Talk:Haplogroup J-M267/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What I am doing

I think it is best to explain exactly what edits I am doing, and what I intend to continue doing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The references

• After watching the lack of progress I think one problem is the lack of people willing to fix the referencing properly, and the lack of trust this creating on all sides. Everyone seems to want it to be better. So because it is something I can do, I will try to work on it.
• Therefore I have now created a "General Listing" sub-section of the references section. I am putting in fully formatted references using citation templates. Eventually, this method can be used to even fully replace the footnotes mess of this article, or it can in any case be used to clean it up. For now it just helps us at least get our act together, and we can decide the details later.

Instructions:-

• What it means is that for any reference in the General Listing section, a template can be used which will look like this in the edit box: {{harvnb|Semino|Magri|Benuzzi|Lin|2004}}. (You only need to name the first 4 authors.) This then creates a "Semino et al. (2004)" text which also links to the references. If you do this in the article main text, you can click and go straight there. If you do not like that, then you can put these short templates in the footnotes themselves, saving a lot of clutter.
• Also please remember that there should only be one footnote for every source. For example, for "Semino et al. (2004)", one of the footnotes can say <ref name=semino2004>{{harvnb|Semino|Magri|Benuzzi|Lin|2004}}.</ref> and the others can all just say <ref name=semino2004/>, which means they will go to the SAME footnote. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update. I have not been too quick to finish this job off in the distribution section for the simple reason that the whole section is going to be tidied up with tables etc, and so it is just as easy to do the refs at the same time. I will put the emphasis on the newest and most notable surveys, that really tested for J1. There seems to be more than enough material to do it that way. But it will also try to mention areas with smaller J1 frequencies like Central Asia, Southern Europe, and the India sub-continent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The distribution data

• A large part of the article is just data. A lot of the edit warring has apparently been because there is a fear that other editors are trying to cherry pick their favourite data and exclude other data. WP policy is clear, and I think it normally works in situations like this to re-build trust. It means we put in all data as long as it is notable. We do not try to remove data that comes from articles we disagree with. This is one of the few WP rules which almost all experienced Wikipedians agree on all the time, so there is no other option. There is no point arguing about trying to keep out any normal sources.
• Paragraphs made up largely of statistics are neater as tables. Currently we have both. I'll work on developing the whole distribution section into one or more tables, with commentary based upon uncontroversial facts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A remark to hopefully avoid people panicking too quickly when I eventually start re-arranging the refs. One thing that happens often on these articles is that people do not realize that a lot of research papers include data from older papers. We haver to avoid reporting the same things twice. In such cases, we should use the more recent data sets of course. An example is El Sibai, which updates the old Zalloua data. In a similar way, Chiaroni 2009 obviously up-dated the testing on data sets of some older papers, which is very handy. (It means we have J-P58 data for old articles going back to the first article which announced J1, which was the important Cinnioglu article concerning Turkey.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you make took up a misbegotten assumption. Of course there is nothing in Chiaroni 2009 on Sudan that did not come from his source, Hassan et al, other than retesting the 35 samples for P58. He refers you to it in the supplemental information. We have no idea on what basis those were chosen for retesting out of all the Js. Certainly it is not because they are the only J(xJ2). Did you ever reflect on how all of this goes back to Hassan's work, including the bad assumptions from Tofananni? No researcher should use his papers as a reference. That one is full of errors in the geographic data and his assumptions are just as ill-gotten. He should definite not make comments about history as he does not have a clue. Judaism did not start with the birth of Jesus. John Lloyd Scharf 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC) John Lloyd Scharf

Update. I am working on this offline, because it involves building tables. These changes may end up coming in one lump, but I am making every effort to keep the same basic data where that data is recent and notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you refuse to follow and disagree with the policy does not mean it is unclear.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up and referencing the data was good work. Cleaning out conflicting data or data not properly cited in the data table would be good. I found several of them. One was on the article listing an Island with Spain as its owner. Fregel et al. (2009), like many papers cited, lists data from other works. Citing it instead of the original work is depending on a tertiary or encyclopedic compendium of information is a violation of the policy of what can be cited.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that and am making efforts to avoid that. I think you not fully understood my point. Anyway, you will see what it looks like when I get the time. I am considering having two columns for sources, for cases where data was actually added to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Commentary and other stuff

I am putting off handling this. For my own part I will be trying to limit all text editing to simple and uncontroversial materials, with a peppering of basic quotes and paraphrases from the literature. I do not think any editors should be wasting time debating against any published literature, or trying to get published things excluded from Wikipedia if other editors want them in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update. I have found it relatively easy to find a lot of agreement between all the published articles, and I've simply been putting stuff in. It made sense to move the sub-clades and tree discussion nearer to the top though. Origins discussion, apparently so controversial, has been simply covered as part of this. The published surveys say what they say, but I have made sure to try to mention their doubts also. It is clear that this is uncertain territory and it should be presented that way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done but will be interested to see if it can be improved. Will be watching to make sure people keep neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You will do what you want to do and neutrality has not been a limiting factor for you. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps

I see the maps problem will not go away. A map with no copyright issue has now been included, and I suggest leaving that for now even though it is obviously not right, for example not showing the concentration around Khartoum. If I get time I'll try to make a rough approximation based on not only the Toffaneli map (which has been appearing in scanned form but which gives the copyright concern) but also the map in Chiaroni et al 2009 (the article about expansion models, not the article about J1e).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Toffaneli" map has no authority anyway, but this map you just posted is from a user who claims he created the image himself, but already has two previous infractions for posting copyrighted images. Now, even if you assume he is being truthful, then you have to exclude him because it is from his own research and violates the prohibition against using personal research. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not post any map on this article, so I can not see any point to your remark. I would remark that the Tofanelli map and article are sources we can refer to eventually if we make a new map, simply because it meets the normal requirements for WP:RS. But anyway, that map, the Robino map, and the Chiaroni map, all basically agree on J1.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Update. I do not feel any great inspiration to do to make a new map, so I leave the article with none. I am guessing based on talk page antics that any map will be controversial for the time being. Maybe another day.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Based on talk page antics?" How about a failure to find a map that is verifiable and not copyrighted? I guess they are not "antics" only when you make the choice? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. My point is concerning whether it would be worth the effort to make a new map. That would be outside copyright concerns, and that is usually what is done on WP. There is substantial agreement between the J1 maps of Robino et al, Chiaroni 2009 (the waves article), Tofanelli, Semino 2004; with differences being easy-to-interpret ones caused by new data in the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Update on the map question. Good work by Maulucioni to make a new map which avoids copyright issues,

, by not being a "slavish" copy (to use the jargon) of any copyrighted maps. I see User:JohnLloydScharf has now contested that it is WP:Original research, based on the fact that the map itself, as a drawing, is listed at the file space as the work of Maulucioni. This is not a correct interpretation of what makes something original research, because the map clearly agrees with the maps which can be found in reliable sources, even though it is not a slavish copy. The file page lists reliable sources, and Maulucioni is not claiming the data or geographical patterns to be his original research. It is certainly the way these issues are normally handled on Wikipedia anyway. There are thousands of graphic representations of information on Wikipedia which were made by Wikipedians as original artistic work, but not original research. If JLS has an issue with all of them it is not a debate for this one article, but should be discussed at a suitable WP forum in order to get policy adapted for all of WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a specific policy carve-out for this kind of creation, see WP:OI. Jheald (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"...so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy... JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the region of Sudan, the map User:Maulucioni made is described by you (below, in one of your various sub-sections) as being recognizably based upon the Tofanelli et al article. The Tofanelli et al map is in turn based upon the Hassan et al article. (See our article's bibliography for the exact refs, which you of course know.) So the map is based on an expert interpretation of an expert survey. You might want to look more closely at the list authors in those two articles before you write any thing more here trying to argue that they are not good enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE-the Map is wrong:

• 35x73.4%=26.005 or 26 J1-Khartoum Students
• 35x17.1%= 5.985 or 6 J1-Arabic
• 61x04.9%= 2.989 or 3 J1-Nilo-Saharan

^{________________________}

• 131x26.7%= 34.979 or 35 J1 total
• "We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan...Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan."

http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls

• 445x34.4%=153.08 E Haplogroup

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. John Lloyd Scharf 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 25 June 2011 (UTC) (note date)

"Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively" ERGO: A=16.9%, B=7.9%, E=34.4% F=3.1% I=1.3% J=22.5% K=0.9% and R=13% Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History Hisham Y. Hassan, 1 Peter A. Underhill, 2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, 2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1 * http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf John Lloyd Scharf 20:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As you have been pasting the same thing in many different sub-sections, it is of course hard to follow for anyone reading this or even for me. So as a piece of house-keeping I want to point out that at this moment my most recent comment on all your various repetitive posts about the map is this, which can be found below in the section called Sudan data. I believe you have no answer to the point I have made there. It all comes down to you wanting to treat all Sudan data as one geographical point, which would be silly, and is not how any of our sources treat it, including Hassan et al, Tofanelli et al (which made a map with the data which is the basis of the one you do not like) and Chiaroni et al. All of them break Sudan into regions including regions which have J1 frequencies going up to approx 75%. So really your position is just a simple one of trying to get something into Wikipedia which deliberately distorts a source which you happen not to like. If I am missing something, sorry, but I do not see it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• You are making yet another bastardization of my contention. It is not a matter of what map I "like" that is at the center of this discussion. Your repetitive attempts to make this personal are just another example of your own "tendentious editing." John Lloyd Scharf 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  
• The Map claims a 60-100% concentration in Sudan or Ethiopia. It is not a verifiable claim. I have answered your treatment of the data several times in several ways which you deny, minimize, and self-justify. I have responded with quotes from research papers. I have shown the data and discussed its own internal contradictions. John Lloyd Scharf 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• The map in Tofanelly does not have any data used to construct the map as given by the supplemental that reaches 75%. That is a lie you repetitiously claim without verifiable justification. Only that figure is only on the table where Tofanelli is calculating the age of the subgroup of ARABIC SPEAKING Sudanese. It did not document how he selected those in thjis work, which is a clue as to how bad this "research" is. Not documenting that in the supplemental data is absolute NO-NO in reeearch. John Lloyd Scharf 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll summarize as best I can. Please tell me what I am missing. I know I can be wrong, but I do not see it yet. Tofanelli et al and Chiaroni et al are, by their own explanation, using the Hassan et al data set, with the obvious addition of testing for some more SNPs. The 3 articles are all completely in line with each other and there seems nothing untoward at all. So we have no less that 3 peer reviewed articles, (with a "whos who" of authors between them BTW), all lining up, citing each other, and saying that in Sudan, there are populations with J1 levels that are up to around 75%. One of those articles, Tofanelli et al, made a map to show it graphically, and User:Maulucioni has made a non-slavish copy of that peer reviewed map, which is what you are complaining about. Indeed, you are actually complaining about that peer reviewed map as well, right? But putting that aside, Maulucioni's interpretation of the shading is perfectly in line with the very clear supplementary table of data which the Tofanelli map tells us to refer to, which shows, to say it one more time, populations in Sudan with up to 75% J1. So how can anyone understand this as anything other than you asking Wikipedia not to mention the conclusions of peer reviewed experts because you do not agree with them about something in their field of expertise? Your complaint is not about Maulucioni but actually, in the end it is about Tofanelli et al, right? Please clear this up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the correct map

• • From:Eur J Hum Genet. 2010 March; 18(3): 348–353.Published online 2009 October 14. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.166 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/figure/fig1/ The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations Jacques Chiaroni,1*Chromosomes labeled as J1* are J1(xJ1e).
    

(c) Interpolated J1* frequency spatial distribution.
Note the distribution figures with percentages at 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%, 11%, 13% 15%, and 17%. The map in the article is again shown to be wrong with verifiable sources you cite and distort.John Lloyd Scharf 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice you have responded to me by pasting the same pseudo reply in no less than two other sections, and then complaining that I am the one changing things around. I am sorry but that is not a very convincing excuse for extremely disruptive behaviour which you have repeated over and over for several days now, making multiple new sections every day and posting exact copies of your posts in several of them at a time. Anyway, in those replies you mention figure 1 c, of Chiaroni et al. You should be looking at figure 1 d which shows a scale going up to, guess what, 75%. Better still, if you want to compare to the map of Maulucioni and the one in Tofanelli you should consider c PLUS d. Does that resolve the issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Responding" with nonsense is not a response. The d. map clearly and specifically refers only to P58 or J1e. The percentage is J1e within the J1 haplogroup. The text says, quote: J1* chromosomes have their maximal frequency in the Taurus and Zagros mountain regions of Eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq and Western Iran (Figure 1c). It also says, Chromosomes labeled as J1* are J1(xJ1e). Showing, yet again, how wrong you are and unable to read/interpret papers or supplemental data. John Lloyd Scharf 03:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC) After double checking the data, it says:

1. Sudan-Nilo-saharan sample=63. Of that 61, 3 are J1. Of those three, one is J1e(P58).
2. Sudan-Arabic sample=36. Of that 35, all six are J1e(P58)
   

Therefor of the 9 that are J1, 7 are J1e(P58) or 77.*%. THAT is where you get your "75%+". John Lloyd Scharf 03:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

J1e and J1*, the subjects of two different maps in the Chiaroni paper, are two parts of J1. The map of Tofanelli et al, non slavishly reproduced by User:Maulucioni, is about J1 overall. You have pulled out two populations, but you know there were more. In particular both Tofanelli et al and Chiaroni et al make it clear that their maps include the Khartoum sample which you do not want discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The facts were pointed out with accuracy about the samples by me. Your position is contradicted by the very references you cite. John Lloyd Scharf 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about your post immediately above, then no, your remarks were obviously nonsensical, not only because they contain typos, but also because it ignores most of the Sudan data which can be found in the articles which are our source. Also, your assertion that "75%+" (actually ~75% is more like what I have been saying) comes from the calculation you make above is obviously wrong. See the Khartoum samples in the 3 papers mentioned, which show exactly where it comes from.

• Compare the map in Tofanelli et al to the map made by Maulucioni for Wikipedia. Is one not the non-slavish copy of the other?
• Consider whether the maps c and d of Chiaroni would look something like the Tofanelli map if you added the J* and the J1c together. When you do that, do the maps from the two articles really disagree in any clear way?

In summary, the sourcing is clear and I think by now you know it very well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sudan Data

JLS:Read what is in last link that you have pasted

• Population Region  % Reference HG Sample size

• Arakien Sudan 66.67 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 24

• Beja Sudan 35.71 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 42

• Borgu Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 26

• Copts Sudan 39.39 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 33

• Dinka Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 26

• Fur Sudan 6.25 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32

• Gaalien Sudan 36.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 50

• Hausa Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32

• Musalit Sudan 6.25 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32

• Nuba Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 28

• Nubians Sudan 41.03 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 39

• Nuer Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 12

• Shilluk Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 15

• Arabic Sudanese 74.30 This research J1 35

• Arakien,Gaalien,Nubians are all in NORTH SUDAN. Beja EastSudan

Thank you

• Population Region % Reference HG Sample size Longitude

1. Arakien Sudan 66.67 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 24 [18 J1] North
2. Beja Sudan 35.71 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 42 [15 J1] North
3. Borgu Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 26 [ 0 J1] North
4. Copts Sudan 39.39 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 33 [13 J1] North
5. Dinka Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 26 [ 0 J1] South
6. Fur Sudan 6.25 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32 [ 2 J1] North
7. Gaalien Sudan 36.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 50 [18 J1] North
8. Hausa Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32 [ 0 J1] North
9. Musalit Sudan 6.25 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32 [ 2 J1] North
10. Nuba Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 28 [ 0 J1] South [Still in flux]
11. Nubians Sudan 41.03 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 39 [16 J1] North
12. Nuer Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 12 [ 0 J1] South
13. Shilluk Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 15 [ 0 J1] South
14. Arabic Sudanese 74.30 This research J1 35 [26 J1] North/South?

• Total of all samples=426
• Total of J1 Samples =106
• J1 as a percentage =24.9%
  
• QED, the map's claim is not verifiable and unsupporable. John Lloyd Scharf

The 24.9% J1 figure was for all Former Sudan, that include North and South Sudan.If you would group the Nubians, Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese/ today Sudan," then the frequency of haplogroupJ-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7%, and not 94/445 = 21.1% got the point?!

Borgu,Dinka ,Nuba,Nuer,Today,Shilluk belong to South Sudan.So the Map is right

Make up your mind. Before you said they were North and now you claim they are South. Pathetic. John Lloyd Scharf 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The Arakien are north and east of Khartoum according to the data given. John Lloyd Scharf 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Take a look at the map and eat crow:http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf John Lloyd Scharf 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Learn about the tribes of Sudan FIRST before you sit in your arse tempting to type gibrish. Buffoon.

Learn to read-Culture of South Sudan:Ethnic groups present in South Sudan include the Dinka, Kakwa, Bari, Azande, Shilluk, Kuku, Murle, Mandari, Didinga, Ndogo, Bviri, Lndi, Anuak, Bongo, Lango, Dungotona, and Acholi.[2] http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf Check the map in the paper. Once you take out the tribes from the south, there are more E3 by percentage. Again. Pathetic. John Lloyd Scharf 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess you do not even have a basic Idea where these tribes(Dinka, Kakwa, Bari, Azande, Shilluk, Kuku, Murle, Mandari, Didinga, Ndogo, Bviri, Lndi, Anuak, Bongo, Lango, Dungotona, and Acholi) belong to, they are Sudanese Nilotes. Again....do your research STUPID... Learn more about the tribes of Sudan FIRST before you sit in your arse tempting to type gibrish.

"Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively" ERGO: A=16.9%, B=7.9%, E=34.4% F=3.1% I=1.3% J=22.5% K=0.9% and R=13% Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History Hisham Y. Hassan, 1 Peter A. Underhill, 2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, 2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1 * http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf John Lloyd Scharf 21:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Response:- Who are these Sudanese populations( whom fall into haplogroups A,B,F,I,J,K ) Hassan's article referring to ,and where are their localaties in Sundan??

"We study the major levels of Y-chromosomehaplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated malesrepresenting the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9,7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. HaplogroupsA, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are morefrequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel tests reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures" Hassan et.all http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf. If you want to change "Sudanese" to "Northern Sudanese," then you must also change the haplogroup J(xJ2) percentage accordingly. Changing "21% J(xJ2) in the Sudanese" to "21% J(xJ2) in the Northern Sudanese" is simply inaccurate.For example, if you would group the Nubians, Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese," then the frequency of haplogroup J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7%, and not 94/445 = 21.1%

So Andrew's map is fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no J(xJ2) because they are J1, according to the map. I will check to see if your numbers are correct, 217.137.120.107. However, the distribution remains the same as each group has a separate map coordinate. John Lloyd Scharf 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

First, obviously Tofanelli creamed out the Arabic Sudanese somehow from the Hassan et al data based on the domanent language of the ethnic group to get his 26. All data used by Tofanelli are in the Supplemental information listing Hassan et all for Sudan and no other. He did no testing for this paper. He only used data from others. So, you cannot count them twice. As far as the data goes it is all together, but we can still look at the north/south situation. You cannot cream out the western part of Sudan either because they are still within Northern Sudan.

1. Arakien Sudan 66.67 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 24 [18 J1] North
2. Beja Sudan 35.71 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 42 [15 J1] North
3. Borgu Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 26 [ 0 J1] North
4. Copts Sudan 39.39 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 33 [13 J1] North
5. Fur Sudan 6.25 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32 [ 2 J1] North
6. Gaalien Sudan 36.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 50 [18 J1] North
7. Hausa Sudan 0.00 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32 [ 0 J1] North
8. Musalit Sudan 6.25 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 32 [ 2 J1] North
9. Nubians Sudan 41.03 Hassan et al. 2008 J1 39 [16 J1] North

Total samples =310 J1 only samples=84 So, the you still end up with 27.1%. SO, you are WRONG AGAIN. John Lloyd Scharf 17:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN.John Lloyd...Borgu,Fur and Musalit are Darfurian African tribes WEST Of Sudan not North Sudan.http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf Read the first page, it says " HaplogroupsA, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit"..See the Map in page 317 Fur, Borgu, and Masalit are located in the west. The hight J1 concentrated tribes Gaalien,Nubians,Copts,and Arakien are located in North ,East and Khartum. Hassan et.al Map in page 317 proves/match User:Maulucioni.J1 distribution Map.

It is not my map, and the current Wikipedia article we are talking about cites all THREE different articles which use this data, including the one which includes the original map (Tofanelli), and the most recent one (Chiaroni), which includes the Khartoum example example as we have it. That is really all that needs to be said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

More denial. Of course it is your map. You put two [?] put it up in all three places and the map original map by Tofanelli says nada, zero, zip about percentages on the map. John Lloyd Scharf 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• The map is made by User:Maulucioni. BTW, have you ever tried to talk to him in order to discuss possible improvements? No. You have only tried to get the whole map deleted.
  

Without a doubt the map is wrong. I pointed out the flaws on the page for the image. More than once. No response. Maulucioni is the one who took them from the front page and pushed them into the Discussions. It is not salvageable because he cannot correct it. You cannot take the original work and make it something it is not. I went to the original data from Tofanelli and he lists the Beja as having a location of +35,6666667 latitude and +30,4500000 longitude. The latitude should be somewhere around 19 and no more than 20. If he made corrections, it is not available. I just pointed out the unsubstantiated portion that is immediately obvious - the percentages given on the map. Tofanelli's whole paper is flawed and biased, but you ignore every part of that. How he creams out the Arabic Sudanese is certainly not shown and it is not from any paper listed in the S3 table, as he claims on the paper. You cannot get there from here. You would need to repeat all the work done or at least have the results from the individual samples. However, the bottom line is NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which this most certainly is. John Lloyd Scharf 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not know what 3 places you are talking about. Please give diffs if it is important.
• The Tofanelli map is only one of several published maps which we can compare to, although of course for the area of your concern, Sudan, it is important. But you have already admitted that Maulucioni's map is a non slavish copy of Tofanelli in that area. That is for me a very crucial thing.
  

I do not know where I "admitted" that, but it is as slavish as it can get, except for the invented percentages. The contours of the map duplicate the copyrighted map. It must be a typo. John Lloyd Scharf 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Concerning the correspondence between shading and frequencies, the Tofanelli article refers readers to the data points in supplementary table 3. As you will see there, like any normal person would, they use Hassan et al's data for Sudan by breaking Sudan into regions, which was the whole aim of the Hassan et al study, not by treating this enormous country as one point. And that is your main disagreement at least as far as I can understand. Honestly, it appears that you want to give a false impression.
• Although I have told both you and your IP opponent that we should not be using J*(xJ2) figures if we can avoid it, as a proxy for J1, and then only unless published experts do it for us, I am stunned at how quickly you have suggested to our new editor, User:APayan, that you can pretend J*(xJ2) more or less equates to J1. This makes your disagreement with our IP friend about Sudanese J1 very difficult to understand in any good faith way. That's why I have come to believe, after repeats attempts to avoid it, that you have an agenda. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Lancaster apology for the carless mistakes(I.e. Andrew's Map phrase) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.120.107 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well guys, you sure have done your best to butcher the discussion above. Concerning the map JLS, if you seriously see something wrong to it, you have never spent the time to explain yourself clearly, and you have never contacted the person who made it. Maybe he would be happy to get advice! Let's start with the basic point though: the way I read it, and I think also 217.137.120.107, putting aside your attempts to simply delete mention of academic research which does not agree with you, your main point comes down to the fact that you want to hide the high J1 levels in Arabic speakers in northern Sudan by treating all the J1 in this enormous country as one geographical point. Or not? If this is not the case, please slow down and explain why not. (I bet you will not give any clear answer.) Here is the problem: trying to get Tofanelli blocked out of WP won't happen, because it is a peer reviewed journal article with big name authors, and already cited in the trade; and secondly trying to force the researcher's regional Sudanese data into one geographical point for the whole ex-country, ignoring what the experts did, won't happen, because that would obviously be deliberate distortion of sources. So is there anything else we can talk about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Your response is typical. You reiterate your biased perspective and lie about what the "experts" did. It is you, not me, trying to treat the geographic region as if it were one piece. Yes, there is one group within Sudan that rises above 60%; the Arakien. These ethnic groups do not have territories with walls between them. If you put them together with others who live in the exact same location, they will not reach even 50%. The map is based on a lat/long of each group as if they all live at that point. If Tofanelli did not put a percentage on the map, then neither can you. John Lloyd Scharf 20:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

===Unsigned Undated bogus comment in the middle

"Yes, there is one group within Sudan that rises above 60%; the Arakien. These ethnic groups do not have territories with walls between them."....Well John show me one group amnong those GOYIM jews that has half of that percentage 60%. Even the pure blooded Cohnim do not have that percentage!But why Jews do not share the same Y-DNA between themselves if they are true descendants of one man named Jacob? do they have territories with walls between them?!!! If you want to omit the Sudanese J1 from the Map, same thing should be done for the Jews. Jews have less than 14% of J1.

Sign in and separate from others or do not post. "The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 ± 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771134/
_{Hum Genet. 2009 November; 126(5): 707–717.Published online 2009 August 8. doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5 PMC 2771134 Copyright © The Author(s) 2009 Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthoodMichael F. Hammer,1,2 Doron M. Behar,3 Tatiana M. Karafet,1 Fernando L. Mendez,2 Brian Hallmark,1 Tamar Erez,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,4 Saharon Rosset,5 and Karl Skorecki3}John Lloyd Scharf 02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

John :..."These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities"

• I am surprise, what you have forwarded yourself , as prove is self acknowledged to be a hypothesisI am not interested in childish hypothesis, I CAN GIVE U MILLION AND ONE OTHER HYPOTHIESES TO CHALLENGE THIS. Where is your DARN PROVES AND FACTS?

• Again..All these dates (3,190 ± 1,090 and 4.2 ± 1.3 ky old) have widely been accepted as nothing more than speculations, not facts. Haplogroups' dates and place of origins are all based on hypothetical calculations of speculative yet undetermined, Un-Agreeable Mutation rate figure/s. Haplogroups' dates and Place of Origins will be Facts only when the right actual Human haplogroup Mutation rate is being determined, measured and tested.Unlike theHalf-life rate of radioactive decay of unstable atom,the Haplogroup Mutation rate is not being determined.So if you want to mention dates and place of origins you must present them as SPECULATIONS NOT FACTS.Stick to testable Facts.One of many current verifable facts about haplogroup is its frequency distributions among human ethnicities around the globe ,NOT its date and place of origin.

• Plus what make you sure that Aaron HG is J1 not J2,R1b1,R1,R1a1,Q,E..or whatever? Have you reconstituted his body? And if(46.1%) are the true Cohanim what would you say about the majority rest(i.e 53.9%) of Cohanim (let alone 85%+ of Jews) whom not J1 ?! False Jews? !!!!

MORE Evidence that the J1 Haplogroup is not represented by the Article Map

• • From:Eur J Hum Genet. 2010 March; 18(3): 348–353.Published online 2009 October 14. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.166http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/figure/fig1/ The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations Jacques Chiaroni,1*Chromosomes labeled as J1* are J1(xJ1e).
    

(c) Interpolated J1* frequency spatial distribution.
Note the distribution figures with percentages at 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%, 11%, 13% 15%, and 17%. The map in the article is again shown to be wrong with verifiable sources you cite and distort. John Lloyd Scharf 21:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JohnLloydScharf, 21 August 2011

Please remove this map from this page and Wikipedia for the reasons stated on the image page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y). JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. Please stop adding sections to article talk pages which are not about those articles. The place to discuss files is at the file pages. Your link leads nowhere by the way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have no right to remove it. I downloaded this from Tofanelli just minutes ago. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/extref/ejhg200958x3.xls Nice try, but you are caught in a lie, once again. John Lloyd Scharf 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

????????????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your problem is you make claims of things you think you know that just are not so. You said my link leads nowhere. That is the only link I posted today. If you are refering to the map, it likely got deleted and then reuploaded at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y).PNG John Lloyd Scharf 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not follow, and why should I care? Basically in any case this whole section should not be on this talkpage. No doubt about that at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cancelling out the edit protected request, as protection has expired. Changes should obviously be discussed here first, otherwise it is likely edit warring will lead to protection being reinstated. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Given I do not have any choice in how this article is edited, how is that relevant to me or "Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively" ERGO: A=16.9%, B=7.9%, E=34.4% F=3.1% I=1.3% J=22.5% K=0.9% and R=13% Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History Hisham Y. Hassan, 1 Peter A. Underhill, 2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, 2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1 * http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf John Lloyd Scharf 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok who are these Sudanese populations ,and where are they located according to Hassan et.all ??

"We study the major levels of Y-chromosomehaplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated malesrepresenting the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9,7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. HaplogroupsA, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are morefrequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel tests reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures" Hassan et.all

If you want to change "Sudanese" to "Northern Sudanese," then you must also change the haplogroup J(xJ2) percentage accordingly. Changing "21% J(xJ2) in the Sudanese" to "21% J(xJ2) in the Northern Sudanese" is simply inaccurate.For example, if you would group the Nubians, Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese," then the frequency of haplogroup J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7%, and not 94/445 = 21.1%

===========The map is still not verifiable=====================

The data still rejects the notion of a 60-100% rate in Africa regardless of your best efforts to cook the data. John Lloyd Scharf 20:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop re-starting discussion about this topic in new sections you are constantly creating. Every time I answer you, you run away and start a new section as if nothing happened. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed origin:Bogus assumptions about Iran Are not Verifiable.

Concerning more recent movements of peoples, J1c3 (J-P58) has also been associated with the spread of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries AD, which spread Arabic-speakers across North Africa and and into Iberia in the West and throughout the Middle East and into Iran. ref name=arredi 2004,ref name=semino2004

1. Iran is not Arab or Semitic. Persian is not a Semetic Language. Arabic has a Semitic root that is not Indo-European. Persian is Indo-European.
2. Semino et al is from 2004. M267 was not used and it is unlikely P58 was even documented for them to use at the time. This work has nothing about Iran.
3. Areddi et al is from 2004. M267 was not used and it is unlikely P58 was even documented for them to use at the time. This work has nothing about Iran.
4. The claimed association with J1 is disavowed by Tofanelli where he states his results, "clearly reject the scenario put forward so far of a strict correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes.correlation between the Arab expansion in historical time. John Lloyd Scharf 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely? Just read the source? The SNP for J1 was first announced in 2004.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the source. Obviously you did not and are lying again. M267 was not used in either paper in 2004. I am not like you. I like to check sources first. As I said, you cannot be trusted to edit anything and all your editing needs to be subjected to tests to see if your statements are verifiable. You have proven, yet again, that you have no credibility. John Lloyd Scharf 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Always such a pleasure. The way I see it, if you are making a point, it is up to you to make the point clearly and not to make people run around in circles to try to understand you. I have removed the "c3" from this sentence in the article but I think you are being tendentious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretending the point is not clear is standard operating procedure for you, regardless of who disagrees with you. John Lloyd Scharf 22:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first post really was not clear, because it is full of comments about Iran and about Tofanelli disagreeing with Semino, which are not relevant. Concerning the one point I can understand, I am thinking I have responded in a fast and constructive way, and that the problem is fixed. I still do not understand the reasons for the extra comments. I think you try to fit too much between the lines in every post.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

John Lloyd Scharf

"Iran is not Arab or Semitic. Persian is not a Semetic Language...Arabic has a Semitic root that is not Indo-European. Persian is Indo-European. " Okay fine but someone will alo ask you the same question " How could you possibly try to prove that for example the modern Tunisians have 30% J1 not because of Arabs but because of Jews?" They speak Arabic not Hebrew,Yedish,or Ladino. Arabic has a Semitic root not an Indo-European like Yedish and Ladino. And how can you prove that today Jews are the biblical Israelites( direct biological blood descendant of one man named Jacob see Gen35:11-13) Not Goyim, despite the multidiverse and diffrences in their paternal Y-dna Chromosome let alone high admixture with European population( estimated between 35 to 55% see http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16222.full) in their X-DNA and Autosomal Chromosomes?!!!!

Please 217.137.120.107, this is way off topic, and not helping make this article better. Please stop the silly arguments about whether Jews are an ethnic group. Maybe it is relevant in another article, but not this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In some instances that would be the best stance. But more importantly, the settlement of Tunisia likely came about in several stages. First, Neolithic and early bronze age settlers from the Northern Africa, 2nd the coastal settlements from the Nile cultures (Egypt and Sudan) which appear to have been influential in punctate areas about the carribean. Then came the rise of the phonecian city states, this was followed by the spread of greek traders, in which Jewish merchants also spread about the mediterranean. Finally the punic wars that disperse ethnic carthagenians, then the islamization, this was followed by the turkic spread across north Africa, and then the redispersal of sephardic Jews and other arabs after 1490. So if the question is not legit, the basic problem behind the question is. Given that there is very little genetic/ethnic/paleocultural distinction between jewish/hebrew and lebanese/arabic/canaanit/phonecian there is no possible, intelligent and meaningful way that Y-DNA molecular clocking could distinguish any one wave from another. Intrinsic statistics alone are too poor over, not to mention accurate calibration, we are talking about TMRCAs that vary over a 5 fold range. In this context some author penpointing the contribution to 7th century AD is complete nonsense. It is akin to playing darts blindfolded while standing on a merry-go-round.

I dont see why wikipedia needs to entertaine (dance) with this scale of garbage. You know as well as I do that the hypothesis in most of the pre-2005 Y DNA papers have mostly been shown to be junk.PB666 ^yap 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a verifiable given Hammer et al. You either are or have encouraged this puppet. John Lloyd Scharf 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, you are just as guilty by setting the Jews apart in an geographic section where nations, not ethnic groups are named. There are 15 ethnic groups in Sudan alone, yet you do not set them apart by name like you have the Jews in the headings. Your bigotry is showing by trying to make a point having a basis in racism. Hold your tongue on the race issue, however. I recognize no races and was willing to go to court on that with the US government last year. They did not have the guts to try to refute me in court when I refused them at my door for the 2010 Census. Ethnic groups are established by having a community centered around language, customs, or religion. John Lloyd Scharf 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, anyone who claims Arab is not Semitic is lying through because there is verifiable research to the contrary by linguists. Arabic is certainly a Semetic language and Persian is certainly Indo-European. If that is not so, then they need to use some verifiable sources to correct about a dozen articles on Wikipedia. Again, your puppet is going off topic about at hand and altering my posts. John Lloyd Scharf 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no one saying Arabic is not Semitic, and please do not use this page as a soapbox. Both of you. You are both way off topic. No one is interested about your opinions on race.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with you must be "one a soap box." This started with a sentence where Iranians are characterized as Semitic. If you think that is not contentious, then you are just lying to yourself. As you often do, you ignored the point and try recast the argument in irrelevant ways. Iranians are not Arab and they do not speak Arabic or any Semitic Language. Arab speakers did not spread through Iran; Islam did. THIS STATEMENT IS WRONG: Concerning more recent movements of peoples, J1c3 (J-P58) has also been associated with the spread of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries AD, which spread Arabic-speakers across North Africa and and into Iberia in the West and throughout the Middle East and into Iran. ref name=arredi 2004,ref name=semino2004 John Lloyd Scharf 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I do not see anyone saying that Arabic is not Semitic. And I do not see anyone saying Iranians are Arabs. Looking at the sentence you are picking on, it would seem your contention is that Islam was not spread to Iran by Arab speakers. Really? I think you might be wrong about that. Anyway, it comes from our sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)