Talk:Haplogroup R1a

Misleading header and intro

"Haplogroup R1a, or haplogroup R-M420, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup" - is misleading, because R1a also can exist as mtDNA. To avoid these frequent misunderstandings, we genereally should set "Y-" before "Haplogroup" and even the Name itselve.HJJHolm (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The naming is correct.although some y-dna and mt-dna share a similar name, haplogroup R1a as a Y-DNA haplogroup and haplogroup R1a as an mtDNA haplogroup represent distinct genetic lineages and are inherited through different ancestral lines.what i can infer from this statement of yours is the confusion that same r1a ydna haplogroup which is used to trace deep ancestory (as it mutates rarely or very slowly) is same as r1a mt-dna (which is not very useful to determine ancestors as it mutates at a much faster rate).they are not same. 45.249.86.113 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that was the point? If there are two different topics with the same name then we try to pick titles which avoid confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

List removed

Joshua Jonathan removed list of notable carriers. Did the same at R1b. Here he gave no explanations, there he said "undue trivia". Lists of "notables" are accepted and widespread in Wikipedia. If stuff has sources why removing list? 151.38.149.52 (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It was removed before from all haplogroup articles, possibly has a reason. Let me check. Also some of the sources you used aren't reliable, hence restored the WP:STABLE version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua Jonathan. This is mega-cruft. –Austronesier (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's good if you check, but anyways, lists of people are a main feature of Wikipedia, why shouldn't we have some for the haplogroups as well? P.S. let me know which sources that I added are not reliable so I see what I can do 151.38.149.52 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extremely tedious, was only able to check ~50 revision, all the way to 2008, couldn't find any such list in them. Probably got added / removed in between. Andrew Lancaster would know better. Anyway, I'm opposing it since we already have this article - List of haplogroups of historic people. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What about a list with best known (really really renowned individuals) + link to List of haplogroups of historic people? Such list may look like "boasting" for R1a haplogroup but it's actually just really cool trivia, and I can create other short lists for each haplogroup (I already made one for R1b)... 151.68.122.62 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember who removed what but yes in general there has been a long term consensus to avoid "famous carrier" sections in Y DNA articles. One of the problems in practice (because we played around with it for a while) was also finding good reliable sources. But a common argument is also that the information is trivial. I can imagine exceptions, such as the famous Richard III tests?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Geographical origin tally

After getting some much needed rest, I now feel prepared to start the gradual process of sorting out what the studies in this article say about R1a origins, as well as clearing out the unreliable sources (such as blogs or tweets) in the article and general tidying.

I would also like to acknowledge my mis-characterization of the studies on 21:16 16 July 2023. I implied with this comment that most of the studies say the haplogroup originated in West Asia. As I will show below by compiling quotes from all of the studies, that was incorrect. I also hinted that we should specify that Wells (2001) was talking about R1a1, when the article already does. These errors might reflect my insufficent sleeing patterns and general laziness; at least that is what I am hoping for.

I will create sub-sections below tallying the studies for their proposed geographical origin of R1a.

Eastern Europe

I will start this section off by saying is that there is a problematic statement in the "R1a origins" section that reads:

The ancient DNA record has shown the first R1a during the Mesolithic in Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (from Eastern Europe),[5][6] and the earliest case of R* among Upper Paleolithic Ancient North Eurasians,[7] from which the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers predominantly derive their ancestry.[8]

Haak, et al. (2015) ([6]) do mention the mesolithic R1a individual from Karelia, who they describe as the "oldest known" R1a specimen found to date, but not "the first". And yet they also acknowledge that the modern R1a was brought to Europe from the East and that Karelia did not belong to the derived lineage M417 within R1a.

These statements, while interesting and notable, don't explicitly support an Eastern European origin. They just note that mesolithic hunter gatherers had R1a and that a Karelian HG is the oldest sample of R1a yet identifed. Saag, et al. (2016) also suggest that it may have been a common haplogroup among EHG.

There is seemingly one citation in the body that does directly support an Eastern European origin: Semino, et al. (2000), who do say on page 1156:

... haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19 as signaatures of expansions from isolated population nuclei in the Iberian peninsula and the present Ukraine, following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). In fact, during this glacial period (20,000 to 13,000 years ago), human groups were forced to vacate Central Europe, with the exception of a refuge in the northern Balkans (16). Similar discrete patterns of the flora and fauna in Europe have been attributed to glaciation-modulated isolation followed by dispersal from climatic sanctuaries (18). This scenario is also supported by the finding that the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 is found in Ukraine (19).

This beings my tally of studies supporting an Eastern European origin for haplogroup R1a to a grand total of 1. If anyone has more studies that support an Eastern European origin of R1a, go ahead and cite them, but until then I see no rationale for listing it as the first (and therefore, most supported, according to convention) location in the infobox. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Should we rearrange Possible place of origin paramter? And what would be the order? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hunan201p I think it would be more interesting to consider how many studies think R1a entered Europe from the east (via eastern europe). I think that by tallying to come to a conclusion we risk WP:SYNTH because in reality there is not much consensus about where R1a originated apart from somewhere between Europe and India.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk and Andrew Lancaster: thanks for your comments, sorry it has taken so long for me to respond. Running short on time these days. I totally agree with Andrew Lancaster that it would be original research to tally the sources to re-arrange the order in the infobox. That's why I feel better about giving up on that task, but also why I don't have much of an answer for Fylindfotberserk. I also concur with Andrew's observation that there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to where R1a originated. I will add more if I can find the time. Please press ahead if you've got a plan. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p and Andrew Lancaster: Possibly the reason why it was "Eurasia" for years in the "|Possible place of origin= parameter" before some newb editor replaced it with various regions . I wouldn't have a problem if we revert back to it and/or use some arrangement like this → "[[Haplogroup_R1a#Origins|see here]]" for the parameter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There will inevitably be editors who want to narrow it down further, but Eurasia is at least difficult for anyone to get upset about. Another source-based option is a list "x, y or z", or something like "proposals are mainly in the area stretching from x to y" although even that is difficult in this case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, folks! I'll start with Andrew's proposal and invite him to do the second when he finds the time. Hunan201p (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

South Asia

@Plumeater2: "South Asia is the preferred terminology. Pinging Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark for input. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Opinion piece from a newspaper"

Regarding this revert diff, edit-summary

It doesn't explain the relationship between older TMRCA datings and high populations, nor can we accept an opinion piece from a newspaper without any academic study supporting such extraordinary genetic claims.

and this revert diff, edit-summary

Blatant POV pushing using an opinion piece. Discrediting all the studies mentioned before it. If anyone else wants to investigate the sources they are free to do it. Thsi is my last revert.

Tony Joseph refers to recent research, qouting dr. Richards, co-author of "“A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals,” who rejects the idea that Indian R1a is very diverse. Anyone with even superficial knowledge of DNA-research knows that this research confirms the introduction of Indo-European related R1a into India around 2000 BCE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And I don't understand how you can disregard TMRCA datings like they are nothing. Diversity may be impacted by population density, but the South Asian diversity confirmed by various genetic studies could not have just formed after 2000 BC. As I said on my Talk page, to each their own. Someone rejecting the idea does not discredit years of genetic studies. 103.95.83.27 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Austronesier: I believe, we are giving too much emphasis to Tony Joseph's article. He isn't a geneticist and certainly not a scholar in this field, which is obvious from some of the excerpts from his work. I suggest we use the research papers directly for whatever we are citing here, instead of quoting Joseph. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

He's referenced two times, plus an additional quote in a note to support the reference. In both cases he quotes Richards, a geneticist. That's not "too much emphasis," I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Why not quote Richard and his paper directly? This person (Joseph) isn't a scholar and not qualified in this topic area, Indian media is politically driven, there are multiple factions in the media, especially when it comes to these historical topics. You'll find many articles supporting OIT as well. Don't need to use news articles and opinion pieces when we can diretly use research papers, for the sake of balance. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and also inline citations from the study should be provided to support this extraordinary statement. These citations must include information about BOTH STR diversity and TMRCA datings, as both are being targeted here. No original research or synthesis by any 'Wikipedia scholar' should be tolerated. And even if we are able to find those inline citations( which i was unable to find), proper attribution must be provided, especially considering that one study is attempting to disregard all the previous multiple studies conducted before it. 103.95.83.206 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you want to argue that R1a originated in India, and wasn't brought there with the Indo-Aryan migrations? Is microsatellite diversity even still being used as an instrument? It seems to be outdated; the dates of those studies are quite telling. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

See, Joshua, no one is discarding the possibility of Indo-European migrations during the last phase of the Indus Valley Civilization. I also believe in a close relationship between the Aryan and Andronovo/Sintashta cultures. But the problem arises when editors try to conduct original research. What do you mean by "it's still a thing"? How do you think the origin of a haplogroup is decided? The only exception is this haplogroup (for obvious reasons) where we are arguing. And let's say it didn't originate in South Asia. However, the highest frequencies and most diversity of R1a in South Asia, along with the oldest TMRCA datings, indicate a long and complex history of human presence and migration in the region. The Indo-Aryan migrations likely involved multiple waves and significant interaction with existing populations, leading to the genetic patterns observed today. It’s not that simple that one small group came from Central Asia and changed the whole South Asian and Iranian genetics at this level. All we are asking is that if you are trying to negate all these studies, something better is required. Dont fall for biased indian newspapers (from both sides of political spectrum) 103.95.83.206 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the highest frequencies and most diversity of R1a in South Asia, along with the oldest TMRCA datings, the research you cherish is outdated, and rejected by more recent research, such as Underhill et al. (2015) and Narasimhan et al. (2019), conducted with much better methods. Regarding biased indian newspapers, what you call 'an opinion piece' was published in the science-section of The Hindu. That Hindu nationalists have problems with appreciating scientific insights does not mean that their opponnts are suffering from the same deficiency. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please cite "the research" with inline citations. Cite the better methods (what are those?). And provide attribution if it's only one study. The whole argument is about that. But its your old habit to divert the topic of debate. Even in the opinion piece, there is nothing about TMRCA dating. Only a vague statement about diversity, which I was unable to find in your "top-notch research." And what research rejected highest frequencies? I mean seriously, now you included frequency rejection too, lol? The thing is, it's pointless having any conversation with you. You are in complete denial. I understand. You have a set agenda and a worldview you can't seem to break down. I don't have time for this. If others are interested, they can engage with you. Otherwise, hey, it's Wikipedia. Most articles here need serious improvements, but I am not going to waste my time as it's full of editors like you. If others have no problem with your baseless extraordinary assertions, do what you wish. Who am I to stop you? Have a good day! 103.95.83.51 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

So anyone who goes against your opinion is a hindu nationalist? Nice. M out 103.95.83.51 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Underhill et al. (2015) is already exyensively mentioned; I've added Narasimhan et al. (2018) to the India-subsection. You have a point about the genetic diversity and multiple waves; I've adjusted some text in line with that diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, don't reply to me. Do what you wish. Change the article however you want. Make the frequency of R1a in Brahmins from 72% to 27%, in Khatris from 65% to 15%, etc., citing the Hindu article or whatever source you have. Make the STR diversity of South Asia lower than that of Europe, West Asia, and Central Asia. Adjust the TMRCA datings in South Asia to 2,000 years from more than 15,000 years. I don't care. I made my points above. Provide inline citations for your statement, which I initially marked as "failed verification," that attempt to reject whatever we know about South Asian populations. And now, don't bother me. I am done. 103.95.83.51 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Joshua Jonathan: As I said, there are many factions in the Indian media, the anti-Hindu nationalist lobby is as much problematic as the other. Hence, it would be wise to use research papers directly instead of quoting lay-people from Indian media, supporting a certain narrative. Don't we already have links to Underhill, Narasimhan and Silva? We do not need quote from Joseph's article, who doesn't seem to know the obvious that females can't have R1a. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Jospeh quotes Richards, a published genetic scientist; Richard questions the idea, based on microsatellite variations, that R1a originated in India; it seems to me that this is relevant, precisely because of the reference Hindu nationalists make to these outdated studies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm not questioning the points raised by Richard, but the use of Joseph's work who isn't a scholar of the subject. Why can't we use Richard work directly. Why do we have to make Wikipedia a vehicle for Anti-Hindu-nationalist agenda if we are vehemently against Hindu-nationalist agenda? For the sake of balance, we shouldn't be entertaining both. Don;t we have Richard's work available? If not Underhill and Narasimhan will do. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

he's co-author of Da Silva et al. (2017). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm aware that Martin B. Richards is a co-author of Da Silva et al. (2017). But not journo Tony Joseph. Let's replace this with Martin B. Richard's work in which he said − "the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest”. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Is Martin B. Richards paper where he said, "the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” available in the internet, do we have a link? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a reply from Richards to Joseph in an email-exchange, in the context of their 2017 publication. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Fyl here. Not for the sake of balance, but for the sake of science. It's pretty simple. Two days ago, we have rejected the addition of a small piece of text in Indus Valley Civilisation based on promotional interviews given by no one less than David Reich for launching the publication of Shinde et al. (2019). Some editor was so determined on adding (and re-re-re-adding) the piece that they got blocked. I rejected the addition with a plain rationale: WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Unless you want to cover ideological meta-debates surrounding findings from population genetics (in which case press articles can be fine as sources), the only apt sources for a scientific topic like this one are peer-reviewed academic sources, ideally secondary sources (like Fox (2022) which is a good addition here), or if we feel we can't do without primary sources, then at least widely cited primary sources with widely supported findings. So no, please don't cite news media for genetic research, whether they interview Reich or Richards. If the things scholars say in an interview are indeed relevant and supported by their research, we should be able to find sources that pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP in suppport of the very things they say in interviews. –Austronesier (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Also this one - "According to Martin P. Richards, co-author of Silva et al. (2017), the prevalence of R1a in India was "very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India."[19][note 2]" - should be removed.

Have a look at this - "offering proof that R1a arrived in India with multiple waves of migration, including Iranian hunter-gatherers and the Indo-Aryans." - don't see any of the sources associating this hg with Iranian HGs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist coming back after reading "from Richards to Joseph in an email exchange"—I literally laughed at this. This should not be the standard of a high-level editor. It is a clear example of how ideological biases can make a usually rational and well-read person like Joshua no better than the people he criticizes day and night. Joshua has now removed the objectionable sentence for which I asked for verification, which is commendable ( i know its never easy to swallow your pride- i am very similar);

Although there is still some bias, such as using a random phylogenetic reconstruction (which should not be used) to claim that more recent research has questioned older studies, there's no need to state 'older' studies "from this year to this"—they were not done thousands of years ago. Also, multiple waves of migration do not necessarily mean that migration only started after 2000 BC, which we are using as support for the conclusion (considering older TMRCA datings). However, these are comparatively smaller issues that may be addressed in the future by someone else (I am not touching the article now).

Overall, what remains is not as biased as the previous statement, which didn't even make any sense. It was not only illogical but also impossible, considering the number of genetic studies we have that we can also cite—with inline citations. It's also not OK to convey the message, directly or indirectly, that all previous researchers were maybe lying because maybe they were all Hindu nationalists. Regards, 103.95.83.148 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)