Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Silly reverts of all edits.

OK, after trying several times, I see I now have to list every silly edit and get it approved. This is because Causteau finds it easier to bulk revert, and is willing to do this several times in a row even when I try to selectively put back in less controversial looking edits. So here are some edits Causteau has reverted several times in the current round of his efforts...

"Causteau finds it easier to bulk revert" -- this from a guy who reverted a sourced edit twice (1, 2 -- the second edit is a complete revert, save a bogus fact tag he added after a statement I sourced directly from ISOGG's website and even indicated as much) for a completely OR one. What a joke. Causteau (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts are allowed within reason and I go to a lot of lengths to justify them, whereas you do not. If you want to convince people, just explain the edits below. If you can find similar examples that I have done, then show them. In any case I would apologize.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I note the quality of your explanations about the reverts. That past is on record. You over-reverted once more and that's it. Now, let's work on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Removing refs which took me a long time to get right:

Cruciani et al. (2004 and 2006),

reverted to

Cruciani et al. (2004 and 2006),

Note that Andrew didn't bother to include a dif here. That's because the "refs which took [him] a long time to get right" in no way supported his original assertion that "According to Cruciani et al. (2004 and 2006), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared Eastern Africa, specifically in the Horn of Africa or Kenya, approximately 26,000 years ago amongst populations that already had lineages with the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181". Cruciani never once mentions the possibility that E1b1b originated in Kenya (actually, his criteria completely rule it out); he just says East Africa! Causteau (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a diff above! [1]. I have also pasted the entire passage before and after! They show that you simply deleted the refs for two articles, but you left the article mentions in! Look again please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Some sentence fixing

According to Cruciani et al. ... E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared

reverted to, reinstating weasel words

According to Cruciani et al. ... E1b1b and E1b1b1 are believed to have first appeared

3. Again reinstating weasel words...

The Cruciani team also proposed that East Africa is likely to be the place of origin

reverted to

East Africa is thought to be the place of origin

(which is not arguably unsourced also, as well as being weasel words)

The pointing out of weasel words goes to show that Andrew doesn't have much to go on since he himself has authored much of the text, and is certainly guilty of more than his share. I'm not even certain I authored those phrases! Causteau (talk)

I take full responsibility for the initial text. Indeed, I do most positive editing on the article which is not a good thing. But then please explain why you defending this with serial reverts?????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Removal of the word "apparent" which is a typical scientific qualifier when dealing with sampled data.

I removed the word "apparent" from the article because the Cruciani source it references does not use that word. It just states: "the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup". Please verify this for yourself. Causteau (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't need the word, interpretation of data from limited sample sets always implies using this type of wording. The wording in the Wikipedia article was unscientific because it implied certainty beyond what statistics can give. Cruciani's text, when read in context, is not. The context of words is important!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Removal of a wikipedia link I put in to help people understand a jargon word: paragroup.

This was unintentional and part of a revert of an almost universally OR edit. I'll personally re-insert the link if need be. Causteau (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could guess it was unintentional, but you did it several times nonetheless!! That is how you help the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

6. Removal of sourced information, explaining an article's wording more carefully:

This conclusion was drawn from testing data from 105 Ethiopians, 46 Kenyans, and 23 Somali as representatives of Eastern Africa. So it referred to a specific part of Eastern Africa, including the Horn of Africa and Kenya.

That is irrelevant information that Andrew added to support his earlier OR that Cruciani in this study identified Kenya as a possible place of origin of E3b when he most certainly did not. Causteau (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. The article currently, in the space of two paragraphs, says Cruciani named both Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa as the place of origin of one of the clades under discussion. This is confusing, for Causteau at least, as is Cruciani's definition of Eastern Africa in the 2004 article. However, Cruciani's data makes it clear and I see no reason why the public shouldn't be able to handle it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed completley irrelevant and gratuitous. Cruciani mentions East Africa as the place of origin of E3b, but is only referring to Horn African populations:

Nevertheless, the observed distribution of E-M35* can shed light on the history of peopling of Africa. For example, we found E-M35* and E-M78 chromosomes in Bantu-speaking populations from Kenya (14.3%) but not in those living in central Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002), the area in which the Bantu expansion originated (Vansina Vansina, 1984 J Vansina, Western Bantu expansion, J African History 25 (1984), pp. 129–145.1984). In agreement with mtDNA data (Salas et al. 2002), this finding suggests a relevant contribution of eastern African peoples to the gene pool of the eastern Bantu.

In other words, Bantus -- who are products of the Bantu expansion of only about 3500 years ago, just like most Kenyans and other Southeast Africans -- carry E3b strictly because Horn Africans mixed with them. Their fellow Bantus in central Africa, however, did not experience that contribution to their gene pool, so they consequently do not carry it. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Causteau (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds pretty similar to the explanation I was trying to get in the Wikipedia article concerning which we are discussing why you keep deleting it. Now, please explain what the article should do to explain this, because what you are now explaining is absolutely not clear in the article now. The article will look more wrong than it is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. That's the exact opposite of what you were trying to insert into the text. You were trying to create the impression that E3b originated in East Africa at large and therefore among your beloved Kenyans when it of course did not since they weren't even in East Africa at the time to begin with. Causteau (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Then please accept my surrender. You should fix it. You should do something positive. I was only saying that was my intention in order to avoid shame, for me and my Kenyans, who are included in Cruciani's article, and who need your explanations, or indeed mine. You have defeated me, and exposed my lie. Now.... Please tell me how we fix the problem without somebody to remain un-named reverting the edit and a few others along for good measure. Cruciani et al. say two different things according to the latest version which you have, well, reverted again. Isn't that a bit silly? According to me if you read the articles there is not a real problem. This just needs to be explained. Slavishly saying Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, because that is what two different passages say is not exactly in the interests of clear explanation? But it's not really your style to care about that is it? Please put on record what you will let the public know about this area of scientific research, and what you think they can't handle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to "fix" this apparently "broken" situation, a simple substitution of "Horn of Africa" with "East Africa" in the first line of the Origins section should cover it. There's another mention of the origin of E3b in the info box where I'll adjust the sources to point to ISOGG rather than to Cruciani. And that should cover it since the Horn of Africa is what he too clearly meant. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But didn't you say that you thought that Cruciani et al mean "Horn of Africa" when they say "Eastern Africa" in the context in which they are quoted in the present article? Why not just work on making that clear? Changing this to a secondary source which says something you want it to say is basically self-interested fraud, or perhaps making a point, at least in terms of the intentions which you have now described for yourself. You are absolutely focused upon everything except having a good article. In this case you want to make sure you don't have to admit I had a point. I don't care. I admit defeat. Just don't vandalize this article please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Self-interested fraud"? You bloody wish. You're just upset because I found a simple solution to the issue rather than some convoluted mess like you were undoubtedly hoping to capitalize on. If I'm a fraud Lancaster, then so are you for repeatedly relying on the same ISOGG source I have. Causteau (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I am not satisfied with ISOGG as a reference for some particular comments, including the one I recently deleted that you also raised doubts about (even though you won't admit to doubts about other passages from the same source). That is based on my understanding of what that ISOGG webpage is, which I think is fairly clear by just looking at it. What I describe as fraudulent is based on your own description of your own approach. If I am misunderstanding your words, maybe that is partly because of your un-compromising style of writing, which makes you sound pretty uninterested in the facts themselves. Remember that in May you fought quit hard to make sure that this second paragraph used the words Eastern Africa, because that was what was in the exact passage being quoted. Also now you are rejecting all attempts to clear up why two paragraphs seem to ascribe different opinions to the same authors. Suddenly it is acceptable to you to just change the words. What's more you even scold me now about how obvious it is that Cruciani really means Horn of Africa. Even that I could understand but what I can't follow is that you are insisting on doing this change by changing the reference to secondary literature which clearly refers to this primary literature, rather than just making the text in the Wikipedia article more clear about the primary literature. Are you going to argue that otherwise it would be "original research" again this time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Again Andrew, it does not matter whether or not you are personally satisfied with the sources (this article is not about meeting any one editor's "satisfaction") nor is it for you to decide what does or does not qualify as a reliable source. Wikipedia's policies are there for that and per the latter, ISOGG most certainly qualifies as a reliable source since it is one of the leaders in the field of genetic genealogy. You complain about my using it as a source, but your complaints ring hollow because you've repeatedly referenced that very website yourself. Regarding the actual issue at hand -- namely, the fact that the Origins section of the article identifies East Africa as one of the possible places of origin of E1b1b/E3b while the info box cites the Horn of Africa -- Cruciani is obviously specifically referring to the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa as already explained, just like what ISOGG writes on its page. However, since this could perhaps conceivably be confusing to readers, I have no problem amending the phrase in the info box to read "East Africa" per Cruciani instead of "Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa" per ISOGG. I have just adjusted the info box accordingly. Causteau (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How to answer without creating new footholds for superficial dispute. My "satisfaction" matters because I am an editor and we have no higher standard for judging things apart from what convinces people. But don't take that to mean that you just have to accept my feelings and not any objective argument. As you know, I have one. I'll repeat it again, because I don't really think you have "heard" it yet. I believe that any reader of this reference may reasonably presume that whoever summarized the literature at ISOGG (presumably David Wilson, who I've mailed) was just describing one single area, but a bigger area than necessary in order to be safe. The text at ISOGG only says "E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East". You could read all of "Northeast Africa or the Near East" as being one geographical area. But what Causteau has done on the Wikipedia article is to notice the mention of Asia and split it out to say, after mention of the more usual theory...

"However (emphasis added), according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), E1b1b1 may have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea"

I think that takes a hint that there might be something in the literature, and turns it into a more definite statement that there is a real dispute out there with evidence on both sides. Both you and I, I think know of no such material in the primary literature, although we are reading the same articles on that little summary. So why would we take such a punt on this wording, and strengthen it this way? By the way, as I think happens to often with your edits, your work to try to find any solution other than the ones others propose has led to something odd. The Horn of Africa is no longer mentioned at all! Is this really healthy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you were that what the ISOGG link I quoted for you above actually stated (you quoted from a different ISOGG page). Here, for reference, is what it says:

E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea.

It clearly references E3b -- not E1b1b1. Causteau (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressed below. As usual, sorry if it gets messy. However what you did not address here, or above, or anywhere, is the other question: see above now in bold. In short, you can only use ISOGG by actually changing its wording. This is getting very circular, because as a compromise, I thought, I put in the real wording of the ISOGG page and your actions show that you certainly noticed the difference in wording (so you can't imply that you don't anymore)! You changed it back several times and quickly, finally giving the explanation that "stating that E1b1b originated in East Africa and then going on to state that perhaps it originated in Northeast Africa only a bit later is the exact same argument as the info box affair on the talk pg". In short you are saying that all the other places you have changed need this citation to fit them, even though this citation is the source of the others, and the only one - it is the one you picked in order to say what you thought it needed to say. There is something very strange about this approach surely? I think if you insist on citing the ISOGG webpage, you should at least cite it accurately.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not true Andrew, and please assume good faith because I have not speculated on the reasons behind your latest round of edits. What I am saying is that you specifically complained about readers perhaps becoming confused by our stating in one place that E1b1b originated in East Africa and in another that it in fact originated in the Horn of Africa. I'm explaining to you that your addition of "Northeast Africa" to my paraphrase of ISOGG's assertion that it may have also originated in the Near East is the exact same thing since Northeast Africa is a synonym for the Horn of Africa. What I was also trying to explain to you was that stating that Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa and then amending that to read "However, according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), E1b1b1 may have evolved in the the "Northeast Africa or the Near East" and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea" only a few lines later gives the completely fallacious impression that Cruciani was referring to Southeast Africa and not Northeast Africa when he of course specifically meant the latter. Causteau (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I specifically said it was confusing, and it still is. I tried to fix the problem but got vetoed. I think we both know that the papers all say either Eastern Africa or Horn of Africa/ Northeastern Africa (pick one perhaps), and when they say Eastern Africa they mean that area which is around the Horn of Africa which also contains it. This wording can indeed be simplified and this simplification can be justified by just referring to the Wikipedia articles on these geographical terms. That's what I tried to do. If on the other hand you insist on keeping a reference to the Near East comment on the ISOGG webpage you must at least quote it in such a way that you do not change the meaning, which is what you have been doing. But once you do this, your whole argument revolves around being absolutely strict about using the terms in the papers, and so I don't see how you can eat your cake and have it at the same time. The ISOGG wording can be interpreted different ways, and so if you simplify that you have changed it. I do not believe that applies to Cruciani and Semino. BTW problems like the one with the "however" confusion can be fixed by smaller edits, and editing a small problem is never an excuse for reverting everything that is nearby.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not how the version of the article you keep reverting to has been reading. The prior mentions of the Horn of Africa concern E-M215, not E-M35? These are two clades needing their own discussion. I have now rearranged though, in order to try to meet your concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The ISOGG link is unambiguous: It states quite clearly that E1b1b1 -- which is what we are talking about in that particular portion of the Origins section -- "probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East". We've already presented the possibility that it might've arisen in Northeast Africa when we cited Cruciani's East Africa because the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa is of course what he really meant. There's therefore no need to repeat it. In fact, doing so makes a statement that's completely false as I've explained above. Causteau (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So unambiguous statements are ones which start with probably? Anyway, you don't use the same words. Correction. You refuse to allow an accurate citation in the article, because it would confuse people about the point you want to use it for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Probably" is a reflection of the fact that the origin of E1b1b1 in the Near East/Middle East is a theory, and one that is in direct competition with the other theory that E1b1b1 originated in the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa. You're also commenting on me again rather than the article ("you refuse to allow an accurate citation in the article"), and I'm hereby asking you yet again to stop it. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And I must humbly counter plea to this wikilawyering. Addressing a person, or saying that they did a certain edit, or asking them a question, are not a personal attacks. The only arguable minor wiki-sin above is that I have guessed at your motivations - but even this accusation is also weak. Because I am only paraphrasing explanations you have given yourself about your motives: you have said that your concern is making sure the citations from the really important articles in this field do not clash with your Near East remarks. I am just reminding you of the background of why there is now a circular argument on your side.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Insertion of a new reference for an article which is already referred to, or at least was.

None of these except 6 have been discussed by Causteau, and the explanation for 6 is clearly wrong. These edits just got in the way when Causteau wanted to revert some other things nearby. This happens very often. Causteau does not have time to edit properly as he says himself. This is not justifiable editing behavior and it is now being repeated constantly for several months.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the above save the weasel words have been discussed and actually quite thoroughly dismissed by me in the preceding sections, which is why Andrew as usual started a new section to push my responses away from view and start "afresh" as it were. He talks about "not justifiable editing behavior" when he literally invents what sources say, and gets upset when another editor takes exception to this. Absurd. Causteau (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You can check the timing on when your latest revert occurred. It does not bare your excuse out. You reverted this even after having admitting something about weasel words.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

This diff: [2] . Surely a primary reference, as was in the article, is better than a secondary one? What is the point of this edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you my mother? And what's with this constant starting and naming of new sections after me? Should I get back to referring to you as Lancaster? The above is what I wrote earlier: I said I would adjust the source to point to ISOGG, which is what I indeed did. Causteau (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall you saying you would change this particular reference to ISOGG also? We were talking about a specific passage concerning the origins of E1b1b1. I take it you checked the primary source which you deleted and found that it did not fit the bill? OK, but does ISOGG? Even by your own interpretation of the ISOGG webpage, you have to note the difference between E1b1b and E1b1b1. Perhaps we should just remove Near East from this box? BTW, it strikes me that the small difference between these two clades may be confusing in some places in the article as it currently stands - particularly the Origins Intro which we've been working on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A correction in my use of Wikipedia jargon. Everywhere above where I have named the ISOGG summary of literature on E haplotypes a "secondary" source, I should apparently have called it a tertiary source. See [3].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think you'd recall it. So here again is what I said in black and light green:

There's another mention of the origin of E3b in the info box where I'll adjust the sources to point to ISOGG rather than to Cruciani. And that should cover it since the Horn of Africa is what he too clearly meant.

The ISOGG page I linked to also quite clearly references E3b/E1b1b and not E1b1b1:

E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea.

As for removing from the info box all mention of the "Near East" being one of the possible places E1b1b originated from, that's out of the question, as it too is well-sourced and documented. Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not find your quote on the ISOGG page? It says E1b1b1, not E3b? Please check.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you don't spot it, I think you've been quoting from an old version of the ISOGG webpage. If they are your only authority, and they changed their wording, you had better stick with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They changed their wording because the nomenclature has changed. Here's the page again. Causteau (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course the new version made changes to update nomenclature, but that does not mean it was the only reason for changes. What you are saying is that a mistake was introduced and the newer version of the page is wrong and should say E1b1b, not E1b1b1. Correct? But as this is your only source, what can hang this assertion on?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep responding to this, as that Horn of Africa blurb isn't even in the text anymore. At any rate, I don't think the new version of ISOGG is wrong at all. Indeed, I think it's right as usual. It just, for whatever reason, neglects to mention the place of origin of E1b1b but rather mentions E1b1b1 in its place. Causteau (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still discussing this because you still insist on the ISOGG citation which I think you have done wrongly. What's your source for the assertion that E1b1b1 is meant to mean E1b1b1? That is unsourced guessing isn't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which ISOGG citation? Where in the article? Please be more specific. Causteau (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo, but I am sure I was clear: you say that "It just, for whatever reason, neglects to mention the place of origin of E1b1b but rather mentions E1b1b1 in its place." Well, how do you know that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question, but I'll answer you anyway. I know that the same way you do: Because the ISOGG 2007 page reads: "E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea", while the ISOGG 2008 page reads: "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". Causteau (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you believe the source you want to use contains an error, and you know it contains an error because an old version of that source stated something different. How do you know it is not the old version which contained the error? By the way if this is one of those cases where you have already decided you are wrong, then please say so and let this discussion stop. The only reason I continue to try to convince you is that if I do not your reverts will be coming soon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of dispute

A few comments that I hope will help stop some of this bickering:

• ISOGG is a non-profit organization of volunteers interested in promoting genetic genealogy. ISOGG does not have its own scientists doing population genetics studies. ISOGG volunteers read the studies published by geneticists and summarize them on the ISOGG website so that the genetic genealogy community has easy access to the information. While ISOGG has a very good reputation and is considered a reliable source within the genetic genealogy community, it's not a primary source for the vast majority of the information on its website, nor is it infallible. The person responsible for keeping the E page updated may not necessarily be doing so as actively as we'd like to think. He's a volunteer who has responsibility for many of the haplogroup pages at ISOGG, and I highly doubt he spends all his time reading every single study that comes out for every single haplogroup. So, in my opinion, the best solution for ending the argument about what ISOGG says is the origins of E3b/E1b1b is to find out where that information originally came from and then consult the primary source. I believe Andrew has already contacted the person who maintains the E page, so hopefully we'll soon have resolution on this.

• History lesson on the E3b/E1b1b tree. M215 is a relatively new SNP. Until M215 was discovered, M35 defined E3b. When M215 came along, it became E3b and M35 became E3b1. When reading original sources, it's important to note whether the author was referring to E3b as M215 or M35. Similarly, on the ISOGG webpage, it needs to be determined whether the text has been kept updated with the phylogenetic tree changes. I'm not saying it has or hasn't, as I haven't reviewed the specifics myself, so this is another question for the person who maintains ISOGG's E page. This field is moving very fast and the phylogenetic tree is constantly changing, so anyone trying to read and summarize the sources must be aware of all these changes and take them into account. In addition, this is a perfect example of why it's extremely important to use the shorthand notation (ie, E-M35) in conjunction with the current phylogenetic name when discussing any subclade.

• ISOGG uses formally published phylogenetic trees as a base for its own tree, and then edits its copy with SNP discoveries that are made between formal publications. This is again important to understand when you are wanting to use ISOGG as a source. ISOGG also archives its tree annually, with a new URL each year, so that each year's tree is available for historical reference and comparison. Please be sure you are referencing the current one.

• Personally, as an ISOGG member and administrator of many genetic genealogy projects, I consider the ISOGG phylogenetic tree to be very reliable. However, as an active member of the genetic genealogy community with a personal interest in several haplogroups, I'm also very well aware that updates aren't made the minute (or hour, day, week or even month) that a new article is published which necessitates a change to the ISOGG website. This is a volunteer organization, and they make their best effort, but they aren't robots. So I don't use the ISOGG website in a vacuum. I read original sources as needed, and read many genetic genealogy mailing lists and discussion boards, where everyone has a genuine interest in genetic genealogy and there are some very interesting discussions that give me a wealth of knowledge beyond what's available on the ISOGG website.

• There's something to be said for having a personal interest and familiarity with the subject matter that's being written about here. While we absolutely need the published sources as references, there's often additional knowledge that comes with being actively involved with the subject matter on a day-to-day basis, and this knowledge is invaluable for cutting through the noise and confusion in this fast-changing field.

-- Efweb (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Efweb, thanks for a great summary of the situation.  :) I'm an admin here on Wikipedia, but personally have no familiarity with this topic area. My recommendation is to file a Request for Comment which may be able to draw the attention of other editors who understand this topic. Could you help boil things down to a 1-2 sentence description of the dispute? Or should we just say, "Disagreement on term usage at Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)"? --Elonka 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I have no problem with the above question, and I'll be interested to read Efweb's comments. But can you please help everyone interested in this article understand your intentions here, because it is pretty unclear - possibly because, perhaps unlike Causteau, most people have very little experience with making complaints etc on Wikipedia. I am just a basic editor of the occasional article.

You previously asked for a one sentence summary and I gave one. So apparently you thought it was not correct. It came down to saying that the particular disputes are constantly changing, as any edit is attempted, and so in my opinion the problem is not one about this or that fact or source. In other words, I said it was a problem of to many unjustified reverts by one person (partial or full - but mainly in big sweeping blocks). That person by the way, says he is just a guardian of Wikipedia law and order, so he is not going to help describe the problem. Perhaps this would mean that an RfC is not the right approach, or perhaps you just felt that after looking at the evidence that my description was unjustified. (It takes little technical knowledge to analyze some of the discussions on this page and now archived. For example, there are many admitted cases of edits, being deleted only because they happened to be in the way of a big sweeping revert.) I don't know, but I'd be interested though. Can you let us know what you are thinking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we are: two latest cases ([4],[5]) of what are basically full reverts whether the Undo button was used or not. Reason given in both cases, after months, is "not agreed to" (by Causteau). How do you edit on this article? Search in vain - and this goes back through several archives now! - for any point of substance concerning facts or sourcing. This is not a problem about particular facts or sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The truth is that Lancaster yet again made a series of unilateral edits that we were literally in the process of discussing but had definitely not come to a decision on let alone agreed to. Instead of going through the discussion and resolution process as recommended by both the moderator Swid and the administrator Elonka, he just inserted into the text regions where he personally would like readers to believe E3b is prevalent -- ongoing discussions be damned. Causteau (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the RfC question: Andrew, the reason that your previous suggestion didn't work, is because it was focused on an editor, instead of the article. We need a single sentence that summarizes the dispute strictly in relation to the article's content. Causteau, would you also agree that this boils down to "Disagreement on term usage"? --Elonka 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, well then from my side just in case it is not clear I think there are new problems every time an edit is attempted, whether it be concerning parentheses versus commas, or whatever. In the latest case it is very simply just "no prior permission from Causteau". (It is not a trminology question, the subject is done to death now. And by the way it is not a complex or technical subject in this case at all, so please everyone look.) Most reverts and debates on this article are probably about reversions that just got stuck in a bigger revert. There are temporary (but very long) discussions about particular facts and sources, but there is not one fact or source holding up the article. I think this agrees with Causteau. He implies the problem is "unilateral edits". I agree. No one can make "unilateral edits" on this article. So there is a type of agreement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments inserted by an unsigned editor

I moved this here in order to avoid confusion...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) E3b ancestral Patriarch was born in Ethiopia (~22 Kya); (2) Afro-Asiatic Languages stem from Ethiopia. CONCLUSION: By rights, E3b = Afro-Asiatic. Semitic languages stem from Arabia, nicely explaining the "Near Eastern" component of this haplogroup.

In reply, these comments are debatable to say the least and Wikipedia is not the place for such debate. It is just meant to summarise what is least debatable, including what the major debates are though. Anything about the connection of E1b1b to historical Ethnic groups will need to be very carefully sourced. That is a very speculative area.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aryan languages = R1a Y-Chromosome lineage, based on region and age depth (Spencer Wells, Deep Ancestry). Precisely the same considerations imply, E3b = Afro-Asiatic.

More geography questions

I want to point to old discussions which were never finished off.

1. Sicily, and more generally Southern Italy. See Calagero's remark in Archive 1. Because a mixture of different types of E1b1b are found in Southern Italy, some areas have a very high level. So even though it does not have quiet as much V13 as the Balkans, as a European place having high levels of E1b1b haplotypes, it should be mentioned. I am wondering whether in "(especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans)", Mediterranean should be changed to "Southern Italy". Are there really any other parts of Europe that compete with these two specific areas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be not changed to just "Southern Italy" because it is by no means just Southern Italy with a significant presence of E1b1b. It is the entire heavily-populated Mediterranean region (especially Greece where it reaches frequencies of up to 47% in the Peloponnese), as Rosser et al. (2000) and Pericic et al. (2005) among others clearly show. Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece is in the Balkans. So where else in the European Mediterranean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2. "Balkanization". See the discussion involving me and Causteau in Archive 1 referring to the V13 sub-section. This week we saw another example of the Balkanization I mentioned there: editors constantly coming in and changing the emphasis on which countries have most E1b1b. My proposal was to replace all mention of specific countries with just "the Balkans". In fact, looking at different data sets in different papers shows all different variations of detailed level conclusions you could draw but there is no doubt that the general area is the Balkans. Causteau's concern was that this term would cover places like Hungary. I replied showing that at least according to Wikipedia, Hungary is not in the Balkans.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, editors were not "constantly coming in and changing the emphasis on which countries have the most E1b1b". Only one editor added Romania to the list of countries in Europe where E1b1b is observed at a high frequency. That does not qualify as a trend much less a deluge of editors. Our long-resolved and moderated discussion of months ago, moreover, took place back when I, for one, was not nearly as familiar with the prevalence of E1b1b/E3b across the world as I am now. It therefore has no bearing on our present discussion. That said, the considerable presence of E1b1b in the Balkans is very well established. From Albanians (27%) to Serbs (20.4%) to Macedonians (24.1%), it is ubiquitous in this region. The second highest prevalence of E1b1b in Europe is, in fact, found in the Balkans among Kosovar Albanians (46%). Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Causteau, I've been working on this article for a lot longer than you, and there have been constant "drop in" edits on that list. I am sorry that I can not take into account that you think you were much less knowledgeable all of a couple of months ago. The basic fact of the matter is that we left the discussion open, as per my link. When you say it has no bearing on the present discussion what do you mean? This is an old point I am reawakening, concerning the article as it presently stands. The "present discussion" is a "the article and whether it should be changed". Can you address that? My question is simple: don't the standard definitions of the Balkans explain the area we mean in one word, and avoid us having to list all of the countries and regions and ethnic groups involved? Do you have strong feelings about this? Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If by editors "constantly coming in and changing" things you don't mean recently but over your admittedly long history of editing this page, then that isn't exactly any different a situation than what goes on on just about every other article on Wikipedia. Moreover, I mean that it is not helpful to bring up old, long-resolved discussions as if they are still unresolved when you yourself never indicated as much at the denouement of our last moderated encounter. As for the Balkans, no, I do not have strong feelings about it. But other editors apparently do since you yourself said they keep coming in and adding countries. Causteau (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can make a text no one will edit, but I do aim to make it less and less tempting to edit for anyone who knows this field. Seems a good aim? So please focus on that question: do you not think that one word can replace several here? Would it be a big problem if we try it? And concerning the Med, I am equally open: is there really any other part of the Euro Med with really high concentrations like Sicily and the Balkans? I see some old studies which mention Andalucia, but it seems unclear? Just tell me what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, one word definitely won't do here, as these are heavily-populated areas with very significant frequencies i.e. millions of E3b carriers per country. And it's not just Sicily in Southeastern Europe either -- it's the entire region, especially Greece. Causteau (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Greece is in the Balkans. So apart from Southern Italy and the Balkans, please be more specific. Where are the high levels in the rest of Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

All the areas already mentioned in the text including a few not mentioned such as certain Welsh towns where Roman soldiers are known to have settled down (e.g. Abergale at ~39%). Causteau (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. We were talking about whether the term Mediterranean could be replaced by Balkans and Southern Italy. Do you now want to make no distinctions between the Med and the rest of Europe? Why make this point now even if it is a real point? And if this is serious why don't we just say it is found "in the world"? I thought we were trying to name the areas with the highest concentrations? Please consider.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. A distinction is already made between the Mediterranean region and Europe as a whole in the introduction. In addition, the Balkans is for the most part a distinct region from the Mediterranean. Southern Italy also represents just a part of Italy, which in turn is only one country in the Mediterranean. The term "Southern Italy", moreover, doesn't cover other areas of high prevalence such as Portugal and the Pasiegos of Cantabria (>40% in the latter). So that proposition is inadequate and not really necessary. Causteau (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Intro actually says "Europe (especially the Mediterranean and the Balkans)". Portugal and Cantabria are both not in either of these parts of Europe. So your comment on these places (could you tell me your source? I am interested) still doesn't count as a defense of the text as it stands. By the way, whatever your sources, I'll bet they involve single studies, which you are elsewhere deleting any mention on in the article. Do you think we can use them, but just not openly state where we are sourcing the information? That doesn't seem logical to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Portugal is not technically on the Mediterranean Sea, but is considered a part of the Mediterranean community, as is the Pasiegos of Cantabria, which is in Spain (another heavily-populated country with a significant presence of E3b) that is, in turn, on the Mediterranean. Secondly, you are once again not assuming good faith ("I'll bet they involve single studies, which you are elsewhere deleting any mention on in the article"), which is both uncalled for and ironic since both the Cruciani et al. (2004) (for the Pasiegos of Cantabria) and Rosser et al. (2003) (for Portugal) studies are already referenced in the article. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this Mediterranean community, and should we mention "in the Mediterranean Community"? If you look at the relevant Wikipedia articles, Cantabria is certainly not even a place with Mediterranean climate or flora. It is less Mediterranean than Paris. (If you are talking about modern political affiliations, what does that have to do with an article like this about ancient human affiliations? At the very least the wording in the article now is misleading.) Concerning your reference for Portugal, I do not see a particularly high concentration of E1b1b there. Perhaps Southern Europe would be better than Mediterranean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing misleading about the wording; Cantabria is a region of Spain which is in the Mediterranean. Portugal is adjacent to Spain and, though not on the Mediterannean Sea, is considered a part of the Mediterranean (politically, culturally, ethnically). Moreover, at frequencies of 11-20% of its ethnic population of 10,000,000, there are indeed many Portuguese that are E1b1b carriers. Your proposal that perhaps Southern Europe would be better than Mediterranean seems to me unnecessary since that's pretty much the same thing as stating "Mediterranean and the Balkans", which is already in the text. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cantabria is in non-Mediterranean Spain. I understand that there might be very specific ways of referring to Canatabria as linked to Spain politically and therefore politically Mediterranean, but this is certainly not obvious. By the way you give no source for your remarks implying that there is a definition of a "Mediterranean Community" so I am assuming that this is just being conversational. (Anyway, political definitions seem quite inappropriate in an article about such timespans of human history. You should look at how the terms are defined in Wikipedia and other places. If the interpretation of the terminonology is ambiguous we have a choice of putting in extra verbiage to make it clear, or else seeking a word which gets rid of ambiguity. Southern Europe would work though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A confusion here comes from the fact that there were two separate proposals about the article text being discussed together now. I want to separate them again.

1. article now says:

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently 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).

I asked whether the parenthesis is or is not mainly referring to the Balkans and Southern Italy - a question raised before during these long discussions. (I don't consider that subjects never replied to are now to be ignored.) Although looking at [6] I wonder if just Italy would be more appropriate.

Causteau has replied by raising what I can only read as a new subject - that there are pockets of non-Mediterranean Europeans with high levels of E-M215. Actually, I think that adding a remark about this is probably a good idea, because it is one of the interesting this about this haplogroup that is often remarked upon as possible evidence for Roman or other Mediterranean settlement in various areas. See for example the various online comments of Steven Bird and his article on JOGG.

But I believe there is also evidence that there are pockets of E1b1b all around its fringe, and all widely dispersed in an interesting way. This is at least Causteau's interpretation of the situation in Southern and Eastern Africa if I read him correctly, but I think I recall that the same could be said about pockets stretching out to Iran and past it?

Just as an example of what might be better than the existing text, but I think needs consideration first, we could have

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

...or, if it is true that places like Andalucia and Southern Portugal (which is not in the Med) have high concentrations that are not just in pockets As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Balkans and Southern Europe).

1.2. And do we have enough sourcing to justify a new sentence, in answer to the point raised by Cauteau? For example

It is notable that isolated pockets of high E1b1b in other parts of Europe, for example in Cantabria and Wales, have lead to speculation as to whether this is the result of Roman or other Mediterranean settlement within historical times.

2. In the V13 section I had a more simple practical suggestion. The current article says

This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans, where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.

I propose simply removing the questionable and unsourced diversion into details, meaning all of "where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations". The first sentence is very debatable, and needs careful sourcing which looks at the competing articles. In my opinion, there is not enough data anywhere to be so sure about which areas have the highest concentrations. Some parts of Greece obviously have very high levels for example. The second sentence is simply redundant and a diversion.

So the paragraph could look like

This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.

Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A confusion here comes from the fact that there were two separate proposals about the article text being discussed together now. I want to separate them again.

1. article now says:

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently 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).

I asked whether the parenthesis is or is not mainly referring to the Balkans and Southern Italy - a question raised before during these long discussions. (I don't consider that subjects never replied to are now to be ignored.) Although looking at [7] I wonder if just Italy would be more appropriate.

Causteau has replied by raising what I can only read as a new subject - that there are pockets of non-Mediterranean Europeans with high levels of E-M215. Actually, I think that adding a remark about this is probably a good idea, because it is one of the interesting this about this haplogroup that is often remarked upon as possible evidence for Roman or other Mediterranean settlement in various areas. See for example the various online comments of Steven Bird and his article on JOGG.

But I believe there is also evidence that there are pockets of E1b1b all around its fringe, and all widely dispersed in an interesting way. This is at least Causteau's interpretation of the situation in Southern and Eastern Africa if I read him correctly, but I think I recall that the same could be said about pockets stretching out to Iran and past it?

Just as an example of what might be better than the existing text, but I think needs consideration first, we could have

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

...or, if it is true that places like Andalucia and Southern Portugal (which is not in the Med) have high concentrations that are not just in pockets As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently found in various forms in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, West Asia, and Europe (especially the Balkans and Southern Europe).

Again, Southern Italy is just a part of Italy which in turn is just one country in the Mediterranean. E1b1b enjoys a considerable presence in the entire region, not just one part of one single country in that region. The article therefore states "Mediterranean" because E1b1b is indeed ubiquitous there as Rosser et al. (2000), Cruciani et al. (2004), and Pericic et al. (2005) among others have already shown. Causteau (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The evidence you have given so far concerning parts of the Med outside the Balkans and Italy does not include any clearly "Mediterranean" places, and nor does it show evidence of anything other than "pockets". Putting the latter concern aside, should we change to Southern Europe? Please consider the Wikipedia articles on Mediterranean Region and Southern Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The studies above give many European populations and cleary show a preponderance of E3b in the Mediterranean and Balkan regions in particular. It's, again, not just "Southern Italy". Moreover, the term "Southern Europe" encompasses both the Mediterranean and the Balkans, which is what the article already states. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern Europe contains more than the Mediterranean and the Balkans. If anything is arguable, then we need to include extra explanation in the text to show how we are using the term, or else use the simplest term, which seems to be Southern Europe. Indeed we could drop the Balkans, because we are going to be explaining that later with the sub-clades. This is better because the Balkans is especially high in concentration of V13. But parts of Italy may have higher concentrations of E1b1b1 (E-M35) generally, because of the mixture of different types there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

1.2. And do we have enough sourcing to justify a new sentence, in answer to the point raised by Cauteau? For example

It is notable that isolated pockets of high E1b1b in other parts of Europe, for example in Cantabria and Wales, have lead to speculation as to whether this is the result of Roman or other Mediterranean settlement within historical times.

The "notable isolated pockets" of E1b1b only refer specifically to Britain since that is what the JOGG study I quoted for you on Abergele and other Welsh towns addresses. It does not pertain to the nebulous "other parts of Europe", a continent where E1b1b is in fact the third most common Y clade. So no, the above phrase definitely is not supported by sourcing. Causteau (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So "other parts of Europe" is a bad way to describe the pockets because "nebulous". So we should name every one exactly? Oh, but we can't because accurate enough data does not exist. We could just name some examples. But what you propose is nice and clear: say nothing about pockets, one of the most interesting aspects of this haplogroup, and pretend the spread is even. This makes editing easier. And as you have said many times, Wikipedia is for you all about clear sourcing and not whether it is true or not. Sometimes reality is nebulous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2. In the V13 section I had a more simple practical suggestion. The current article says

This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans, where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.

I propose simply removing the questionable and unsourced diversion into details, meaning all of "where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and Macedonians show high concentrations". The first sentence is very debatable, and needs careful sourcing which looks at the competing articles. In my opinion, there is not enough data anywhere to be so sure about which areas have the highest concentrations. Some parts of Greece obviously have very high levels for example. The second sentence is simply redundant and a diversion.

So the paragraph could look like

This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.

Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Albanians were indeed observed to have the highest concentrations of E1b1b in the Balkans by Rosser et al. (2005) in their study:

In Europe, the highest E3b1{alpha} variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks.

The second sentence is also not redundant since Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Macedonians all show high concentrations of E1b1b, whereas it's not as high for Romanians. Causteau (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we both know that there are various articles describing various different concentrations in these areas. Rumania is not always lower than the rest, and Albania is not always the highest. Call me old fashioned but I think it is dishonest to make the article sounds like we, the editors, know of no such reason for doubt. And why worry about that if we can just use one word, Balkans?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The frequencies of E1b1b observed in Albanians, Greeks, Macedonians, Serbs, Bulgarians, etc. are consistently high per Rosser et al. (2005), Pericic et al. (2005), etc. And Romania indeed is not always lower than the rest. However, Albanians, Greeks and Macedonians are consistently the highest. The envelope term "Balkans" conceals this fact. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The article now says that Albanians, just Albanians, have the highest concentrations.

2. You only cite two articles! I'm sure we both know that there are more articles that do not all clearly give the same result. Albania is not always highest and Rumania is not always lower than the rest of the Balkans. A big part of this certainly seems to be because Rumania and Greece are large and ethnically complex, not single units on the same scale as Kosovo or Albania.

3. Pericic is not about Rumania or Greece, although it does cite other works.

4. Pericic says the highest concentration is in Kosovo, which is not Albania.

So we seem to have a few options, say "Balkans" which is basically right, or say something like "in most parts of the Balkans", or say a full list of all areas and ethnic groups. I'd say the last options is out, because even if such data were available, this would be for a special section on its own.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW (I have tried to make this point several times, but I've had trouble gets edits to upload) Roumania is not in most definitions of the Balkans.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update. I made an edit and surprise, surprise, Causteau did a revert. Comment was: discussed but definitely not agreed to. Question: is it justifiable to say that after months of having a question open, where the defender against edits can not come up with an argument against, that Wikipedia demands permission be given by the said defender before one may edit? So how do you edit on Wikipedia again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Lancaster, surprise, surprise, made unilateral edits we of course did not agree on. Instead of going through the discussion and resolution process, he opted instead to insert into the text his own preferred version of the regions where E3b is prevalent, and compartmentalized the different regions to boot. That's hardly productive and goes completely against what the moderators have recommended. Causteau (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any points left which were not discussed? There is not rule in Wikipedia that you need Causteau's permission to make edits. The "process" for these subjects has gone months. There is no sign of any substantial point being made anymore from your side. The replies, when you were still writing them, repeat points already covered more than once. You have no factual or stylistic or sourcing reasons to make reverts. Why may I not edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what's wrong with a "unilateral edit"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka made it clear that we should discuss and agree to edits before inserting them. And this is an edit war, in case you hadn't noticed -- not business as usual. Using your logic, I could easily modify the entire article as I see fit, and when you naturally will balk at my edits, what's to stop me from telling you "there is no rule in Wikipedia that you need Lancaster's permission to make edits"? I'm not interested in your jaundiced interpretations of what I NEVER stated. When I agree to an edit, you'll know it because I won't be telling you why your own proposed edits are inadequate. Causteau (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, which of my comments are you referring to, exactly? --Elonka 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, my instructions were to stop reverting each other, to stay civil, and to work on changing each other's text rather than just deleting it.[8] If I said something else that I'm not remembering, please refresh my memory? Thanks, --Elonka 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So according to the above interpretation, all anyone has to do is (a) make sure things stay messy so that this is called "an edit war" (easy, just revert things) and (b) pretend to come up with objections (at least to a comma or something) and then you can do whatever you like. No, not quite: this rule does not work the same for people wanting to edit, and people wanting to do anti-editing. This is indeed the problem on this article. Can we put that on an RfC? Anyone can go through the discussions and see how they get circular and stop, how edits get attempted and then reverted, and so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind what the issue is here. Causteau's own sourcing which he produced to justify keeping the current text, which I believe I put in originally, disagrees with him. (It is amazing how often Causteau is defending old edits of mine against my own updating or improvement. He even uses the fact that I wrote something as an argument against changing it: for example when he defended a block revert which re-inserted old weasel words recently.)

See my responses 1, 2, 3, 4, and BTW above which therefore justified the edit I made and which Causteau reverted only on the basis that he had not pre-agreed. Causteau has not responded to either of those very clear non-technical points - neither before nor after the reverts. Put simply, Causteau's last defense of the existing text actually makes it clear that it is wrong. If he now refuses to comment further, what further discussion can there be?

BTW, it could be said that Causteau has supplied a second argument, which is that he wrote to Elonka stating that my reverted edits had claimed to be on the basis of agreement. He calls this a "stunt". This is actually untrue, as can be confirmed by checking the edits. They only claim to have been discussed at length. People who want to understand what is going on with the editing would be advised to see the notes Causteau has been writing to Elonka's talk page for some time, asking her to intervene and stop me from trying to edit the article so much without his permission, and now more recently complaining about the excessive amount of discussion I am producing while trying to get his permissions.

Clearly a big part of the problem here is that Causteau seems to feel that this might work. And indeed until now it has. His steady level of reverts are being allowed, while any increase in re-reverts trigger reactions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

starting again on the blocked geography discussions

Here are the reverted edits. I start again, because that's the only option I have to try to edit this article...

1. A long, complex and ambiguous sentence is broken up and terminology chosen to help simplify.

As discussed in more detail below, various forms of E1b1b and E1b1b1 are found in male lineages whose ancestry is from...

• Africa, mainly Eastern (especially the Horn of Africa), and North Africa, but also parts of Southern Africa.
• West Asia
• Europe (especially Southern Europe).

...reverted to...

As discussed in more detail below, E1b1b is presently 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).

2. A long, complex and ambiguous sentence is broken up and terminology chosen to help simplify.

This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.

...reverted to...

This the the most prevalent clade among Europeans, especially in the Balkans, where the highest concentrations are amongst Albanians. Also Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, and [[Ethnic Macedonians|Macedonians]] show high concentrations. The V13 clade is equivalent to Cruciani et al's (2004) "alpha cluster" and phylogenetic analysis strongly suggest that these lineages have spread through Europe, from the Balkans.

I do not believe there is any outstanding point of fact or sourcing that has been raised as a reason for these reverts. I also don't expect any news ones because it has been discussed to death. Causteau has been given every opportunity to justify a refusal to allow editing on this, and has taken every opportunity. The proposals have indeed been changed and adapted to try to take account of every possible objection. In his last replies before he stopped replying, he was giving citations and summaries which made it clear that the text he is still defending is wrong and known by him to be wrong. The geographical terminology in the proposed but reverted version has been shown to be less ambiguous than the version being defended, and more in line with Wikipedia articles on the areas in question. Causteau has never really addressed that justification at all despite the length of the discussion, presumably because of the normal argument he makes that the onus is on others to convince him a change is required, which I think is a disputable principle to say the least. Can anyone give a good reason for not re-instating the new versions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried 2 new versions of the above proposed edits today and [only got reverted on the first one]. The other one was edited, but in a considered way, and I am happy about that. Also, concerning that first one, I got a comment, which I appreciate. So I'd like to try to understand it:

"edited regions of frequency back to neutral setting; if it's to be compartmentalized at all, it should be by the sub-clades that are actually most prevalent in each region"

• By "neutral" I can not see how breaking a long sentence in bullets is non-neutral, so I suppose this means that a revert is being assumed to be more neutral than an edit? Not sure. Or it might be a reference to the following nuance...
• By compartmentalizing I understand that this is a reference to splitting the long sentence into bullets. Perhaps the spin on this word implies that the bullets, being 3 traditional continents, give some sort of biased view or send people in the wrong direction? The only way I could follow that is that indeed, most branches of this haplogroup are in Africa, and maybe West Asia and Europe should be lumped together as another branch? But that doesn't sound all that convincing either as a proposal or as an interpretation of what is intended. Indeed, I remember once proposing that we should just say that E-M215 is basically African, and this was shot down also. Europe had a fast growing population for quite a few recent centuries, so indeed in crude number terms it has a lot of representatives of this clade, even if nowhere near the same diversity.
• Concerning dividing into sub-clades, instead of the compartments of the continents, I don't follow. The follow on from the introduction does this, and in fact makes up most of the rest of the article. So this introductory closing paragraph was originally intended just to give people a picture of where this haplotype is before talking about the real stuff, which is indeed the sub-clades. But there is no point moving the whole rest of the article into the introduction?
• Sicily has been removed, which leaves a reasonable question open which another editor raised in May. In terms of pure raw % concentrations of any type of E-M215, this then raises the question (which I have raised at this point before) of why we specify the Balkans at all. Because Sicily has just as much as the Balkans. Easier would be leave detailed discussion to the sections below?? If the thinking is that the Balkans has a high concentration of the V13 sub-clade, then of course this will be handled there.

Any assistance in understanding what the concerns are would be appreciated, because I think the current long list with sub-lists format would work better as a bullet point list.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

E-P2* in Semino 2004

Concerning this change: [9] I do not understand the explanation which says that "what Semino source actually says; it identifies E-M2/E3a/E1b1a as a "signature of the Bantu expansion" and it was found predictably mainly in West African groups". Neither the text being changed, nor the new proposal, mentions anything to do with that?? The only things being removed are my poor "helpful link" paragroup once again, and a simple explanation of what a paragroup is "sibling lines to E1b1b and other major E-P2 clades like E1b1a". Can someone at least put in that innocent link again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Semino source only states that "the E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians" in reference to its study. It does not mention "sibling lines", and only ever mentions E-M2 long enough to point out that this clade, by contrast, is a signature of the Bantu expansion and was observed at its highest frequency in the Senegal. Causteau (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so why was the change necessary? E-P2* means "sibling lineages of E-M215" and I was only trying to explain that. That is not synthesis by the way, but just trying to make jargon easier to understand. I am open to your proposals! But can you at least please fix the link you removed for the umpteenth time?? Fix what you change.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

E-M35* in Semino 2004

Concerning this edit [[10]] it has two parts. The second part has been discussed above ad nauseum. But the first part completely removes, without replacing it with anything,

Coming to E1b1b1 (E-M35) the undifferentiated paragroup E-M35* may be at it's highest concentration amongst the Oromo of Ethiopia

and claims as justification

the Oromo statement is not accurate; it is observed elsewhere at higher frequencies; citing NE Africa after East Africa gives the impression that Cruciani doesn't mean it when he does

The paper says (p.1025) that

The E-M35* lineage shows its highest frequency in the Ethiopian Oromo

I can imagine making the wording better, or including a footnote explaining what newer articles have added to this, but I see nothing in newer articles which change the conclusion fundamentally at first sight? In any case, can this be explained please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're too late. Although I know this statement is likely false, I have not reverted it in my latest edit. However, the fact that the statement immediately precedes (and in the same paragraph) Cruciani's assertion that E1b1b originated in East Africa makes it appear at a casual glance like E1b1b originated with Oromos when of course Cruciani never stated as much. I've separated the paragraphs to remove this impression. Causteau (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b is E-M215. This comment is about E-M35. The reference is to Semino, not Cruciani. Please look again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the Semino et al. source never states that E-M35* is at its highest frequency globally among Oromos -- just among their few sampled populations in their one study! Causteau (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Isn't that all any study does? Please explain. Is my quote above wrong, or needing some context to understand it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Semino et al. only reported that the Oromos were the highest E-M35* carriers in their study -- not globally as implied in the article. Causteau (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do they make that distinction? The wording looks global to me at first sight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, they cite the frequency from their own Oromo sample (19.2%). They also never state or imply that that frequency is the highest globally. Causteau (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In normal English, highest means highest globally. Although of course this was a study, like all these papers, it was a pretty big one. You'd have to put in a qualifier if you meant something else. So your assertion is not in the paper, but just a guess surely? Maybe you can look at other papers to see what they say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In normal English, "highest" means "highest" -- not "highest globally". If I conduct a study with some Frenchman, some Peruvians, and some Ainu, and I observe that the sampled Frenchman have the highest frequency of, say, E3b in my study, then it means just that: my sampled Frenchman have the highest frequency of E3b in my study. It certainly does not mean that they have the highest frequency of E3b globally/around the world unless I directly and explicitly say so. Causteau (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To me the wording looks like it is pushing for a global meaning, but let's just say that it can be interpreted two ways. This still means you need a source to make your sourcing work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What sourcing? Where? Cause I'm not trying to add this statement here. Or are you referring to the ISOGG "Near East" business? If so, please see above for my response. Causteau (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I can't do a "let's say it is unclear" in this case. So, OK, I still think it is clear: Unless there is something I am missing the wording looks global. The article claims to to have ">2400 subjects from 29 populations, mainly from Europe but also from Africa and Asia". It hardly sounds like a regional study, or a small study.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Large or not, that's still one study. And Semino et al. still never state or imply that that figure they cite applies anywhere other than the sampled populations in their one study. Causteau (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The quotation you remove also just states this and does not say the conclusion is definite. Please consider where this logic takes you: you can't cite any data because that data is never all data. This logic is indefensible surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote states that "coming to E1b1b1 (E-M35) the undifferentiated paragroup E-M35* may be at it's highest concentration amongst the Oromo of Ethiopia", essentially speculating that Oromos carry the highest frequencies of E-M35* around the world. If the quote wasn't referring to global percentages, then it is hardly notable since that would make it just another frequency. Furthermore, the quote was initially placed in the exact same paragraph in the Origins section as Cruciani's criteria identifying East Africa (actually, the Horn of Africa) as E1b1b's possible place of origin in Africa. This gives the impression that Oromos in particular were at the root of E1b1b's origins when Cruciani of course does not state this. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please compare the article as it stands to the paper being cited and show me the difference in wording that shows what you mean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They're both already quoted and analysed above. Causteau (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and from what I see the text in the Wikipedia article is succeeding to give the same range of possible interpretations as the original from which it is paraphrased - unlike what you do with the ISOGG webpage. But I am open to hear why you think this is not true. You have not explained that yet in terms of the latest version you've reverted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A range of possible interpretations, no doubt, since the edit was vaguely worded to begin with and not in line with what Semino et al. actually wrote. Again, the quote states that "coming to E1b1b1 (E-M35) the undifferentiated paragroup E-M35* may be at it's highest concentration amongst the Oromo of Ethiopia", essentially speculating that Oromos carry the highest frequencies of E-M35* around the world when Semino et al. neither state nor imply this. All Semino et al. report is that the Oromos were the highest E-M35* carriers in their own study (@19.2%). Furthermore, the quote was initially placed in the exact same paragraph in the Origins section as Cruciani's criteria identifying East Africa (read: the Horn of Africa) as E1b1b's possible place of origin in Africa. This only serves to give the impression that Oromos in particular were at the root of E1b1b's origins when Cruciani of course does not state this either. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote used similar words, in a similar context (discussion about origins). You are taking it out because it gets in the way of your Near East wording, as does any attempt to enrich this section. You do not believe yourself that E1b1b is currently written about as coming from the Middle or Near East, but which is now an obsession for you to try to make sure it stays in. So this is one of several direct quotes which you are trying to make less direct and less exactly quoted, in order not to conflict with a theory you can not and would not defend yourself, and nor can you say where it originally comes from.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidden revert?

Causteau, isn't this a full revert of the edit two before? If not can you please explain the differences between this edit and a full revert in order that I avoid making any wrong edits? As usual with your editing a whole lot of changes are deleted in one big step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No Andrew. That is not a full revert of the edit before it, and I ask you once again to refrain from not assuming good faith.

Well, as you are now peppering your replies with such comments, I'd like to ask you what on earth in my question demands this sort of "request to refrain"? Are you saying any question is "not assuming good faith"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a very simple way to see whether or not an edit is a full revert, and that is to compare the "last good version" as it were with the latest alleged "revert". This link does just that and clearly shows that no, my last edit indeed was not a full revert.

I just asked you to go through the changes for me then. The way you show of checking this does not work I think, because it has trouble showing when sentences have been moved rather than changed or deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My last edit was, in fact, a removal of a speculative assertion that "however, Eastern Africa, probably the Horn of Africa, is the normal opinion reflected in the most recent published works on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 ", when of course none of those sources state that that is the "normal opinion reflected in the most recent works" -- they're the most recent works themselves!

I already noted in my next edit that this could have been fixed with a small edit, and I tried to make that small edit, but --- you reverted that also! So your explanation does not fit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The remainder of the edit also re-inserted "Northeast Africa" alongside "Near East" in the ISOGG statement when I clearly explained to you above that 1)this is a rehash of the exact same concern you raised about us citing East Africa as the place of origin in one place yet the Horn of Africa as the place of origin in another since the Horn of Africa and Northeast Africa are synonyms, and 2)it also gives the fallacious impression that Cruciani was referring to Southeast Africa and not Northeast Africa in the paragraph preceding it when he of course specifically meant the latter. Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Southeast being implied? Please explain? Again, if the confusion between Northeast Africa and the Horn of Africa is the problem, a small edit would fix this, and not such a big edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edit also commits several errors:

• You immediately follow Cruciani's enumeration of his criteria for identifying East Africa (read: the Horn of Africa) as the place of origin of E1b1b with the unrelated statement that "in other words, the population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181." That is not at all an equivalent statement to what Cruciani wrote nor a corrollary to that. The mutations of the population in which the E-M215 man arose has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa -- the latter has to do with what he himself enumerated: the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup.

Specifically it is point 3 is what is being explained in "other words" here, not the whole conclusion. Changing the punctuation could make that clear. No need for blanket reverts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• You've again amended the ISOGG phrase identifying the Near East as another possible place of origin of E1b1b1 by re-adding Northeast Africa despite the implications explained earlier of doing so.

If you want to cite ISOGG, these are the only types of words you can use. Changing the words in order to change the meaning can't be acceptable surely? And if you say you are not changing the meaning then what is the problem with changing the words back to those used in the original article? I did however try to answer your concern by making a parenthetic remark, but see below where you reject this also...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You've also only slightly modified the same exact phrase as before (viz. "However, Eastern Africa, probably the Horn of Africa, is the normal opinion reflected in the most recent published works on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 ") to now read "however, Eastern Africa, with the evidence pointing towards Northeastern Africa (the Horn of Africa), is the opinion reflected in Cruciani et al. (2007) which is the most recent work on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215, and this agrees with prior studies ." The net effect still minimizes the importance of the Near East as a possible place of origin of E1b1b by citing the "most recent work" on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 -- studies that are already cited where they should be, namely, in the part of the Origins section that first suggests that East Africa is the place of origin of E1b1b in Africa (i.e. "according to Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago"). Causteau (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the structure is now changed so that there is a conclusion paragraph which indeed tries to tie up the information already discussed, for the reason that the ISOGG throws a lot of confusion into the running text above. Without that ISOGG quote, or pseudo quote, this might not be necessary. So what it the problem with all that? Please explain. Most of these changes were, as I am sure you realize, put in to cover your concerns. Is it only your concern that the Near East theory, the existence of which I question, is not emphasized enough? So it does not just have to be mentioned, but also emphasized? This is a theory that depends upon an arguable reading of a tertiary source, which two members of the organization who made have told should not be read as an authority this way, and...

• Which you insist on re-wording on part, reducing the range of possible interpretations, in order to get the article more definitively saying what you think it intended.
• Which you also say contains a mistake which you are so sure that you can re-write it yourself to say something which is not even arguably the same anymore - changing the very name of the clade which is the subject of the sentence!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing whatsoever "pseudo" about the ISOGG reference. It clearly states that the Near East is one of the places where E1b1b1 may have evolved, and the article dutifully relays that rather than concealing it. The "Northeast Africa" part I've already also explained is redundant, as that is what Cruciani meant by the "East Africa" we've already included in the text. Repeating "Northeast Africa" just gives the impression that he was originally referring to Southeast Africa, when he of course was not. You also complained earlier about the Horn of Africa being cited as the place of origin in one spot in the article with East Africa also identified as such in another spot in the article. Well that's exactly the same situation repeated here since Northeast Africa=Horn of Africa. Lastly, the Near East view isn't just limited to ISOGG. It's held by many other prominent geneticists and organizations including National Geographic's heavily-publicized Genographic Project:

The man who gave rise to marker M35 was born around 20,000 years ago in the Middle East. His descendants were among the first farmers and helped spread agriculture from the Middle East into the Mediterranean region.

Causteau (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You turn a comment which can be interpreted several ways (for example that the Near East is just mentioned to describe a "greater Red Sea region) into a comment that can be interpreted only one way, and this with a source you think contains mistakes, and which is a tertiary summary which you don't know how to explain the sources of.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. What I did, in fact, do is demonstrate that the view which holds that E1b1b1 originated in the Near East isn't just limited to ISOGG. Indeed, it's also held by many other prominent geneticists and organizations including the folks at National Geographic's heavily-publicized Genographic Project. I demonstrated this with a quite explicit quote. Now if your gripe is that ISOGG states "Near East" while the Genographic Project states "Middle East", you should know that the two are often used as synonyms. Whatever the case, the Genographic Project is very explicit about where the M35 marker originated, which now handily resolves whatever issues you may have had with the ISOGG source. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So now you found a quote on National Geographic webspace that does not even mention the Horn of Africa. So you don't agree with this webpage yourself, and you know it is out of line with all the literature, but you have been looking for a webpage to win your pointless point. Is this really a reliable source? Of course you will interpret it to be so. If Spencer Wells says he doesn't know where this comment comes from, would you care? No, because as you have said before, you understand that Wikipedia is not about getting true information, but about collecting sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion from the mediator

I'm glad both of you didn't see anything wrong with my comments, but I'm disheartened that they didn't get us any closer to a compromise. So, here's a possible compromise about semantics and terminology:

1. For clade names and trees, use the most recently-updated Y tree available (now and for the foreseeable future, this will usually be the ISOGG tree). As to the use of mutation-based or phylogenetic-based nomenclature please discuss this at the relevant WikiProject. Sources using outdated nomenclature should be converted to current nomenclature (if necessary, a bracket or note can be made to indicate the change).
2. For description of locations, use the geographical designation from the source in question. If more than one designator is used for the same place/country/region/etc., or for consistency among sources or in the article as a whole, default to the UN Standard Country and Region designations.

If there are objections to this compromise, please respond in this section. To keep things moving forward, I ask that all responses be made to this suggestion alone, and not to the responses posted by other editors. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your helpful comments. I'll from here on in only respond to this section per your recommendation. That should indeed hopefully keep things moving along. I especially agree with your proposal that we ought to follow the most recently updated Y tree available (ISOGG). That seems to me to be the most sensible solution. Best, Causteau (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any debate on that anymore. Like every update though, it took a long time be accepted by Causteau when I introduced that as a reference back in May. Of course the more recent nomenclature discussion was about a new clade not yet appearing on ISOGG. That is also now finally resolved, but again after enormously long and unconstructive deflections. And this is generally what happens. I want to repeat: - the problems editing on this article are in my opinion not to do with any particular facts or sources, but with trying to add any facts or sources that Causteau was not previously aware of. I really think people looking at this article need to look at the detail, and not be too general.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have also answered the two points...

1. I think I already mentioned that I have posted on the WikiProject page some time ago, about the nomenclature subject. It seems to hard to get everyone moving. Anyway, as mentioned above nomenclature is not being debated for the moment.

2. The US source you mention seems to be about very big regions, so it doesn't define things like "the Balkans", "the Mediterranean" (in Europe), Northeast Africa etc. Mind you, I also don't think the definitions of these regions is an enormous problem in this discussion.

The problem in this article is when discussion comes along about actually changing anything: the defence always varies, but often does not even pretend to be about a fact or sourcing question: edits are said to be redundant because someone can look it up, or already decided long ago by a vote, or it shouldn't be included because it raises new questions, or it is synthesis because it requires referring to two sources, etc. This article has editing problems in a basic way - i.e. too many edits get deleted for silly reasons - and I am guessing that most people find it hard to see that it is this simple because they don't try following the rather imposing (because long) looking discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Near East Origins non-theory

We have a problem, because there is an insistence not only that there must be a reference to the fact that some people supposedly believe that E1b1b1 originated in the Near East (even though we have no source naming such people and the person, Causteau, defending this wording doesn't believe it or know of any evidence, and indeed in a circular way he has had to look for new citations because he realized his original one was not reliable) but also that any too-accurate quotations from real and known sources in recent years, none of which mention the Near East, have to be removed or doctored to make sure they do not conflict with this theory that no-one claims. In reality this all comes down to defending old edits over new edits, and nothing else.

In actually fact, for about 5 years, all discussion in the literature has been based on the papers of the Cruciani team who, like Causteau, think that Eastern Africa, or more specifically, the Horn of Africa, is the most likely place of origin. Nevertheless, the direction of current editing by Causteau is to deny that this is what the literature says, with increasing extremism.

It might be difficult to get together a full paper trail but my memory is that all the references to a Near Eastern origin go back to very old snippet texts which were given to E3b customers of Family Tree DNA, like myself, who also cooperate with the National Genographic Project on many things. However, they have changed that text in recent years. It now reads...

This haplogroup probably originated in eastern Africa and is about 25,000 years old. It expanded into the Mediterranean during the Pleistocene Neolithic expansion. It is currently distributed around the Mediterranean, southern Europe, and in north and east Africa. Lineages that do not belong to any of this haplogroup’s branches are found mainly in eastern and southern Africa.

I have been following events in this field for some time and have been in contact with many of the people involved in some of the citations being used. Causteau says, perhaps partly rightly in a formal sense, that this is irrelevant in the end, but in a common sense way, on a discussion page, it does not really seem irrelevant? In other words, whether he refuses to consider what I say is a matter of personal judgement and not of Wikipedia policy as he would like to paint everything.

Anyway, if facts are important, then this article has continuing problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "supposed" about the view that E1b1b1 (M35) may have originated in the Near East/Middle East, and my links to and quotes from ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project are proof of that:

The man who gave rise to marker M35 was born around 20,000 years ago in the Middle East. His descendants were among the first farmers and helped spread agriculture from the Middle East into the Mediterranean region.

What's more, my edit in the article clearly identifies the Genographic Project as the source for this assertion, so your point about us having "no source naming such people" is moot, to put it mildly. You also seem to believe that quoting Cruciani -- who is already identified in the article as believing that "E1b1b1 may have evolved in Eastern Africa" -- regarding the possibility that E1b1b1 may have originated in Eastern Africa somehow negates the existence of the Near East origin view. It most certainly does not, and per Wiki policies, if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents -- something I've already seen to above several times over. Causteau (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking a different language...

1. You are proving only that you can find a source that says what you were looking for, but in this case you know personally that all the sources cited by anyone in this field in at least the last five years, and which you also believe in, are different. You are one of the Wikipedia users who misinterprets "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (a real policy) as "Wikipedia is not about truth" which is hopefully never going to be given the same sort of status.

2. You only have a "source" in the weakest possible sense, because you know the source is based on some fossilized paper last century at best. It is a National Geographic article which cut and paste from FT DNA's old webpages as far as I can tell. That's why I asked for a person who actually wrote an option or cited an opinion anything like this. You do not want to be taking that question seriously though, do you? But Causteau, you explicitly say that there is a "view" - so someone somewhere according to you has presented the argument and actually believes them, now. Who? Spencer Wells? Name your source for the existence of this person. But you'll just say that if it says so on some webpages, this is a source.

3. Of course I don't see any reason why there can not be, in principle, such a "view" out there in the world just because Cruciani's series of papers are the main ones everyone cites. But name one person who supports this view, and has done so after those articles. Cruciani's articles don't need to be what everyone agrees on, but in practice they are. You agree with them don't you? Name one person who does not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

1. You don't and can't know what I am "looking for" or what I "know personally" until I tell you as much. The passage from Wikipedia that you quoted above ("the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") ironically only serves to further render your complaints even more absurd since the Genographic assertion of a Middle Eastern origin for E1b1b1 is sourced whether you personally believe it to be true or not!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can however ask you direct questions and note the reaction. Did you or did you not go looking for a source to agree with the ISOGG webpage once you realized that concerning another subject you'd said that you could not take the ISOGG texts seriously? (You said you could change the wording when you quoted it because there were obvious - to you - mistakes.)

2. I'm frankly not interested in what you personally believe regarding the source, which is The Genographic Project -- a group of scientists and researchers, not just one guy (nor does Wikipedia even demand that I track down that putative one guy -- only you do).

Again, that's fine, and it would be better if you give a simple answer concerning what you know about this source. Who made this webpage? A national geographic web designer? Spencer Wells? Or do we not know?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It does not matter what I personally believe or what you personally believe in this matter; try and understand this. It's about presenting all significant viewpoints on this issue which I've seen to. Causteau (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are a classic subject changer. It matters that you have written that someone believes this. You say that it is someone's view - now and not in the past. You now seem to admit indirectly that you know that no-one does, and that you think you can avoid this becoming a point of discussion through your appeal to neutral rules. But it is simple. You have found fossilized texts on the internet, after deliberately searching for what you wanted, and you want to stick to them to make your point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is not helpful. Please keep discussions focused on the article, not on other editors. For example, please try to avoid the words "you" and "your". Keeping things in third-person may make it easier to discuss things. --Elonka 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is possible to avoid "you" and "your" in response to a comment specifically about the importance of what "I personally believe or what you personally believe" but I fear it will look so weird that my point will not be clear! Attempt: "If a person claimed that other people believed something - now - then it would matter to judgments of the validity of that claim if at least someone, obviously not necessarily the one making the claim, really believed that thing. If that person making the claim would show by their discussion that they agree that they can name no such specific person (only webpages which seem to be cut and past from out-of-date materials) then the claim seems hard to justify." :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot debate Lancaster's opinion that National Geographic's much-publicized Genographic Project is somehow "fossilized". What I can state is that the prominent Genographic Project's official position regarding the origin of E1b1b1 is that it evolved in the Middle East (as the quote above from their website clearly shows), and that this present article clearly attributes the Genographic Project with that view. Causteau (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So who wrote that snippet of text that appears on that webpage? We both know that there are not that many teams of scientists out there publishing in this area, so may not also ask, which articles are there, which that person had in mind? If there had been no article, then how was this snippet written becomes the question again. I've told you that I think it was cut and paste by one webpage maker from their partners over at FT DNA, who have long since changed their own old snippet. Might I be write in your opinion? If I even might be right, then, isn't there a big problem here with this crucial piece of sourcing holding back a whole bunch of edits?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter who wrote it (assuming it's even one person)? There are, for example, many articles published by the Associated Press that are simply signed "Associated Press" and not, say, "John Smith". That doesn't stop them from being authoritative and admissible source material per Wiki policies. Same goes for National Geographic's Genographic Project quote. It's the Genographic Project itself's official position that M35 arose in the Middle East, and per Wiki policies, that is indeed good enough. For the rest, I again cannot debate Lancaster's speculations. Causteau (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By speculations you are referring to the fact that I am saying that if we know that the snippet might be a fossil, and we know nothing else about it, then we know this is not good sourcing. But anyway, do you agree that all the serious positions on this subject come from a fairly number of teams of published scientists? So you'd be presuming, let's call it speculating, that the author of this webpage snippet had read one of those and learned about this theory you say some people hold? Right or wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, just to make sure I am clear here... Are you trying to argue that National Geographic[11] is not a reliable source? --Elonka 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Any source, even the best of them, can be wrong, and there should surely always be a way to discuss multiple sources or the context of a source, in order to avoid reproducing a mistake just because it comes from somewhere respected? The National Genographic webpages are on National Geographic webspace, and the project is run in cooperation with Family Tree DNA. However it is a separate institution. The information which Causteau is citing is from a section which is called "Atlas of the Human Journey". When it first came out there was a lot of online discussion about how out-of-date is was already then. It seemed to have been taken from old Family Tree DNA webpages, which are long since replaced. The scientists involved in this project are known, and their publications can be read and checked to see whether they agree with the blurbs on the webpages. If the webpage was not written by them, then by who? IMHO if all this type of context counts for nothing then anyone can say whatever they like and good sourcing would just be a game. Let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just to make it clear, the blurb being quoted is in disagreement with the current Wikipedia article. It was brought in to back up the ISOGG webpage statement that didn't look strong anymore, but it says something different, because much less indecisive. It does not even mention the main theories of the last 10 years as a possibility. This is the evidence that it is a fossil in hyperspace.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so Causteau feels that the NatGeo link is a reliable source, Andrew Lancaster feels it is not. In these cases where there is a disagreement about whether or not a source is reliable, please bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions. --Elonka 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that answers it, doesn't it? Lancaster thinks National Geographic's Genographic Project is not a good source because of some online discussion some anonymous users apparently had some place claiming that it's information was outdated. It still doesn't change the fact that that's just pure heresay when what the Genographic Project actually writes on its website most certainly is not. Causteau (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please compromise here. I know where Andrew is coming from when he says that the E1b1b info at Genographic may be outdated (this has happened with several haplogroups -- Genographic hasn't updated its website quickly either and members of the genetic genealogy community have had to ask them to make appropriate updates to some outdated or confusing info, which they generally have done when asked). However, I wouldn't consider National Geographic to be an unreliable source. So can't the article just say, "According to National Geographic's Genographic Project website, [...]" And then if there's a source that contradicts what Genographic says, add a "However, according to XYZ, [...]" That way, both sides are covered, and the editors of the article aren't making the decision as to which is right and which is wrong. --Efweb (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Efweb, we cannot do that since what you are proposing is to essentially provide a counterargument in the article to National Geographic's Genographic Project's plainly-stated assertion that M35 originated in the Middle East, and solely on the basis of a few assurances from you and Lancaster that what is written on the Genographic website is perhaps dated. This is unfeasible because we've already presented in the preceding paragraph of the article the other major viewpoint that E1b1b1 originated in Eastern Africa. Repeating that E1b1b1 originated in Eastern Africa or attempting to negate that some (e.g. Genographic Project, ISOGG, Jon Entine in his 2007 book Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People) hold that it actually might've originated in the Near East/Middle East therefore only serves to give undue weight to the already stated view that it originated in Eastern Africa. Causteau (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Causteau I have not named the whole source unreliable. I have said that every source can be questioned if it is in conflict with everything else in the literature and there is a reason we know, for example that it might be a webpage updating question. Do you disagree with this principle? Anyway, if this new source is right, the article is wrong. We have to drop Cruciani, or do a compromise like Efweb is proposing, and like we had for the ISOGG source already. (The problem however which spreads from that is that you are also blocking and distorting editing on this whole section of the article because mentioning what the literature says would disagree with this minority view that you are now hooked on keeping in the article. For example you have removed sourced quotes, made some less accurate, and downplayed references to the key articles in this area by the Cruciani team.) So, I have asked you direct questions about your beliefs concerning the context of the quote you found, where you think it comes from, and whether you think it is true, and you duck away from them. What is most important about this is that as far as I know, you do not disagree with me concerning anything at all about this source and whether it is correct or not. Your argument is that this is not relevant, and I question whether that is a valid defense. Data on webpages can be out of date.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not have to do drop Cruciani (huh?) nor should we follow Efweb's recommendation to give the Cruciani viewpoint undue weight since this isn't an either/or proposition as Lancaster is suggesting and never has been. The Eastern Africa vs. Near East origin are different viewpoints on the same issue, and Wiki policies make it clear that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" -- something I've already done above. It's also not a question of outdated web-updating and no one as yet has been able to prove it is. All we've heard is personal assurances that it is a matter of outdated web-updating, which definitely does not qualify as proof. On the other hand, what is written on both ISOGG and National Geographic's Genographic Project's websites regarding M35's origin in the Near East/Middle East is crystal clear. It's just as clear in John Entine's recent 2007 book Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People, where he writes in Appendix 2 that the clade is:

Believed to have evolved in the Middle East before spreading into the Mediterranean during the Pleistocene Neolithic expansion.

I'm also tired of having to defend myself against Lancaster's personally-directed remarks, accusing me of "blocking" the page when he refuses to allow the other major viewpoint regarding M35's origin in the Near East/Middle East to even be featured unmolested in the article. He writes that "data on webpages can be out of date" yet has no way of proving that this is indeed the case here, whereas I quote from not one, but two different prominent organizations as well as a recent book on top of that -- all of which uphold the other major viewpoint that the clade originated in the Near East/Middle East. Is the book also suffering from outdated web-updating? I beg to differ. Causteau (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. First, please can you avoid always trying to find rules I am breaking? Lately it is "personal attack" whenever I mention your name. That there is a dispute between us concerning your claimed right to delete and revert and generally make it difficult for anyone trying to edit is no secret (you are trying to defend it) so when I mention it, it is hardly a controversial accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Secondly, let's take a step back and not loose perspective. My latest (reverted of course) proposals concerning this passage were all allowing mention to remain of this theory. Anyone reading the above might not realize this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Thirdly, on to work, I think that one way or another the wording of any reference to this theory. It is not the theory we find in the up-to-date literature as you well know. That makes it very likely, not certain, that it is an internet fossil. I think you are quite wrong to say that there is nothing one can do to investigate the possibilities of that, and so please let's keep an open mind. In the meantime I am still trying to make contact with people to see what is remembered about the sources of these webpages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quit telling me what I know or don't know. You, again, have no idea what I know until I up and tell you. And you can contact whomever you like, but that still is not enough to overrule what is actually written on National Geographic's Genographic Project website. Causteau (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You tell me then. I have asked you. Do you think that Cruciani's is leading theory? Hang on. I am fairly sure you've even said otherwise or implied it reasonably strongly, and more than once. Thank you for permission to contact people. I will also be continuing to try to understand what you are thinking, despite your commandments to the contrary. Might be easier if you just explain what it is you are thinking. Why would you keep it secret?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Fourthly, you introduce a new source. You seem to have a copy. Maybe this was always on you mind? You don't have to answer this, but if so I wish you'd mentioned it before. If you have a copy though, I would be genuinely interested to hear from you what sources it cites for this claim. I do not know of the author, and his bibliography doesn't make him look particularly mainstream. He seems to have written a lot about why Jews are bad at sport and African Americans are not. In any case he doesn't seem to be a researcher himself, so he must have his data from elsewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have introduced a new source, as is my prerogative. And I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised that you've begun attacking this source as well -- alluding to the author having "written a lot about why Jews are bad at sport and African Americans are not" and whatnot (a jab at the author's bestselling book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It). But here as elsewhere, the source is quite explicit that the clade might indeed have originated in the Near East/Middle East as opposed to East Africa. Causteau (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you a straightforward question, and my "attack" consists of saying about all I can say quickly, which is that this is not a DNA researcher as such but rather it seems a general social/political commentator with an interest in DNA and races. That's from looking at more than one book title by the way. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. I don't know. I also most certainly have not denied your prerogative to refer to this source. However, once I again I wonder why you won't answer straightforward questions. Who does the author cite? This might be very interesting information surely? We are interested aren't we? It's not secret is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Starting Once More on the Origins Section

In this section also, numerous edits were recently removed, not only involving the Near East theory which is discussed above. (So as usual, I am really talking about wanting to edit my own work.) I think a lot of the discussion is now in Archives or in discussions long left unanswered by Causteau. I want to summarize the last proposals and the mess in the current article, leaving aside the Near East Theory. Please note that I can't go through this paragraph by paragraph because a key problem that has developed is in the order of the comments, which is stuck between different ideas I had, and now being defended from change...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Version

According to Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago. For M-215, Cruciani et al. reduced their estimates from 25,600 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2007, re-calibrating the same data. E1b1b1 (E-M35) seems to have occurred only marginally more recently.

The population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181. It is therefore relevant to note that in a study by Semino et al. (2004), E-P2* paragroup lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians.

The Cruciani team proposed that East Africa is the likely place of origin for haplogroup E1b1b because it has: 1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b* (E-M215) paragroup.

However, according to National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen in the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.

As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, North Africa, and Western Asia.

Latest Proposal before reverts[12]

According to Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago. (For M-215, Cruciani et al. reduced their estimates from 25,600 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2007, re-calibrating the same data.) E1b1b1 (E-M35) seems to have occurred only marginally more recently.

The Cruciani team proposed that East Africa is the likely place of origin for haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) because it has: 1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b* (E-M215) paragroup. In other words, the population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181. In a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E-P2* paragroup lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians.

Concerning E1b1b1 (E-M35), according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), "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. However, Eastern Africa, with the evidence pointing towards Northeastern Africa (the Horn of Africa), is the opinion reflected in Cruciani et al. (2007) which is the most recent work on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215, and this agrees with prior studies .

As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, North Africa, and Western Asia.

First things to note:

• The first and last paragraphs are the same in both versions.
• The ISOGG reference was left in by me, and although it is in discussion, a National Genographic comment could fit there also - presumably with some kind of wording which justifies putting in a highly questioned caption on an internet graphic next to the leading and most recent theories. Anyway, this is for discussion in the section on that subject.

Coming to the first basic problem:

1. The flow of discussion is now senseless. There is no explanation about why we should be interested in E-P2* people if we are considering the origins of E-M215*. Numerous attempts have been made to finish off the editing I started here, but all reverted. I am not saying that my last proposal is good enough, but something else is needed. And full reverts just make things a mess. My words "In other words" are wrong for instance and would have to be changed. "Similarly" might be better.

Hopefully I can try things here without being reverted...

New draft

According to Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago. For E1b1b (M-215), Cruciani et al. reduced their estimates from 25,600 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2007, re-calibrating the same data. E1b1b1 (E-M35) seems to have occurred only marginally more recently.

The Cruciani team proposed that East Africa is the likely place of origin for haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) because it has: 1) the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b* (E-M215*) paragroup. Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians.

However, in contrast to Cruciani's and Semino's studies, the website of the National Genographic Project, says that E1b1b1 may have arisen in the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.

As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, North Africa, and Western Asia.

Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of your drafts are unsatisfactory, and here's why:

Regarding the Latest Proposal:

• You immediately follow Cruciani's enumeration of his criteria for identifying East Africa (read: the Horn of Africa) as the place of origin of E1b1b with the unrelated statement that "in other words, the population of the original E-M215 man would have had other lineages, which like it had the mutations P2 (also referred to as PN2), as well as DYS391p, P179, P180, and P181." That is not at all an equivalent statement to what Cruciani wrote nor a corrollary to that. The mutations of the population in which the E-M215 man arose has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa -- the latter has to do with what he himself enumerated: the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup.
• You've added the phrase "However, Eastern Africa, with the evidence pointing towards Northeastern Africa (the Horn of Africa), is the opinion reflected in Cruciani et al. (2007) which is the most recent work on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215, and this agrees with prior studies" after the phrase identifying the Near East as another possible place of origin. The net effect is to minimize the importance of the Near East as a possible place of origin of E1b1b by citing the "most recent work" on the origin of E-M35 and E-M215 -- studies that are already cited where they should be, namely, in the part of the Origins section that first suggests that East Africa is the place of origin of E1b1b in Africa (i.e. "according to Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), E1b1b and E1b1b1 probably first appeared in East Africa between 20 and 30 thousand years ago years ago").

Regarding the New draft:

• The Semino source only states that "the E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians" in reference to its study. It does not mention "sibling lines", and only ever mentions E-M2 long enough to point out that this clade, by contrast, is a signature of the Bantu expansion and was observed at its highest frequency in the Senegal.

• You've tacked on the phrase "Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians", which has absolutely nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa (read: Horn of Africa). Again, the latter has to do with what Cruciani himself enumerated: it has the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup. What's more, the Semino source only states that "the E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians" in reference to its study. It does not mention "rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b" much less link them to Cruciani's reasons for identifying Eastern Africa as E1b1b's place of origin. Causteau (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think we should only look at the new draft. You make two points.

*Concerning your first point, I have tried to discuss this with you before. I guess you don't understand the terminology. E-M215 is a sub-clade of E-P2. All other E-P2 lineages, are siblings of E-M215. This is not original work or synthesis. As this is not the first time I've explained this, and you have never even attempted to answer yet, I think you really should consider this and give a response which shows you've understood.

*Concerning the sibling terminology, see the point above. For the rest, I see your point on the second item, and I had mentioned above that a small edit, a strange concept I know, might be able to fix this. In particular, I already mentioned that the word "Similarly" might be the point to fix. Maybe I am linking the Semino article too strongly to Cruciani. Of course the two reports are about the same subject, and trying to pretend there is not a big pile of evidence adding up to the same conclusions would certainly not be fair to the public.

The idea is to try to keep what is good by making it better, editing it, rather than deleting whole blocks of work without trying to consider what is being lost and whether there was any value in it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Concerning your first point, I have tried to discuss this with you before. I guess you don't understand the terminology. E-M215 is a sub-clade of E-P2. All other E-P2 lineages, are siblings of E-M215. This is not original work or synthesis. As this is not the first time I've explained this, and you have never even attempted to answer yet, I think you really should consider this and give a response which shows you've understood.

The first bullet point in my response to the New draft was a quick cut and paste from an earlier discussion we had that I added as I was editing the second point below it. I just forgot to remove it; my mistake. The second bullet point below it was intended to be my sole response to that draft. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

*Concerning the sibling terminology, see the point above. For the rest, I see your point on the second item, and I had mentioned above that a small edit, a strange concept I know, might be able to fix this. In particular, I already mentioned that the word "Similarly" might be the point to fix. Maybe I am linking the Semino article too strongly to Cruciani. Of course the two reports are about the same subject, and trying to pretend there is not a big pile of evidence adding up to the same conclusions would certainly not be fair to the public.

The word "similarly" won't solve it since the phrase in the new draft that "Similarly, in a large study by Semino et al. (2004), E1b1* (E-P2* or E-PN2*) paragroup lineages (rare "sibling" clades of E1b1b*), were observed mainly in Ethiopians" still has nothing to do with why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa. The latter has to do with what Cruciani himself enumerated: it has the highest number of different E1b1b clades, 2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and 3) the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1b (E-M215) paragroup. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's use the same wording as that point 3) to describe what Semino says. That article observes the apparent exclusive presence there of the undifferentiated E1b1 (E-P2) paragroup. E-P2 is the parent group of E-M215. You find odd old types of E-M215 in a place and that is an indication that it might originate there. You find odd old sibling clades, and it's the same. That's how these articles are written isn't it? They all list out those sorts of geographical areas where the odd old types are whenever it comes to trying to work out where a clade might have originated. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to try to keep what is good by making it better, editing it, rather than deleting whole blocks of work without trying to consider what is being lost and whether there was any value in it.

Exactly. And what is actually relevant to why Cruciani believes E1b1b originated in East Africa are the reasons he himself enumerated and which we've already included in the text. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But don't you agree that the information from Semino 2004, cited of course very often by Cruciani, is not the same information? And that it adds something to the same evidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same information. Cruciani attributes the origin of E1b1b in East Africa specifically to the high number of different sub-clades of E1b1b, high frequency of E1b1b, high microsatellite diversity, and presence of the undifferentiated E1b1b paragroup. Semino, on the other hand, points out that there is a high frequency of E-P2* in the region as well as many different E sub-clades as part of an overall effort to show that haplogroup E as a whole originated in East Africa. Causteau (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. It is different information, presented in the same sort of context in the original paper. So why may it not be mentioned in the Wikipedia article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to put it in more context, you also removed similar paragroup information about E-M35* which is explicitly a subject of this article, and not only E-P2*. There are two discussions I started in sections (about E-M35* and E-P2* citations I tried to put in the article) above which were left hanging by you despite you feeling you could revert the edits under discussion. The same goes for the geographical discussion concerning your last reverts by the way, which you've explicitly claimed to be justified because there was discussion! Anyway, why are you leaving paragroup discussion in the article only concerning E-M215*? It can't be because there is something basically wrong with mentioning paragroups when trying to discuss possible places of origin. Cruciani's work builds upon Semino 2004 and cites it. How can the removal of such key facts in this field be justified? I know you don't like me saying it, but it at least looks like it is because you want to downplay the power of the data of the Cruciani papers of recent years, which are the articles on this subject, in favor the old indirect quotes you found about the Near East.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

Something that may help with verification of the disputed claims in this article, might be more precise footnoting. For example, I see that there is a dispute about sourcing that is related to the 2007 Cruciani article. Rather than just saying "Cruciani 2007" as a reference then, which could make it difficult to tell where the specific information came from, I would recommend including exact page numbers and/or quotes from the report. There is a "pages" option and a "quote" option in the {{cite journal}} template which could be useful for this.

For example:

{{cite journal|url=http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf|pages=p. 1020|quote=The E-M123 clade was found in Ethiopia (11.2%), the Near East (3.7%), Europe (1.7%), and northern Africa (0.9%). In our data set, all the E-M123 chromosomes also carry the M34 mutation (E-M34), with the exception of one E-M123* subject from Bulgaria.|journal=Am. J. Hum. Genet|title=Phylogeographic Analysis|author=Cruciani|date=2004|accessdate=2008-09-05}}

Which might look like this:

E-M123 has been found in multiple areas, from Ethiopia to Bulgaria.

Or it could be shortened even further:

<ref>Cruciani, 2007, p. 1020. "The E-M123 clade was found in Ethiopia (11.2%), the Near East (3.7%), Europe (1.7%), and northern Africa (0.9%). In our data set, all the E-M123 chromosomes also carry the M34 mutation (E-M34), with the exception of one E-M123* subject from Bulgaria."</ref>

Make sense? --Elonka 06:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any advice on such things is appreciated, because I have had to learn a lot quickly about nicer formatting of refs in order not to leave excuses for reversions and deletions on this article, but I am still no expert. I am certainly not against nicer formatting, exact page numbers etc, but I do not really think page numbers of sources are in dispute. Causteau and I are looking at the exact same texts. Since I first started encountering Causteau's protection of this article in May "sourcing" has mentioned as an excuse for the reverts. But the sourcing has never gotten worse from any edit I did (remember that Causteau is often simply defending my old edits from efforts to improve them) and it is currently very easy to find the exact passages just by clicking links. So that excuse for reversions should be put to bed.

Apart from page numbers, the idea of putting explanatory text in footnotes had been something I thought it was good style to avoid, but it was in my mind as a possible emergency compromise for some of the explanations which the text needs cleared up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)