within that segment of discussion...

If you'll be honest with yourself for a minute, you'll admit that the page that exists now is almost 100% of your creation. That, in and of itself, should satisfy you. But yet here you appear to want me of all people to make more concessions, and after today's barrage of edits.

To me, this attitude puts it in a nutshell.

As shown by Causteau's reactions to attempts at discussion in both archives, wherever possible Causteau refuses to reply constructively to calls for yes/no answers about particular facts, or particular calls for new wordings he could accept, and continues to defend the current situation, the general situation of stalemate where no-one may edit, and not any particular edit.

So, given the types of cases being used to justify the accusation of loose sourcing, the article now has no way forward. To repeat: my last 5 edits were deleted, and I've been told by Causteau and Elonka that to reinstate them or to do any editing at all might draw consequences. Elonka has therefore, whether deliberately or not, locked me out of the article without following normal procedures for such an action, and she has also given Causteau a special status in practice as a person who may revert this article, but not be reverted.

Elonka has not responded to any attempts by me to communicate about this problem.

To even start to move ahead, we first need Elonka to state whether she intended to stop me from being allowed to edit. Do I really need Causteau's permission to edit (in other words may Causteau really revert any edit without any comment on the principle that Elonka supposedly said that for now no one should edit without prior agreement)? If so, when does this stop?

If we presume that Elonka can confirm that I may still edit, then the next question is Causteau should be allowed to do reverts without explanations on the talk page such as I do? As mentioned, my last 5 edits are reverted, and Causteau has never made any attempt to explain that except by reference to Elonka. Can they be reinstated or at least have their problems explained on the talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again: Could each of you please summarize this dispute, in one sentence? See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. Thanks, --Elonka 05:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One long sentence: This article is not being edited as much as people interested in this subject are willing and able to do because it is being over-zealously guarded by someone who makes broad reversions of several edits at once without being able to show that what is reverted made the article worse, and without enough common sense concerning where to draw the line on things like "sourcing" (for example does good sourcing mean only using the same words as one article, and can good sourcing involve referring to several articles in order to explain the current state of understanding).

In response to what I think the main objection of Causteau will be, that his efforts are aimed at better sourcing etc and that it leads to a better article, I comment as follows. In this round of discussions, as in May (the last time I up-dated this article due to new literature) the record shows that I have made every effort to try discussion on the talk page whenever any potential controversy appears, and that this has been very difficult indeed to initiate and to get focused upon the needs of the article itself. Once Causteau is forced to participate, there is then a lot of unfocused accusation, reflecting the unfocused reverts - in this case there was the amazingly wrong focus upon a series of words ("sub Saharan E-M35") which continued to be used as a justification for all sorts of things long after the issue was dead. Eventually, as in May last time, we have had to go to line by line discussion on the talk page, again initiated by me. Note. This might look good, but in fact it shows the failure we have of the normal editing system, and raises the question of whether the stuff being edited in this article really is that hard to agree on. A comparison can be made between what issues of sourcing, facts etc that Causteau raises at the start of these revert sessions, with what he eventually has to admit are the facts and sources, and these are generally precisely those he opposed at the beginning. This article is actually not a very complicated subject. Causteau himself does not generally bring in new sources and Causteau's "QC" work only slows down the work of others who could be bringing in more information and it certainly puts many people off altogether. In many cases Causteau's concerns could perhaps be fixed just by putting a nicer link from a comment to a reference already given for example, which is something he should do more of if he notices concerns.

Secondary comment to Elonka: This situation currently involves you also in the sense that your name is being given by Causteau as as authority for controversial reverts by one editor over another, which has been pointed out to you without you making any comment about how you should be interpreted - implying (very arguably of course!) that you might indeed have decided to give at least a temporary semi-official status to Causteau's guardian position with relation to this article, at least in Causteau's mind. Note his frustrated posts to your talk page wondering why you still haven't started taking stronger action in his favor. Causteau's misunderstanding of how things work is part of the problem and without it necessarily being your fault you now sit in a position where you could have a big effect just by correcting some wrong impressions. Causteau's editing style sometimes looks like someone holding off action (other people's editing) while "waiting for the cavalry".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please come up with a short sentence that is directly related to the content of the article, and does not refer to other editors. --Elonka 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This wikipedia article can in practice not be edited in the usual way, since at least May, despite no significant amount of controversy about real facts which might explain such a situation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted

Here are just some examples of things which need fixing, but which can (apparently) not be worked on now. Feel free everyone to add more proposals...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Apparently as part of a reaction to what he calls my arrogance etc because I edit the article too much without his express permission (see his posts on Elonka's talkpage, archives of this talk page etc) Causteau made an edit whereby he introduced new wording into the opening sentence which is already in the second paragraph. This is simple redundancy. Anything missing in the second paragraph at the appropriate place can of course be added in there, but it makes no sense to have two places for listing old names with a few words of each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL I never once used the word "arrogance" in reference to Lancaster's edits, though considering the above, I'm thinking that perhaps I should have. In that link above that Lancaster included, I added the former names for haplogroup E1b1b, as I've very clearly explained in my edit summary. It's baffling why Lancaster would want us to get rid of the names by which E1b1b was known as recently as a few years ago! He states that the article proper already mentions that E1b1b used to be known as Haplogroup 21. That's terrific. However, that information belongs in bold in the introduction alongside the other names for the haplogroup so that visitors to the page realize right off the bat that E1b1b is E3b/Hg21(Haplogroup 21)/Eu4. Most other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia also list the alternative names for the haplogroup right away in the intro (e.g. haplogroups J, R1b, S, etc.), so this is hardly unreasonable or without precedent. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, the question here is concerning the fact that the old names are mentioned in two places. Please read again and respond to that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see #7 below. Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even better let's work on the draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2. In that same sentence, there should be a reference to the second standard name of this clade, the subject of this article, which is E-M215.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. If you'll notice, the info box already cites E-M215. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Any examination of edits over the last week, and also last month, will show that you have a tendency to remove these. That's why I'm trying to make sure there is clarity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have no dispute, then let's include it in the starting sentence as well. Causteau, do you have a problem with naming other haplogroups by their SNPs (e.g. E-M35, E-M81, etc.)? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include a mention of E-M215 in the intro and in bold just like E1b1b. However, this should be in its habitual context vis-a-vis E1b1b i.e. in parentheses: "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215)...". Along those lines. Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See my proposal in the draft below, which rearranges things. They were getting messy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3. The sentence "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East". The new article now out is all about a sub-clade which is Southern and Eastern Africa. I see 2 alternative ways to cover this: "E1b1b is found in various forms in Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East". "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost but not quite. The first quote implies that E1b1b is widespread in Africa when it is virtually absent in West and Central Africa. E1b1b also enjoys a small-to-moderate presence in only a handful of Southern and Eastern African groups that have mixed either directly or indirectly with the Horn African groups it originated with. For this reason, the second quote is preferable but ought to be modified to reflect the real nature of E1b1b's distribution in Africa. Here's how it should read: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East". Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and was working on a draft below in a similar direction. If I can get the edit to stay you should see it soon, but something went wrong the first time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the second sentence is preferable, but there's a lot of overlap and ambiguity. "Middle East," e.g. is a political term of unclear denomination that should be avoided. Moreover, we should avoid saying "the Mediterranean" - we already noted its presence in N. Africa & S. Europe. Instead, we should note its frequency in North Africa and South and Southeastern Europe. As you noted, E1b1b is virtually absent in West & Central Africa, as it is in Eastern and Northern Europe, so we should be clear in the regions that it is present. How about this sentence: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Southern and Southeastern Europe."? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b is found quite literally all over Europe, albeit in smaller frequencies outside of the Mediterranean and the Balkans. The Middle East is indeed also a large area, and E1b1b enjoys a significant presence in many places there save a few. I therefore think we should amend the intro to read something like "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)." Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yom please comment on Western Asia. Instead of "mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)" what about "especially Southern Europe"? There might be a way to do this with some dynamics implied by saying things like "Southern Europe spreading into the rest of Europe" and "the Near East spreading into Asia". Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "Northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, and the Near East, spreading into Europe, Asia, and Eastern and Southern Africa"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not fair on the Balkans perhaps, and maybe Southern Europe generally? This implies "Northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Near East, and Southern Europe, spreading into Western Eurasia, and Eastern and Southern Africa"??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards Causteau's version, if only because we don't have to describe its history (where it spread to from where) in the same sentence that we use to describe its distribution. It's not as if it didn't spread into West Asia and North Africa, too. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you have a look at his new version below?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

4. "E1b1b (M215)" nomenclature should in all cases be standardized to "E1b1b (E-M215)", "E-M215", or E1b1b wherever a clade is being referred to. Most importantly M35 type nomenclature should never refer to a clade. But there are two guidelines I strongly suggest: it should not be the result that E-M35 nomenclature is fully removed from the article, and secondly, E-M35 nomenclature should be the preferred nomenclature where the running text makes it important to remind the reader of the SNP name. As a rough guide these were the places where older versions of the article used "E1b1b (M215)" or "M215" as a clade name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The E-M215 type nomenclature can be included in parentheses in the titles of each section for each sub-clade. For example, the section in the article currently titled "E1b1b1b (M81); formerly E3b1b, E3b2" would be re-labeled "E1b1b1b (E-M81); formerly E3b1b, E3b2". The E-M215 type nomenclature can also be included in parentheses alongside the primary name for the clade/sub-clade during the first mention of the clade/sub-clade in the introduction and the clade/sub-clade's respective section, though many other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia including R1b do not observe this. When the text calls for the mentioning of the SNP name, however, we should do just that and mention the SNP name -- not the clade. M35 is what we would then write instead of the clade E-M35. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK. I've thought before that we had agreement and then still been reverted, but it sounds OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we have a principle, but we'll have to see how it works in practice. Hence, on to drafts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

5. This sentence: "(As with other haplogroup names, the speed of new discoveries is leading many writers to use simpler names which simply refer to the SNP being considered, for example M215 or M35)". I would like to suggest that with all the efforts I made to defend this yet again in the last day, someone could make a proper footnote with references. I've already done all the work. See the archive. Another alternative might be to link to a more general article about Y haplogroups, and to make sure such a discussion exists in that article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a link to an external website is necessary. There was a quote from an article that Lancaster finally posted yesterday which makes this point clear and which would fit in well as a footnote after the above phrase. Here it is again:

Alternatively, haplogroups can be named by the mutations that define lineages rather than by the lineages themselves. Thus, we propose a second nomenclature that retains the major haplogroup information (i.e., 19 capital letters) followed by the name of the terminal mutation that defines a given haplogroup. We distinguish haplogroup names identified "by mutation" from those identified "by lineage" by including a dash between the capital letter and the mutation name. For example, haplogroup H1a would be called H-M36 (Figure 2). When multiple phylogenetically equivalent markers define a haplogroup, the one typed is used. For example, if M39 but not M138 were typed within haplogroup H1, then H1c becomes H-M39. If multiple equivalent markers were typed, this notation system omits some marker information, and a statement of which additional markers were typed should be included in the Methods section. Note that the mutation-based nomenclature has the important property of being more robust to changes in topology (Figure 2).

I could add a reference to the above study as a footnote after the phrase, no problem. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Although note, this reference and link were always on the article. I put them there and referred to them in the text quite a while back.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That source will cover the dual names well. I thought this dispute had a lot to do with Causteau not liking the use of names defined by their SNPs, but if he accepts using them as he's said above, we shouldn't have many problems working this out. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Does Causteau only mean to allow that M-215 can be mentioned one time for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean that the above source justifies our inclusion of the phrase "As with other haplogroup names, the speed of new discoveries is leading many writers to use simpler names which simply refer to the SNP being considered, for example M215 or M35)". Here's the reference I said I'd create: When we've settled on a final draft, I'll add it after the above phrase. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

6. This sentence worried Elonka because it looks un-sourced: "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35)". Adding an "as already mentioned above" might make things more clear. To make it even more clear, the last two paragraphs of the intro could perhaps be joined to make it clear that the discussion of Cruciani's article spans across more than one sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple footnote that identifies the source from which that information was gleaned should cover it. It also gives readers the opportunity to verify the information. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Of course, as already explained to death: "E3b1f (M293)" is an inappropriate heading within this wikipedia article. The article has already defined (using the same nomenclature system) that E3b1f is defined by the SNP P72. If the article should try to be hyper neutral then we could consider also placing a question on the validity of P72's clade name, and treat the question of which sub clade is "f" as undecided. In any case the article clearly can not be taking a strong position in favor of Henn. To insist on using Henn's "f" would be to take the side of someone who has not yet even raised any debate in public, and that would not be neutral. Very likely Henn's claim on "f" will just be dropped once everyone realizes P72 was first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty clear on cases such as this. Content must be verifiable and sourced, and our source is the Henn et. al 2008 study. Henn quite clearly names the sub-clade E3b1f-M293. In the interests of consistency, however, we should probably include a mention of the E-M215 type nomenclature if we are also to include it in parentheses in the previous section headings. This would mean that the heading for the E3b1f-M293 section would change from simply "E3b1f (M293)" to "E3b1f (E-M293)". This is our most optimal compromise given the preceding text and especially the Henn source. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a case where we definitely disagree. I don't see that as a compromise at all, and I do not see any verifiability problem or synthesis either. The YCC quote above explain how anyone can make their own mutation based clade name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is how I see it. Henn named it E3b1f-M293, so we should note that when discussing the clade, but there's no reason why we shouldn't refer to it by its SNP, given that E3b1f is based on the old nomenclature. As for the header, however, I have no problem in naming it "E3b1f (E-M293)," since it hasn't been renamed under the new nomenclature. We should make a note of this at the beginning of the section. @Andrew, I'm not sure exactly where the disagreement you have here is. Do you want to simply not mention (or just mention once at the beginning of the section) the name "E3b1f"? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-sign Yom. How about you Lancaster? Causteau (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we will have 2 "f" clades. That implies that we are also questioning the "f" status of P72. See the article. If we are really doing that, then we should make that explicit too. In that case we should make the title of the two last M-35 sub-clades as follows: "E1b1bf?" (sic.) (M-P72) and "E1b1bf?" (sic.) (M-M293). That seems pretty obtuse to me, but I could accept it. I can not understand why any listing of clades in any serious reference work or webpage, would ever list clades using conflicting phylogenetic system though: E3b has been updated to E1b1b and there is no doubt about that. E3 would be a brother of E1. If we give that impression we are misleading people pure and simple and there is no need to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, nowhere does Henn call it "E1b1b1f" in his paper, so we would be erroneous to assign it that name. I was suggesting that we only call it "E3b1f" twice - once in the header, and then in the first sentence of the section explaining that he used the old terminology and that it hasn't been given a new name yet. We could also note that there was already an "E3b1f" ("E1b1b1f") that (Im' assuming here) his study was unaware of. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Henn quite clearly labels the sub-clade "E3b1f" and not "E1b1b1f". A simple reference in the text to Henn using the old E3b nomenclature should cover it. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can use E3b throughout the phylogenetic listing in the article, which would be silly, or we can use E1b1b throughout that section. Of course there is nothing stopping us referring to the exact wording which the authors used, but in the up-to-date phylogenetic system used now in the article, E3b would not even be within E-M215. These names have a meaning: they explain a family tree. E3b is a sub-clade of E3, and E3 is a sibling of E1, and E1 is an ancestral clade to E1b1b, etc. That is the whole point of these names. You can refer to different systems in an article, but you can not put them together in a listing used for reference purposes. If anyone can find any article or strong reference which does such a thing, I'd be very surprised. EVery single article in the literature has to take account of the fact that past articles used different systems, and yet none mix and match like this. The reason is because the names are the systems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there's a perfect solution to this situation. Henn et al was submitted for publication review in February 2008, and they correctly (at the time) used 2007 nomenclature. Karafet et al then published the updated nomenclature in April 2008. Henn's article was finally published in August 2008, and by then the E3b nomenclature was outdated.

The unfortunate situation is that the Y chromosome tree is in a constant state of flux with no central naming authority to assign names to new SNPs. So authors just choose the next available branch name for their new SNP. When multiple studies on the same section of the tree are published so close to each other, conflicts like those being discussed here can and do arise. In the past, ISOGG has generally chosen to handle such conflicts by allowing the first SNP published to keep its given name, and then giving the newer SNP the next branch name. So I would expect ISOGG to eventually update their tree to show E1b1b1g as the new name for M293, once they confirm that M293 and P72 are not phylogenetically equivalent. However, this has not been done yet, so this article should not assume any E1b1b1 name for M293.

Something else to keep in mind is that old articles aren't updated when nomenclature changes, so there will always be outdated articles that use old hierarchical nomenclature. The mutation-based nomenclature using only the capital letter and the mutation is the one least likely to become outdated (though not impossible). So why Henn chose to use E3b1f-M293 is a good question, but its use in the Henn publication doesn't mean it needs to be used in the Wikipedia article.

So given all this, we need an appropriate way to reference this new subclade in a factual way, while also trying to avoid confusion and ambiguity. May I recommend the following:

• Write the section header as "E3b1f" (M293) (use quotes for emphasis)
• Briefly explain the nomenclature issue in the text of the article
• If shorthand needs to be used in the article, use E-M293, since that is an accepted and unambiguous nomenclature standard per YCC recommendations.
• Avoid writing E3b1f-M293 unless in a direct quote from the Henn article.
• When ISOGG or another authority posts or publishes an updated tree that incorporates M293, the section header can be updated accordingly with the new nomenclature. Efweb (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about what has happened, or seems to have happened, but please note, the debate is not so much about whether to use the term as in the cited article, when citing the article, but what the actual heading should be within the phylogenetically structured part of the wikipedia article - i.e. the part where a list of E1b1b1 sub-clades are given, all starting with E1b1b1. You seem to say yourself that the terminology would be "unfortunate" so what is the actual reason you think it should be used at all when the mutation based nomenclature is clear and standardized: add one SNP name to one root clade such as E and hey presto. You don't actually mention what the problem is with that solution. For that matter there is nothing unsourced about saying that E1b1b is a "translation" of "E3b1". Henn even calls it E-M35 in the article also. If anyone can come up with a real reason to do something everyone seems to admit is wrong, then I'd go further than just putting quotation marks around it. I'd suggest a clear sign of doubt such as a comment "proposed by Henn" is a bare minimum, and I repeat that if we are taking this approach we should then also be logical and mark Karafet's f clade based on P72 as also in doubt ("proposed by Karafet et al"). Then at least the article says what it means until someone clears this up, which could take some time. I do not believe it is good practice to make an article wrong on the basis that it can be fixed up later. But is writing something which is wrong really necessary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that E3b1f is outdated nomenclature, but while E3b should generally be replaced with E1b1b, we cannot replace E3b1f with E1b1b1f for M293 since that would cause a conflict with P72 already being assigned E1b1b1f. So maybe the best solution is for the new section header to say "E1b1b1? (M293)" and then explain in the text why the subclade name is in question. That would allow us to maintain consistency with the rest of the section headers. Another alternative is to use E-M293 since it is a valid name for the subclade, but then the section headers won't be consistent. None of the solutions is perfect, so it's going to be a judgment call about which solution is the least inconsistent. P72 should be left as E1b1b1f since it's included in the 2008 Karafet tree, which should now be the baseline from which everyone is working from. Since we can't choose the new name for M293 ourselves, we just need an acceptable alternative for the purpose of this article until a new name is published within the current nomenclature. Efweb (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Those types of solutions make sense to me. Of course no one is claiming we should do the decisions ourselves, but we need to show the current confusing situation in a way which does not mislead people. Can you have a look at the current article and say what you would change? Just the title of this heading?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to this section, please note Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples.2C_derivations_and_restatements

For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references... This is standard practice in journals, and does not make any claim of novelty.

This gives an explicit green light to appropriately changing variable names, notation, etc. used in a source paper so as to restate the content of the source using the variable names, notation, etc. already established in the article.

This article is not using E3b for E-M215, so it should not use E3b1f for E-M293. User:Efweb's suggestion appears sensible, until such time as ISOGG publish an updated name (presumably E1b1b1g (M293)). The name used in Henn's paper should be noted in the footnote citing the paper. Jheald (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. Would Efweb be happy to write a little draft of how the section and heading would look? And would anyone with objections please state them clearly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

8. I am not sure how to do this, but perhaps the article should have one of those little remarks at the top to say something like "this article not only covers E1b1b (E-M215) but also E1b1b1 (E-M35)". The reasoning is that many people would searching for information E-M35 which is a more well-known clade than E-M215. As mentioned in the article, the two clades are almost, but not quite, the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but not really necessary. I think it's safe to assume that most people that are aware of both E1b1b (E-M215) and E1b1b1 (E-M35) realize that the E1b1b page likely discusses both. For the rest, we could re-direct all queries for E1b1b1 to this page. Causteau (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. If we need to, in the (probably far) future, we can split the articles into two and make a note that they're covered in different articles, but right now, I don't think anyone's going to come here not looking for E-M35 data, given how few non-M35-carrying individuals there are with the M215 SNP. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there will ever be a need to have an article for every phylogenetic level. Anyway, in this particular case the point is that many people searching for M-35 will need to be directed here. I have created some more re-directs today with that in mind. Also see that way I proposed the draft, which I think covers this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just created a re-direct page for E1b1b1 to this article. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

new draft of introductory section

Here is a draft Please comment...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (using phylogenetic nomenclature) or E-M215 (using mutation-based nomenclature) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

In nearly all discussion, E1b1b is equivalent to it's sub-clade, E1b1b1, or E-M35, which contains nearly all of E1b1b. It was only in Cruciani et. al.'s 2004 article[REF MISSING] that M215 was shown to be prior to M35, because there are some lineages which have the M215 mutation, but not M35. On that basis this article covers both clades, but is named after the slightly larger one.

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b and E1b1b1 male lines are found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, Northern,Eastern,Southern Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean, from which it spreads into Europe.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This intro draft is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

1)In its very first line, it introduces the notion of "phylogenetic nomenclature" vs. "mutation-based nomenclature" that literally no other haplogroup page on Wikipedia bothers to delve into. This is both unprecedented and unnecessary. To remedy this, a simple intro phrase along the lines of "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) (formerly known as E3b, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4)"... will suffice. This way, readers are afforded the opportunity to see in bold and right away that E1b1b is the same thing as E3b/Hg21(Haplogroup 21)/Eu4 just like many other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia allow readers to see the alternate names for the clades in question (e.g. haplogroups J, R1b, S, etc.).

So we should make the article worse than it needs to be? :( Here is my counter proposal. Step 1. We make this article better than what is currently normal. The WikiProject Human Genetic History, and also you and I in May, and anyone who knows this subject, are all on record as saying this is the direction of things. Step 2. We can make sure any articles that need to be updated in order to help this article should be up to date. In other words, if there is nothing on Wikipedia about these two concepts then there should be surely? The Wikipedia terminology is being bold.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no problem with citing the phylogenetic vs. the mutatation-based nomenclatures, but just not in the intro. This dichotomy is already discussed in detail further down the page:

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

I still think the intro line should read: "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) (formerly known as E3b, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4)...", which is in line with other Wiki pages and not confusing. Causteau (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical words are confusing but we can create articles or edit articles to cover that. So what is your real concern? You have to give a reason. There really are two types of terminology. Wikipedia should reflect that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My reason stated above is that the two different nomenclature systems are already mentioned in detail further down the page in the paragraph I've quoted above. Causteau (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want to remove the parentheses? Or something else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have to since E-M215 is auxiliary to E1b1b. Causteau (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In reality it certainly is not a lesser nomenclature (for example in the YCC, and JOGG) and I'd prefer not to have to treat it that way, but I think the consensus is that this article will use E1b1b as the main term for the time being. I think that practice so far shows that though we agree on this principle, our interpretations are quite far apart. I see the two terms as almost equal. You see including M-215 as a concession, or at least you did originally. Anyway the question is what to write, and we maybe there is a way. My first draft was...

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (using phylogenetic nomenclature) or E-M215 (using mutation-based nomenclature) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

...and my point was that on the basis of what you argued so far, I can understand why we should perhaps change it to...

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b or E-M215 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

...this being because your reasoning stated so far was concerning the fact that the terminology distinction is mentioned below, which is true. But I sense that something is is wrong? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This implies we should strengthen the second reference which must now support itself...

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

...should possibly become (I am still thinking by the way)...

The current "phylogenetic" terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. This 2008 article was intended to be an update of the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC) [REF]. The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" and "E3b1". It also blessed the "mutation nomenclature", "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since then, because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations (an increasingly frequent occurrence) for example when older and newer literature is being compared. Prior to 2002 both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4.

Please comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You've left out again the other haplogroup names. If you'll recall, this is what I last proposed as an intro phrase: "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) (formerly known as E3b, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4)...". All the names are covered there where they should be, in the intro. There they are instantly identifiable by all who visit the page, just as on other haplogroup pages e.g. J, S. This includes E-M215, which is placed in its habitual position alongside E1b1b in the lead-in albeit in parentheses. Causteau (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well no. It is still in the intro, just not in the first sentence. It is really only a few words away. It is just a basic fact that we can not have everything in the first sentence, surely? The complexity of the first sentence in this article comes from the fact that M-35 and M-215 are essentially the same subject, and that this needs to be dealt with quickly. Or at least that is the approach I felt was needed to make those first sentences flow better. I've certainly not removed those names, or even moved them away from the opening burst of the intro?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've looked at your latest draft for the second intro paragraph and adjusted a few things:

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as E3b and E3b1, and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were often referred to as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

I've bolded the alternative haplogroup names per the J, R1b, S, etc. haplogroup pages. For the first line of the article, I think we should use the second example you presented above tweaked to resemble the following:

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-group of haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

Causteau (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the changes you made so everyone can understand your thinking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I already have above: I've bolded the alternative names for E1b1b so that people who visit the page instantly recognize that E1b1b is E3b/Hg21(haplogroup 21)/Eu4, just as carried out on other haplogroup pages e.g. J, S. However, instead of putting all of those names in the first sentence of the article (something you suggested would affect the flow of the sentence), I've just bolded them where they already were in the second paragraph. As for the first sentence, I've placed E-M215 in bold in its habitual position alongside E1b1b in parentheses. Causteau (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention is that bold indicates a redirect to this page. Hg21 and Eu4 were used by very few papers, and not since 2002. IMO, I don't believe that either of these now very old names deserves a redirect.

Too much bold just makes the article hard to read. The one old name that really does deserve to be in bold is E3b. The other old names should IMO not be bolded. Jheald (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've searched Wikipedia's policies, and could not find any reference to bold indicating a redirect to a or this page. Whatever the case, I've just created re-directs to this page for Hg21, Haplogroup 21, and Eu4. A convention I did, however, notice was that other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia also cite the alternative names for their respective haplogroups, and they do so in bold (e.g. haplogroups J, R1b, S, etc.). It then makes perfect sense to bold the names by which E1b1b was known as recently as a few years ago. Causteau (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I think there are a lot more differences between the last draft I proposed and the new one you proposed. Is there any special reason?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not good at riddles, Lancaster. You'll have to spell out what exactly you are talking about. Causteau (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use my first name? My user name is a real name. What look like riddles might not be. Perhaps you just aren't noticing that my last proposed draft for this section was 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC). (I tried to work out how to colour it red or something above but at least I've made sure the drafts are all indented to the same level. Let me know if this solves the riddle or not. Remember to assume good faith in people on wikipedia wherever practical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No one's not assuming good faith, Andrew (and please, let's not get into that line of thinking again, alright?). I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. You've left a cryptic message above alluding to "a lot more differences between the last draft and the new one [I] proposed". I'm asking you to clarify what exactly you mean by that because I don't know what more you want me to explain besides what I've already explained above. Causteau (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my last proposal reads better than your new one, but it also covers everything you say you were concerned to cover, plus a bit more the way I see it. So what are the reasons for the "changes" in your version, apart from your idea about putting some words in bold? Maybe just look at the two paragraphs next to each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at the paragraphs next to each other. Here is your first draft of the article's first sentence:

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b or E-M215 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

I found that sentence okay for the most part, but tweaked it to read as follows:

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-group of haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

I explained that I placed E-M215 in its habitual position in parentheses alongside E1b1b. I also changed the phrase "sub-clade within haplogroup E" back to the original "sub-group of haplogroup E" because that is more in line with what ISOGG writes on its website and with other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia (e.g. J2).

As for the second paragraph in the intro, you proposed two paragraphs and I thought the first was better and easier to understand:

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as "E3b" and "E3b1", and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

I tweaked that paragraph to bold the alternative names for the haplogroup as already explained earlier. I also changed the word "sometimes" to "often" because E1b1b was indeed widely known as both Hg 21/Haplogroup 21 and Eu4 for a time:

The terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. Since the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"[REF] E-M215 and E-M35 had been widely referred to with a similar but not-dated phylogenetic system as E3b and E3b1, and prior to that both clades (not yet distinguished) were often referred to as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4. The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations, for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

That's it, in a nutshell. Causteau (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this was the latest draft before your latest suggestions??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The current "phylogenetic" terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.[REF]. This 2008 article was intended to be an update of the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC) [REF]. The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" and "E3b1". It also blessed the "mutation nomenclature", "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since then, because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations (an increasingly frequent occurrence) for example when older and newer literature is being compared. Prior to 2002 both clades (not yet distinguished) were referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4.

Regarding your other comments, I think it is wrong to say that Eu4 was common? How do you "source" that? In any case it was already in the draft you thought was the last one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So I mistook your latest draft of the intro's second paragraph for the paragraph it is supposed to be an improvement over; my mistake. I still think the paragraph you originally composed is a lot clearer and easier to understand. It contains all of the same information, but without any of the awkward phrasing of the latest draft ("it also blessed the "mutation nomenclature""). Your latest draft also states that E1b1b was "referred to sometimes as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4", when it generally used to be known by those names. Eu4, for instance, was used by Semino et al. 2000, Underhill et al. 2002, YCC, etc. That was indeed how it used to be known, with R1b, in turn, formerly referred to as Hg1 and Eu18, haplogroup J as HG9 and Eu9/Eu10, etc. Causteau (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so what seemed like an edit based on some preference or other had actually just been a result of not looking carefully, even after I tried twice to point it out to you? I guess that happens a lot. I'll go over this paragraph again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

2)This proposed intro misrepresents the true extent of the distribution area of E1b1b in Eastern and Southern Africa as explained earlier by me. Again, E1b1b enjoys a small-to-moderate presence in only a handful of Southern and Eastern African groups that have mixed either directly or indirectly with the Horn African groups it originated with. Stating that it is found in "Eastern, Southern Africa" gives the impression that it is widespread there when it is not; frequencies in those areas aren't even that high to begin with. Also, North Africa deserves independent mention from Eastern and Southern Africa since the sub-clade most prevalent there (E1b1b1b (M81) i.e. the "Berber marker") is different from the one most prevalent in those other two regions.

I see your point, but can you find the right wording? I know you were already working on it above. But here is a solid draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I propose instead: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)." It's the same as discussed in the section above because the frequencies in the Mediterranean and the Balkans are both quite significant, as those were the areas in Europe where E1b1b was first introduced. Causteau (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I kept replying above and my last suggestion was in a similar direction "Northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Near East, and Southern Europe, spreading into Western Eurasia, and Eastern and Southern Africa". Both are pretty clunky. Both contain some geographical terms which might raise questions with at least some people. Wording suggestions and comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit still does not make it clear that E1b1b enjoys a limited distribution in parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, and that it's highest concentration in Europe is in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. Causteau (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you get all that information into one sentence though? I was trying to imply that the "spreading into areas" had a lower concentration. Did that fail? I am not sure your sentence does better in this regard? I note how you bring in the Mediterranean to help explain. Perhaps that word helps?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Yom said earlier, there's no need to go into all that detail in the lead-in. The text is there for that. To be honest, I still think my original proposal of "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)" is the best and simplest option. But if you want to include Western Eurasia and Near East (though they kinda overlap), I'm open to that too. Causteau (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have big issues with this but I sense it is not the best possible. I base this in fact on your own criticisms: looking at overlap, and looking at whether the wording gives a correct feeling about which of the areas has the most E1b1b. Do you see what I mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No clue. Causteau (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So what about two sentences? "E1b1b is found in highest intensity in the Horn of Africa, Northern Africa, the Levant and Southern Europe." (Problems?: Anatolia? Iraq? Arabian Penisula? I am still tempted by Middle East or Western Asia instead of Levant.) "It also has a significant presence in the populations of the rest of Europe, plus Eastern and Southern Africa."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is also unsatisfactory because the frequencies of E1b1b in the Balkans equal and often supercede even those in the Mediterranean (esp. Albanians). Also, to equate the presence of E1b1b in the rest of heavily populated Europe with its presence in the handful of Eastern and Southern African groups that carry it is something of a distortion. One simple sentence will do, and I still stand by my original: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)". Causteau (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was you that raised doubts about how prevalent it is in Eastern and Southern Africa, so please comment on that. Aren't you implying that these are places where it is prevalent? I don't have a big problem with your sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained a couple of times that E1b1b is not prevalent at all in either Eastern or Southern Africa, and that it's minor presence in those regions is restricted to a few tribes with low population counts that mixed either directly or indirectly with the Horn Africans it originated with. Since you don't have a big problem with my sentence above, then that's at least one fewer problem out of the way. Now on to the larger issue below of how to label Henn's E3b1f-M293 sub-clade. Causteau (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-examined my proposed phrase ("E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (mainly the Mediterranean and the Balkans)"), and it erroneously gives the impression that E1b1b is generally restricted to the Mediterranean and the Balkans in Europe when it is found literally all over the continent. I have therefore amended the phrase to now read: "E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans)". Causteau (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I've been taking for granted your comments that E3b is at low levels in Southern Eastern Africa, and also that it is only scattered in pockets. I have been looking at Henn though and this seems less than perfectly clear. There are some very high concentrations, and arguably the pockets might be the places with low density? Please comment. By the way on a related subject I see that Roumania was added to the list of places with high V13. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I mean that E3b is found in only a handful of tribes in Eastern and Southern Africa, tribes that mixed either directly or indirectly with the Horn African groups it originated with. And those Eastern and Southern tribes aren't that great in number either. For instance, Henn et al. 2008 explain that frequencies of E3b1-M35* are >25% in the Maasai. Maasai are also known to have experienced some unidirectional admixture with neighboring Cushitic groups, which explains the presence of that haplogroup in a fraction of their population. Thing is, Maasai (who are probably the most populous of the aforementioned tribes) number only about 900,000 in all of East Africa; in Kenya, they represent roughly 1.5% of the population. That means that only about 225,000 of all Maasai are E3b carriers. Contrast that with the number of French alone -- a population that's not even especially known for a high prevalence of E3b -- that are said to carry E3b (population of French in France=52,000,000; E3b prevalence among French=8%; total # of French with E3b=4,160,000;), and it's very easy to see that E3b is, in fact, not by any stretch of the imagination characteristic of Eastern or Southern Africans. As for Romania having been added to the list, I think the poster perhaps mistook Romanians for the Macedonian Romani. Causteau (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The link you give does not seem to give much data from Southern and Eastern Africa - certainly not enough to make strong conclusions like the ones you make. Do you have other sources? Like I mentioned I was specifically looking at Henn which must be one of the latest? (BTW see another online summary: [1] )Trying to extrapolate conclusions based on one tribe seems meaningless to me. Concerning Rumanians, what percentage do you think are there? I seem to recall that when we first started trying to select a list of high V13 countries we ended up with areas that had 20% or more approximately? BTW in this respect I understand that Greece is very regionalized, with some very high E3b areas, but also low areas? This might interest everyone also: [2]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone cross-checked with this article? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The link I posted gives the frequencies of E3b in some of the few Eastern and Southern African tribes known to carry it, and it's not much as expected. The example of the Maasai I presented from Henn's data (a tribe who again represent only 1.5% of Kenya's population) could very easily be reproduced for any of the other thirteen populations that were studied. The Khwe of South Africa, for instance, have a total population of only 5000 souls. If we were to tally up all of the extrapolated figures for E3b carriers in Eastern and Southern Africa, it would not be an exaggeration to say that we'd be lucky to match the number found in France alone, much less, say, North Africa! ISOGG and many other official sources, incidentally, don't even mention Eastern and Southern Africa as areas where E3b/E1b1b is found because it's not prevalent at all in those regions. As for Greece, E3b is ubiquitous there and is the most common Y clade in that country. This is because Greece was among the very first areas in Europe into which E3b was first introduced from West Asia. Greece as a whole (population of Greeks in Greece: 10,196,539) has an E3b frequency of >23%, with certain regions indeed showing remarkably high prevalence rates (e.g. 47% in the Peloponnese, the largest peninsula in Greece). Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, but at least from the sources you cite, I just get the feeling that the sources you are using are very limited. I take it you have not read Henn just as an example. The ISOGG page you cite, also in this respect is a great resource but not intended to be authoritative in the matter of geographical origins. I don't think I can post the Henn article on a public webpage, but if you have another way I can get it to you let me know.--80.201.166.155 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

3)Unless we can get a source that states outright that "The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since being formally proposed by the YCC in 2002[REF], because they avoid any confusion which might come from discoveries of new SNP mutations", that is original research and shouldn't and can't, in fact, be included. Causteau (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been informed during this that, just to name an example, this is now JOGG editing policy. JOGG is the online journal of the ISOGG. Does that count? I've asked if the policy is online. Also see the comments on the WikiProject Human Genetic History talk page where an editor mentions that this is specifically urgent for a clade like E1b1b because it turns out in current research that E is quite far down the human Y phylogenetic tree. Right! I am sure I can find other justifications, but the key thing, for better or worse, is convincing you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep us posted on what you find. Causteau (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no reply yet but I found this...

When authors refer to clade or haplogroup names, either of the two forms recommended by the YCC are acceptable—either the hierarchical form such as J2a1b, or the use of the first letter of the hierarchical form plus the name of the binary polymorphism that defines the clade, e.g., J-M67. Where it would be more informative, up to three letters of the hierarchical form may be used with the binary polymorphism, e.g., J2a-M67.

The hierarchical forms of the names will often change due to new discoveries, whereas the binary polymorphism form will not. When citing or quoting from articles that used a hierarchical name that is now out-of-date, the older name may be mentioned as being the name used at the time, but the current name should be the primary name used. Articles submitted to JoGG should generally follow the hierarchical names on the ISOGG web site: http://www.isogg.org/tree/

Please note, and this was also a comment sent to me, that this has implications for the E3b1f subject also. JoGG, I am told, insist that it is only appropriate to use older clade names when an explanatory note is being included to avoid confusion, and then only with the most current name being clearly stated. On the other hand, I can not claim this as a preference for the mutational nomenclature in ISOGG. For that I guess that for the time being my best sources are YCC 2002 and Karafet 2008 who refer to it as more robust and flexible. It is also clearly the preference of some authors, apparently including Mike Hammer and more relevant for us, Cruciani. Any lurkers want to give any more evidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote appears to justify our suggestion to use E3b1f-M293 as the name of the sub-clade in the header since we are citing an article (Henn et al. 2008) which "used a hierarchical name that is now out-of-date" (E3b nomenclature). Because the current name for this sub-clade would be E1b1b1f and that's already taken by E-P72, we can't use that as the primary name. It's pretty clear that for the time being, we should just stick to Henn's nomenclature until ISOGG or another official source publishes a new name. We should also be sure to at least briefly explain the situation in the text so that there's no confusion. Causteau (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not correct according to discussions I've had. JOGG only allow old names where there is a clear discussion about old names, which was my proposal. This obviously does not apply to a heading name, but only to the text. What's more they would normally not allow such a long phylogenetic root on a mutational name like "E3b1f-M293". That hybrid would in fact be against the YCC and other conventions, because mutational names should be stripped down to E-M293 for example. The fact of the matter is that we all know Henn's naming has a problem. This is not synthesis, but something we actually have to deal with in the article because we have all the problems in hand. There is no-one seriously debating that, and I presume Henn wouldn't either. Just pretending we do not know that is really just deceiving the public.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how sticking to what Henn actually labeled the sub-clade, coupled with an explanation in the text of the situation at hand like both Yom and I have suggested could ever qualify as deceiving the public. At any rate, what to name this sub-clade appears to be our last order of business, so it's important we get this right and not re-invent terms. What do you propose we then do, Lancaster? Please spell out your recommendations, and we'll try and pick between 'em if need be. Causteau (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, per WP:SCG there's no objection to changing notation used in source papers to conform with the notation used in the article. This is in fact encouraged, for clarity, consistency, and simplicity. Jheald (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and furthermore I think there should be opposition to anything which is potentially misleading, for example either implying and editorially convenient difference between Henn's "E3b1" and standard "E1b1b" which we all know are in fact the same thing, or else making it clear that they are the same which implies that there are two "f" sub clades, which we all know is something we can not say at this time. Secondly, if possible we should try to stick to standard nomenclature, which should make us very cautious about the mixed form E3b1f-M293, or any old names at all like E3b1, which is easy to translate into up-to-date terminology. How about a special heading for the section like "New sub-clade, E-M293, without confirmed phylogenetic nomenclature"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That title is way too long. If we are indeed to use mutation-based nomenclature for this sub-clade, a simple E-M293 in the header will do. The text proper can be used to explain the naming confusion. Something like this: "Henn et al. (2008) referred to this sub-clade with the proposed name E3b1f. However, this name was already out of date by the time the article was published since E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1, the clade defined by SNP M35, and also since the sub-clade under E1b1b1 with the suffix "f" had already been proposed in Karafet et al. (2008) for SNP P72". Causteau (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, but shouldn't there be a new sentence at "and also"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we could do that. Or we could just add parentheses to the phrase to make it more readable: "Henn et al. (2008) referred to this sub-clade with the proposed name E3b1f. However, this name was already out of date by the time the article was published since E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1 (the clade defined by SNP M35), and also since the sub-clade under E1b1b1 with the suffix "f" had already been proposed in Karafet et al. (2008) for SNP P72". Causteau (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reason to prefer a long sentence? As a general rule I try to break sentences wherever possible for any complex subject like this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No particular reason. We could certainly break the last sentence up into two smaller phrases: "However, this name was already out of date by the time the article was published since E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1, the clade defined by SNP M35. The sub-clade under E1b1b1 with the suffix "f" had also already been proposed in Karafet et al. (2008) for SNP P72." Causteau (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yom's comments

Andrew asked me to take a look at this dispute, so I'll post my response to him from his talk page here:

Hello Andrew. Yes, I had noticed that it had grown substantially longer and better from when I used to edit it. Can you clarify the dilemma for me? Is this all really over whether we should say E1b1b1 (and other haplogroups) is "defined by M35" or state that E-M35 is an alternative name for it? Couldn't we do both, given that they are both correct? E.g., "In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly known as E3b, E-M215, as well as Haplogroup 21 or Hg21 and Eu4) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a subgroup of haplogroup E. It is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215[2]" and "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1, also known as E-M35 by its defining mutation (M35)."

As for the rest of your points (under "Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted"), I generally agree with you. We should be using names like E-M215 and E-M35 because they are unchanging and always referred to as such, while terms like E3b and E1b1b can change (as they already have) and get confusing when comparing articles from different years. That said, we should also use the E1b1b nomenclature given it's becoming/has become the standard. I'm not sure what Casteau's talking about on points 3 (in your edit wishlist) and 1 (in your RFC). Sub-Saharan modifies E-M35, defining the type of E-M35. It's true that it can be read to mean "the sub-Saharan E-M35," indicating that all lineages are sub-Saharan, but since it's late in the article where its origins have already been explained, there shouldn't be any problem. Besides, E-M35 did originate in sub-Saharan Africa (the Horn of Africa, to be exact). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second all of that.

The balance of convenience between phylogenetic naming and mutation-based naming varies from haplogroup to haplogroup. The longer the phylogenetic "string", and the greater the rate of recently discovered upstream mutations, then the more unstable the phylogenetic name, and the more the balance moves over to favour mutation-based naming.

The cited papers by Cruciani (2004, 2006, 2007) are clear evidence that at least in the view of that researcher, the Hg E tree has reached that level of complexity and instability, that in his opinion the time has come, at least for Hg E, to prefer mutation-based naming.

Myself, I think there is value in at least showing people the latest current phylogenetic systematic names; but really readers ought to be exposed to both; and the mutation-based names probably make for the easier repeated shorthand. Jheald (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that Cruciani is the author in this area, and his group's wording deserves special attention on this article. In May we discussed E-M35 or E-M215 being a possible name for this article and I actually said that for now we could probably best leave the title as a phylogenetic one, "voting" with Causteau. However I think this is a subject that should keep coming up on this talk page, keeping a check on the situation. I know, as an active member, that what used to be the E3b project is now the E-M35 phylogeny project for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal to rename this page from E1b1b to E-M215 was shot down quite emphatically by both myself and another editor. It was by no means just "voting with Causteau" and never will be since this is one of those issues for which it's very easy to drum up support against. That's how bad an idea it is. Again, it's completely unnecessary to rename this article to E-M215 because the orthodox E1b1b naming system hasn't collapsed, and until it gives way to another primary nomenclature, we should be presenting what the leaders in the field assert as the primary name for the haplogroup. When the E3b naming convention was still in effect, for example, most studies were titled after it. Another point to consider is the average Wiki reader. Many recognize the E3b name from various websites and are now starting to grow accustomed to the new E1b1b nomenclature. Observing the primary naming system makes it easier for these readers to conduct research across different websites and draw parallels between the information they glean from those sites and the latest studies since both are more likely to observe the first form. Most of the popular DNA genealogy testing sites frequented by the general public, including Family Tree DNA, also uphold the new E1b1b nomenclature. In addition, all of the other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia observe the first form. Take J2. This is why it's a mistake to force the E1b1b page to be the lone exception to the rule when a simple redirect on E-M215 can easily solve the problem (assuming there even is one) instead of completely overhauling the prevailing naming system. Causteau (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Perhaps there were than 3 people in the discussion. But anyway I don't think changing the title is what is being proposed by anyone for now. It is however important to make sure that both of the equally standard nomenclatures are referred to in the article. That is also the way the literature is, and concerning other haplogroups I've referred you to a Mike Hammer's (of FT DNA) seeming preference for mutational naming with respect to R1b for example. I am quite active in discussions in this area and I think that R1b-M269 is now the common way to refer to that particular clade for example, which is the most common amongst men of European descent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary nomenclature for this clade is and will continue to be the E1b1b phylogenetic naming system until ISOGG or another official source decides otherwise. What one researcher at Family Tree DNA -- an organization which quite clearly uses the primary E1b1b nomenclature -- personally uses does not really matter, as it is not what most leaders in the field use. I also very clearly recall you agreeing with my recommendation in my post dated 15:52, 25 August 2008 for us to use the primary E1b1b nomenclature once in the header of the clade/sub-clade's respective section with the ancillary mutation-based E-M215 nomenclature in parentheses, and once during the first mention of the clade/sub-clade with the E-M215 type nomenclature here again in parentheses. Yom also agreed with this. Causteau (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, just give one reference that refers to these two up-to-date forms of nomenclature with any wording at all that indicates "subsidiary" and "primary". The ISOGG webpage you refer to irrelevant, because it is a phylogenetic listing of SNP's so it is intended to show phylogenetic names. Concerning Family Tree DNA, I only mentioned them because you do. Secondly please for once focus on the question at hand. You speak of "most leaders" now which is simply more vague and you know it is not true, or otherwise you are not reading the literature. People are using both nomenclatures, but, as I mentioned in the JOGG case, it is advised that we should use the mutational nomenclature where the running text makes confusion possible otherwise. It is notable that you originally defended the incorrect use of bare SNP names for clade names in such positions. In such places, we should go back to using the correct mutational names - which is both correct and also keeping the originally desired SNP reference in order to avoid confusion in those places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ISOGG is among the most relevant official sources there is, and the first society founded to promote the use of DNA testing in genealogy. I'm not the only editor that understands this, but so does this fellow from our discussion from months back ("I strongly recommend following ISOGG nomenclature everywhere and use all warnings necesary until the new names become more familiar to all us, what may take years."). ISOGG's website is also not a mere "phylogenetic listing of SNPs"; it is a listing of the Y DNA clades, sub-clades and SNPs all at once, and strictly using the primary nomenclature without even so much as a mention of the mutation-based nomenclature (in parentheses or otherwise). Ditto Family Tree DNA, which I only mention because it too is a prominent institution in this field. That's what I mean by "leaders". Researchers are indeed using both nomenclatures, and I don't believe I ever denied they were. That, however, does not change the fact that the mutation-based nomenclature plays a role ancillary to that of the phylogenetic-based nomenclature. Family Tree DNA makes this quite clear on its website by indicating just which of the two systems is the primary nomenclature in their system as well as those of other organizations:

Over time, as more SNPs are discovered, the haplogroup tree will grow and the haplogroup names, or nomenclature, will change accordingly. While the haplogroup names may change, the actual SNPs do not. When a new haplogroup tree is published, it takes time for all organizations to update their systems. As a result, you will find that some sites display haplogroup names based on the older nomenclature, and other sites display haplogroup names based on the newer nomenclature. You may view the older and newer Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Trees at the links below:

• 2005 Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
• 2008 Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree

As for my alleged defending of the use of bare SNP names in place of clade names, I very clearly explained to you that "SNPs are often used as a quick way of identifying a clade", and you yourself even acknowledged as much ("a quick way, yes..."). That was also ages ago and has zero relevance to our present discussion or to how the article currently stands. In short, I heartily agree with you that all of this is old hat and that we should continue to move forward rather than rehashing old discussions. Causteau (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the ISOGG, of which I am a member, sees itself as official in any adjudicating sense, but rather an organization trying to help its own members who people working on genetic genealogy. But maybe that's not so important. I would agree that the webpage you keep referring to, which I originally introduced to this article (I think there was some resistance from you?) is the best summary of the existing literature which can be found online, or possibly anywhere. I think you've forgotten what the original question is though: does any source anywhere mention that mutational nomenclature is "subsidiary"? I can tell you that it was certainly not the intention of anyone I know in ISOGG to imply anything of the sort, and an objective reading of their webpages finds no such remark. Given that the mutational nomenclature is "official" and is widely used, it does not matter how many references you can find that use phylogenetic nomenclature instead of mutational nomenclature, because lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Your remarks as "un-sourced" as you would say. You are also missing the point concerning the past versions of this article which included SNP names as clade names: it is simply to point out that it is tempting for any any editor including you to mention the SNP names when mentioning clades in some parts of the text, in order to avoid confusion, and that because there is an "official" way to do this, we can use that method in such places. I merely put this forward as a principle that we should be able to use while editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very good of you, Andrew. And you're quite right: I have not produced a quote that identifies the mutation-based nomenclature as "subsidiary" (a word you personally picked out). I've just quoted from and linked to a prominent organization in the genetic genealogy community that indicates that it uses the phylogenetic system as do most other similar organizations. But it is still indeed unsourced, like so many other things in the text I could very easily point out. Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the sources you cite state nothing of the sort. You are in effect saying that if there are important sources who use one nomenclature over the other, then this is implied proof that there is one nomenclature referred over the other. In fact, as the same authors say in public in many places including online forums, both nomenclatures are useful, depending upon the context. This is also the standard practice on the JOGG, as I have confirmed. And also the way it was explained by the YCC and Karafet. The sources are clearly against you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Second draft of the introduction and E-M293 section

I've tried to put things together based on what people are saying. It is getting too messy otherwise...

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b or E-M215 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

In nearly all discussion, E1b1b is equivalent to it's sub-clade, E1b1b1, or E-M35, which contains nearly all of E1b1b. It was only in Cruciani et. al.'s 2004 article that M215 was shown to be older than M35, because there are some lineages which have the M215 mutation, but not M35. On that basis this article covers both clades, but is named after the slightly larger one.

The current "phylogenetic" terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.. This 2008 article was intended to be an update of the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" and "E3b1" - which is still found widely especially in older literature. It was also the 2002 consortium which proposed guidelines on the "mutation nomenclature" - "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since then, because they avoid the confusion which comes from the increasingly frequent discoveries of new SNP mutations - for example when older and newer literature is being compared.

Prior to 2002 both clades, not yet distinguished at that time, had earlier been referred to also as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21) within Underhill et al's 2000 nomenclature, or according to Semino et al's 2000 classification as "Eu4". They were also within Underhill et al's 2001 "Group III" . (Other older names are referred to in the YCC 2002 report in the referenced articles.)

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).

As this is certainly close to consensus on most points I really think it is high time some of this gets pasted in to the article? (I really think that we could have worked more on the article before now, as I think I've made clear.) This can and will be edited later anyway, because this is Wikipedia! Causteau, you might want to put these in with the references you had in mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this is the consensus, or close to one, at least for now, for the last new section, to be titled E-M293...

Henn et al. (2008) referred to this sub-clade with the proposed name E3b1f. However, this name was already out of date by the time the article was published since E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1, the clade defined by SNP M35. The sub-clade under E1b1b1 with the suffix "f" had also already been proposed in Karafet et al. (2008) for SNP P72. So the up-to-date phylogenetic clade name is in doubt for the time being.

Again, Causteau (I only mention you as the main objector who I need to convince) can this go in to the article now please? (Even if it still needs work.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the intro to the sub clades section, I'll be really controversial and make some minor adjustments directly into the article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to put things together based on what people are saying. It is getting too messy otherwise...

In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b or E-M215 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-clade within haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215.

This is the exact same lead-in sentence you've been proposing for days and which I quite clearly explained was unsatisfactory. Again, you've placed E-M215 outside its habitual position vis-a-vis E1b1b (i.e. in parentheses alongside it). You've also changed the phrase "sub-clade within haplogroup E" away from the original "sub-group of haplogroup E" when the latter is more in line with what ISOGG writes on its website and with other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia (e.g. J2). Here again is a better, simpler version that respects the above: "In human genetics, Y Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, a sub-group of haplogroup E, which is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215."

Please just keep your point simple. Are you only asking for the word clade to be changed to group? If not what? If you insist on that change I don't have a big problem with it. I think it was originally my wording. I just happened think that by using a reference to a Wikipedia article that my original concerns are fixed. The readers would learn something more which was relevant to understanding the article, right at the beginning, without having to know the jargon from the start. Why not? Please don't say this is a sourcing problem. I could find any number of references on Wikipedia or otherwise which use clade as a term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In nearly all discussion, E1b1b is equivalent to it's sub-clade, E1b1b1, or E-M35, which contains nearly all of E1b1b. It was only in Cruciani et. al.'s 2004 article that M215 was shown to be prior to M35, because there are some lineages which have the M215 mutation, but not M35. On that basis this article covers both clades, but is named after the slightly larger one.

This is better but still not perfect. Here is a less stop-start version:

"In nearly all discussion, E1b1b is equivalent to it's sub-clade, E1b1b1 (E-M35), which contains nearly all of E1b1b. It was only in Cruciani et. al.'s 2004 article that M215 was shown to be prior to M35, because there are some lineages which have the M215 mutation, but not M35. On that basis this article covers both clades, but is named after the slightly larger one."

The last phrase of the paragraph is also quite awkward, self-evident, and not written in an encyclopedic register. We therefore may want to discard it altogether. Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Again you comments imply more than I can see. Are you just saying we should use brackets instead of commas? Fine. I don't see any "non-encyclopedic register" problems myself. Could you explain the point? Do you mean that the problem is that the comment refers to the article itself? Nevertheless I think we all know that this piece of information is important for understanding why this is also the E-M35 article, and I have previously suggested that a comment about this might need to be added above the article where disambiguations are sometimes placed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way can you please reload the page on your browser. You seem to be responding to a version of this draft which was changed hours before your replied to it. Perhaps you were working on it offline, but please note that more references have been put in, in order to help you justify the bit you wanted to include (eu4 and Hg21). Don't embarrass me with too many thanks for that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The current "phylogenetic" terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.. This 2008 article was intended to be an update of the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" and "E3b1" - which is still found widely especially in older literature. It was also the 2002 consortium which proposed guidelines on the "mutation nomenclature" - "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names "E-M215" and "E-M35" are being used increasingly since then, because they avoid the confusion which comes from the increasingly frequent discoveries of new SNP mutations - for example when older and newer literature is being compared. Prior to 2002 both clades, not yet distinguished at that time, had earlier been referred to also as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21), or Eu4, within Underhill et al's 2001 "Group III" .

What is this? You have not implemented any of the suggestions I proposed earlier. You've just slightly rephrased what you wrote earlier, a paragraph which I already explained to you was inadequate. Where, for instance, is the bolding of the alternative haplogroup names? Instead, you put fact tags of all things behind them, as if there is any doubt E1b1b used to be referred to as Hg21/Haplogroup 21 and Eu4! Here's a better version of the paragraph; one that actually implements some of the suggestions I made earlier, and without redundancies and the superfluous reference to Unherhill's Group III (this page is about E1b1b, and there's no source that states that E1b1b used to be known as "Hg21 (Haplogroup 21) and Eu4, within Underhill et al's 2001 "Group III"):

The current phylogenetic terminology (E1b1b and E1b1b1) was proposed in 2008 by Karafet et. al.. This 2008 article was intended to be an update of the 2002 "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature (E3b and E3b1), which is still found widely especially in older literature. It was also the 2002 consortium which proposed guidelines on the mutation nomenclature (E-M215 and E-M35). The mutation-based clade names have since increasingly been put to use, as they avoid the confusion which can arise from the increasingly frequent discoveries of new SNP mutations. For example, when older and newer literature is being compared. Prior to 2002, both clades (not yet distinguished at that time) were referred to as Hg21 (Haplogroup 21) and Eu4.

Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Such outrage that people are not following your orders. Concerning this article as you well know there is not yet a consensus. Also as you well know, the bold formatting, which I don't see as a big issue, was objected to by another editor who explained his reasons fairly clearly. How important is it? You also never really explained your last version compared to the version of mine which had been prior. And as we both know this is basically because you were not reading carefully. So I thought we would move ahead here, and try again. Now, if you want to explain your preferences and try to convince people to accept them, please do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans).

As this is certainly close to consensus on most points I really think it is high time some of this gets pasted in to the article? (I really think that we could have worked more on the article before now, as I think I've made clear.) This can and will be edited later anyway, because this is Wikipedia! Causteau, you might want to put these in with the references you had in mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a source is needed for this statement seeing as how obvious it is. However, if need be, a simple link through to the ISOGG page could cover it since it explains where E1b1b is really prevalent. Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite amazed by the ease with which you allow yourself completely different standards than you claim to want to uphold for others. Surely this is precisely the type of comment that does need better sourcing? As you know, many of the minor edits over time on this article have involved people making small changes concerning the geographical areas of interest. ISOGG is certainly not the right reference here. It simply claims to be summarizing a list of articles and is less up-to-date than this Wikipedia article now is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this is the consensus, or close to one, at least for now, for the last new section, to be titled E-M293...

Henn et al. (2008) referred to this sub-clade with the proposed name E3b1f. However, this name was already out of date by the time the article was published since E1b1b1 is the new name for E3b1, the clade defined by SNP M35. The sub-clade under E1b1b1 with the suffix "f" had also already been proposed in Karafet et al. (2008) for SNP P72. So the up-to-date phylogenetic clade name is in doubt for the time being.

Again, Causteau (I only mention you as the main objector who I need to convince) can this go in to the article now please? (Even if it still needs work.)

No need; I've taken the liberty of adding it myself ;-) Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins Intro

We started discussion perhaps too casually concerning this section!...

For the intro to the sub clades section, I'll be really controversial and make some minor adjustments directly into the article!

That's okay. I've modified what needed adjusting. Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau's edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&diff=235197366&oldid=235182249 and I have reverted it and asked for more discussion because it is far from uncontroversial. I'd say it is wrong. Causteau certainly doesn't let anyone else edit like that. I'd like to open discussion then...

1. Causteau had removed an adjective before the word "lineages" which contained a link to another Wikipedia article. This was haplogroup E. This presumably continues Causteau's long fight against any reference in this article to related clades. I think this can not be justified and we've been through this debate in May.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Causteau inserted a comment: :However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. The only source given is ISOGG. I've explained several times that this is the wrong way to use ISOGG's webpage. Concerning geographical origins it does not claim to be anything other than a brief summary of primary sources which we can also look at. I can not think of any such source that is still being taken seriously in the literature, and I think this needs better sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Causteau removed a comment: :However, the fact that Haplogroup E1b1b's parent E clade is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E1b1b first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration. The editing comment seems to say that this comment could be removed because it was redundant and is not replaced by the new comment in 2. But this is clearly not true. These refer to quite different periods in time. Look again please Causteau, and tell us if this is not a misunderstanding. I fear that this is however another attempt to remove information about the ancestral population of E-M215.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What on Earth are you on about? You make unsourced changes without even discussing it first, and blow a gasket and turn things personal when I rightly point out that whatever changes you just made can be undone? Gimme a break. The edit I just made and that you for no reason reverted was sourced. It was a direct paraphrase from the ISOGG source you yourself have so often referenced. I replaced the phrase "However, the fact that Haplogroup E1b1b's parent E clade is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E1b1b first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration" -- which was not sourced and which you know was not sourced since you yourself placed a fact tag behind it! -- with the phrase "However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea". That second phrase is, by contrast, sourced, and Elonka clearly wrote that we could make changes as long as they were sourced. I also explained my edits in the edit summary, so unless what I inserted is in some way factually inaccurate, what possible reason do you have for reverting this substitution of unsourced material (with a fact tag behind it, no less) with a fully sourced statement? And did I personally attack you for your sixteen consecutive, undiscussed edits? Did I revert any of your edits even though a couple of them weren't even sourced? You are in the wrong, Andrew; there's no other way to put it. Before you go blindly reverting again, try following your own advice and actually look into what it is you are reverting! Causteau (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing: It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't a reliable source. That is Wikipedia's sole privilege, and per its policies, ISOGG most certainly is a reliable source. Causteau (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be insisting on replying about only one of the three changes you made. So I'll just fix the other two until you have anything to say about them. Concerning my point 2, the one you are willing to defend, I certainly do not claim that ISOGG is unreliable! I say that it does not claim to be a primary source. I added it to this articles sources as a good source for up to date information on the latest phylogenetic situation in the literature. This is like citing a bibliography. So if your focus was the quality of the article, you could fix this easily. You constantly claim knowledge about what is written and not written in all the primary literature. The ISOGG webpage claims to be summarizing it and gives all the references it has used. So just tell us which one contains this piece of information. Easy!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Some folks have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I'm one of them. If I don't reply to your posts pronto, that could perhaps mean that I am tending to more important matters such as my family. It could also mean that I am reading materials pertaining to our discussion and that I will answer your posts when I have gotten my facts in order. It takes time to post actual evidence via links, difs, etc. So take a break, Andrew. Go watch TV or something. When you come back later on tonight or perhaps a bit later, you're guaranteed a response from me. Causteau (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's thing the thing. You always seem to have time to delete, revert, and generally make negative changes whenever anyone starts work on this article. But you never have time to do the actual work. So I suggest you should edit more carefully keeping in mind that you are not always following the things you are deleting etc very carefully. I would find that very reasonable. We all have periods when we have time and periods when we don't. If you do not have time to make considered replies about major counter edits you make, always very quickly and without attempting dialogue, then frankly you should not be doing them in the article itself. In any case, do not tell other people when their free time is available, or that they should wait until you understand everything. Go live that life of yours, and when you have time, and you read the literature you claim to have read, feel free to make a real contribution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. First of all sorry for the many un-noted edits I've done trying to get the refs to work properly. They seem to be working now. Concerning the above, Causteau has reverted my changes on the two items he had not commented on. He has put comments on his edits, and at least concerning 1 it is not important enough to worry about. Concerning 2 and 3, I looked at the ISOGG reference which both edits I think came from - the one Causteau is defending as sourced well enough by referring to ISOGG, and the one I thought was more defensible, but which Causteau found to be unsourced. David Wilson has not replied to me yet, but Dienekes sent me a reference which is now used to make a single remark about possible Asian origins in early E clades. The remark is intended to be more vague and uncertain because that is how I read the primary literature, and indeed the ISOGG comments were also more vague. I think it is important to remind ourselves that (I think) no one doubts that Eastern Africa, or the Horn of Africa, or some such definition is the most widely held theory concerning E1b1b origins. Perhaps the further we go back into the E clade the higher the chances there was a migration from Asia, and that is about as much as we can say, but I suppose any further discussion about that is something for the E Wikipedia article, or the DE one, if there is one. While working on this section I also went back to the question of Eastern Africa versus the Horn of Africa and realized that this old debate concerning how to interpret Cruciani 2004 can be resolved by looking at the definitions involved. I fixed the text according, and hope it suits everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding references

I have tried when editing to make sure that the articles are in the article list, and that the article list is reasonable complete, but in the text I've not yet managed to do nice superscript reference notes. Instead I've used old style academic notation like "Henn et. al. (2008)". I have no problem if someone more proficient than me changes that, but what I am noticing while looking through is that some of the ones mentioned are wrong. In particular, I notice that the reference for the theory that E back-migrated to Africa from Asia is simply the ISOGG webpage. Such things should be fixed. Perhaps this is the one called for: [[3]] (Cruciani et. al. (2002) as I would say). For anyone interested, this is a pet subject of the Dienekes blog pages, which therefore has lots of references and comments on this over the last few years, although his emphasis has been on mt DNA. See [4]. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The ISOGG page clearly states that "E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea", so the footnote is not out of place. Dienekes' emphasis, moreover, has actually been on European and Greek-related topics, as he himself is Greek. This is why he his blog features so many posts on the E3b that characterizes Greeks. Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ISOGG is not a suitable reference for this purpose. In this respect it just collects references and gives a brief summary, like Wikipedia. Dienekes himself is also not what I was referring to as a reference in this case as a reference. Primary sources are obviously to be preferred?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. I have made some progress in getting the references in. I took the liberty of already editing the above second draft, and in some cases have already done some of the necessary work on the page itself! I know: I am asking for trouble by doing this without permission. :)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Whatever the case, any changes you make that have not been discussed and agreed to beforehand can very easily be undone. Causteau (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, any changes any of us make, including you, can easily be undone. You have no special powers or rights in this regard. You still haven't come to grips with that. When I make important changes I try to post something on the talk page at the same time. I note that you still never do. Yet you expect others to get prior permission before editing or otherwise you feel you have the right to do what you like. People are currently doing this and you should be very appreciative, because it was not and is not necessary, except for the fact that otherwise you are in effect holding the quality of the article back in blackmail. This is going to keep causing problems if you continue. Please change people's edits with something like the respect you demand from everyone else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What on Earth are you on about? You make unsourced changes without even discussing it first, and blow a gasket and turn things personal when I rightly point out that whatever changes you just made can be undone? Gimme a break. The edit I just made and that you for no reason reverted was sourced. It was a direct paraphrase from the ISOGG source you yourself have so often referenced. I replaced the phrase "However, the fact that Haplogroup E1b1b's parent E clade is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E1b1b first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration" -- which was not sourced and which you know was not sourced since you yourself placed a fact tag behind it! -- with the phrase "However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea". That second phrase is, by contrast, sourced, and Elonka clearly wrote that we could make changes as long as they were sourced. I also explained my edits in the edit summary, so unless what I inserted is in some way factually inaccurate, what possible reason do you have for reverting this substitution of unsourced material (with a fact tag behind it, no less) with a fully sourced statement? And did I personally attack you for your sixteen consecutive, undiscussed edits? Did I revert any of your edits even though a couple of them weren't even sourced? You are in the wrong, Andrew; there's no other way to put it. Before you go blindly reverting again, try following your own advice and actually look into what it is you are reverting! Causteau (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for referring to you personally is clear and has been explained. Concerning the revert, I have opened a discussion above. Please reply there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of E1b1b

Cruciani at no point states or implies in any of his studies that E3b/E1b1b originated in Kenya as you've inserted into the text. His 2006 study you reference doesn't even once mention Kenya. By Eastern Africa, he specifically means the Horn of Africa as that is the region with:

1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades (that would be the Horn of Africa, not Kenya), 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity (again, the Horn of Africa, definitely not Kenya), and 3) the apparent exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E1b1b* paragroup (it's there too).

I have therefore restored the original description for the origins of E3b per Cruciani.

Read things first. I was referring to Cruciani 2004, which clearly explains what countries are included in East Africa. See the data table. You are wrong and will be reverted. I even gave the exact number of individuals from each place in Eastern Africa! How can you call that unsourced?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No I am not wrong; you are wrong. Cruciani did not mean Kenya by that statement because Kenyans do not have the highest number of E1b1b clades, nor by any means the highest frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity. If he had meant Kenya, he would have said Kenya. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It's simple: do not insert into the text what is not directly and explicitly stated in the references. Causteau (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have also once again unjustly removed my referenced statement from ISOGG that E1b1b1 originated in the Near East. You have no right to do this since ISOGG is a reliable source per Wiki policies.

In future, kindly do not modify the text to include material that is not in the sources, and do not tamper with material that is actually sourced. Thank you. Causteau (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is effectively like sourcing from a bibliography instead of a primary source, so you are wrong. A bibliography might be reliable, but it is not what you should use as a source. The ISOGG webpage you refer to was brought in by me as a primary source for an up-to-date summary of the phylogeny. It makes no other claim as a primary source. It has a long list of articles, and the text is only meant to refer loosely to those. I've mentioned this several times to you and you have not once seriously replied to the point I am making - only replied as if I am questioning the ISOGG webpage itself, which you know is silly. Until you have an actual reason for making edits your way, you have no claim to any special high ground with reference to sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's not "effectively like sourcing a bibliography". It's referencing an established authority in the field in question, viz. ISOGG. I find it amusing how you take such exception to my using ISOGG as a source when you yourself have repeatedly done so in the past. You have no point here and you know it. Causteau (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And as a separate issue, your remark "do not tamper with material that is actually sourced" goes into the collection of remarks you've made indicating that you do not understand how Wikipedia works, and that you have ownership which are against Wikipedia policy. Your material will be tampered with. The aim is to keep improving the article, whether you agree with edits or not. The only weapon you have is your power to convince and so every time you start using verbs like "tamper" and "flurry of edits" to describe other people's efforts, expect to have problems getting your point across.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL This coming from a guy that makes over twenty consecutive edits yet loses his mind when another editor edits the page! Irony incarnate, I tell you. Your edits are what page-ownership is really about. The fact that you assert that "your material will be tampered with" although it is very clearly sourced perfectly demonstrates that, as has been shown time and again, you have no regard for Wiki policies:

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.

So it doesn't matter one bit what you feel or have to say on this matter. ISOGG is a reliable source per Wiki policies. I know it's a challenge, but try and respect that. Causteau (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I keep saying, you should thank for all the edits. What you do are not edits. Which sources or facts have you added to the article? Once the discussions get finished after a month of debate, your net contribution is your defense of brackets instead of commas, or some bold type formatting.

When I said "your material will be tampered with" I also questioned whether it was very clearly sourced, but that is not the point. The point is that this is how Wikipedia works. Read the article I cited which says...

You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

   * If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Also:

   * If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.

Moroever, this other study you've referenced also says nothing about "the fact that Haplogroup E1b1b's parent E clade is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is found in Eastern Asia but not in Africa, [leaving] open the unconfirmed possibility that E1b1b, or perhaps more likely an ancestral clade with haplogroup E, first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried from Asia into Africa by a back migration", so I've restored the original Failed Verification tag on the original statement. Causteau (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well to start with you did not have to remove the ref I took so much time to get and put in. What's the point of telling the world "the citation" failed, and then deleting it? Coming to this claim of yours, the YAP clade mentioned in that paper was the current name at the time of the DE clade, as you can see by looking up the Wikipedia article on that subject. DE is also mentioned in the paper. The abstract points out that the paper concerns the origins of the DE clade...

There has been considerable debate on the geographic origin of the human Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP). Here we report a new, very rare deep-rooting haplogroup within the YAP clade, together with data on other deep-rooting YAP clades. The new haplogroup, found so far in only five Nigerians, is the least-derived YAP haplogroup according to currently known binary markers. However, because the interior branching order of the Y chromosome genealogical tree remains unknown, it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty. We discuss the problems presented by rare deep-rooting lineages for Y chromosome phylogeography.

The two competing hypotheses are described in the paper as an African or Asian origin. The conclusion they come to is that the hypothesis remains unproven. I have not found newer work on this, but many later articles refer back to this one. Therefore our article needs to say that the theory is around but unproven. If you can find another source for the secondary remarks on the ISOGG webpage, just let me know. In the meantime, please don't forget that both our comments took their lead from the ISOGG webpage. You were just more satisfied with that than me, so I don't see the point of your criticisms of this as unsourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not "our" article. It's "the" article. Secondly, what you're proposing above amounts to original research and synthesis since the source quite clearly never mentions the origins of haplogroup E let alone E1b1b. And as we all know, just because a clade originated somewhere does not necessarily mean one of its sub-clades originated there as well. Causteau (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a response. Please, write a response.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one respond to original research and synthesis put to point out that it is original research and synthesis, and not supported by the edit it purports to cite? Causteau (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, haplogroup DE has since been found in a lot more than "five Nigerians" LOL. It's highest frequency is far and away in Japan and other Asian countries. Causteau (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I already fixed the DE article, and I agre that was wrong. Someone obviously convfused DE* with DE. Again it is odd that you often seem to be reading very old versions of articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should however include some reference to the older papers which this article cited, as without those maybe the point is not well enough cited. My reason for using the most recent article, Weale 2003, although it throws the theory into doubt, is that also summarized the old ones a bit. But anyway, Weale cites...

• ALTHEIDE, T. K. and M. F. HAMMER, 1997 Evidence for a possible Asian origin of YAP(+) Y chromosomes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 61:462-466

Possibly the clearest proponent of an Asian origin, but as in all the articles I am aware of, before E1b1b, which is what you want to article to say (i.e. that E1b1b originated itself in Asia.)

• HAMMER, M. F., A. B. SPURDLE, T. KARAFET, M. R. BONNER, and E. T. WOOD et al., 1997 The geographic distribution of human Y chromosome variation. Genetics 145:787-805.

::Patterns of observed variation were compatible with a variety of hypotheses, including multiple human migrations and range expansions.

• HAMMER, M. F., T. KARAFET, A. RASANAYAGAM, E. T. WOOD, and T. K. ALTHEIDE et al., 1998 Out of Africa and back again: nested cladistic analysis of human Y chromosome variation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:427-441

::the most ancestral YAP1 haplotype (Altheide and Hammer 1997), was restricted to Asia and occurred only in central (18.8%) and east (16.6%) Asian populations.

Three of the five haplotypes contained the YAP element (YAP1) and were referred to as YAP haplotypes 3–5. Hammer et al. (1997) hypothesized that haplotype 4 originated in North Africa and spread first to the Levant before continuing its migration northwest across Europe. Haplotype 5, the most derived YAP haplotype, supposedly had an African origin and recently migrated through the horn of Africa to west Asia. In contrast, the haplotype representing the most ancestral YAP1 haplotype (3) was thought to have had an Asian origin. Because haplotypes 4 and 5 evolved from haplotype 3 and accounted for the majority of African Y chromosomes, the implication of this hypothesis was that a large portion of African paternal diversity had its roots in Asia.

The article proposes an early migration back to Africa.

• HAMMER, M. F., T. KARAFET, A. J. REDD, H. JARJANAZI, and S. SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI et al., 2001 Hierarchical patterns of global human Y-chromosome diversity. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1189-1203

I see no such discussion in this article.

I want to point out what the ISOGG summary itself says:

Y-DNA haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration.E1b1 is by far the lineage of greatest geographical distribution. It has two important sub-lineages, E1b1a and E1b1b. E1b1a is an African lineage that probably expanded from northern African to sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion. E1b1a is the most common lineage among African Americans. E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. Eb1b1 clusters are seen today in Western Europe, Southeast Europe, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa. The Cruciani articles (references and links below) are indispensable resources for understanding the structure of this complicated haplogroup, but note that the Cruciani haplogroup labels are now superseded because of the recently discovered new SNPS that lie closer to the root of the E branch of the Y-haplogroup Tree.

You are defending quite a different statement which does not occur above, which is that "E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea". You have no source for that, even if we count ISOGG.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you seriously should consider getting your eyesight checked because ISOGG quite clearly writes:

E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea.

My phrase is a virtual paraphrase of that, only I don't mention Northeast Africa because the article already presents the possibility that E1b1b1 first arose there only one line earlier. Here's my version of what's clearly written on ISOGG:

However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea.

So yes, my edit is more than supported by ISOGG -- it is, in fact, an almost verbatim paraphrase of what the website asserts. Causteau (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, unless you only count words and don't think about what they mean. On the one hand "Northeast Africa or the Near East" is likely to just be a quick summary of someone's reading on the matter, and describes one generalized area - possibly being defined a little broadly because the page author was not sure. But your text by separating Asia out like this, and writing "However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in..." is much stronger than what the ISOGG webpage has. Who is this "some"? The ISOGG does not claim to know of any proponent of such a theory. Is there any?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are part right here. The "by some" ought to be amended to read "ISOGG asserts" (something I've just seen to, BTW), as it is indeed ISOGG making this claim. The rest of the statement, however, was taken directly from ISOGG. Why are you even bothering to deny this? It's right there for anyone to see. Your notion that it "is likely to just be a quick summary of someone's reading on the matter" is, by contrast, pure unadulterated speculation. Causteau (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please at least address the point about the way your sentence, even though the words are similar, adds something which the source does not claim? This is similar to your claims about "sub-saharan E-M35", where you are reading words in a way that almost seems like you looking for whatever meaning you want to give. It is even more similar to the problem we have in the article now by citing Cruciani in an odd way concerning East Africa versus the Horn of Africa. Let me use other words to show what I mean. If someone says that a thing is "probably from the USA or Canada" and on another occasion says that that it is from "North America" and on another occasion gives more detailed explanation and decides it is most probably from the USA, these are all different statements which agree with each other. Correct? Now, what if someone quoted this person as saying that the thing is probably from the USA, this would still be OK, but what if someone claimed that this is not enough because the various statements imply that there is specific evidence for the thing coming from Canada? This would be unjustified. This is because "USA or Canada" was at least possibly intended to have been a single geographic area, simply describing a bigger area than necessary out of uncertainty. The same goes for Cruciani's terminology concerning Eastern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Cruciani seems to think that the smaller area, the Horn of Africa, is the most likely part of the bigger area, Eastern Africa, which contains it. This does not mean (I agree with you in this respect) that Cruciani has specific evidence pushing him to say the origin was not in the Horn of Africa.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at Andrew; I just don't like your way of going about getting at it. You once again did not have to bring up old, stale discussions (what do you think the moderator was trying to get us to do? Not start afresh?). And I could very easily address some of those unrelated charges you brought up above (i.e. "similar to your claims about "sub-Saharan E-M35" -- it's nothing like it at all), but that'll only open up yet another tangential thread of discussion. The gist of what you've written, however, is essentially the same issue as touched on yesterday: that the article mentions East Africa in one place and the Horn of Africa in another as one of the possible places of origin of E1b1b, although Cruciani like ISOGG was obviously referring to the latter. I have addressed this matter below. Please do not post your response here but over there. Thanks, Causteau (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins Introduction Update: stuck

Please compare the version I am proposing with the reverted version being done by Causteau... [5]

Comments:

1. In the old version being defended from editing, there is extensive use of weasel words, reflecting the weakness of knowledge of the editors who put this section in (Causteau and myself) because we based it on some notes on [6] which is a secondary source. For example...

• are believed to have
• is also thought by some to have
• is thought to be
• are thought to have originated in

2. As explained above, while ISOGG does not claim to be a primary source for this type of thing, it does not even say what Causteau wants the Wikipedia article to say which specifically that E1b1b may have originated in Asia. Not only ISOGG but all articles I've found so far are talking about E itself, or more generally clades ancestral to E1b1b.

Causteau, my usual plea: please come up with a way of convincing others you are right or else stop reverting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What's really going on is that ISOGG has included a phrase on its website regarding the possible origin of E1b1b1 (viz. "E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea"), which is a sub-clade of E1b1b. I've added a paraphrase of this sentence to the article that goes: "However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea" (I didn't mention Northeast Africa because the article already presents the possibility that E1b1b1 first arose there only one line earlier). However, Andrew for some strange reason does not like that phrase, so he has begun questioning the relevance of ISOGG as a reliable source -- the same source he himself has ironically so often quoted from in the past. I have explained to him that ISOGG is the very definition of a reliable source per Wiki policies, as it is an authority in the genetic genealogy community. But this does not seem to have worked, as he has just erected this pointless new talk page section. It's all so very curious. Causteau (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What is curious Causteau? Are you using innuendo again? I started a new section because the last one was messy. Simple. If you have another theory then state it loud and clear please. I have given complete responses to all of what you write above. You ignore them, and block your metaphorical ears and answer elsewhere with liberal changing. This is the problem we keep getting to. You know I consider ISOGG's webpage reliable concerning its own clear aims, and I know the person who maintains it and have worked with him before. But you are using it the wrong way and making a weak statement into a very strong one although you effectively admit that you have no other information about this subject which you want to take such a hard line on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your responses aren't responses at all. You've asserted that Kenya may have been the place of origin of E1b1b when Cruciani never stated as much -- not to mention that Kenya doesn't even come close to meeting half of the criteria Cruciani himself laid out for E1b1b's place of origin whereas the Horn of Africa meets all of them. As for your personal assurances about knowing this person or that person, it's just that: your word and nothing more. See, another editor's "word" has very little if any currency on Wikipedia. What matters, again, is verifiability, and none of your edits today are verifiable because they are not sourced. Causteau (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cruciani et al says "East Africa" and if your turn to their data their data defines this as Kenya, Ethiopia and Somali.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cruciani et al. says East Africa, but is very clearly implying the Horn of Africa -- not by any means Kenya -- with his criteria below:

1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades (definitely not Kenya), 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity (again, definitely not Kenya), and 3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E1b1b* paragroup (the only criteria Kenya meets, but not by much).

Causteau (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How does he imply this? Please go that one step further and explain. He has a data table showing exactly what he means by East Africa. It includes Ethiopia, Kenya and "Somali".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. His data clearly shows that the Amhara, the Oromo, and other Ethiopian groups as well as the Somali, and the Oromos in Kenya (who migrated there from Ethiopia only a couple of hundred years back), have high frequencies of E3b, and across many different sub-clades including E3b-M35*. The actual Kenyan groups -- who only carry E3b courtesy of admixture in the first place, as Cruciani himself makes clear in that paper -- of course do not. Causteau (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry put this in the wrong place first.) Amazing. So you think that the Eastern Africa in the second paragraph should be changed to Horn of Africa? Please note that the first and second paragraphs are now in conflict with each other. Something is wrong. So what is the fix? You tell me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We could and probably should change the second paragraph to the Horn of Africa or Northeast Africa since that is what Cruciani is referring to. However, we would have to cite another source. This ISOGG page -- which states outright that "E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East " -- fits the bill. Causteau (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in order to make your proposal clear, your idea is to find a source, any convenient source, which refers to Cruciani as a source but might use different words, words concerning which you already know what you are looking for, in order to explain Cruciani, even though we can both read Cruciani??? Why not just refer to Cruciani? You think that when they said Eastern Africa they meant the horn of Africa right? And I produced evidence from that very article to explain that they indeed explain it that way themselves, right? And you deleted it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Any convenient source"? What would you prefer, an inconvenient one? Cruciani is a terrific source and I have no problem referencing him. And we can even put "East Africa" in both paragraphs if it makes you any happier. The fact remains, however, that he was very clearly referring to only a portion of geographical East Africa -- the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa, just like ISOGG. It is Horn Africans that meet all of the E3b criteria he enumerated, and it's Horn Africans he was alluding to with his phrase "contribution of eastern African peoples to the gene pool of the eastern Bantu" -- not the folks from the Bantu expansion of only 3500 years ago. It's a no-brainer. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just fix it so that it is clear to someone reading this article, without assuming that this person looks up the discussion pages, and every detail in every article. No brainer? Then do it!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)