Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Is it right to put a "hypothesis" as a "proven fact"? R1a1 is "theorized" to be an Iranian and North Indian maker, based on "Kurgan HYPOTHESIS". There are other hypothesis regarding the origin of Indo-Europeans.May I remind everybody who has taken a science course that there is no "certainty" in scientific research. The wording in subsection "India, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan (Indo-Iranians)" implies that it has been proven. There are so many short comings with R1a as a diagnosis Aryan maker, and whether it is actually accurate to take one single haplogroup and say that the whole culture was spread around with it.
I want to suggest to report "percentages" of R1a1 in Indian-Iranian-Pakistan-Afghanistan subsection. What I'm saying is that there is already a lenghty discussion in the beginning of the article regarding Indian-Iranian maker hypothesis , there is no need to go through it again. I would like to hear what everybody else think. Regards. --Ddd0dd (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, I recommend taking a look at Haplogroup G. It is found At highest level in Ossetians ( the only descendant of Scythians Iranians, from southern Russia), around 60%. They lack R1a, which is actually very intresting since Kurgan Hypothesis is based on remainder of Scythians in Russia. --Ddd0dd (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, Ossetians claim descends from Alanians (a Sarmatian tribe). And, according to Herodoth ("the father of History"), Sarmatians were descendants of Scythian women and slave fathers, so paternal DNA may indeed be different. Plus, Balto-Slavic language group is the most well-preserved living example of "old Indo-European), much more well preserved than the Iranian group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.79.106 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Proto indo-europeans are persons of J haplotype linked via the Nostratic languages family!??
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
We know that:
First of all forgive your brother for my bad english and thank you for this article
-R1 haplogroup are "paleolithic"haplotypes(0)
-The originel language of persons of R1 haplogroup is linked with Basque and dont has any link with indo-european languages(1)
-Semitic and indo-european languages are linked via the nostratic(2)languages theory and are all languages of neolithic timed origin(3)
-The haplogroup J is very present among Indians,Persians,Greeks,Indians(4)
-The linguistic aryanisation of india for example is only a linguistic process,in fact we have aryanic speaking populations as much racially different as Sindhis and Danish(5)
-Carleton Coon says:
Linguistically, Indo-European is probably a relatively recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cultivated. The latest researches find it to be a derivative of an initially mixed language, whose principal elements were Uralic, called element A, and some undesignated element B which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages.5 The plants and animals on which the economy of the early Indo-European speakers was based were referred to in words derived mainly from element B. Copper and gold were known, and the words for these commodities come from Mesopotamia.(6)
The scheme on The Tower of Babel shows yet another approach to both genetic relations and dating of particular language families and protolanguages. According to its author, Proto-Indo-European was in use ca. 5000 BC, Eurasiatic ca. 9000 BC, and Proto-Afro-Asiatic ca. 10000 BC. The Nostratic language, which existed ca. 13000 BC, is said to have given birth to Eurasiatic and Afro-Asiatic.
Whatever the above user has written about indo-europeans having J haplogroup is so funny and Bull shit as hell, Indo-Europeans did not even have 1 percent of J Hg, But they must have been at least 70 percent R1a1 and as for as their looks are concerned must have been either like northern russians or Dardic and Nuristani peoples in north-west of indian subcontinent.
First of all your way of speaking is impolite
I personally have R1b haplotype
But my only aim is historical and scientifical accuracy
How can Proto-indoeuropeans be majoritly R1,when the proto-indo european language is
a "neolithic"language not a language dating from paleolithic as Basque language which belongs
to original language family of peoples with R1 haplotype before the Aryan invasion
But,of course early indo-europeans must be a mixed people(with variying haplotypes)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please excuse me for my bad english
1/Is this because there are many Russians and Tadjiks in the population test?
2/Or this means that Kirgiz are in fact Aryan(Sogd,Tocharian... peoples)peoples who absorbed mongoloid Turk admixture with time and consequently has been Turkicized???
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think indo-europeans expanded from euroasian steppes, and they were genetically mostly R1a1 but offcourse not exclusively, we have to keep in mind proto indo-europeans might have existed 7000 or 8000 years ago and populations at that time were mainly isolated and were genetically very homogenious. Only populations that do have significant indo-europeans blood are eastern most europeans and north western most south asians, others are just victims of indo-europeanization just like turkicization of anatolians or azeris. What triggered indo-europeans to expand bluntly was not just their inventions of war weapons at that time, but most importantly the hipe of their spirituality. The most dominant sections of indo-europeans were priestly spiritual class and the warrior class, the union of spiritual class with the warrior class lead the expansion of indo-europeans to impose their mythology to their surrounding elsewhere. Such a union of priestly class with warrior class in not unusual, it happened in Saudi Arabia when warrior tribe of Sauds made a confideration with the religious tribes of Muhammad bin Wahad , and this union lead the formation of vast kingdom of Saudi Arabia after a great warfare.
Why I think it must have been the warfare under spiritual theme that lead the expansion of indo-europeans, is because indo-iranic society was perfect example of this tradition. In indo-aryan society there has always been a priestly class( like modern brahmins) and a warrior class khashtarya ( like modern rajputs) and they always have been in union and priestly class. Same goes for ancient iranic society , a priestly class in the form of Zoroastrians and a warrior class in the form of Sakas of Scythians. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.105 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Something doesn't add up in the table in the section Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA)#Frequency distribution. Belarusian is listed three times. Both the first and the third mention use Pericic et al (2005) as a reference. But how can one source come to N 306 and R1a1 50.98 in the first mention, and to N 41 and R1a1 39.0 in the second mention? And which source is the 4 in the second mention of Belarusian? Is it reference 4, Zerjal, Wells, Yuldasheva, Ruzibakiev and Tyler-Smith? AecisBrievenbus00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There exist believe, that R1a1 show indo-european ancestry.
But archeology and linguistics shows, that at least partialy proto-indo-europeans had neolithic middle eastern / caucasus ancestry.
Indo-European is not necessarily European. The mainstream theory about IE origins place them at the very edge of Europe in the border between Russia and Kazakstan. Obviously also IEs should have variegated ancestries, more diverse as they expanded further and assimilated more peoples. Just that the expansion of R1a1 into Europe and Asia is generally believed to be associated to Kurgan/IE expansion.
I don't know what you mean by "archaeology and linguistic shows...". That's a very generic comment. As said before the mainstream theory places original IEs in the Samara valley, at the conventional Euro-Asian border - but rather distant from the Caucasus. They were a steppary cattle-herder people, not a mountain or farming culture.
I agree that R1a is definetely the indicator of Indo-European origin, only the history books as recorded by the ancient people suggest it was not the Ukraine but further into Central Asia nearer to NW India & NE Iran. signed - Aryan
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Always felt an outsider although the family has been in britain countless generations. After just receiving an Ancestery DNA result to find my haplogroup was R1a and to have genetic links with baltic surnames from around the 9th Century.
Just the haplogroup affect hair texture and colour of skin complexation. The extend family are fairly dark against the other long establish local population of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.229.179 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's an error to believe that your paternal ancestry really means much regarding your actual phenotype. You could perfectly have inherited your "dark" complexion from other ancestors actually, that are not reflected in that purely paternal ancestry. A black person in the Americas for instance would perfectly have R1a1 (or more commonly R1b1c) Y-DNA, for instance, while still being 80% or even 99% of African origin. Y-DNA only tells you about your father, his father, etc. But all other acestors are hidden here (and they are a lot once you start getting deeper into your genealogical tree).
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't understand why there is a picture of two girls with the text under that the y-dna is most common amongst ethinc sorbs, when the y-chromosone is only carried by men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.104.168 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The ammount of R1a1 chromosome is high in northern Europe but not too high, it is very high in eastern Europe though, might not the cause be that the vikings brought home slaves, and alot of these slaves were slavs? Please can someone varify theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.104.168 (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wondered that too, but the timing is wrong. The eastern Vikings were setting themselves up in Slavic lands at the same time as the western Vikings were settling Iceland, which doesn't give enough time for dispersal of R1a1 westward. A better bet than the Vikings would be the Goths, up to a millennium earlier. Check out Wielbark culture. Laughingyet (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
In addition to this the Gauls of Ireland have legend that their Gaelic king was of Scythian decent. This could have also brought the r1a to the British Isles. signed - Aryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.234.49 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Very unlikely, anthropological studies show there have not been any mixture
Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion
This section of the article is pure nonsense:
Marija Gimbutas states that "the Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation, it must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups. She writes in her book (The realdom of the Goddess) that the Proto-Europeans were peaceful agricultural farmers. So called Indo-European Aryans were Mongoloidic nomads and warriors. They were wandering in the Eurasian Steppes. About six thousands years ago, they started invading to Europe, Iran and India. They introduced the Indo-European languages and mixed with Proto-Europeans. That is why many modern Europeans have Mongoloidic features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.57 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
See WP:SOURCE. The early Indo-Europeans did not have any Mongolic features. In contrast to their Altaic and Chinese neighbors, they had a Caucasian look, light hair and eyes and were easy to differentiate from their neighbors. See Tarim mummies or Tocharians. And the National Geographic link does not say anything about "Mongoloidic Aryans". Neither does the video you have posted. It says that a man in Kazakhstan has the special marker. Even if he has a Mongoloid look today (which is not surprising, since in the past 800 years, following the Mongol conquest, the genetic pool of Central Asia has been significantly changed), this does not mean that the early Indo-Europeans were Mongoloid. This is your own interpretation and WP:OR. And, by the way, you can watch the entire documentary on YouTube. The man they are talking about was living in Central Asia 50,000-60,000 years ago. That's way before the Indo-Europeans were formed as a unique ethno-linguistic group. The origin of the Indo-Europeans starts with the Kurgan culture in Ukraine 5000-8000 years ago. That means that there was a gap of some 40,000 years between the first Indo-European and the "Central Asian man" your links are referring to! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.231 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is not my own interpretation it comes from genetesist from National Geographic and other sources! But you probably know better. National Geographic would not wite about "Mongoloidic Aryans" (in that sense) They show the r1a1 in connetion with Mongoloidic looking people, in which they are actually more "Eur-asian" looking. What you call Caucasian is a wide group of people who can have different genetic haplotypes with any type of hair or eyes. They do not necessarily have to have the r1a1 carrying gene associated with PIE.
What you think about Caucasian being only light haired or light eyed is wrong as in those pictures you showed me, its one side of it. You can be "caucasian" and "r1a1 carrying" with black hair, brown hair blonde hair or red hair, this just has to do with the amount of melanin. You can be causasian with a different set of haplotypes than r1a1, like r1b. caucasian has "less" to do with to do with the gene you carry. meaning you can be caucasian r1a1 or caucasian r1b. Arabs are also in the group of causasians, as well as other gropus, having neither the r1a1 nor r1b, so causasian is quite broad.
Europeans used to have dark eyes and hair. Lighter hair and eyes over time "leading to blondness" has to do with depigmentation as a result of lack of sunlight and lack of certain nutritions in the diet. It turned out to be an "advantage" as some men thought it to be attractive in "females" (which it is..) and those "stood out amongst other females".
Proto-Indo-europeans Aryan were Eurasian Caucasian from the Caucasus or Eurasian steppes. They were not Neolithic Protoeuropeans in Europe where blondism now dominated the landscape, The pic of the Tocharian blonds from the 6th century AD depicted with light hair color and dressed in Sassanian style in 6th century AD, about 1500 years ago, doesn't prove they were r1a1 carrying Proto-Indo-europeans from 6000 to 8000 years ago,An example of a mummie or a depiction proves nothing more than that person/s was carrying whatever gene were somewhere at a particular time. There are also representatives of Ethiopeans in stonecarvings in Iran from Persepolis dating to 2500 years ago. Iceland has the highest percentage of r1a1 in scandinavia.
She is not a "proto-european type" but more likely a r1a1 Proto-Indo-European, or a mix of r1a and r1b as in accordance with Marija Gimbutas and what happened when PIE introduced the I-E languages. Iceland have had virtually no outside genetic impact for a long time. There are millions of Blond people in Western Europe, however the gene in connection with PIE are virtually absent there, here the r1b is predominant. In NG you will see people with lighter hair like samis sharing same genetics as mongoloidic looking people in Russia and China and there are other similar cases. You will also see in the NG that r1a1 carrying people in Central Asia and Eastern Europe can have mongoloidic features. The man from central asia "mongoloidic looking" had a direct linkage to all modern Europeans as his genetic testing showed.
Distribution of R1a (purple) and R1b (red), after McDonald (2005). See also this map for distribution in Europe.
For example today genetic studies show that though Oceanians resemble Africans they are the most genetically distant. Africans are more closely related to Europeans than any other group despite having different skin colors. And also Africa is the most divergent continent despte having dark skincolor. These Genetic test often provide startling answers. It has less to do with any certain look, just your genetic code. Also if anyone wants to know their lineage, one can send in a sample to NG and let them trace it for you...The link I gave shows the mongoloidic features of European ancestors its from S, wells from NG. Also the blond mummies found in china had genetic links to western eurasia (west europe), where the r1b is predominat.
See western China for r1b which is found west europe as well which was also linked to the blond mummy of your example. It has nothing to with Proto-Indo-Europeans "Aryans" of Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Northern India, or Eastern Iran who had/have r1a1. both r1a and r1b are scattered across Eurasia. Cyrus111 ([[User
talk:Cyrus111|talk]]) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
it was more like R1b from asia minor, NOT western Euro R1b from Iberian refugium, giving more status to it being proto IE relation since it is from near Ukraine (also notice it was from at most west SE Europe but people were as you say blonde hair or red hair)
from wiki R1b:
Another haplotype of R1b, with DYS393=12, has been referenced in the literature as Haplotype 35, or ht35[30]. They can be found in high numbers in Southeastern Europe and Western Asia. The members of this haplotype are thought to be descended from early R1b's who found shelter in Anatolia during the Last Glacial Maximum instead of in Iberia. Descendants can be found in high numbers in the Armenian Highland and Armenia with smaller numbers throughout the Middle East, in Jewish populations, in Southeastern Europe, and in the Caucasus Mountains. There is also a sizable pocket of ht35 in Uyghur populations in western China, which is theorized to be a remnant of the Tocharians, an Indo-European speaking people that inhabited the Tarim Basin in Central Asia until later being absorbed by various Turkic peoples.
What you are doing is WP:OR. The reference to Björk is irrelevant, because you do not have any qualitative data on her personal genes. Others from Iceland have different looks (see picture). Jón Sigurðsson, leader of the Icelandic independence movement Claiming that the ancient Aryans/Indo-Iranians were "Mongoloid" is nonsense and has no scientific value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.231 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Its not " WP:OR." It´s right there in the "NG" And also from Marijas book.
Do you know how broad your definition of "Mongoloid look" is? Some of them more genetically distant to eachother than to the gentleman on the pic. And also I am not saying that ancient Iranians were mongoloidic looking! I am saying that the ancient PIE people had some Eurasian kind of look, as NG clearly Illustrates this, and as is said by Marija G who worked with this her whole life. Modern genetic testing confirms her. You do not have qualitative data on the gentleman to the right either who are very likely r1b Anglo Saxon dec, which is predominat in West Europe like GB, as you can see he looks like any older English guy or even like American Presidents, but this does not mean he is unrelated to mongoloidic looking people in Central Asia IF, they share the same r1a1. I am saying there are mongoloidic (or rather "Eurasian") looking people (like bjork) with the exact same genetic code as someone without those features. NG clearly illustrates this... Cyrus111 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have her book right now in front of me. What page did you take that quote from? Or did you read that nonsense in some other book? You claim that Marijas claims such a nonsense. What book, what chapter, what page? I'll look it up! You are writing your own WP:OR, your reference to Björk is your own WP:OR (because you have absolute no credible source for that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.149 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here you go, by all means,[1]
Also you still have not seen NG:s description of the M17 r1a1 carriers, see for yourself, what do you see? and again no, I am not writing own WP:OR Its right there in the sources, see national geographic, read Karlos Kuriáski, Read the books. forget my reference to bjork, but you post a picture of Mr. "Jón Sigurðsson," like you have qualitative data on him. Is this the image you have in your mind regarding Proto-Indo-Europeans the Indo-Europan lang, was introduced to Europe via cultural contact with the PIE from Eurasian steppes/Central Asia. Archaeogenetics takes away disputed origin debates, it right there in the books and sources. Cyrus111 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Cyrus111, please don't spoil it for everybody here. This section is completely off-topic, you are pushing your single piont of view, most of this section repeats information that has been stated better and in a more balanced way elsewhere in Wikipedia and your contribution on this topic is bulged with OR. I value your interest in the topic, though your enthusiasm tends to be irrelevant to a proper representation of the subject. Your reference to Aryans is completely out of mind and I am not going in further detail to have this section improved. I removed the section because you base your "rights" for modiying the text on a consensus of your own invention. Reinserting this distorted nonsense against all odds is close to vandalizing this article on genetics and does not qualify to the kind of edits and editors WP is waiting for. Rokus01 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Spoiling? What am I and Who am I spoiling it for? I am using work from scholars, nothing is my own inventions here! You´re the only one complaining about the section, What does that section Iran and Central Asia have to do with you? I am not "pushing any single view" like you say. Its right there in the books and sources, of course if r1a1 is related to a language, to migration and to other occurances then these need to be mentioned as well which it briefly does. Where is my own invention as you call it? My reference to Aryans, is not my reference to Aryans its Marija G:s ref. Not mine! I understand how you feel, but accusing others of vandalism because of a ref to Marija G and a map which shows migratory paths, is close to ridicolus. Please add something relevant and educational so people can learn something rather then removing work from a Sholars who worked with this all their life. That is disrespecful to scholars, its disresp to editors and it just shows your frustration which is really related to something else Cyrus111 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are just copy pasting text from other sections that other Wikipedia editors, including me, contributed to. Then you edited the copied text in such a way as to exaggerate the contribution of the Kurgan culture to the R1a1 gene distribution in relation to what has already been written on the subject. Your interpretation of the image is in contradiction to the mentioning of pre-altaic people on areas where Gimbutas proposed PIE Kurgan culture. Your reference to the work of Gimbutas is a complete anachronism, she died long before anybody had heard of Hg R1a1. An image "personally granted by a scholar" is no justification at all to insert such an image - including personal unsourced interpretations - anywhere you like. Your image, introduction of Kurgan people and "Aryans" are as off topic as Mickey Mouse. Please be less ignorant. I think your contribution here is very incoherent, in many ways. It certainly does not reflect the scholarship of people "who worked with this all their life". Please show you are able to an intelligent contribution, and stop being disruptive to the level of this article how it was. You would spoil it to everybody if this article has to be protected, or to yourself if you show utterly unable to talk sense and comply to simple WP politics. Rokus01 (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
To minimize personal accusations here in Wikipedia I choose to use Scholary statement which I often citate from the scholar, to avoid accusations like those you are making right now. How am I exaggerating the contribution of the Kurgan culture to the r1a1 gene? It was already written by someone else in other sections before I even started ed. this page. I added a map that now shows the mig paths. Why is that a big deal to you? Be glad if I used a line or 2 that you wrote, or has those been "fortified". Remove your personal lines if you wish but dont worry about the stuff I used from scholars. "My own stuff" has also been used by other ed. (other art.) no way did I show a hefty reaction to that. Marija died in 1994 you think they didn´t know about haplotypes then (even if she didn´t)? Comon... Recent genetic studies only confirms her work. Your ref to the altaic people is not relevant when r1a1 is measured within some populations, which has "no connection" to Proto-Indo-Europeans. And easy with the accusations, why so much aggression, is it because it´s not orbiting Eurocentrism? Thanx for the accusations and go ahead and drag this to a point where they slap a protection template on it, you´re the only one dragging us there it seems to be your agenda. Still however, it wont change the facts... Cyrus111 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
For instance, the link you provide with your image says: "Note that neither this Urheimat/homeland hypothesis, nor the dozens of other ones, nor the migration routes are in fact convincingly proven." This compared with your edits advancing one particular scenario doesn't give the impression you intend to stick to your sources, if any. Please don't refer to Scholarly statements that don't show up, this might be interpreted as deceit. Rokus01 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is based on good faith noone here I hope is here to deceit anyone, and accusing others of such makes you look bad. Those sources I used are there for everyone to see and do their own research, whats the deceit? There is no not sticking to the sources? Its right there for everyone. What Scholary statement didn´t show up? Here is an update map[2] which again there is ref. to in the image in the article. I have had personal contact with the scholar and the map is correct regarding the larger languages while slightly incorrect regarding migratory paths of Alb. and Hittie lang. Hence after agreement with him and his request as well I made the ref to his work where the updatemap on those lang can be found. In NG they link the gene to the languages and is in accordance with the location of Marija G:s Eurasian Kurgan culture, where M17 have been connected to, please read about it there and from other sources and other scholars elsewhere as well, and again Archaeogenetics takes away disputed origin debates.Cyrus111 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Good faith does not apply to verifying the sourced statements you make: "The Kurgan's thesis is the predominant model of Indo-European origins and likely the origin of the spread of R1a and R1a1." Without mentioning the inaccuracy of the first part of this statement (did you ever read Mallory?), I already assume overly good faith by saying you are a either self contained joker, or an ignorant or an ignorant bad joker for mentioning Mallory (1989:185) as a reference, absolutely agnostic of R1a1. The third reference is a quote from Gimbutas I think, I really don't know what you are up to with a reference to a book on grammar: Grammar of Modern Indo-European by Karlos Kuriaki? Ah, and the first reference related to your map is about the (linguistic) SLRD method, without any reference to genes. Well, you tell a lot more of this same poor quality and none of this is sourced. Something to do with being too occupied with reviving Aryans for talking sense? Rokus01 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The "issue" is that a Dutch nationalist and an Iranian nationalist both want genetics and history to support their pet claims about Aryans. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Nice to see Paul Barlow back in person now the sockpuppets are dead, for giving free indications of his bad behavior. And Dbachmann still sneering as if he ever supplied the diffs I requested [3] to support his personal attacks. Rokus01 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you? I have no sockpuppets and never have had. Please feel free to request any checks you like. Oh, and why don't you look to see what my last edit to this article actually was before making the kind of comments you do below? It's not on my watchlist, so I only look in very rarely. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello MilesAgain. I am not aware of any relevant content issue that involves nationalism. All I want to bring forward in this talk is the lack of coherence of the inserted section in relation to the article. Strange enough the administrators that normally safeguard articles from this degree of off-topic and nonsensical contributions are busy elsewhere counting the barnstars they received from Iranian nationalists (or other Aryans) and are delighted to see me struggle an unworthy fight for quality and WP guidelines. The question remains: do the contribution of Cyrus111 belong to this article or doesn't it? Thanks. Rokus01 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would someone please tell me exactly what text is at issue, in terms of the versions preferred by both sides? This is one case where I wish there was an edit war, because then maybe I could figure this out from the article history. Is it this? MilesAgain (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this one. At the moment it seems quiet and the text has not been reinserted for a day, though I can't vouch for what will happen once the editor returns from school [4]. Rokus01 (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I am not taking a particular side in this controversy, although I will lean towards the side of skepticism. The "Mongoloid" is really a pseudoscientific label more than anything else.
"The problem" is since people are so governed by putting images in their head when they hear a word, word mongoloid brings up images of Chinese people or East asians in the same way if one says a "red car" or "nightsky" such image will appear in your head...It easy to shape..Cyrus111 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
But IIRC, according to various articles published in the Sino-Platonic papers (a series edited by UPenn's Victor Mair) there is fairly considerable evidence of at least some sort of early interaction between Sino-Tibetans and Indo-Europeans. One such paper as an example: "Indo-European roots in Old Chinese".
Also, why is it assumed that the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have been racially homogeneous? (Saying the original creator of the Kurgan Hypothesis had knowledge of this nucleotide sequence is of course anachronistic, but I wonder if you can really say with 100% certainty that 'The early Indo-Europeans did not have any Mongolic features.') Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wow, if this is true I would plead for an investigation of how the Singing Whales taught their language to the Rhinemaiden that - long ago - washed ashore on our beautiful Dutch beaches! For of course, this is how it all started. And sure, race and genes change for peoples that pass their language from west to east and back west again - or vice versa. Look at the gypsies, that returned to the west with an Indo European language after having changed their R1a1 Y-DNA genes for H - without mentioning their Indic looks. The same trick could have happened over and over again. So much for the R1a1 gene, that after all has been found in the most non-IE related places you can imagine. Still, following the waves, you'll find more Western European R1b in western China than Chinese O in Eastern Europe. Or maybe the IE languages from Turfan would turn out to be the creole origin of the Chinese language? I wonder if the Chinese Aryens will be happy now... Rokus01 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, intersting reading. It seems I was right though in my first reaction: the thesis presents itself that Old Chinese emerged as a mixed language, though spoken with Proto-Chinese native tongue, using mainly the Proto-Indo-European idiom which seems to have stretched from Mongolia to Europe during the third millennium B.C. in the northern part of the temperate zone. I'm sorry, no role for "Mongolic features" to early Indo-Europeans from this side... Rokus01 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is getting out of hands. The talk is not about Chinese-IE contacts, but about the alleged "Mongoloid" look of the PIE. And that is nonsense. PIE and IE languages have always been transmitted by "Caucasian" people, from Ireland to Tibet. Even the Mummies of the Tarim Basin, which are remnants of the ancient Tocharian civilization and represent the eastern-most IE group, have clear "Caucasian" elements.
I agree with some others in here that one should not focus too much on controversial terms such as "Caucasian" or "Mongoloid". And, sure, there were early contacts between different groups. But, summing everything up, the general categorization of the PIE would be "Caucasian". That's the predominant view in the academic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.49 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I dont think that in the field of "haplotype genetics" they can use the term Causasian, since this involves millions of people with whole set of different haplotypes.Cyrus111 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey. I see that Miles already tried to ask about what the issue is here, but didn't get an actual answer. The page has been quiet for a few days, so I'm going to remove the 3O listing. If you do in fact need a third opinion on this article, please provide a clear, neutral summary below, and then readd the link to 3O. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
IMHO, it's strange to keep pictures of Sorbian and Tajik girls in an article like this. They are not carriers of Y chromosome anyhow. --V1adis1av (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Funny you should say that I was about to bring up the same thing myself. They really don't belong in this article though I suppose removing the pictures and replacing them w/ more appropriate subjects would most likely cause a long drawn out and dare I say even pointless discussion unless a consensus is reached (hint, hint).
Geog1 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Geog1Reply
It was reported in The Gulf News February 21, 2008, UAE that scientists in the USA published two studies in the British journal "Nature" that all persons of European descent experienced a "genetic bottleneck" because a small founding population "moved" into Europe between 30,000 to 100,000 years ago.As a result, the gene pool in Europe was restricted. People of African descent are more varied genetically then Middle Easterners, who are in turn more diverse than either Asians or Europeans.A team of researchers led by Noah Rosenberg of University of Michigan and Andrew Singleton of the National Institutes of Health analysed DNA from 485 people in 29 different populations around the world to arrive at this conclusion.
Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History
A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.
Rationale
My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.
There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.
Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.
If a new topic is created, IT IS ESSENTIAL that we do not use the expression (or its variants) "such and such clade EVOLVED". The SNPs do not convey any evolutionary advantage; hence, all references to a clade evolving in these articles should be eliminated and should be replaced by "diversified" or "arose" as the occasion merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouRang? (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion
The following pragraph:
The Kurgan suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language spread the gene further to Asia and Eastern Europe. The low occurrence of R1a1 in Western European Indo-European speaking populations(most notably the region west of the Vistula[1] — including the enigmatic Nordwestblock — shows that this correlation with PIE cannot be extended to the "kurganized" western Corded ware and subsequent Beaker culture.[2][3]
This corresponds to the now widely accepted view that kurganisation never occurred.[4]
... looks like self-research. Most of footnotes are irrelevant (a dictionary), vague "see Semino et all..." (no link, old data, unlikely claim of only 6% R1a among Germans, etc.). The main "source" about "Kurganization" is a short dictionary entry that doesn't even seem to support it clearly (it talks of pottery styles not kurgan burials nor any extensive archaeological review, it's unsourced and looks more a personal opinion than anything else).
6% R1a in Germany an unlikely claim? The source Semino et all.,2000, hardly an irrelevant source, here is mentioned 6.2% Eu19, that is indeed pretty low to a country bordering on Poland where the value reaches a maximum above 50%. Obviously you are not familiar to the sources, though I don't think this is a proper argument. The same applies to your claim that the Vistula barrier should be an Oder barrier: the map supplied by the Varzari article has been drawn in bold, as one could expect of one the most important genetic barriers in Europe - whether or not the barrier is drawn in rather some kilometers to the left of the Vistula. The "Dictionary" is in fact an outstanding Archeological reference book that includes articles of known archeologists, including Mallory if this name rings a bell to you. All in all, your arguments on sourcing are misleading and unfair and does not increase your credibility or neutral point of view. Sorry to have confused you, but I think claims that link R1a1 1:1 to Kurgans and Indo-European languages are even more confusing.Rokus01 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
As an ex-post-facto note: the strongest of those sources (Varzari et al.) does NOT suggest a "Vistula barrier" but if anything it mentions a series of apparent genetic barriers in Europe but none at the Vistula (there would be one near the Oder though - though this one is likely to have been caused by 20th century events).
The deleted paragraph seems overall very tendentious self-research with "weasel" sources that do not justify what is written there. --Sugaar (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
This reads as if you are interested in an update. Indeed, the nonsense of east-to-west expansion of Kurgan genes (people) is not resticted to the lack of R1a west of the genetic barrier and a steep drop of R1a towards Germany and the Netherlands. What about the R1b1b2a gene that evidence to people moving just in the opposite direction? This gene has already been proposed to be a good marker to the Corded Ware culture. So, if Corded Ware did not receive any noticeable infusion of genes from the east and instead indeed delivered genes itself until deep into the Kurgan heartlands including Ukraine and Russia, what then should be the interest of Wikpedia to repeat witlessly fashionable opinions on Kurgans of genetists such as Wells, based on obsolete measurements and knowledge of subclades? Rokus01 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
Just letting you know that I agree w/ your decision and support it. This was clear POV pushing from the start. That particular user has a history of doing this sort of thing. Also if you have time please visit my talk page and let me know what you think about removing genetic info from various archaeo and linguistic Wikis. Thanks. Geog1 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1Reply
First, try to stop genetists that come up with outlandish claims of their own, utterly ignorant of better markers. You'd rather aim your arrows at the obsolete Kurgan claims of Wells. Or would this be against your own POV? I wish you luck. Rokus01 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh please you again. Actually I think its easier to stop blatant POV pushers such as yourself here on Wikipedia. And if you are not a geneticist or actually know of a source that's found the "IE" marker (which is somewhat of a dubious concept in and of itself) then why on earth would anyone care what you think? Seriously what's it going to take for you to realize that this site isn't about POV and that you are the biggest POV pusher going? We had several months of peace and decent article writing while you were gone. Wikipedia is a relatively simple concept: find a source and write what it says not add your own opinion or POV. Now we'll probably have to go through pointless rounds of the "logic" game again (I thought we discussed all this from our prior conversations). Anyway here is something to keep in mind: languages may not start w/ one haplogroup or genetic traits so perhaps its rather pointless (maybe even crass?) to account for a language family in such a manner as there have been studies that have shown no correlation between languages and genetics. Again this is really why such info shouldn't be spliced w/ linguistics and archaeology to begin with but you've thrown so much of it around that now we have to clean things up. Good luck to you as well as its apparent that you are far too emotional of an editor to write responsibly on this site. My suggestion would be to start your own blog site where you can voice your views ad nausea but leave it off of Wikipedia.Geog1 (talk)Geog1
Hmm, I can't remember we had an unsettled disagreement left at any place but the talkpage, making this bitter remarks a bit less pointless. To be a worthy editor you should work towards the happiness of experiencing cooperation, concession and mutual agreement. We are very much agree: the R1a gene is not the marker to the IE languages. No, I don't see any reason to fight you. Instead I'll dedicate this beautiful quote of Santos Alonso to you: "Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic ancestry common to European populations, nor we find evidence supporting Basques as the focus of major population expansions." So come on, let's work together and find out where else on the world this mythical focus of major population expansion would be located! (Only Dab knows, but he will never say so) Rokus01 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Georg1, my last doubts are gone: using the same pattern of false accusations here [5] (Passarini? Semino at al. was referred to!) you reveal yourself as just another crypto-Kurganist. Have a good day.Rokus01 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah yeah and you reveal yourself as a consistent POV pusher who favors some sort of IE homeland in the Netherlands so its quite apparent you have your own bias as well. Meant Semino et al. anyway. Also the point of Wiki is not to work towards a consensus but to disseminate the info of actual scholarly research. Consensus building is done in research groups, scholary institutions etc. So have a good day yourself.Geog1 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Geog1Reply
"... bias as well." Well, well, trying to get away with POV pushing (and a trickle of trolling) so easily? Please get serious, what research groups or scholarly research you are referring to, since it is obviously not Semino et al.? You did not give justification or excuses for your false accusations and don't expect me to take you seriously right now. If you want to learn something about consensus: for this purpose they invented WP TALK.Rokus01 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Seriously Rokie your hilarious...if it had anything to do w/ POV or trolling then I wouldn't bother but again you're the biggest violator of both. And I gave plenty of justification anyway. TALK is used for consensus on appropriate sourcing not whether or not your ovn POV applies. Geog1 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Geog1Reply
All I can see is that you are removing sourced information. The paper contains multiple views, and ignoring this is against NPOV policy. If you continue to revert without TALK or minding sources references (and even display an utter ignorance on the papers involved), I'll denounce your incooperative attitude as sheer vandalism. Your "justification" is your private trolling campaign against divulging genetic information and really, such a cruzade is of no concern to Wikipedia politics. Please leave.Rokus01 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Like I said the study doesn't say anything about an "Urheimat" which is a term that appears typically in linguistic articles. So basically it looked as if you were synthesizing two different ideas from two different sources together. Furthermore your paraphrasing was rather oblique and ultimately confusing. I fixed it so it reads closer to what the article actually said. Also males spread the lineage as the use of the word people would really imply that anyone both male or female could spread the lineage. So chill out.Geog1 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Geog1Reply
Oblique is your new paraphrasing "where Indo-European languages possibly spread from", since in the article Semino et al. merely refer to Gimbutas 1970 theory: the caution "may have been" becomes lost here. Obviously you introduce a confusion of your own that expose your POV paraphrasing as ordinary bias.Rokus01 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The first sentence, The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language spread the gene further to Asia and Eastern Europe. in fact represents the mainstream opinion. The remainder of the paragraph was clearly OR intended to "debunk" that hypothesis. But note that the Kurgan hypothesis is not based on genetic evidence; it at best predicts a limited gene flow in the area and period in question. The very limited presence of R1a in Italy, Spain and the British Isles corresponds exactly to the hypothesis that these territories were Indo-Europeanized very late (in the Iron Age) and were not part of any "Kurganization", which is a term used in context of the Corded Ware horizon. --dab(𒁳)10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Dear Dab, since you obviously believes in ghosts, you can prove their existence by predicting a limited visibility of their presence in any area and period in question. You can't erase the observations made to the Kurgan theory by for instance Mallory, that says the lack of archeological and anthropological (and now also: a lack of genetic) evidence is NOT in favour of the Kurgan theory. Sure, you can point at Italy and Tarim (depending on the theory, since even this regions could have been IE-ed a lot earlier, so at what marker we should look to start with?), though you'd for sure run into serious problems now this lack of genetic etc. evidence has been confirmed to Corded Ware territories. And even though the Kurgan pradigma can find an answer to all mysteries (especially now the mysteries serve you to prove ghosts), I already pointed out to you clearly that "mainstream" does not apply to the Kurgan theory. Thus, a neutral observation that puts the Kurgan claims of R1a genes into its context is absolutely required to comply to WP:POV.Rokus01 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
you have pointed out no such thing, although not for lack of trying.
The source given for "the now widely accepted view that kurganisation never occurred" is The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2002, 2003). Which page in that work, pray, are we referring to here, and what is the verbatim statement "paraphrased"? dab(𒁳)16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've pointed this out here: Talk:Indo-European_languages#No_more_reference_to_mainstream_please Continued unsourced use of "mainstream" to designate Kurgan paradigmas could only be explained with assuming evil on your side. The Oxford dictionary of Timothy Darvill is not as good as the Oxford Companion to Archeology edited by Brian M. Fagan (there was some confusion onmy side), still the quote on Corded Ware (p101) is unmistakable: "Once believed to represent a series of pan-European migrations from the steppe region of southern Russia and credited with the spread of Indo European langages, it is now recognized that the tradition of making and using corded ware is the result of many local developments that shared certain common ideas." Where can you see the kurganization, the influence of the steppes here? None whatseoever. If you want to have some "mainstream" ideas concerning the Corded Ware culture: by current insights it is considered regionally autonomous and local. This lack of cultural influx from the steppes can indeed be recognized in the lack of genetic influx. There is nothing SYNC in compiling sourced information. Mallory in the other book I quoted (p348): "Although this theory can show some evidence for population movements into southeastern Europe, it cannot demostrate archeologically the progressive movements of Indo Europeans into the rest of Europe." So what is so original to confirm the low measurements of R1a in the Nordwestblock in response to claims that (absent) R1a "proves" the Kurgan theory to the Corded Ware territories? You might be evil, but not so stupid as not to understand this. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You still don't get it: to whatever ends or goals, your answer once again shows how much you allow your "political" motives and psychology to dominate the discussion, if there ever was any. No, I'd rather call you a person haunted by ghosts.Rokus01 (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
it's a question of phrasing. I am happy to accept that CW cannot be shown to be the result of kurganization. This is what's in your quote, and it's hardly equivalent to your "kurganization never occurred". If you think that's "political", I'd prefer not to grasp for terms for your obsession with the Netherlands being the Aryan homeland. --dab(𒁳)19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Kurganization was never accepted nor confirmed as a viable concept, does this sound better to you? Read Mallory p233 and 253 to know how unsettled the concept already was for the Caucasus and Central/SE Europe. Still, of course my edit only concerned the western realms. Rokus01 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
First, I notice that the front the article discusses only one theory of R1a origins and say highest diversity is in South Russia etc. while a later division of the article says highest diversity is closer to India? Obviously such problems can normally be fixed in a relatively uncontroversial way by saying in the intro that there are two theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In place of Origin, I avoided using nations because they distract from pinpointing the geographic origin & gives a nationalistic flavor to the article. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Cadenas my friend this has nothing to do with the nations per say these are geographic locations and states---today, not 20000 years ago where the "mutation" occured and 5 nations are mentioned and how can place of origin of genetic mutation serve as nationalism? shouldnt history and present actions of states serve as such? Cyrus111 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Its frustrating because alot of people are trying to make these articles better & your only focusing on nationlistic edits. Each place of origin has a link if someone doesn't know where that region is they will click on it!Cadenas2008 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are attacking nationalism not us You say there is no country called Palestine what means u jew!
Cadenas2008 = jew
We originate J2, R1a & R1b European people & language come from Iran. Achamenid empire was in Mesopotamia its not from Iraqi people we spread J2 all jewish study try to make Iran look bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.237.154 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
has any author made a comment about the satem languages?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I wonder if the genetics literature picked up the fact that both the Slavic language group and the Indo-Iranian are sometimes thought on linguistic grounds to have partaken of a single expansion. See Satem. It is tempting to mention this but would other editors perhaps find that to be "synthesis" or "original research"? Perhaps someone has a reference to a valid source who noted this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
While it's definitely tempting to group the various IE branches based on the Centum/Satem isogloss, other isoglosses have been identified that sometimes suggest quite different groupings. So at the present time, there's no general agreement among linguists that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are particularly related beyond being both descendents of Proto Indo-European.207.112.19.161 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Noting that the origins summary had exploded out of control in the little summary box, I tried, in my mind as a compromise, to make a short statement which would cover every possible theory. So the entry went from...
It is certainly not my intention that it has to be these exact short words. But I do really think we must restrict this to fewer words. Cosmos416 seems to be thinking in the same direction perhaps, but is tempted to still head back towards making a big list of possibilities. He changed to...
origin-place = southern Central Asia or South Asia or Western Caucasus or Eastern Europe
...his remark when editing was: "We need a middle ground here. Think we should stick to the 4 regions where most Genetic studies have pointed to the origins of m17".
So, here are my questions to editors of this article...
1. In the article so far, I see two published origins theories. Are there others? The posting of Cosmos416 seems to suggest there is, so can someone please mention them? It would certainly make sense to me that with the population distribution of R1a like it is, that there must be theories about both extremities having come from somewhere more central. Anyway, my point is that it would be silly to try to fit all of this in the summary box, if no-one has put anything about it in the article itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think your jumpin the shark here. Your making assertions for other users that are quite baseless and hypocritical. First off, for the origin "Afghanistan or Black Sea or Caspian Sea region or southern Central Asia or north India or IranPakistan or south Russia or Ukraine or Western Caucasus" is the same one that has been around for a while, with a few additions on the way. Some that other users very fighting over, so I merged both to satisfy the 2 parties.
Secondly, you changed the origins to: "Somewhere in the band from Poland to Northern India". And then in the following lines of the opening paragraph you added "Poles" into the lead. So.... the way you wrote it gives the impression it started in Poland, and made it's way eventually into India. That's biased.
So the reason I chose the format followed on other Haplogroup wiki pages for the "origin" section is to be neutral. I changed it to "southern Central Asia or South Asia or Western Caucasus or Eastern Europe" because (Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) fit in with Central/ South Asia, you have mention of the Caucasus and Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Etc.)
And if you read through the article, you'll find most claims, esp the most recognizable one's are cited properly. Maybe it would be better if you could be more specific and state exactly where a citation is needed. Cosmos416 21:11, 31 October 2008
Hi, maybe I misunderstood indeed, but still, if I look in the article there are only two theories of origins which stick out: the Ukraine, which is a very specific part of Eastern Europe, and South Asia. If there are published theories about origins in the Western Caucasus or Central Asia, then why are they only mentioned in the box? Concerning Poland, it is only mentioned as a place where there is a high concentration, but I understand your point to some extent. On the other hand, doesn't your mention of South Asia extend the possible homeland out to Sri Lanka?
I wrote.."Secondly, you changed the origins to: "Somewhere in the band from Poland to Northern India". And then in the following lines of the opening paragraph you added "Poles" into the lead. So.... the way you wrote it gives the impression it started in Poland, and made it's way eventually into India. That's biased."
So...."So the reason I chose the format followed on other Haplogroup wiki pages for the "origin" section is to be neutral. I changed it to "southern Central Asia or South Asia or Western Caucasus or Eastern Europe" because (Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) fit in with Central/ South Asia, you have mention of the Caucasus and Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Etc.) - Cosmos41617:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
So are there exactly 4 published theories about the origins of R1a, or is that also controversial? Why are they not 4 theories discussed in the main article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
This article remains a problem. There is a slow revert war going on between different parties most or all of whom apparently have no time to reference their work and put detailed information in the main article as it should be. So instead we get a mini revert war in the summary box. The summary box should be changed into a summary, and all these detailed claims should be expanded in the main text, providing that references are possible. If such referenced expansions are not possible, then what is this stuff doing in the summary box?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree entirely. I attempted to clean this article up and remove a lengthy quotation from a work by Oppenheimer, who was described in the most flattering terms. However keen one may be on the conclusions of a particular author, that does not warrant descriptions of them designed to convey a false impression. Nor is a lengthy quotation from any author warranted. An encyclopaedia article should attempt to summarise and use quotations sparingly. --Genie (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have removed once again the lengthy quotation from and flattering description of Oppenheimer. It is not Wikipedia practice. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies by geneticists for and against the various theories of origins, which have been properly cited. The case for Indian origins is not strengthened by writing about one popular science writer (who is a trained paediatrician, not a geneticist) in the kind of terms that might be used by his publisher. --Genie (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
And I have removed this material again. Oppenheimer is not, repeat not a "prominent Oxford scholar". He does not do research at Oxford. He does not teach at Oxford. He is not connected with Oxford in any capacity except as a former student there. The claim by his publisher is misleading and should not be repeated in Wikipedia. Nor should we provide lengthy quotations from popular works. Scholarly works from peer-reviewed journals are to be preferred and there are plenty available to make this particular case. --Genie (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
a term that was developed for Europeam Jews mostly from Germany. Since Germans can offer us only 8% of R1a and the Ashkenazi Jews are extremely nordids caused by intermixings, they have it at the same level. As Jews in general, they do not have any R1a HPg. I examined the articles but couldn´t found any words about them.--84.59.106.250 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dude Where is it "sourced" Ishkashims are Tajiks?? You likely have problems in ur slanted eyes. Ishkashims are not Tajiks. See Pamiri people and Ishkashimi language.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Kosovo is according to the international law still integral part of Republic of Serbia and therefore cannot be cited as an independent state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.80.22.131 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
The R haplogroup has been hypothesized to come from around Iran, given the number of ultra-rare forms coming from this region. R1b, has peak frequency AND diversity in the Zagros mountains of Iran and through the fertile crescent region(ie, Iraq, Turkey). R1b1.......it's immediate derivative is found in extremely high frequencies, all throughout Europe. R1b1, is certainly a Neolithic marker, and it's distribution represents the migration/expansion of middle-eastern farmers into the European continent. With regards to R1a*, it has been shown that microsattelite diversity is higher through the region of Eastern Iran, Northern India, and Pakistan (See Kivislid,2003). It is very reasonable to attribute this marker to proto-Scythians (although other groups were surely founded by R1a, as well), whom we know eventually settled around the present day area of Ukraine as R1a1 bearing Scythians (and whom probably are the Ancestors to modern day Eastern Europeans, and may be considered partial contributints to the spread of IE). Ukraine, may indeed be the founder of **R1a1** (BUT not R1/or R1a), but this marker is probably meaningless with respect to it's historical significance. It's distribution is reminiscent of Scythian Movements, whom we know had late contact with the Iranic peoples and Northern Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.31.252 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I fixed the lebanese R1(*R1A) percentage (In the table) after reading the source please notify me if I am wrong. Best regards SOPHIAN (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
South Asian Origin Theories and West Asian Origin theories - merge
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is being presented here as if the two are seperate mutually exclusive theories. But they are actually one. For eg: Kivisild talks of South Asian and West Asian orgin together. I think they need to be merged into one section. Interestingly, what Kivisild says in the quotation and what is being attributed to him in the earlier paragraph are different. We should not be putting words into Kivisild's mouth nihar (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
I've corrected the quote so that it is accurate (I've got the book). The book does not describe him as a geneticist, and so far as I have seen he doesn't call himself one, and in any case that's irrelevant because we link to the article so people can find out who he is and what he's written. We might want to credit, as he does, Kivisild -- I note by the way that the quote and the map don't agree now. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see the quote has been changed again, as I said, I've got the book in front of me and this changing of a quote really must stop. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hm, the editor changing it is the editor who added it. Cosmos416, are you saying that this is what you copied straight from the book? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
{unindent}
Here is what the Kivisild et al article (you can read it here [6]) says:
"gene flow from castes to tribes thereafter. The most common Y-chromosomal lineage among Indians, R1a, also occurs away from India in populations of diverse linguistic and geographic affiliation. It is widespread in central Asian Turkic-speaking populations and in eastern European Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers and has also been found less frequently in populations of the Caucasus and the Middle East and in Sino-Tibetan populations of northern China (Rosser et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Karafet et al. 2001; Nebel et al. 2001;Weale et al. 2001). No clear consensus yet exists about the place and time of its origins. From one side, it has been regarded as a genetic marker linked with the recent spread of Kurgan culture that supposedly originated in southern Russia/Ukraine and extended subsequently to Europe, central Asia, and India during the period 3,000¨C 1,000 B.C. (Passarino et al. 2001; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001). Alternatively, an Asian source (Zerjal et al. 1999) or a deeper Palaeolithic time depth of ¡«15,000 years before present for the defining M17 mutation has been suggested (Semino et al. 2000; Wells et al. 2001). Interestingly, the high frequency of the M17 mutation seems to be concentrated around the elevated terrain of central and western Asia." Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Obviously it is silly to have two frequency maps. One needs to be chosen. SOPHIAN's map looks fine, but can he please explain how he sourced it? The level of detail does not exist in any survey I know of?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I asked and was told this:
"HgR1a1 is a relatively frequent lineage in Norway, Shetland, Orkney 0and the Isle of Man, but rare in most mainland English and Welsh samples (Capelli et al. 2003) (Figure 3). The 'medieval' sample from West Lancashire shows a significant increase in the proportion of hgR1a1 with respect to its 'modern' counterpart (p=0.044, Fisher exact test), and for the Wirral samples the increase is close to significance (p=0.051). These observations seem compatible with a higher proportion of Viking lineages in the 'medieval' than in the 'modern' Wirral and West Lancashire samples."
Note: "Medieval" in this context does not refer to ancient samples (fossils) but rather to individuals who met certain criteria such as having surnames "present in the relevant region prior to 1572".
The frequency of R1a1 was higher in the "medieval" samples than the current ones in Wirral and West Lancashire - two locations in which "place names and archaeology show clear evidence of a past Viking presence."
See figure 2 in the following article (1/49 (2%) present "West Lancs" had R1a1 sequences and 7/42 (17%) "medievals", etc.)
Mol Biol Evol. 2008 Feb;25(2):301-9. Epub 2007 Nov 20 Excavating past population structures by surname-based sampling: the genetic legacy of the Vikings in northwest England, Bowden et. al. 2008 [7]
See Table 1 in the following article (the frequency of R1a1 is slightly higher in the Shetland & Orkney samples than those of the
British mainland):Current Biology, [8] Volume 13, Issue 11, 979-984, 27 May 2003 A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles, Capelli et al., 2003 [9]Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for researching this question, Doug. This was the point I was attempting to make in a more fumbling fashion on the Viking talk page. So far the Capelli study seems the definitive take on things -- at least until something better comes along, it seems to me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
{cite doi |10.1080/03014460802558522 } .< The findings of the present study provide insights into prehistoric and early historic patterns of migration into India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I recently edited the R1a page in Wikipedia. The page said that R1a was found in Southcentral Asia, as well as in Eastern Europe. I gave a description of the range and population ratios for both European and Asian R1a. Here is the exact section that I added. "The primary range of R1a encompasses Eastern, Central, and Northern Europe.[2] In Southcentral Asia a pocket of R1a exists, but the range is limited to a much smaller geographical area.[3] Due to the extreme population density in India and Pakistan, there are well over 100 million Southcentral Asians that carry the R1a lineage.[4]"
This section gives a brief and factual description of the R1a lineage. My edit was undone by someone who said it was vandalism. Can someone please explain the definition of vandalism to me so I know how to avoid committing an act of vandalism in the future. Many of the other haplogroup pages in wikipedia are written in a similar fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdean3295 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please sign your remarks no talk pages. Why did you try to write the text in such a way as to pass off one of the highest percentage areas of R1a as a "pocket". That was the main thing you added or changed, right? Your implied excuse that the population density of the sub continent somehow justifies this is nonsense, because some of these areas have very high PERCENTAGE R1a, not just frequency. I do not necessarily agree with the word vandalism, but please note that this article has suffered greatly from people dropping by and trying to distort this article one way or another. This article needs to be a lot more neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you look at the map of the sread of R1a it clear that there is a "cooridor" between Russia and Southcentral Asia. At the Southcentral Asian end there is a "pocket", if you will, of R1a. R1a is not the domainant Y dna Haplogoup in these countries. You are sighting individual tribes There are no countries in Southcentral Aisia, except for Kyrgyzstan, that r1a reaches levels of more than 20%.Jamesdean3295 (talk)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdean3295 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
As per Wikipedia policy (WP:BOLD this article needs bold pruning and restructuring. I'll be working on this, but please note I am not mainly aiming to remove or change materials, but to do a few things which should be uncontroversial:-
I will be removing redundancies, and there are many. In order to do this will require changing structure, because in some cases the same subject is being discussed in several sections.
I will be trying to fix up cases where the article says opposite things about the same subject in several different sections.
I will have to remove materials that are not about R1a, or that do not meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements. In some cases this will be unfortunate, but please do not take it personally. Perhaps there are ways to make new articles or find new sources which will lead to a happy solution later.
I do fear based on past experience on this article that there are many occasional editors of this article who see various sections as their turf. This is precisely the reason that the article contains so many sections which cover the same subjects over and over, but say different things. However please be reasonable. This situation can not be accepted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Some concrete proposals about structure:
All details about distribution to be moved out of intro and merged with distribution section.
Distribution section to be moved before Origins discussion, so that the flow of discussion will go from introduction to distribution (fairly basic) to discussion about the implications in the Origins section
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdean3295 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please sign your remarks on talkpages. The should indeed not say that R1a is dominant in South Asia or in Central Asia, and I do not think it ever has said that? It also should certainly not describe the strong presence in South Asia as a mere "pocket" or "small fraction". Be reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Within the general populations of central and south Asia R1a1 only reaches frequencies of 10-15%. To say that R1a1 reaches high frequencies in SouthCentral Asia is a misrepresentation. R1a1 only reaches high frequencies within tribal groups that do not interbreed with the general populations of Southcentral Asia. The correct terminology would be that there is a "significant presents" of R1a1 in Southcentral Asia, but to say that R1a1 reaches high frequencies in Southcentral Asia is an overstatement. The correct description is that R1a1 reaches high frequencies within certain tribal groups located in Southcentral Asia. You might just say that in Scotland R1a reaches a frequency of 100% because all the members of R1a1 live in the same neighborhood ; this would, of coarse, be a misrepresentation of the y Dna distribution in Scotland. If you use the term of a geographical area, such as, Southcentral Asia it is important to note that R1a1 does not reach high frequencies in this whole area. It would only be academically correct to use the term of the specific geographical area that R1a1 reaches these high levels. You could say that R1a1 Reaches high frequencies within a certain area of a country, or within a certain area of Southcentral Asia, but to say that R1a1 reaches high frequencies in Southcentral Asia would be false. Unless, by high, you mean 1 in 10. jamesdean3295.
No one is proposing to say that all of India simply has a high frequency, but it does have a significantly high frequency in large segments of the population. And indeed an overall frequency of 10% is indeed relatively high for any haplogroup. What you are proposing is to call this significant presence a "pocket", making it sound insignificant. We can't do that. Your proposals add very little and ONLY seem aimed to give a false impression. Please explain what was wrong with other versions of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Looking at your edit warring with Cosmos416, which you must stop, I see you are trying to insist also on a distinction between "tribes" in Central and Southern Asia (you are referring to data from various studies about all types of groups including geographical areas, castes, language spoken etc), while for Europe you are writing as if there are pure geographical haplogroup areas. In science we always write neutrally about "populations" where a population is a group that tends to inter-marry, whether they live in one place or not, and whether they share their region with others or not. And please note that complications coming from avoiding this will also be seen in the European data if you read it. For example Roma have much lower levels of R1a than Slavic speakers living in the same places, and Greek Macedonians have much higher levels than other Greeks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think R1a has been found in several ancient samples, also in Europe. This can of course be mentioned, but please everyone try to put things ONCE into the correct part of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, English is not my mother tongue so I don't feel qualified to write it.
Also it would have to be paired with the fact that the specimen (almost exclusively associated with Y-DNA R1a1) from South Siberia (*) and Kazakhstan (**) had almost exclusively mtDNA haplogroups of west eurasian/european origin especially during bronze age (as far as 1,800 BC). If we link that with the europoid phenotypes with light-colored eyes and hair and pale skin of andronovo south siberians described in the recent article of human genetics
Especially since no south Asian haplogroups are linked to the spread of R1a1, up to Europe.
.
Pretty meaningful, especially since such phenotypes are found where high frequency of R1a1 are found in Asia (like
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, east Afghanistan and north Pakistan) -> examples of such clearly europoid phenotypes in these regions of Asia that matches the description of south Siberians of Bronze Age (Andronovo culture horizon - generally considered culturally Indo-iranian (and as such indo-european)),
Both south Siberia and Kazakhstan of bronze age (and region south of it too) were of this Andronovo culture, and it was later the territory of the indo-iranian-speaking Sakas (Scythians) and the population is described as being typically Europoid during bronze age (both genetically and phenotypically, and yet basically exclusively R1a1). It fits well in the Kurgan hypothesis pattern. That's a big hint.
You might also try googling Eulau and R1a. If I did not have to worry about what goes into the infobox I would definitely have preferred spending time on that! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was wondering, do we really need the clan Donald image, as well as the ones for refugium, and Slavic language distribution? I feel they actually clutter up the article and don't really add anything all that relevant to what the subject is all about. To be brutally honest the Clan Donald crest makes the article look tacky and somewhat nationalistic.Geog1 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1Reply
Yeah...I removed the imagery as I figure by now if anyone was really interested they would have said something by now. Geog1 (talk)Geog1 —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
I have noticed that over the past few days, this editor has made a number of tendentious edits to this article, mainly moving all "South Asia" subsections to the top of sections, and generally trying to subtly promote the Out-of-India meme as much as possible all the while assuming bad faith and not once participating on the talkpage. I have re-arranged the sections alphabetically, which to me seems to be the most neutral approach. Also, it is false to claim that the frequency of R1a reaches 45-72% among all North Indians, as is claimed in the infobox. Yet Cosmos has undone all my changes, including even this [10] uncontroversial, mainly grammatical change to the lead, seemingly purely out of spite. --Athenean (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Athenean, your "grammatical change", like all your other recent edits, and like those of Cosmos, involved swapping the order of Europe and Asia. I guess Cosmos reacted to that? And of course you in turn reacted to his swapping of order, and so on. So let's not paint these edits as anything other that a revert war based entirely upon alphabetical order. Maybe you'll be appearing on this article soon: Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. This is a revert war either of you could stop at any time without any problem. I find it unbelievable that either of you would be making a point out of the alphabetical order! I can see that neither of you are vandals or newbies, but if these reverts continue I really think an admin has to be called in, because this is making it difficult to do normal editing. Please stop. The order is important at all, so leave it however you find it please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unlike Cosmos, I have no agenda to push on this article. I am as disinterested as you are. I am merely reacting to the ceaseless POV-pushing by this individual, which has been plaguing this article for a long time now. Just look at the article history and his contribs log. As for my grammatical change, I should have called it "stylistical": Since R1a is found among most of the Eastern European population but only certain populations in South Asia, "found at high frequencies in most of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe and certain populations in Central and South Asia." has better flow than the previous wording. As for the order things appear in, I became incensed by Cosmos' subtle POV-pushing. You might see nothing wrong with it, but given his editing history, I saw his attempts to continuously push South Asia to the top of every sub-section as subtle POV-pushing. The difference between my edits and his are that I have no agenda here, and my edits are solely aimed at improving the article. Lastly, I find it ironic that I get lambasted, even though I'm the only one who actually bothered to open a talkpage thread, while he has NEVER to date participated in this article's discussion. --Athenean (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why bother reacting if it is not important and you have no "agenda"? Your edits certainly can not be described as neutral edits just aimed at a better flow. You were behaving in exactly the same way as you complain about Cosmos. If you don't want to be criticized for that, then there is an easy solution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If it is worth accusing alphabetical ordering of being a form of "subtle" POV pushing, then you have been doing it. Of course you think you are excused because you were doing it as a "reaction". But I'd say it arguably makes it worse. At least Cosmos can argue he was trying to find a harmless neutral method of deciding the sequence, while you can not really claim this because you openly state that you see this type of re-ordering as a way of getting in a POV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
But he didn't arrange things alphabetically, I did. Sheeesh. All he did was place "South Asia" at the top of every subsection. How is that alphabetical? And to accuse me of POV-pushing is simply silly. Which POV did I push? Care to explain? On the other hand, judging from his contribs log, Cosmos is an Out-of-India-promoting SPA, who is hell-bent on pushing the POV that R1a (along with the Proto Indo-Europeans) originated in South Asia. Look at the article history and our contribs logs before passing judgement. In this case, reverting his edits was the right thing to do. In any case, it seems this discussion is going nowhere and is completely pointless, so I will recuse myself. --Athenean (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
LOL Like I said...Your making threats and POV pushing with your incorrect assertions of the figures, Trying to have an Eastern Europe origin and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE ALPHABET or YOUR ARE PERPETUATING VANDALISM (i.e Your edits with the Central Asia, Then Eastern Europe, The South Asia LOL ) Let's see here, main Region is Asia (southern part) and somehow the eastern part of Europe is ether Sandwich in between or ahead????
Another LIE I caught you on...Saying I'm trying to Push for a case of Indian origin of Proto-Indo-Europeans?? Show me WHERE I said that= SHOW ME. Your just full of Lies. Cosmos41613:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am pretty familiar with the editing history of this article, and I've done a lot of work on it at different times. The edit wars keep me away for periods of course, but it has been on my watchlist, waiting for a free moment. On the other hand, I think your reply above may not have been written with a carefully considered examination of the recent editing and what I was saying about it. Anyway, I am requesting that no one do edit wars based on alphabetical ordering. It is very disruptive, and not worth it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
First let me just say that I think alot of progress has been made in regards to the quality of this article. I think most of the POV has been taken out (or at least the most obvious) and the format has improved with lesser bloc quotes, better flow, and removal of some redundant points.
That aside I do feel like there is still some things left to work on here both in the article and how we conduct ourselves here on Wikipedia. In terms of the article content, really there are just a few studies that are not mentioned regarding R1a's distribution and temporal appearance in some regions. Perhaps the most obvious thing that needs to be included is a section on all the latest ancient DNA findings but it appears that has been discussed already so kudos and hope to see some progress here soon.
On the other hand there has been alot of POV pushing here that has lead to many snearing remarks and unfortunate edit warring at the 3rd grade level of maturity. I won't bother naming names here again but some of those mentioned (in this section and in others) I did feel were pretty much pushing their most cherished theories and behaved in an extremely poor manner (seriously you're not the cooler or even more logical if you're putting exclamation marks after all your comments). All I can say is that I hope the behaviour of some people here improves and that the quality of articles continues to also improve. Geog1 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1Reply
FWIW I just analysed my own edits, which I notice Cosmos just objected to for breaking his alphabetical ruling, and what I see I've been doing in this article is following the map from left to write, in the same way we read in English. To me that seems "logical" but I am not going to start reverting people about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Uh yeah sure Cosmos (gimme a break)...just to be perfectly clear Andrew, my remarks we're geared to you about logic. Just setting the record straight. My remarks apply generally to anyone who had an agenda.Geog1 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1Reply
Oh by the way, nice use of caps locks. Your constant use of them and exclamation marks definitely does not make you look crazy in any way. Not.Geog1 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The actual percentages of R1a in South and Central Asia are unclear. There are many groups within South and Central Asia that have very high frequencies of R1a. Sources that I have seen suggest that R1a in India accounts for 15-20% of the male population.
"South Asia typically consists of Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Republic of India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, Tibet, the British Indian Ocean Territories and Iran." [11]
Central Asia is defined like this. "Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Other areas are often included such as Mongolia, Afghanistan, most of Pakistan, north-eastern Iran, north-western India, and western parts of the People's Republic of China such as Xinjiang. South-western and middle China such as Tibet, Qinghai, Gansu and Inner Mongolia, and southern parts of Siberia may also be included in Central Asia." [12]
I have seen different statistics on the percentage of R1a in Pakistan, but the pub med article that I sighted earlier said that in their sample R1a accounted for 25%.
If you look at this map and the map on the R1a page. [13][14] It looks like there is a thin stream of R1a that goes through Central Asia and rapidly decreases to either side. Furthermore the map on the R1a web page clearly shows that R1a only exists in the far North of India. The map illustrates that most of South and Central Asia is absent R1a. According to the world Haplogroups Map R1a accounts for 30-40% in North India and 5% in the South. Kyrgyzstan is shown as being 30-40%. Persia or Iran is shown to be 15% or more, which is also the figure given for Iran on Eupedia. Uzbeks are shown to 15% or more. Kazakhstan is shown to be 5%. Tibet is also shown to be 5%. If you factor in what would be the Russian part of Central Asia, those populations are shown to be 25%.
I have looked at all of the Asian listings that Andrew Lancaster listed on the R1a wikipedia web sight and they clearly show that R1a frequencies vary from 70% in some South and Central Asian groups to Zero in others. I have seen sources on India and Pakistan that indicate frquencies of 15-20% in India and 25% in Pakistan. I have not seen any sources on the total percentage in Afghanistan. To me it looks like R1a accounts for anywhere from 15-25% of the South and Central Asian populations depending on what Geographical areas you factor in.
It seems to me that their are still conflicting opinions in the academic community on this subject. I am sure as time progresses more information will be available on R1a in South an Central Asia.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the estimates you come up with are too low, and you should not use Wikipedia itself as a source in these discussions, but anyway, what are you proposing? The above still would not justify writing that R1a is only found in isolated pockets in Asia!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Refer to the talk and edit histories of Athenean, and Geog1 specifically. They are connected with some editiors who are known as Crazy Kurganists. Countless edits with Eurocentric views, hell bent on perpetuating hoax's and presenting misleading views and facts. The evidence is in the countless studies. Stop with this one sided, censorship views, cause right will win over wrong.
These editiors have be making threats and POV pushing with incorrect assertions of the figures. Trying to have an Eastern Europe origin and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE ALPHABET or YOUR ARE PERPETUATING VANDALISM (i.e Your edits with the Central Asia, Then Eastern Europe, and South Asia LOL )
Let's see here, main Region is Asia (southern part) and somehow the eastern part of Europe is ether Sandwiched in between or ahead of Central and South Asia??? Dosen't make any sense- Keep that in mind when you put your foot in your mouth. I will always be here protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, Regardless. Cosmos41612:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm how come only 2 studies ENTIRELY with Figures for the Ukraine and Russia???? There are several separate ones that says Indian origin alone.
Folks this is a text book example here of lunatic fringe on Wikipedia: constant edit warring, inflametory remarks, poor grammar and spelling (all out of an emotional state akin to a child), heavy duty agenda (in this case Out of India inspired) and false accusations (I've actually never edited any of the figures in any of the haplogroup articles accounting for percentages within populations). So that would make you the liar essentially. Thanks Cosmos for being such a poster child on Wikipedia for bad behaviour.Geog1 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1Reply
(1) The R1a lineage forms around (35–45%) among ALL THE CASTES in North Indian population (500,000,000)--> (Tha's 500 MILLION) from (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001) - That would make North India the Biggest Population of R1a1 is the World (upto 225,000,000).
(2) India (Indo-European Upper Castes) were found to have an average of (45.35%)R1a (Sengupta et al.)(2005), among the high caste Bengalis from West Bengal like Brahmins and Kshatriyas (72%), Uttar Pradesh Brahmins (67%), Bihar Brahmins (60%), Punjab (47%)
(3) High Frequency among Tribals and Isolated populations have found high frequencies in several South Indian Dravidian-speaking tribes including the Chenchu (26%) and Valmikis of Andhra Pradesh and the Kallar of Tamil Nadu suggesting that M17 is widespread in tribal southern Indians.
(4) Pakistan has shown an Average of 30%-58%, Nepal 69% among Hindu's.
Where is the pool of studies??? I only see 2 sources (One is like 10 years old data) saying anything on Russian or Ukraine Figures?? Smaller sample sizes in most cases. I would like to see the figures among Russian Mongols and other East Asian, Middle Easterns who have been in Russia for hundred, if not thousands of years (documented)...Russia is so big, it's stretches from Asia and Europe to North America. You think were really suppose to believe they're all 47% R1a1?? THAT's HILARIOUS.
I think we all have to keep it in mind that this field is difficult to work on in Wikipedia. It moves too quickly, so what books and reviews exist are often terribly out of date, and therefore we end up collecting data from primary sources. The problem with this is that ALL these articles we are citing are poor sources, just a single perspective. There are things that can be criticised in all of them. So, having noted that we are build castles on sand foundations, none of us should be acting like we have lots of solid facts. We need to write in an unambitious way, not claiming to much for ANY theory. If I look at what studies we have for central Eurasia I do at least get the impression that Eastern consistently shows R1 around 50% in different studies, whereas results in Asia still vary widely. So we should not criticize Jamesdean too much for saying what he says about Europe, or about raising questions about the Indian data. I spent a chunk of today looking at all the Indian data and trying to come up with a short way of summarizing it for the infobox without committing "original research" and it beat me. (So I've removed the %s from that particular place in the article.) It is hard to generalize by region, area or language without basically repeating the whole dataset. Having said that we are lucky that very recently the level of Indian data has built up a lot. There is not way we can say R1a is in isolated tribal pockets. Jamesdean is wrong about that and he think he has too get more used to the data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I do agree -I would just like to stress that North India does has a population 500 Million and is R1a1 dominant, (35-45%) of all castes so all I hope is that taken in consideration. And Brahmins regardless of location have been extremely high frequencies. I just don't want any special positioning to give it a misleading picture. Cosmos41612:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Understood and agreed, but let's focus on that instead of guessing what agendas people have. Let's just look at what is in the text itself, and the sources we use. Coming to Sharma, when using the biggest data set they had for India they summarised the biggest haplogroups as follows "R1a1* (21.1%), H1 (19.1%), R2 (10.5%), O (10.1%), L (9.5%), J*/J2 (8.3%) and F* (6.9%)". That is a cut and paste. I agree that this does not tell the whole story, but let's not go beyond the facts here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
This [15] Wells' study says Eastern part of Iran is 35%. It was added to the Western Asian part as it seems relevant to the whole "desert prevented the gene flow" discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd0dd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The actual number of Asians carrying R1a has nothing to do with the frequency.
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Andrew Lancaster stated that it was important to note that R1a is carried by an extremely large number of Asians.
The Percentages of R1a in Central and South are disputable. What is not disputable is that South Asia had far fewer people just decades ago. From 1991-2001 the population of India increased by 21%. This is a ridiculously fast pace of population growth for a Country that is already extremely overpopulated. Pakistan is even more densely poplulated. These countries have a major population control issue. [16][17]
Numbers of males belonging to R1a in these areas have dramatically increased over the last century. R1a likely was at a range of 15-20% in these areas a century ago as it is today. The population of India has more than tripled in the last 50 years.
To say that, just because, these areas have an extreme population explosion problem that they are the origin of R1a is ridiculous. I would characterize Central and South Asia as having major overpopulation problem but not as have high levels of R1a within those populations.
The actual number of men carrying the R1a lineage in South and Central Asia is not relevant, the Percentage of males carrying the R1a lineage is, when describing areas of High Frequency of R1a.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please read more carefully sir. I did not state that at all. If you continue to be so messy with reading other peoples' arguments, people may start to think you are pretending not to understand, perhaps that you are making stories up, and this will not help you in any way. Read the messages again and restate your position. Also see WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Experienced editors have seen this 1000 times, so give up on any idea that you have a great new idea that others will not see through. I appreciate your interest in this subject and I predict you'll get your knowledge across better if you think through what it means to be working in a team of people who do not know each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Andrew Lancaster wrote.
"No one is proposing to say that all of India simply has a high frequency, but it does have a significantly high frequency in large segments of the population. And indeed an overall frequency of 10% is indeed relatively high for any haplogroup. What you are proposing is to call this significant presence a "pocket", making it sound insignificant. We can't do that. Your proposals add very little and ONLY seem aimed to give a false impression. Please explain what was wrong with other versions of the article."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Andrew look at what you wrote. You said "And indeed an overall frequency of 10% is indeed relatively high for any haplogroup." (Andrew Lancaster)
10% does not mean high freqency. You could say that R1a is present in populations of Asia.
Andrew. The fact is that South and Central Asia are extremely overpopulated and R1a is carried by a SMALL FRACTION of South and Central Asians so stop writing the R1a is at High Frequency in South, Central, and West Asia. Maybe you just do not understand the defenition of High Frequency or the definition of South and Central Asia. I think you need to futher you education so that you will better understand the defenitions of the words.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that an overall frequency of 10% is indeed relatively high for any haplogroup.
20% to 30% is remarkably high. 40% to 50% is very high indeed. --dab(𒁳)21:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
I want to welcome Jamesdean, and assume his good faith. See WP:AGF. I do not want him to think criticisms of his edits are "personal". I would like to ask other editors of this article to put down their tools and help by commenting in a neutral way on this edit: [18]. I do not need people to agree with me, but there should be a distinction made between personal attacks and reasonable "good faith" edits, which I think is what my reverted edit was. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, please, by all means someonelese join in, this discussion is getting boring very quickly. Andrew is stuck on the notion that R1a reaches high frequency, throughout Central, South, and West Asia even though it cearly does not.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Jamesdean3295, you are edit-warring over an infobox. Andrew is doing nothing of the sort you claim, he is trying to give a decent summary for the purposes of the infobox. Focus on the article body please. --dab(𒁳)21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree this is a somewhat petty dispute if we were having this conversation in a coffee shop.
Info Box or not this is an international Encyclopedia. Stick to the facts. R1a is not present in high frequencies in South, Central, and West Asia. R1a reaches high frequencies in Countries like Poland 56%, Ukraine 54%, and Russia 47%, but not in countries like India 20%+, Pakistan 15-30% (depending on the source you look at), or Iran 15%, nor does R1a average high frequencies in all of South, Central, and Western Asia (If you factor in all the populations of these geographical areas, R1a would likely be present in less than 15% of the population of South Asia, Probably no more than 25% of Central Asians, and certainly less than 10% of West Asian or Middle Eastern people if you will). The point is not, an argument over an info box. The point is academic integrity and obviously there is no academic integrity on this sight.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Academic integrity? Please come back down to Earth. My proposal is to remove ALL the percentages, just from the infobox, in order to avoid silly debates about WHICH percentages to put there. If we allow any percentages then everyone immediately becomes understandably concerned about cherry picking, and indeed your selection of figures is cherry picking and one of the worst proposals so far. How is academic integrity furthered by filling the infobox with a summary of the whole article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you where going to list percentages, the correct way to do it would be to list the highest first. I guess you could list percentages by tribes, but I think by the country is the best way. The list should look something like this.
Poland 56%, Ukraine 50%, Russia 46%, Belarus 45%, Slovakia 40%, Latvia 40, Lithuania 38, Kyrgyzstan 30-40%, Czech Republic 34%, Estonia 32, Hungary 32%, Coatia 29%, Norway 28%, Austria 26%, Sweden 23.5%, Iceland 23%, Romania 22%, India 15-22%, Pakistan 15-30%, Iran 15%.
Jd3, once again, this is too complex for the infobox. By all means list your percentages to your heart's content, but do it in the article body, not the infobox. Thanks. --dab(𒁳)12:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that is way too many listings for an info box. That is why you really cannot list South and Central Asian countries in the Info Box, because by the time you get to India or Pakistan you would have to list 20 countries with higher frequencies of R1a before these countries. There are not any countries in south Asia that surpass 20%. In Central Asia you could list Kyrgyzstan 30-40%, and Maybe Afghanistan.
If you were to list South and Central Asians you would have to do it by Tribe.
1. Please stop the silliness about Asians being in tribes. These are not just small isolated tribes. These are very large populations with very high R1a levels whether looked at by geographical region (northern regions tend to have more), or caste (Brahmins tend to have more) or language group (indo-european speakers tend to have more).
2. Please stop pretending not to understand that ANY attempt to cherry pick a few percentages will be controversial. All the studies we have give different answers, and of course as you yourself understand you are not comparing like with like when you compare "Sorbs" with "Uttar Pradesh Brahmins" for example. In order to explain the Asian information requires taking up more space, and so you are just leaving it out, giving a very false impression.
3. I know of no study of Afghanistan, but looking at studies of surrounding countries it is likely that the Hazara have low R1a levels while the other peoples have very high levels. It is likely that most of Central Asia and Northern South Asia has very high levels on the whole.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Common Sense
Which of the two following versions is more logical to assume?
1. Version one: The Indo-Europeans originated in India and for some reason left that warm, beatiful country, crossed the Hindukush mountains, entered the cold steppes and went mostly in ONE direction all the way to Iceland (and did not go at all to much closer Indo-China or Iraq).
And note, although originating in India, these people were not for some reason physically resembling the majority of their neighbors, the Dravidians)then, immediately after, before these people got mixed with local Indian Dravidians, they left for Europe and became the ancestors of the Poles, Ukrainians, and others, who do not have any noticeable Dravidian features.
2. Version two: The Indo-Europeans formed in the Ukrainian refuge after the last Ice Age, domesticated the horse in the Ukrainian steppes, and then started to move in ALL directions - Greece, Italy, Scandinavia, as well as to the East. And the Eastern direction became the longest-reaching, but quite easy for the horsemen horde (and many horse-riding people crossed these steps afterwards in various directions). Upon reaching Afghanistan (and perhaps stopping for a while in Tajikistan-Afghanistan), these people learned about rich and beautiful India situated behind the mountains and decided to invade it en masse. There as time went by they mixed to some degree with locals becoming little more southern-looking.
In my opinion, the second version is far more plausible. History knows no examples of Indians making conquests/expansions outside their subcontinent. Their land is able to support prodigious populations, as we can all see, and no-one would risk their lives abroad if it was possible to live in India. On the other hand, India was constantly invaded by outsiders from the North - Mongols (Moghuls), Arabs and their successor Islamic states, Afghans etc. And the Russians would surely invade too if the British were not already there and did not stop them in the so-called Great Game (early 20th century).
Also, another food fot thought. I would rather believe a typically Indian-looking person who tells me he is half-Polish half-Dravidian, than a typically Polish-looking person, who would tell me he is a half-non-Dravidian-Indian. Several half-Indian-half-English people I know of could pass for a Mediterranean people, but not for Poles.
Please! We are not here to argue about our own personal theories but only to make a neutral text describing what mainstream publications say right now. You can find many internet forums for the debating of personal theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
quite apart from the fact that this article isn't about Indo-Europeans, it is about a haplogroup. Of course the Indo-Europeans originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. If evidences shows that R1a originates in India after all, the conclusion is simply that R1a distribution is unrelated to PIE expansion. Stop the implicit linking of genetics to languages. This is all one big non sequitur. Discuss genetics, or find a more appropriate article for your interests. --dab(𒁳)19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dab, backing you up, but making sure that no one gets the wrong idea, we also do not want to suppress valid references about any potential Indo European links to R1a: we can mention well referenced ideas, and link to other Wikipedia articles where appropriate, and of course we are not editing on the basis that the Pontic Caspian theory is the only one for IE origins. No one at all is arguing those things. The idea is not to suppress anything or overstate anything. Neutrally speaking, as someone who does not only read the articles I like, R1a could have originated anywhere between Western Europe and China. It might even originate in the Middle East. No neutral reading of the literature can bring us to any more detail yet FOR WIKIPEDIA, although I love a good internet forum debate as much as the next person.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
of course -- any quotable source arguing for a PIE-R1a connection is welcome, just as any quotable source placing R1a origin in India is welcome. But, authors arguing for a combination of these will be rather rare, and connecting two hypotheses that are not connected in our sources, viz, implying that R1a may be connected to PIE and originate in India, will be WP:SYNTH. I understand these are two mutually exclusive possibilities, both of them arguable, but hardly arguable in combination. If argued in combination, that would be a WP:REDFLAG and would need excellent attribution. R1a may have originated pretty much anywhere, I agree. Its distrbution may be partially due to IE expansion. But R1a also originated sigificantly earlier than PIE, so it is perfectly arguable that some of its distribution is due to IE expansion while some isn't. Anything that's in our RS, but don't combine individual RS to imply something that isn't claimed in any single RS. --dab(𒁳)21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Question checking opinion of editors of this article
I have ceased to expect any sort of useful contribution from Jamesdean3295. They are disruptive and out of line, and by now they are just distracting people from doing actual work on the article. --dab(𒁳)11:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
My reason for calling for opinions is indeed to clear the way for editing without being too worried about the one edit his account seems to keep making. I am going to treat it as disruptive editing and consider myself as having everyone's backing. So if anyone sees it otherwise please say so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
"But once again we do not have to say everything that was in the cited article, only what is relevant to R1a"
I agree, but I think this is relevant to R1a1 because it associates clearly this hg, in that population (almost exclusively R1a1), with an European phenotype, hinting clearly the origin of the population - Which is the point of that particuliar section. It's not like the section is oversized.
"This culture showed signs of having migrated from Europe" is not specific enough, it could be understood as being some sort of archeological reference, by the readers, while the clue is actually in the nature itself of the population (in the results of the DNA testing).
Also, I think the date (2009) sould be added.
You also removed the percentages which IMO are pretty meaningful, especially in their historical context.
I also think this should be added somewhere : "The current Indian R1a1 haplotypes are practically indistinguishable from Russian, Ukrainian, and Central Asian R1a1 haplotypes, as well as from many West and Central European R1a1 haplotypes." from : http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2733/version/1
Well, now that you seem to have control of the steering wheel, why not try again on the article? My advice: take it slowly. This article gets a lot of arguments which blow up bigger than they should have been.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually what I would suggest here is moving all this stuff into an Ancient DNA section. It could read something like this:
Haplogroup R1a has been reconstructed from the ancient skeletal remains of individuals within the following prehistoric archaeological cultural contexts:
Corded Ware Horizon
Urnfield Culture
Andronovo Horizon
Scythian Era Central Asia
I think Dupuy (2006) and Kasperaviciute (2004)are more appropriate alternatives (or rebuttals) to Luca's stance.
Perhaps, but shouldn't we try to stick to the regional breakdown structure already in the article? If we do not, then I think we risk redundancies developing, because editors will rightfully want to mention these finds in the "origins" discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well that was kinda my point: to separate the ancient DNA studies from the modern. My justification is that most of the origin sections are based on modern DNA so naturally we're talking about two different methodologies. The ancient DNA studies are just coming out and the data isn't really sufficient enough to confirm or negate any origin theory. Also I'm not sure if any of these studies really directly oppose the Slavic migration (not language spread) hypothesis for R1a per se. The unpublished dissertation, which reconstructs the R1a hg from a male in the Urnfield culture is relegated to the Lichensteinhole site, which is not in the territory of the Czech Republic or historically Slavic speaking regions. Luca's stance was based on the territory of the Czech Republic. Likewise Haak's data is from Germany and unless I've made a mistake, the way the section is currently written may not be conveying what researches have written/proposed. The only study that is remotely contradicted I believe is that whole "Vistula Barrier" unpublished dissertation but I don't even think that info was represented accurately and that stance has been taken out of most of the articles (never really belonged to begin with). Finally all the cultural contexts from which the R1a hg has been found should be included in the write ups. I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the articles here.Geog1 (talk)Geog1 —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC).Reply
.
Indeed. Personally, I think it fits more in the origin theories section since it hints to the origin of dispersion.
In the meantime :
in order to prevent the adding/removing/adding/removing game, I'll post the content here before and you'll tell me if it can be posted.
.
here it is :
---------
A European origin of R1a1 has also been argued as a result of a 2009 study on the remains of a population part of the Andronovo culture (strongly supposed to have been culturally indo-iranian) of South Siberia (ref).
The population was found to be almost exclusively R1a1 and associated with west eurasian mtDNA haplogroups, in a proportion as large as 90% during the bronze age period. The DNA testing also allowed to establish that this population was majoritarily having blue (or green) eyes, fair skin and light hair, hinting even more of an original European origin.
These results are consistent with 2004 genetic tests that had concluded that the population of Kazakhstan, during the bronze and iron age timeframe, was overwhelmingly of west eurasian origin (ref).
---------
I also think at the end, something like this sentence should be added : "All the previous informations coupled with Anatole Klyosov's claim that "The current Indian R1a1 haplotypes are practically indistinguishable from Russian, Ukrainian, and Central Asian R1a1 haplotypes, as well as from many West and Central European R1a1 haplotypes." are strongly supportive of a "recent" eastern European origin of all the R1a1 found in Eurasia. (ref : http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2733/version/1) "
.
I do think the part on kazakhstan has to be there because it shows the 2009 results are not some isolated population, it hints that it was the general profile of the populations of these regions during that ancient time period which makes the results about this R1a1 population gloabally meaningful (and as such important for that section).
.
Not being an english-speaking person, don't hesitate to correct my style too.
R1a's origins remain disputed. It presumably originated somewhere in the Eurasian landmass, where it is most commonly found today. There are two focuses of high frequency of R1a, one in South Asia, near North India, and the other in Eastern Europe, in the area of the Ukraine. On the one hand, the highest frequency level observed in any large population so far has been found in some South Asian groups[24]. On the other hand it has been claimed that the highest diversity is measured in the Balkans and that Indian R1a appears to be an offshoot of European R1a[25].
It could be Ok, but it doesn't mention the fact that the mtDNA hgs were 90% of west eurasian origin. What 's wrong with that information ? it is linked to that (almost exclusively) r1a1 population, isn't it ? and help to define it as well as west Eurasian in nature.
I thought you agreed about the mention of the phenotypes too ?
Actually I put Klyosov in. I have not listed out all the evidence for why people think the Andronovo people came from the West, because we could list lots of things. Why would hair and eye colour be so important? I think it is better to say that there is evidence, and if you want more details on Wikipedia maybe do that on the Andronovo article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
.
"I have not listed out all the evidence for why people think the Andronovo people came from the West, because we could list lots of things"
.
We're talking more specifically of the 2009 study though, which is the one directly linked with R1a1. It makes sense to define clearly the evidences linking these R1a1 to the European area. That's the point of this section.
.
About the numbers (90%), it makes it unequivocally from an eastern Europe origin. The current sentence could mean 45 % or 65 % of these markers are "European".
honestly I don't understand why you're so reticent to evoke the high majority of it, specifying that it was during bronze age (especially meaningful historically speaking).
.
Phenotypes : why important ?
.
A certain number of the mtDNA hgs can be found elsewhere, even if they're largely found in Europe (e.g. U2, T, IIRC) and that most are typically European (mtDNA U4, U5 and H5a, I believe, for instance). The phenotypes leave no doubt whatsoever about the origin of the population. This section's purpose is to try to prove an eastern Europe origin.
Any discussion of other types of evidence, if we started to include it, should not be restricted to a few side remarks in an article about genetics. For better or worse it is all or nothing, because including only part will make the article look biased. And this would expand quickly. Look at the history of this article's edits and you'll see what happens. People who think India is the most likely origin for R1a will want to balance the article by putting in more data from the many studies which make that case. Using hair and eye colour, or even mitochondrial DNA all have theoretical problems which can be discussed at length. (So the phenotypes do absolutely leave doubt, sorry. The modern distribution of blue eye and red hair may be quite different to the prehistoric one.) We have to stick to what is relevant, and always try to keep the size and focus of the article in mind, as well as trying to remember that we have to keep neutral and think about what other people might think is not neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
.
"only part will make the article look biased"
.
I do think refusing to state clearly the proportion (at least with a word such as "overwhilmingly" which is the plain truth and as such undisputable by anyone, Indian or not) of these genetic markers of west eurasian origin is actually biased. As if you're refusing to admit it and favor other possibilities. I'm not saying you do, but it could sound like it.
.
"the phenotypes do absolutely leave doubt, sorry. The modern distribution of blue eye and red hair may be quite different to the prehistoric one"
.
certainly not in the bronze/iron age timeframe. Absolutely noone could efficiently claim otherwise being Indian or Barack Obama himself. Anyone claiming a population with a majority of people having light-colored eyes and light-colored hair is the result of a recent (bronze age, that is) south Asian migration/invasion can't be taken seriously. The point is to prove a west eurasian origin of that specific population.
.
"remember that we have to keep neutral and think about what other people might think is not neutral."
.
You're aboslutely right. And I think you're not being neutral by hiding relevant informations (to not hurt any sensibilities).
This section's purpose is to prove an eastern european origin of R1a1, for god's sake. What has people that think R1a1 is of south Asian origin to do with this section ? anyone gives their best arguments in their respective section and that's all.
.
"always try to keep the size and focus of the article in mind"
.
There is very few text. What makes the page long (not that much actually) are the tables.
You're expressing your concern about length for one or two sentences. Seems exaggerated seen from here. As for the focus, the goal of that precise section is pretty clear : prove an eastern origin of R1a1. Refusing to give significative informations on the subject because of length (could be done in one sentence ?) and hurt feelings, is actually shying away from the point of that section, I think.
I think all of your posting under-estimates the doubts that could be expressed about the evidence you are talking about, and also concerning the types of evidence which other theories of R1a origins have on their side. BTW I am not worried about adding only one or two sentences. If we add discussion about hair colour we need to add much more than a few words, because this is a subject that does not prove anything about R1a in any simple way. The fact is that we should not be trying to prove anything on Wikipedia. There are other places on the internet for complex debate. Here we just record a neutral summary. The data tables are a problem but we'll need to take our time. See discussion below. They actually avoid a lot of problems because they are a neutral summary of a lot of information that editors working on this article have insisted on over a long period. If we remove the tables you'll eventually see it all being pasted into many places in the text in an unorganized way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
.
"The fact is that we should not be trying to prove anything on Wikipedia"
.
.Absolutely right. That's why there are several "origin" sections, each ones trying to prove its own point (that's their purpose). People will judge by themselves. No need for a "wikipedia" conclusion on that matter.
.
"I think all of your posting under-estimates the doubts that could be expressed about the evidence you are talking about"
.
And I think all of your posting over-estimates the doubts that could be expressed about the evidences I was talking about.
Almost exclusively R1a1 population + 90 % west eurasian mtDNA hgs + AT LEAST 60 % light har/light eyes/fair skin = western eurasian origin of this south siberian bronze age population. (the whole picture can be put in a few words and has a probatory cogency). that's how I see it.
.
I do think you downplay it, especially since you never specified how this is not meaningful and as such makes me unable to address it.
You also left aside the proportion issue which is undisputable.
OK, to explain a bit more, the problem with both the exact % and the hair/eye colour is the same: you are assuming that modern distributions are the same as bronze age ones, and we do not know this at all. We can say it "feels" likely that it was similar, but we can not say that this is an assumption everyone will accept. The phenotypes in Central Asia appear to have changed a lot in recent millenia, and of course the genotypes must have also. Indeed, even in Europe they seem to have changed a lot. We can hardly assume anything on this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Another thing I perhaps should explain is that I've learnt not to use the term "Western Eurasia". The problem is that it is not clearly defined anywhere in any standard way. For example if you search it in Wikipedia you get the article for Europe. Geographical terms have to be chosen for clarity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
.
"you are assuming that modern distributions are the same as bronze age ones, and we do not know this at al" - "The phenotypes in Central Asia appear to have changed a lot in recent millenia, and of course the genotypes must have also"
.
We're talking of bronze age! not of 10,000 yrs ago. These regions apparently never were as populated as other regions of Eurasia such as Europe or south or east Asia. These populations have changed because of their own migration, the slaughter by invading populations (huns/Turkic hordes) and the subsequent mixing with these populations.
.
The source of the phenotypes we're talking of is obviously in europe, both because of current repartition and frequency of it and because of what we know of the peopling of Europe's chronology.
There is no doubt about the ancient presence of the mtDNA hgs we're talking of in Europe.
You can't deny it.
I'm pretty confident on any other page (where there is no moot) it would have been written down withouth much discussion.
And you know why ? because there is noone who would actually think that kind of phenotype came from south asia (I don't talk of central asia because the mtdna hgs came from Europe)
.
By rebutting these conclusions, you're actually not rebutting my reasonning, you're rebutting the conclusions of 2 genetical studies (2004 and 2009) made by experts.
I thought wikipedia was not supposed to prove anything and yet you intend to disprove the conclusions of both recent scientifical articles.
.
"the problem with both the exact % [...] you are assuming that modern distributions are the same as bronze age ones"
.
Are you actually telling me that the European haplogroups are not European ? Let's be clear. Is that what you're saying ?
That they weren't present in Europe during bronze age and before, despite evidence of the contrary ?
.
"We can hardly assume anything on this subject"
.
On the contrary, we have data in archeogenetics. If by any chance this south Siberia population never had any ancestor from the European geographical area, it wouldn't change a bit the fact that these populations share an ancestral link (DNA material).
.
"Another thing I perhaps should explain is that I've learnt not to use the term "Western Eurasia"
.
The image on the right of the Europe page is what is western eurasia is IMO. But let's say (eastern) Europe instead of western neurasia, if you wish.
A good scientist, or person interested in science, needs to know how to feel comfortable with doubt. You write as if there are well defined "European haplogroups" and that we know for certain where these would be found in the Bronze Age. Please give exact quotations showing any scientist writing like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
"A good scientist, or person interested in science, needs to know how to feel comfortable with doubt. You write as if there are well defined "European haplogroups" and that we know for certain where these would be found in the Bronze Age. Please give exact quotations showing any scientist writing like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)"
I could point,at least, to the recent findings that confirm that the European hunter-gatherers were of (at least) mtdna U5 and U4 lineages or that mtDNA H5a is rattached to central Europe and the west of Europe (Franco Cantabrian Region, Wales), but that's besides the point.
The point,is that you intend to make an exception for that particular subject.
Every scientifical studies is entitled to have its conclusions exposed here, except this one. The good question is "why?".
By refusing the conclusions of these studies to be known, on the arguments you put forward, you contest their validity. It's a POV.
Wiipedia is not the place to prove anything remember? Well, you're trying to prove the conclusions of two scientifical studies were wrong (2009 about south siberia and 2004 about Kazakhstan). Is that really your role ?
Almost exclusively R1a1 population + 90 % west eurasian mtDNA hgs during bronze age + AT LEAST 60 % light har/light eyes/fair skin = western eurasian origin (not central asia or south asia), that was the conclusion of the article. It's you're right to think differently, but I doubt it is your right to prevent the conclusions to be written on wikipedia because you have doubts about it.
Now, that's really the point.
Even if the studies were later shown to be wrong, that's out of the picture.
There are scientifical studies made by experts. They make their conclusions and we make them known in Wikipedia, which is the goal, I would think. Should Wikipedia judge the content of specialist's research ?
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
I don't find the tables and charts here easy to navigate and understand. I see a great deal of discussion, but I think the thrust should be making the piece understandable to genetic know-nothings like myself. For instance, what's the percentage of R1a1 in England? It's not easy to figure out from these charts. Can someone do something about this situation? (I don't know enough about genetics to contribute, but I do know when something isn't easy to decipher.) I think everyone should keep in mind that the point is making this complicated material understandable. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The problem with all haplogroup articles is that the field moves quickly and there are very few secondary sources reviewing the data. The only ones that do exist tend to be completely out of date and filled with errors. Therefore we have this awkward situation of needing to come to a common sense understanding about what primary (raw) data to include. The R1a article has been a long running problem because no one could agree on any simplifications, and this has pushed the article towards including excessive detail. (One source might give quite a different impression than another, and one way of breaking a region up might give quite a different impression than another.) I've been simplifying in recent weeks, but for now I think we need the data table in all its detail. I'd appreciate your comments. Concerning England, the question is whether there is any source for England, separate from Britain. There have been some regional studies. See the data table. Note, if you click on the heading they sort, making it easier to look for what you are looking for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I just rechecked the Weale data and was able to improve the English data in the table. Both the Midlands and East Anglia are around 4.5%. A lot of the data table still needs going over, and I hope others are also looking at that. The Capelli article needs re-looking at for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also intend to eventually remove the column labelled as R1(xR1a1) because it is a mishmash of information which might represent different types of tests in different articles. It is also not necessarily interesting at all for this article or any other on Wikipedia. (It might be interesting for people conducting original research, but still.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I just re-did the Capelli data. I realize this is more detail than convenient, and in the long we need to find a solution. But right now we are improving this article by at least getting all cards on the table in a very neutral form, avoiding controversies about how to summarize fairly which have plagued this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Somebody had inserted a summary of Capelli saying it gave about 4% overall in Britain. By my calculation the Capelli data has about 2.5% in both England and Scotland, but that is excluding Orkney and Shetland and Isle of Man, and Channel Islands and Irish figures. If we include Shetland and Orkney then Scotland becomes 4.2% and Britain (Scotland + England + Wales) becomes about 2.7%. Highest levels in England are in south west.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Andrew, for your many replies. I agree about removing the column labelled as R(XR1a1). It just adds to the confusion. I can see that you've added quite a bit more of the English data, and that looks good. I hope that these charts will continue to be refined, but I can see you're on this in a big way. By the way, do you find it surprising the highest levels are in the Southwest? I find that sort of astonishing, given the Danelaw presence in the East, and the high (relative) rates around the Wirral, etc.. How can one account for this, in that the areas of the Southwest (Cornwall, Dorset, etc.) didn't account for particularly heavy Viking settlement, and certainly were not within the Danelaw? Was this some sort of spillover from the Norse Gaels, ejected from Ireland? Thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is a bit surprising. I think there is more to R1a than just the recent movements of Slavs and the Norse though. Archeology shows it was common quite early in Europe to the west of where we now typically find it. And there are also isolated pockets in Spain and Italy. I think "multiple waves" is a theme that was perhaps being hidden in the article, in between all the Europe versus India material. BTW, did you see this one which I have still not used here? http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/301--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The charts are looking great, and are much, much improved. Also, when it comes to the British Isles, the inclusion of the Capelli data is compelling. I found some of the anomalies -- for instance, the high values in one part of Wales -- rather striking. And I suppose no one should be surprised at a count of 0.0 in Uttoxeter, located in what was once Mercia. In any case, the expanded tables add greatly to the piece. Thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC):Reply
Just a quick question. I notice there are two separate set of results listed for the Orkney Islands. One result puts the R1a1 figure at 7 percent; the other at 27 percent. That's a huge disparity, if I'm reading the tables correctly. I suppose the only thing to do in such cases is do what you've done: list the two figures with their sources (it seems to me that Capelli is the better source at the lower figure). Is there something I'm missing here? And are these sorts of huge variables on the same territory commonplace? I've certainly seen other results that vary wildly, but this one seems particularly jarring. Again, nice work on these tables. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
That the studies found evidence suggesting western origins is mentioned already now. The only discussion we are having is about how much detail to include from articles, if that detail is not about R1a. Wikipedia can not include discussions of all evidence in every relevant article. If I understand you are arguing that the authors felt that they had "knock out evidence" and this is why you think it is so important. Therefore I asked you to show my a quotation from a scientist saying that mitochondrial DNA and hair and eye colour are knock our evidence of European origins, and therefore perhaps worthy of special mention. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
.
No, I don't think it is details, to put the proportion of these west eurasian hgs during bronze age and the phenotype of the majority of that population.
The current sentence is pretty understimating the results of the study. "as well as other genetic markers associated with European origin." is not significative enough compared to the result's studies we're talking of.
For the rest, my point of view has been addressed :
I could point,at least, to the recent findings that confirm that the European hunter-gatherers were of (at least) mtdna U5 and U4 lineages or that mtDNA H5a is rattached to central Europe and the west of Europe (Franco Cantabrian Region, Wales), but that's besides the point.
The point,is that you intend to make an exception for that particular subject.
Every scientifical studies is entitled to have its conclusions exposed here, except this one. The good question is "why?".
By refusing the conclusions of these studies to be known, on the arguments you put forward, you contest their validity. It's a POV.
Wikipedia is not the place to prove anything remember? Well, you're trying to prove the conclusions of two scientifical studies were wrong (2009 about south siberia and 2004 about Kazakhstan). Is that really your role ?
Almost exclusively R1a1 population + 90 % west eurasian mtDNA hgs + AT LEAST 60 % light har/light eyes/fair skin = western eurasian origin, that was the conclusion of the article. It's you're right to think differently, but I doubt it is your right to prevent the conclusions to be written on wikipedia because you have doubts about it.
Now, that's really the point.Even if the studies were later shown to be wrong, that's out of the picture.
There are scientifical studies made by experts. They make their conclusions and we make them known in Wikipedia, which is the goal, I would think. Should Wikipedia judge the content of specialists' research ?
BTW, that doesn't mean we have to be totally affirmative. We could put a "_very probably_ of Eastern European origin".
I asked for quotes, because I have doubts about your interpretation. Which exact words do these authors use which justify us saying that the hair and eye colour and those specific mitochondrial haplotypes MUST have come from Europe? I should also already point out to you that they have to say it very strongly, because this is a primary source. There are many articles about these subjects and they do not all agree. We need neutrality but we can not quote all opinions about all subjects from all articles. Remember we are writing about R1a.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
.
I provided you the source. But here it is (that's just from the abstract, there are other informations in the whole article that point to eastern Europe too, like a map with the repartition of the Nowadays close Y-STR haplotypes that implicitly support it too) :
"Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe" which implies that they considered that, given the elements listed in the article, this R1a1 population were of European origin (i.e. they were genetically and phenotypically European).
"We need neutrality but we can not quote all opinions about all subjects from all articles"
This is the first time such a complete molecular analysis is done. As such it is important to address it.
Who decide which study is better than another one?
Let me remind you that : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true"
Well, i'm not criticizing the sentence in its entirety, just the fact that your sentence downplay the whole thing. "Overwhelmingly predominant" makes the implications more obvious, as said, your sentence coud imply 35% or 65% in bronze age. 90% is quite another thing (we're talking of a region close to Mongolia). Also the full abstract do use the reconstructed phenotype to support its claim.
It's a whole thing (a whole stream of elements that support a claim).
May I remmeber you that the purpose of that particular section is to list all the elements that point to a eastern european origin for hg R1a1. So much determination to "hide" these probatory elements is strange. Especially since it is clearly scientifically supported. If this will later be rebutted, it is out of the picture.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
For those who have noticed me playing around with the references, this is part of a bigger job. I am going through the data table and checking every source. I am finding errors, doubled up data (these articles often add data from previous articles), and also that which seems to concern people most, signs of cherry picking that makes the overall picture a bit non neutral. I will also try to make the format more neutral and clear, distinguishing three types of test results we are interested in:
R1a+ R1a1 not tested
R1a+ R1a1 negative
R1a1+
I should be able to post a new table within a day or two.
I think the table raises longer run issues as it is very big. Fixing it has made it inevitably bigger. However this article's main editors are all nervous about others trying to de-emphasize any particular region, and so this raw data seems a good way to get the article more neutral and less controversial. Compressing the article can be a long run target. Maybe the table needs to become a separate article with a summary only being given here (as long as we can agree that adding up numbers is obvious and not "research").
For editors not familiar with this type of article, please note that genetics sources are mainly primary data from surveys. The secondary sources are not up to date enough, and the commentaries given with the survey articles are often not taking a big picture. So we have a controversial situation in the positive sense that a wiki can actually be more informative than anything already published, not via OR, but just because the literature is so hard to follow on its own.
It is very difficult, always, to make sure that we do not put in overlapping data that was published in several different articles. If you notice any obvious cases please remark them. This will also be the reason I'll be removing some data, i.e. in cases where it is obvious that two papers were using a lot of the same samples. In such cases I am trying to use the oldest paper in cases where it is the EXACT same data, or the newest paper, in cases where the newer article added more information. Examples:
I've removed the Zerjal data, because it was all in Wells 2001
I am using Battaglia and Tambets as references for some data which was maybe in the table before from an older paper.
I have removed some of the Semino data where it seems clear that later authors went further with the same original samples.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think the article places a significant emphasis on the frequencies of this haplogroup in different countries or ethnic groups. While this is important, a heavy emphasis on frequencies somewhat obscures other important aspects such as the role of this haplogroup has played in the history and prehistory of Eurasia. A lot of the frequencies may eventually be spun off into separate data articles, as they consume a lot of space. The contour map does a pretty good job of summarizing the data, however the one used in this article has no data from South Asia, so it is somewhat incomplete. There are several hypothesis concerning the origins and dispersal of this haplogroup, however, it is not immediately obvious why the standard techniques( age-area hypothesis, least moves-greatest diversity) haven't resolved the issue of origins. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we need a new map. The other thing we can think about is variance measurements of different types, but of course this is a big can of worms as not all papers use the same STR markers, or even report them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Then why don't we change it accordingly in the article, i.e M17 is the defining mutation for R1a1a not for R1a1 and M56, M157 & M204 will be now subclades of R1a1a not R1a1 87.101.224.234 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please see the change I have already made. It is a start. Such changeovers to new phylogenetic names do not have to be rushed because of course (a) it is a lot of work and (b) most articles and discussion still use the old terminology and it is not our aim to confuse the public.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I should have added that another reason for not changing too quickly is that when only one lab has reported something, and they are still working on it, then the tree could change again soon. Realistically, terminology should not be changed with every bit of new information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It's got to be by far the longest table I've seen in wikipedia. It should be condensed, as it is clunky and difficult to use in its current form. I note that it contains multiple entries for the same country, and is very disorganized, going from europe to asia and back to europe and then back to asia. --Athenean (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is a sortable table, so the order is not the problem. The length is a problem, as was stated when it was finished, but I think we all know why it is long. That is because all attempts to compress it are open to relatively justified accusations of OR (you can not add up studies because this would not be comparing apples with applies), and this in turn has led to constant revert wars between people who think others are trying to filter or select specific information in order to push a POV. (I would say both sides might be right, based on patterns I noticed when I went back and checked every data source.) It is precisely the details lost in "compression" which seem to be important to people interested in R1a. For example consider the number of times the relatively insigificant amount of data from Kazakhstan and Sorbia have been mentioned on this talkpage, and consider how important the differences between castes in India are to this subject. Can we really write seriously about R1a if we compress all these things? Should we create a separate article for the table?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think you've made a very good point about the need for the length of the table, Andrew. I do think that it could be broken into a separate piece, as I've seen other lists broken out that way (school alumni, for instance.) MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Expansion times for haplogroup R1a1 date approximately to 18 000 YBP, and age estimates along with Network topology of populations found at opposite poles of its range (Eastern Europe and South Asia) indicate that two separate haplotypic foci exist within this haplogroup.
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Concering the edit made by the user Hxseek he made claims to Toomas Kivisild paper from (2003) that... "However, a major weakness with the findings of this study is that it did not include the actual eastern European populations where R1a1 is postulated to have arisen - ie southern Russia/ Ukraine and/or the Balkans"
I'm asking for a citation and clarification is needed on the source. Because then Hxseek removed the Tag and provided 4 sources..."Semino 2000. Passarino 2002. Pericic 2005. Klyosov 2005"
Now how can Semino (2000), and Passarino (2002) studies know if Kivisild's paper from (2003) didn't have any Eastern Europeans from Russia or Ukraine??? Can they predict the future? Or did you knowingly put bad sources? Cosmos41601:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
No. Those papers showed that Semino, etc proposed that R1a arose in E.E. They did not make a direct critique on Kivisild's paper, obviously in keeping with the theories of relativity. I have re-worded the sentence to reflect such, whilst still highlighting the obviousl flaw in Kvisilid's paper Hxseek (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
It was purposely as you just showed, and your doing nothing more than push your own personal theories. Let's see a citation or some attribution to your claim. Again. IT's IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE A CLAIM TO A SPECIFIC STUDY WHEN THAT STUDY WAS MADE AFTER THAT FACT. PERIOD. Cosmos41619:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hxseek YOU CAN'T MAKE A CLAIM ABOUT A SPECIFIC STUDY FROM 2003, WITH EVIDENCE FROM 2000 AND 2002! And by the way, Hxseek has also violated the 3 Revert-Rule/24 hours.
3RR Violation:
(cur) (prev) 23:14, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (89,847 bytes) (Undid revision 319130842 by Cosmos416 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 23:11, 10 October 2009 Cosmos416 (talk | contribs) m (89,902 bytes) (Again Citation is NEEDED... 2 STUDIES ARE OLDER THAN YOUR CLAIM - DUBIOUS and UNRELIABLE - Wiki: Original Research) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 07:03, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (89,847 bytes) (→South Asian Origin Theories) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 05:07, 10 October 2009 Cosmos416 (talk | contribs) (89,902 bytes) (→South Asian Origin Theories: Citation is NEEDED... 2 STUDIES ARE OLDER THAN YOUR CLAIM - DUBIOUS and UNRELIABLE - WikiL OR) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:39, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) m (89,847 bytes) (→South Asian Origin Theories: refs) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:34, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (89,781 bytes) (It's already sourced in above references) (undo)
Not making up own theories. I have clearly stated that the quoted studies are from an earlier period, but that does not invalidate them. Nor am I misquoting them. The added sentence highlights that Kvisilid's study did not compare his Indian data with any of the 'most ancient' R1a-carrying European populations quoted from earlier studies. Rather, he used Estonians and Czechs, 2 populations which have never (AFAIK) been mentioned to be founding populations of R1a, even from a European perspective. Hxseek (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wrong. If you look through the article's "History Page" you can seen that your trying to mislead everyone here, and you've changed your position, which is still Original Researched base.
One Last Time, You have Violated the 3RR in the 24 hour period (which I will let Admins aware of). PROVIDE A DIRECT PASSAGE OR CITATION VERIFYING YOUR CLAIMS. VERIFICATION.
You changed your position from saying that:
(1) "No. Those papers showed that Semino, etc proposed that R1a arose in E.E. They did not make a direct critique on Kivisild's"
-- Then why even state it even if it has no direct relevance? As in no link. Why? Because you are trying to correlate a (2000) and (2002) paper, with findings from a (2003) paper, with no direct relationship. You said it all in your OWN words.
(2) " I have re-worded the sentence to reflect such, whilst still highlighting the obviousl flaw in Kvisilid's paper"
-- So YOU reworded the sentence to fit your OWN position(s)? YOU are making interpretations and positioning them as scholarly edits with direct linkages (you said it yourself: "I have re-worded the sentence ... highlighting the obviousl flaw in Kvisilid's paper")... That's Called Original Research!!!!
If you so critical on any studies that don't have any sizable populations in studies, that's your own opinion to draw on, unless expressly stated in the source(s) otherwise. It would be..sort of... like me saying (hypothetically):Wells et al. (2001) is biased and portrays inaccurately Indian populations because he only included 3 ethnic groups from Southern India (Greater India is about a 35%-40% the land size of Europe proper and the populations and diversity in India is on such a large scale, you fail to see beyond your biases). Sharma et al.(2009) represent Indians from every region and caste... so let's put that position and cite it in direct relation to Wells et al. (2001), the line after. Your game is clear.
You "caught" me. LOL. I'm not playing a game. I do not need to re-iterate what I'm merely aiming to highlight. It does not affect me personally where R1a arose (for, from what the evidence shows, its quite likely that R1a represents multiple foci of spreads). But your Asio-centrism, on the other hand, is particularly obvious from your virulent commentary. Hxseek (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have tried to reword the passage in question in order to get a practical compromise, but it strikes me that someone must have the new article I referred to above by now, which probably gives a good neutral way of sourcing this type of discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Kvisilid's study makes a specific assertion: This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup
He makes a direct comparison, refuting earlier established theories. This is different to Wells' paper, which Cosmos has counter-criticized. Therefore, such a steadfast conclusion must be based on a reliabel control group. I do not see it to be OR to highlight this, although I am (liek I said earlier) open and willing for re-wording. I do not see how Cosmos has interpreted my willingness to compromise as proof of my "OR" Hxseek (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nope- You said it all I clearly went through it, but you guys just ignore. SO..I am employing the exact same principles by both of your defintions, and put in with Wells et al (2001). Either we have to be neutral or remove both. You can't have it BOTH ways. By the Way you reverted the 3RR Hxseek. Good things you guys pointed out to is acceptable, therefore tonight I will go through every study and see where else this needs to be employed. Cosmos416 1:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that Wells' study preceeded Kvisilid's study, so the case is not quite the same. Nor, as I already mentioned, does Wells' distinctly argue against an Indian/ South Asian origin for R1a. Perhaps you're not grasping these simple facts because, I dare say, you are clouding you're judgement with personal agendas Hxseek (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
PROVIDE A DIRECT PASSAGE OR CITATION VERIFYING YOUR CLAIMS. VERIFICATION.
WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. SHOW DIRECTLY AND STOP STALLING.
From Wikipedia:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
NOW...WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. Because IF YOU CAN'T: This Violates the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position and also unpublished analysis section of Original Research.
Cosmos41602:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Seriously. You appear to be taking this very personally. No one is synthesizing their own conclusions. You need to cool down and show some WP:CIVIL. Because all you;re suceeding in doing is prooving that you are POVHxseek (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Indeed Cosmos416 first posted here and on my talkpage and that of Hxseek, saying he'd be seeking an edit to make his point. So he saw it personally. Weirdly, although he is now blaming me also, he actually called me to come look at this article, and I made one edit which was arguably in his favour, but in any case trying to find a compromise out of pre-existing debate. I still think a compromise would be simple. There is way too much emotion about this edit, which is making totally unnecessary problems. If Cosmos sees a place where a conclusion was made without all the data that would be needed then I guess this can be mentioned within reason, if that is already being done in other sections. (It is always a bit difficult in these genetics articles, because we are indeed always working with fairly raw "primary" articles, so we are open to criticism for using them, but also if we try to include remarks about where articles might be weak or strong. I did not Hxseek's small addition was very controversial though, give or take a few words, and I am not sure that the sources he added were very necessary even though he did that at Cosmos' request. It seems strange to add sources as examples of data that were NOT used. Maybe the wording could be tweaked a bit more to make it clear what is being done with those?)
Hxseek, just playing devil's advocate, if Wells is being described as an advocate of ONE place of origin, then surely this is equivalent to saying that ANOTHER place is NOT the origin. To the extent that he perhaps expressed doubt about it, then this would not be in conflict with Cosmos' proposal for mentioning that Wells did not study all relevant areas? Again, maybe tweaking the words will get things right.
Cosmos416, your own way of describing this edit, sending out warnings while you were looking for something to write like this, implies that it is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:POINT. Leave that kind of stuff out of Wikipedia will you please? It adds nothing, but it can end up getting you blocked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Several messages were left on my page as well, all in capital letters. As Andrew suggests, Cosmos needs to work with others here to achieve some sort of compromise. I think Andrew is perfectly capable of blending these two thoughts. Why not let him have a crack at it, and then have a look -- hopefully after you take a deep breath, Cosmos. And please, no more messages to me in all caps. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to be able to help much this week, but really I do not see why others can't work this out. All the facts seem to be on the table. It is only a question of finding the right wording and keeping calm.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
If my inclusion was controversial, that's fine. But I think Andrew's re-wording is very netural, and does not specifically critique the paper. It merely highlights something. I do not see how this is OR, because it does not conclude anything. 06:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hxseek. The only words I removed looked a bit judgemental, arguably, and I think the passage still kept your basic meaning? Concerning the additional words of Cosmos, I think it is best to ignore the point-making way he presented it and consider whether there is any wording you would accept which would get his point across correctly. I think it is for sure (I cited a new paper above about it) that many papers about R1a looked at South Asia OR Eastern Europe, to the exclusion of the other, and therefore weakened the importance of their conclusions. We can and should try to indicate this, but it is of course best if we can find that new article and cite it as a source. I have not got a copy yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry if I seemed rude, but my problem is your all in agreement to something that is AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY IN ORDER TO FURTHER A BIASED EASTERN EUROPEAN ORIGIN> THAT'S VERY CLEAR and PROVOKING (EDIT WARRING).
WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. SHOW DIRECTLY AND STOP STALLING.
From Wikipedia:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
NOW...WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. Because IF YOU CAN'T: This Violates the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position and also unpublished analysis section of Original Research.
I will keep removing it unless provided, which is in accordance of Wikipedia Policy. I used the same principles you were using, and found out it's all ORIGINAL RESEARCH to employ what you guys are employing. So I'm pointing that out.
CONSENSUS CAN NOT OVERRIDE WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH: NOW PLEASE PROVIDE WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003..OTHERWISE IT IS synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position
Calm down, stop writing in capitals, stop repeating yourself or talking about an imaginary "you guys", and please state what statement you are saying is un-sourced. HXseek included a remark saying that a study did not include data from a certain area, and that study indeed clearly did not include such data. I simplified his remark (after you posted a message on my talk page) to make sure it only said this. (The sources HXseek has added at your insistence were not intended to be sources ABOUT Kivisild, but rather examples of data from the other area.) Then you did exactly the same thing you said should not be done in another section, after telling everyone you'd be looking for a way to make a WP:point, and I think the only problem was that Hxseek claims that the your addition made no sense because the paper in question was not making such specific claims about regions outside its study area anyway. (I have questioned his logic above.) Is that all you are talking about, or is there something else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Andrew, you calm down, behave yourself, and answer the Question:
(1) CONSENSUS CAN NOT OVERRIDE WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH
(2) Don't be a sock and make baseless claims like WP:POINT, which has no bearing. Like (a) I said I was following your OWN principles after you had legitimized it, and (b), I found it out AFTER IT WAS AGAINST WIKIPEDIA ORIGINAL POLICY, So now I will FOLLOW guidelines, AS SHOULD ALL OF YOU (c)STICK TO THE FACTS and DON'T PERSONALLY ATTACK ME.
(3) Point out in those 4 sources provided where does it make any type of CLAIM(S) DIRECTLY in regards to Kivisild's study from 2003.
(4) If you can't (like you said: "The sources HXseek has added at your insistence were not intended to be sources ABOUT Kivisild, but rather examples of data from the other area.") > THAN THAT IS: synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position Do you have trouble understanding that? Than maybe you should go back to school. I have to go to my girlfriend's house for Thanksgiving, I hope you understand wikipedia: original research.
-Putting Kivisild's study from 2003 and then correlating it with 4 sources that have NO MENTION OF KIVISILD's STUDY with:"However, this study did not include the actual eastern European populations where R1a1 is postulated by others to have arisen - ie southern Russia/ Ukraine and/or the Balkans" - Violates Wikipedia's Original Research Policy: Synthesis of Published Material That Serves to Advance a Position. It CAN'T get any clearer.
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion
Now that he cause of the apparent edit war is over, I have gone over this page, I see data presented as figures (cline maps), data presented in text, and data in Tables. While the table is quite long, I suppose it is acceptable, this should allow some cleaning up of the text to make in more reader friendly.PB666yap22:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have added a critique of the article to the MCB header (click [show]) at the bottom of the header for areas in which the article needs to be improved.PB666yap15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The origin section of the Main is entirely too long and is mostly speculative. Please shorten this section and remove or condense material that is of a speculative nature. I have lengthened the introduction to cover the topics on the page. The Intro is long enough, the origins section is way to long for the science. Also I moved the table to its own list page. I strongly dislike the use of Such and such has this or that type. If I were to discuss the types of people I work with I would be sued for violation of confidentiality. I think these types of pages are an inappropriate place to discuss individuals genetic makeup.PB666yap01:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see nothing wrong in what you are saying, but I hope you'll make changes carefully and with good edit notes because edits on this page tend to make people nervous. The origins section is too long because of the same reason everything got too long on this article: compromises from disputes meant putting in everything. Cutting back has to be done carefully. I mentioned above that there seems to be a nice new article which possibly finally gives a more neutral perspective, neither taking a Euro-centric or India-centric line. That could help a lot but I do not have a copy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually I don't want to make the changes, I am encouraging the editors to make changes. Theories is improperly used here, generally the word theory applies to a dominant line of though that is intermediate between a law and hypothesis. In these instances all the theories listed on the page are intermediate between theories and sheer speculation. I would ask the major question, how many of the 'theories' listed have tested for all the markers L62, L63, SRY1532.2, M17, M198 in addition to the R1a1x markers? One of the most distasteful things in molecular anthropology is when popular scientist pontificate on things like origins with half-facts or a distorted fact sets. While they may involve themselves in the creation of new mythologies, I think WP should say decidedly in neutral territory.PB666yap12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Here is what I want, Andrew, I want the page improved to the point that we can agree the article no longer needs attention, so that it is a B-class article. However we can get it there I don't care, but instead of everyone adding their POV to the article, what we need now is to get the article up to standard, if I don't see some progress in this area I will start cutting.PB666yap12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Concerning the Origins section, I have been putting off trying to compress it further until I see that new article. Anyone out there have a pdf I may peruse?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Which article?
Philosophical question. Combining all the Y chromosome from all the R1a studies, how many of these studies have sequenced the entire NRY region of an R1a?PB666yap12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (IOW, we need to keep things in perspective on how bad the half-facts are.)Reply
“
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation.
”
IOW folks we cannot have 5 different theories that satisfy the above requirement (I am not speaking only to Andrew), if the article cannot be condensed and the chaff removed I will chop, chop, chop away. The more the section violates the above, the more likely it will be to be chopped, I will be especially interested in the size of studies used and how many of the L62, L63, SRY1532.2, M17, M198 markers were tested. But I know you guys can step up and fix the problem yourselves, you don't need someone who has a lack of respect for Y chromosomal studies to come in and refactor your work do you? (a broadly rhetorica hint).PB666yap13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anything decisive about this, it looks like this population is a derivative from the point of origin, with contribution from two discrepant sources.PB666yap21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
^Barrier analysis (Alexander Varzari, 5.2.4) show a clear gene barrier along the Vistula: "This finding suggests that across the history the geographic boundary, dividing Southeast Europe from Eastern Europe was more transparent for the reciprocal flows than the boundary between Eastern and Western Europe."
^correlated with the "secondary Urheimat" or early Centum dialects; Mallory says (1987, p257): "Perhaps our only recourse is to return to our strict definition of the Proto-Indo-European homeland as where the Indo-European languages were spoken in the period 4500–2500 BC."
^European R1a1 measurements (referred to as M17 or Eu19) in Semino et al 2000 read 6.2% to Germans (a 4X drop to Czechs and Slovakians reading 26,7%) and 3.7% to Dutch
![[2]](http://www.hjholm.de/SLRD-map.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.svg){kind=link}
