Ebizur

Hello Ebizur! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Mutation Z24598 is shared by late yDNA O1b2-47z>O1b2-Z24599 and late yDNA R1b-FGC11175

The mutation Z24598 is shared by late yDNA O1b2-47z>O1b2-Z24599 and late yDNA R1b-FGC11175, a typical Steppe-derived Indo—European lineage (e.g. in “The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe”).

Also, it was observed that, despite other differences, the Japanese word of consent “aa” and the Indo-European word of consent “aha”, which is also found in English, are similar.

UPDATE: yDNA R1b-FGC11175 is unrelated to yDNA R1b-DF27; or too late for mtDNA D4* individuals, reaching the Near East https://www.yfull.com/mtree/D4*, particular branches of mtDNA D4* can be associated with yDNA O-M122 and yDNA O1b1-M95 populations (e.g., observed in the Blang, Dai and, possibly, in ancient Man Bac rice farmers (cf. 33,2% sequences being mtDNA D/G in ManBac and being farther associated with either mtDNA D4 or mtDNA D5; mtDNA G=0% ))). P.S. It means that yDNA O-m122 and yDNA O1b1-M95 beares might contribute to Afroasiatic languages what was characteristic of languages of yDNA O-M122 and yDNA O1b1-M95 bearers (that is, Sino-Tibetan, etc). It leaves the Japanese-related yDNA O1b2, D-M64, C1a in even more complete and difficult isolation, the “salvation” from which likely does not exist, which is probably deservedly so and fair. P.P.S. Moreover, it is unknown, to which branches of yDNA O1b2-47z Shimazu lords’ dubious subjects from Kyushu, claiming the descent from Fujiwara, really belonged.

UPDATE: yDNA R1b-FGC11175 is a relative of ca.4100-year-old I2445 sample, whose population was accused by someone of commiting the genocide of non-Indo-European cultures. 4100 years passed, but, nonetheless, the body of I2445 is used by someone to remind the descendants of the crimes of the past. Therefore, it is clear that attempts to make someone vanish can produce consequences even 4100 years ago. Another example is the Japanese researcher Fuzuki Mizuno. If she visited ethnographic musea more often, she would understand, the relationship to which ethnic groups is clearly present on her face and cannot be hidden. Perhaps, then she would be more cautious, when trying to cause an incorrect association between “the presence of ANE-related mutations in dwellers of some Japanese regions” and innocent modern Japanese individuals, deriving from descendants of Early Neolithic inhabitants of Shandong, in whose ancient genomes the ANE was not detected. Thanks to Fuzuki Mizuno’s efforts, the Japanese, related to “the mtDNA of the pureblood islanders” (M7a), manifested their special Native American-related component, specific to them, in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. The attempts to make someone be lost to sight are placing the “villain” on the wrong side of history, therefore, the consequences for thinking that “unlike all others, we have the will of our own” are definitely already coming and will definitely come even more.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 

At least 1 Japanese out of 100 Yfull Japanese male samples (that is, 1% of Japanese males) belongs to yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763, which likely inspired the rice farming of yDNA O-M7 Miao-Yao and others in China

As for yDNA O1b2-P49, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", at least one of Chinese Shandong yDNA O1b2-P49 individuals clustered with yDNA J sample from the Henan Province. However, he might be a remain of the “Manchu-like” yDNA O1b2-P49 population, which was shown in Katoh, 2005.

Unlike this, yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763, accompanied by one more yDNA O-M122 ancient pottery making lineage, is promoted by materials of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" for the role of the influencing inspiration of the neolithization among the future yDNA O-M7 Miao-Yao rice farmers, but also among other ancestors of rice farmers.

Taking into account the homogenity within the yDNA O-M134 population in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” and in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”, the lineage yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763 separated from the common population with Sinitic speakers population roughly 9000 years ago, that is, quite simultaneously with the Tibeto-Burman branch of yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12, while the very first split between Sinitic and Tibetan branches of the Sino-Tibetan population is estimated to have occurred at least about 9000 years ago in China. Nonetheless, yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763 population occupied an area, different from the area of yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12 pre-Tibeto-Burman population.

On the Yfull site, at least 1 Japanese out of 100 Yfull Japanese male samples (that is, 1% of Japanese males) belongs to yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763, while one more such a Japanese exists on the theytree.com site. However, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763-related ones were shown to have interacted with the Zhenjiang-Fujianese yDNA O-M119. While the yDNA N-CTS4714>N-Y66001(SK1508) branch of the foothill Naxi, also engaged in rice farming, was shown to interact with the ancient version of the combined component of yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763 and yDNA O-M119 population in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the population, producing yDNA N-CTS4714>M-Y24190 Japanese individual, as well as the neighboring population producing YDNA N-CTS4714>N-M1813 “Thailand Khon Mueang rice farmer-like“ individual, were shown to interact with yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763 initially without yDNA O-M119, while the population, producing yDNA N-CTS4714>N-Y24190 Japanese individual, started to interact with the yDNA O-M119 Zhenjiang population later in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago".

In “An update and frequency distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups in modern Japanese males” by Youichi Sato and Makoto Inoue, branches of yDNA O-M122, that is, yDNA O2a2b1 and yDNA O2a1b, were mentioned as branches of the Japanese males without much distinction from y chromosome C1a1, C2, D1a2a, D1a2a-12f2b, O1b2 and O1b2a1a1 haplogroups. However, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", one more yDNA O-P49 male from Chongqing contributed his component, shared with the Shandong yDNA O1b2-P49 (the Shandong yDNA O1b2-P49 clustering with the yDNA J sample from Henan) to Vietnamese and Dai individuals (which is consistent with the appearance of yDNA O1b2 in those populations) as well as to the She population (which is consistent with the DNA connection between the She and the Japanese, reported elsewhere). Otherwise, yDNA O-P49 male from Chongqing predominantly shared components with Chinese individuals of yDNA O2a2b1 and yDNA O2a1b from neighboring provinces, but not the “direct” component of the yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763 source population, in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago". It means that yDNA O-P49 male from Chongqing might have originated from the population, where the yDNA O-M122>Y20>Y12>CTS3763-related component had already been distributed before. Unlike the above, the Japanese yDNA O-P49 individuals from Japan proper tend to form clines with ancient and modern individuals from millet farming North China, which means that millet farmer-related migrants actually outnumbered rice farming migrants from the south, which is consistent with the better connection of Japan to North China, rather than to South China. [It should be mentioned that yDNA J, likely joining a part of yDNA O1b2 individuals in China, was not reported from Japan, which means that the Japanese yDNA O1b2 males derived from another population, whose relative contributed yDNA O1b2 to a population, containing yDNA J, but the same yDNA O1b2-related component in China was distributed to the Vietnamese, Dai and She]

In “An update and frequency distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups in modern Japanese males”, Youichi Sato and Makoto Inoue showed the existence of numerous branches of y chromosome C1a1, C2, D1a2a, D1a2a-12f2b, O1b2 and O1b2a1a1 haplogroups in Japan in combination with branches of yDNA O-M122, that is, yDNA O2a2b1 and yDNA O2a1b. Youichi Sato and Makoto Inoue claimed that six Japanese urban populations, composed of selected individuals, are really homogenous and resulted from the migration. However, the territory of China could not have been the place of origin of so diversified C1a1, “northern” C2, D1a2a, D1a2a-12f2b combination, the amount of O1b2 and O1b2a1a1 haplogroups’ bearers in China being not significant. In "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the central area where the Japanese, remote from extreme borders and faraway locations of their archipelago, plot on the PCA, has “central” intermixed samples, which form clines with similar properties. Consequently, the “all-inclusive” formation of the migrant part of the Japanese population might have started in the area of Korea, where ancestors of mainstream Koreans did not form, but the formation of the Japanese population should have been finished in Japan, possibly during the medieval period.

It is striking, how little “early rice farmer lineages from China” preserved in Japan, according to the centralized state-financed research in Japan. If such a population structure is adopted, one explanation should be that rice farming practices were delivered by not so significant amount of “early rice farmer lineages from China”, whereas later rice farming proved to be economically advantageous and acquired a wider distribution among local dwellers and descendants of millet farmer migrants due to the insistence of the ruling elites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

yDNA O-P164(xM134) and the Kosarek population

It is considered in the IVPP that yDNA O-P164(xM134), which links Austronesian languages of yDNA O-M119 and yDNA O-BY157019 (https://www.theytree.com/tree/O-BY157019) to the Sino-Tibetan languages of yDNA O-M134, was one of those to contribute DNA to ancestors of the Kosarek population (indeed, mtDNA R23, being geographically the closest to the Kosarek population and sharing some DNA with mtDNA H in the European piece of research, was maximized in the Balinese population of Austronesian speakers). Unlike this, mtDNA D4* bearers reached the Near East and also contributed to the local populations. As a side result, the Kosarek language and some Near Eastern languages clustered with each other (type in Kosarek to find out more http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/slides/slidesHITS.pdf). Thus, this way of the participation of yDNA O-P164(xM134) in Austronesians should explain some similarites in Near Eastern languages to the Sino-Tibetan languages, that is, to non-Nostratic Sino-Tibetan languages. Interestingly, such an approach may partially explain discoveries by the Japanese researcher Koji Ohnishi, who found similarities between Austronesian languages and numerous language families of the world. DNA, related to that other part of O2a2*-P201(xO2a2a1a1a-M159, O2a2a1a2-M7, O2a2b1-M134) population, that is, roughly to yDNA O-P164(xM134) population, contributed to the ancient Botai population, according to the IVPP, which is consistent with the appearance of the Ami-related component (its “Atayal” variant is maximized in the Han Chinese in “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”) in the ancient Botai population, as discovered by the American researcher Choongwon Jeong. As for the Japanese yDNA O-P164>…>F871 connection, it is more likely, that it was related to the “demographically insignificant” “early rice farmers from China” layer of the Japanese population. The significance of the actual ancient Austronesian population (where yDNA O1a-M119 is reaching from 50% to 100% frequency in the “initial Austronesian” Taiwanese aboriginals) should not be overestimated.

P.S. One should conclude from the IVPP research that the population, which contributed to speakers of languages in Africa, of which mtDNA R-T16189C* is a remaining tracer dye, influenced the formation of the so-called “Nostratic” languages. The history of the components of such a population should be very complicated in order to account for Jager, 2017, but also for other western pieces of “glottochronological” research as well as for various grammar peculiarities. A language, which is fully “Native American” in Jager, 2017, can very much pass as a distant Early Upper Palaeolithic relative of “Nostratic” in other western reconstructions, employing traditional methods of reconstruction, because Jager’s innovation is the use of automatic reconstruction. Bearers of such a haplogroup as yDNA O1b2 cannot accept that mtDNA R-T16189C*-related population influenced the yDNA C2-M217-related population. In any case, languages, which stayed in East Asia, should resemble a “pre-African” stage, occupying the intermediate position between “non-Nostratic” Chinese and an Africa-influenced “Nostratic” language. Since yDNA J1 probably did not live in Africa in Late Palaeolithic, prior to the new contact with Africa, this lineage should have stayed as it had been.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 

Formation of Koreans in "Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China"

Table S6B. Three-, two-, and single-source mixture models for present-day East Asians.

Korean (51%-1%)Boshan +14%Kolyma+(29%+1%+6%)LIANGDAO2!

6% ancestry in Koreans is related to Liangdao2 (6% of "evolved" CT*-related population ancestry), but not to "Nostratic-speaking" populations.

UPDATE: Proto-Tibeto-Burman *s-nəy, Proto-Hmongic *hnɛŋ and Proto-Mienic *hnu̯ɔi 'sun, day'. It is more likely that the “Nostratic” Proto-Japanese *pí 'sun, day' is not related to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Eskimo-Aleut and Cushitic

For example, various Eskimo-Aleut languages share with Afroasiatic Cushitic languages a rare root malla(…) ‘two’, which is not observed in other Afroasiatic branches, but which is also observed in at least two “Nostratic” Dravidian languages.

Cushitic languages largely cluster as an outgroup to other Afroasiatic languages in Jager, 2017.

Fortunately, a couple of Cushitic languages clustered with one Timor-Alor-Pantar language and a few Native American languages.

Some Western Eurasian haplogroups (that is, not NO-M214) have a stronger connecton to Oase1.

Obviously, “northern” Nostratic-like influences are considered by western scientists to have the beginning of their transmission in Palaeolithic peoples, having western haplogroups in the first place.

While at least “northern” C2-M217 most likely had actual contacts and has substantial shared mutations with western haplogroups, signals from western male haplogroups could be observed in ancient DNA at least as far as the Chukchi Peninsula and Kamchatkan Peninsula. Consequently, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” gathered cases of mtDNA A2 of the Eskimo population, which share mutations with western mtDNA lineages.

Since the root malla(…) ‘two’ is rare, one should recall that yDNA K2a* Oase1 had interacted with yDNA F* BachoKiro in Vallini et al. If ydna K2a* populations and yDNA F* populations interacted, then one group of ydna K2a* and yDNA F* tended to migrate in the direction of BachoKiro, while another group, today represented at least by some Southeast Asian yDNA F, tended to go along the route, ultimately leading them to islands of Southeast Asia. Consequently, ydna K2a* and yDNA F*, akin to BachoKiro, interacted with populations, akin to Western Eurasians, and their distant descendants distributed between Cushitic populations and, bypassing ancestors of speakers of Eskimo-Aleut languages (also sharing some stems with “Nostratic” languages) should have reached those Native American languages, which lexically clustered with Afroasiatic Cushitic languages in Jager, 2017. Their yDNA K2a*/yDNA F part, migrating to Southeast Asia, produced the lexical Timor-Alor-Pantar connection for Cushitic, also observed in Jager 2017 (but only because distant descendants of its Oase1/BachoKiro part finally reached Cushitic speakers).

The above is just one example of ancient interactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Mutation F1319 in yDNA C2-F1067

You have mentioned the mutation F1319, observed in C2-F1067>C2-F1319, R1b-FTA1419, R1b-Y128031, R2-Y298992.

However, in recent Western Eurasian “Population genomics of postglacial Western Eurasia”, among male ancient samples, only the yDNA D-M64 Japan Jomon male was used as an Eastern Eurasian source for the Ancient North Eurasians (accompanied by two Japan Jomon females).

In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” they showed that the most indigenous C2-F1067 case clustered exactly with an ancient Tianyuan. In “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, they showed that yDNA C2-F1067 members could also participate in the formation of the Neolithic Iran component (that is, in the formation of a variety of the Neolithic Iran component, dominated by yDNA R2), which is most likely due to the dissemination of the microblade technology, adopted by yDNA C2-F1067 members in North China or even developed by yDNA C2-F1067 members in North China (according to some views). Unlike this, the formation of Sino-Tibetans took place in an area, unaffected by microblade production, according to the IVPP.

yDNA C2-F1067 Koreans also have grand visions of the influence of their Palaeolithic ancestors. However, unlike the ancestors of modern yDNA C2-F1067 Koreans, the most indigenous yDNA C2-F1067 had mtDNA D4*, clustering with the Tianyuan in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”. Apparently, a close relative of mtDNA D4* contributed such a type of ancestry to Tianyuan, whereas the earlier “deniticulate stone tool” industries of an earlier layer of Tianyuan-related populations were characteristic of yDNA C2 populations.

Interestingly, yDNA O1b2-F1658 is one of branches of yDNA O, which would be the richest in the shared mutations with yDNA R. Indeed, some of the shared yDNA O1b2-F1658/yDNA R mutations include: Z24996 R1b-BY44621 Z24996 O1b2-F1658 Z24540 R1b-FT3110 Z24540 O1b2-F1658 Z24492 R1b-Y23191* Z24492 O1b2-F1658 Y19692 R1b-Y19692 Y19692 O1b2-F1658 F2430 R-Y30815 F2430 O1b2-F1658 CTS9934 R1a-YP1701* CTS9934 O1b2-F1658 CTS960 R1b-Y331619 CTS960 O1b2-F1658 CTS8322 R1b-FT80041 CTS8322 O1b2-F1658 Indeed, the Western Eurasian “Population genomics of postglacial Western Eurasia” dragged one man of yDNA O1b1-F838 (he has a mutation M5908, similar to yDNA O1b2-F1658’s mutation CTS1808) to their Tianshan mountains’ cluster, which separates from yDNA P-influenced Ust-Ishim prior to the split from Ust-Ishim “To Japan Jomon, Hoabinhian and HistAndaman”. However, it is not correct to project yDNA O1b2 characteristics on other haplogroups, and the IVPP reserchers should be opposed to the origin of yDNA O1b in the vicinity of the Tianshan mountains and Kazakhstan. In "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia" and “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” it was pointed that mtDNA M8’CZ-related population is a population, distantly related to Ust-Ishim’s, while Ust-Ishim does not contribute to modern populations himself. Consequently, Western Eurasian “Population genomics of postglacial Western Eurasia” clusterizations should not be viewed as a valid ultimate phylogeny, but instead should be explained by influence from mtDNA M8’CZ-Ust-Ishim-related population and its even older relatives onto various Eurasian populations. Thus, other explanations for O1b2-F1658/yDNA R shared mutations should be searched for.

Nonetheless, the independent role for yDNA R (which is not at all necessarily considered by scientists to derive directly from the ANE, such as Mal'ta's) inside the opinion of Western Eurasian elites researchers should not be exaggerated. Instead, numerous authors of “Population genomics of postglacial Western Eurasia” referred to the David Reich’s work on “Basal Eurasian”, the origin of which, according to David Reich, should be searched for in North Africa. Nonetheless, regarding ancient Western Eurasians, including yDNA R members, authors of “Population genomics of postglacial Western Eurasia” called the Palaeolithic Eurasian part of “Basal Eurasian” a “ghost population”, probably meaning that it included yDNA E* members from North Africa, whose yDNA E* lineages did not preserve in Eurasia. Indeed, even if yDNA E*, interacting with deep yDNA CT* in Africa, might have shown little or even no Neanderthal-like ancestry in their genomes, it would be interesting to see an ancient yDNA E* member from North Africa, who would profess the inferiority of East Africans, neglected the East African-Iran-related route with little or no archaic human neighbours (suggested by Melinda Yang for ancestors of non-Africans, including East Asians), but instead decided to travel along the Northern African route, inevitably coinciding with the route, proposed by Omry Barzilai for the IUP-related populations. In this case, an ancient yDNA E* member from North Africa might have partially retained yDNA CT*-related African ancestry with little or no Neanderthal admixture, but, traveling along Omry Barzilai’s route from North Africa, this ancient yDNA E* member would have acquired other types of admixture, described by Omry Barzilai (http://www.anthropol.ac.cn/CN/10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2022.0035). Thus, it may partially explain the idea from authors of “Population genomics of postglacial Western Eurasia” to consider such ancient individuals as “ghost population”.

Japanese researchers from Center for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, College of Human and Social Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan, tried to suggest that some ancestry in ancient Ust-Ishim might be similar to yDNA D-M174* Hoabinhian and might have separated prior to the split of Eastern and Western Eurasians (which is just one of descriptions in simple words for “Basal Eurasian” from David Reich’s article). Maybe, they were not driven by the idea to use their official position to only promote their haplogroup. Instead, they might have been aware that, according to some Western linguists, the Japanese language alledgedly contains hundreds of roots with “Nostratic” etymologies, related to basic concepts (those roots are not necessarily productively used today, sometimes existing in a fossilized form) as well as the Japanese language alledgedly contains numerous grammar features, shared with “Nostratic” languages, but absent in Sino-Tibetan languages (Sino-Tibetan languages are not “Nostratic”). The word “Nostratic” is related to the Latin word “noster”, and, from the point of view of some politicized historians, it should be interpred as “IT’S OURS”, which might make the concept of “Nostratic” formally incompatible with the meaning of the Japanese identity as “the recognition that one belongs exclusively to Japan”. The IVPP concluded that the ancient ancestry in Ust-Ishim was in fact only related to the yDNA DE* ancestry, but not directly to the ancestry of yDNA D-M174, and yDNA DE* ancestry should be useful in explaining connections with speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages and the Eurasian Sumerian language (which clustered with Nilo-Saharan languages, having one Papuan language (Kaure) as an outgroup, in Jager, 2017). Unlike this yDNA DE* ancestry, which separated to the Mbuti side in to "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago", the non-North African Eurasian “basal ancestry” with little or no Neanderthal, which might have also been potentially included in an Ust-Ishim-related population, separated not far from the split of Ust-Ishim, Western and Eastern Eurasians in "40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia".

As a side example, while Afroasiatic as such did not possess “M and T pronouns”, a few modern Afroasiatic languages have stems related to “M pronouns” and “T pronouns”. In Eurasia, “M-T pronouns” languages include some Papuan languages. The existence of stems related to “M pronouns” and “T pronouns” in a few modern Afroasiatic languages may point to the influence of speakers of “M-T pronouns” languages on members of some individual Afroasiatic branches, which in turn can consequently influence primary materials for the reconstruction of Afroasiatic proto-languages, including the reconstruction of their roots, shared with various Eurasian languages. Unfortunately, unlike a few others, the Papuan Toaripi language, with which the Japanese researcher Go Minoru compared the Japanese language in 1980, did not cluster with Afroasiatic languages in Jager, 2017.

UPDATE: Ebizur="Wow, that's wonderful! Thank you, black man. The more detailed spreadsheet includes results for other interesting SNPs, such as CTS10687"

It is more likely that Toyama Mitsuru Sakitani’s theory was meant to be directed against a certain theory that some Yangtze rice farmers were once closely connected to Semitic-speaking populations, but were assimilated by northern Manchu-like ancestors of the Japanese. For yDNA O1b1 having similar mutations, the IVPP pointed to the connection to one of East Asian-related yDNA CT* populations instead of the direct relationship to the Semitic yDNA E population. Consequently, the appearance of similar mutations can be treated as an influence of rice farming “yDNA CT*-influenced” yDNA O1b1 members on yDNA O1b2 members. In any case, being related to ancestors of actual Semitics cannot explain “Nostratic” elements in the Japanese language, because “Nostratic” elements has usually been shown to have much wider connections.

It is more likely that both [1] Mitsuru Sakitani (who “replaced” the “obscure” Lower Yangtze rice farmers with actual ancient Japanese, despite the absence of the “Lower Yangtze”-“ Tàibó of Wu” claims in the Kojiki, which means that such claims had been against the will of the ruling elite of the period, when the Kojiki was written down) and [2] Japanese authors from “Center for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources” (who created “the Tripartite structure model”, desperately trying to derive from a Jomon-related component both autosomally Manchu-like yDNA C2-M217 members of Yayoi (who subdued some noname rice farmers) and a later Han Chinese-like yDNA O-M134 Kofun-related population) aimed to “replace some unfriendly foreign theories”, which is an approach that is also practiced by publicly available authors and researchers in other countries. Nonetheless, in the peer-reviewed article, published in the western world, authors of the “Tripartite structure” could not be clear for the general public and could not express their view in a simple way about the Jomon connection in all three mentioned historical populations (a “familial connection” in case of the Kofun population?). Consequently, their “autosomally Manchu-like yDNA C2-M217 Yayoi” + “Han Chinese-like Kofun” model is being used by foreign authors to state for the public that the Japanese largely derived from Altaic-like and Han Chinese-like migrants. Since Mitsuru Sakitani’s “Lower Yangtze rice farmers” should only start migration 2800 years ago (that is, already after the period, when the first rice remains had been reported from Korea) and left the Yue-related remains in the Lower Yangtze, then, when combined with “autosomally Manchu-like yDNA C2-M217 Yayoi” from the “Tripartite structure” article, it looks like an “autosomally Manchu-like yDNA C2-M217” ancient population assimilated some Yangtze rice farmers, speaking a language, whose affinity cannot already be clearly determined (for example, Alexander Vovin presented a theory that rice farmers, migrating to the Japanese archipelago should be linguistically connected to actual Austroasiatics, who were later assimilated, but not to Para-Austroasiatics). Such a combination is in line with the western theory of the origin of the Japanese from a “rude” Altaic-like component (Japanese language) and a “refined” assimilated component, engaged in rice farming, alledgedly inspired by the Near East. Recently, even the phrase about the Japanese identity as “the recognition that one belongs exclusively to Japan” was insensibly removed from the Japanese version of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

yDNA C-M48 in Japan

Ebizur: “whereas Hammer et al. (2006) have found C-M86 (a subclade of C-F1396) to be most common in Kyūshū, with one example from Tokushima as well”.

The most unusual is the only case of C-M86 from Tokushima in Hammer et al, 2006. In “Three major lineages of Asian Y chromosomes: implications for the peopling of east and southeast Asia” (2001-2002), Japanese genticists counted 46 Uzbekistan Jewish dwellers not as 100% total, but as 100,1% total. Similarly, 2 cases of C-M217 from Tokushima should have amounted to [2/70]*100%=2,857%~2,9% in Hammer et al, 2006. Nonetheless, authors of Hammer et al, 2006 decided to write down these 2 cases of C2-M217 from Tokushima as 2,8%, but the authors deliberately placed 0,1% of an individual in a column “Others”. There were different ideas what it meant. Some Chinese geneticists published an article, where they counted 99,9% of a group, only consisting of a few individuals, total. However, it is more likely that 0,1% does not actually mean an introgression from archaic humans (though ideas to counter such interpretations still do exist). It is more likely that 0,1% means that the authors got such results from these particular C2-M217, which would mean that at least one of individuals could be described in modern terms as having some calls from another haplogroup than C2-M217. For Kyushu’s C2-M217 there was no 0,1% in the column “Others”. Similarly, there was no 0,1% in a different table from Hammer, 2006, regarding Tokushima individuals, when they were written down separately as C-M217(xM48) and C-M48 in Hammer at al, 2006. Then which one of Tokushima dwellers should be associated with 0,1%: C-M217(xM48) or C-M48? During the last 17 years, the bigger attention was paid by researchers, working for Americans, to the relevant cases of C-M48. Let us consider, which particular branch of C-M48/C-M86 a Tokushima individual might have belonged to. There exists a “typically geographically Chinese” branch of C-M48, meaning that some C-M48 ancestors migrated to North China from Northeast China (where a call from ancient C-M48 was observed in AR10-13K of the Songnen Plain), integrated with local populations and produced such a branch, and this “typically geographically Chinese” branch of C-M48 has an offshoot, whose representatives share a mutation with O1b2-K10, which means that some representatives of the mentioned offshoot of this “typically geographically Chinese” branch of C-M48 settled closer to Korea, and some of their descendants might have migrated to Japan. Though such a decision might be realistic for more numerous Kyushu C-M48 individuals with no “additional 0,1%” in Hammer at al, 2006, it is less likely for this particular C-M48 from Tokushima, who acquired an unusual association with 0,1%. Indeed, genetic researchers, working for Americans, paid a substantially much bigger attention to a different branch of C-M48, which might suit the unusual description of this particular C-M48 from Tokushima. I do not want to directly name the particular branch of C-M48 and mutations which this branch shares with other haplogroups. However, it is worth mentioning that this particular C-M86 branch does not share mutations with yDNA E-M96. In accordance with the characteristics, developed by “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, mutations, which this particular branch shares, mean that members of this particular later branch of C-M48 married to some populations originating in the Kingdom of Puyo (Fuyu), which formed on the basis of the Xituanshan culture on the substratum of earlier populations, related to the Zuojiashan culture and Hongshan culture. It is these populations, which should possess such characteristics, non-E-M96 mutations, similar to the ones that the described mysterious C-M48 branch also has.

Thus, it is not impossible that the particular case of C-M48 from Tokushima derived from the remnants of the Puyo-related population, migrating to Paekche and later to Japan. It is such a population on the substratum of the Zuojiashan culture and Hongshan culture, whose representatives of the Zuojiashan culture and Hongshan culture migrated faraway to the Southwest and Zuojiashan and Hongshan populations should have acquired a genetic connection to some dwellers of the Himalayas in accordance with the PCA of “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, which C-M48 from Tokushima might also have, because, if such a hypothesis is accepted, his ancestors should have married to the Puyo-related population, which formed on the basis of the Xituanshan culture on the substratum of earlier populations, related to the Zuojiashan culture and Hongshan culture. However, “Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread” does not mention any conquest of Japan, similar to the one, proposed by Ledyard, therefore, there might have been usual migrations of single individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Limited participation of yDNA D-M64 population in the formation of an Ancient North Eurasian component, only related to Native American-like populations in the first place

In Jager, 2017, the languages of “rich in deeply diverse mtDNA N” Burusho (8,1% C2-M217 in Firasat et al, 2006) clustered with languages of Papua-New Guinea’s Lani (100% yDNA C1b-M38 in Kayser et al, 2003) and Papua-New Guinea’s Dani (91,7% yDNA C1b-M38 in Kayser et al, 2003), who were “leaders” in their cluster in Jager, 2017, Lani being the most populous Papuan language in Indonesian New Guinea. The Korean language (the language of a rather C2-M217-rich population) also clustered as a faraway branch of Burusho-Lani-Dani, while Japanese got attached to the Korean cluster in Jager, 2017 (if only a Korean-related C2-M217 population were not a cause for the total extinction of a real language of yDNA O1b-P49 bearers, because it would be a great loss).

Unlike this, there appeared a [Kartvelian]-(…)-[Mongol-Tungus-Indo-European-Dravidian] node in Jager, 2017, where Kartvelian, Mongol-Tungus and Indo-European are language families with “M-T pronouns”. Having “M-T pronouns” does not make a language family “Nostratic”, because Afroasiatic languages lack “M-T pronouns”.

Interestingly, more likely due to the presence of Mongol-Tungus members, the [Mongol-Tungus-Indo-European-Dravidian] node in Jager, 2017 included a Native American language from Chile (as an outgroup for all members), whose speakers are the richest in mtDNA D4h3a (ca.50% mtDNA D4h3a, see here https://i.ibb.co/8x2L27M/76.png).

mtDNA D4h3a shares mutation A16241G with mtDNA T2, the amount of which is maximized in Kartvelians, speakers of languages with “M-T pronouns”. The ca. 36000-year-old Papuan mtDNA Q also shares the mutation A16241G with mtDNA D4h3a and mtDNA T2. In “Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history”, the IVPP researchers presented materials, suggesting that populations of Caucasian mtDNA T2, Papuan mtDNA Q and Northeast Asian mtDNA D4h3a contacted each other via the fourth mediating population. The IVPP pointed to the 120000-year-old Papuan-like component (as a tracer dye for a migration), one mutation related to this component appeared well-preserved in Europe. However, the model from the Western Eurasian Vallini et al, 2021 had suggested before that a 120000-year-old Papuan-like component, observed in ancient Europe in Fu et al, 2016, might even be slightly more ancient than a similar 120000-year-old Papuan-like component, observed in actual Papuans. The directionality does not matter for this question.

The described situation coincided in time with the proposal from Japanese authors from Center for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, College of Human and Social Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan, that the deep ancient relative of Neolithic Japan Jomon contributed to the Ancient North Eurasian via Yana_RHS-related population (in “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations”).

As a result, numerous Western Eurasian authors of “Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia” presented models, suggesting that there was a migration of an Ust-Ishim-related population, admixed with yDNA P (such as yDNA P-M1254* in HistAndaman), and one branch of this migration might have contributed to the Hoabinhians, while another branch of this migration might have contributed to Japan Jomon. Most importantly, another model from the mentioned Western Eurasian authors suggested that, after having been influenced by Ust-Ishim-related yDNA P*, the deep ancestor of yDNA D-M64-related Japan Jomon could produce an yDNA D-M64-related pre-Jomon-related offshoot, which indeed could contribute less than 1% DNA to the Ancient North Eurasian Yana_RHS (but not yDNA P) and even to the ANE-related population, a part of which migrated to Iran, while from another part of which no one else, but Paleolithic Baikalian Malta individual originated.

If we recall that the died-out Near Eastern Iran-based Elamite language clustered with the Chile Native American Mapuche language in Jager, 2017, then it becomes clear that it is the Native American Mapuche-like words that the people of the described yDNA D-M64-related deeply diverged offshoot of Japan Jomon component could contribute to ancient Iranians. Since the yDNA D-M64-related Jomon branch contributes to the Devil’s Cave (yDNA C2-M217) in “Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia”, it becomes clear that the Japanese people should not modestly think of themselves as of persons, being influenced by yDNA C2-M217 Mongol-Tungus, but instead should accept that it is no one else as the deep relative of yDNA D-M64 Japan Jomon that contributed to the Paleolithic Amur yDNA C2-M217/mtDNA D4h3a population, also influencing the Native American Chilean mtDNA D4h3a-rich Qawesqar people, whose language lexically clustered with Mongol-Tungus in Jager, 2017, and the yDNA C2-M217 ancestors of Mongol-Tungus distributed those Qawesqar-like words, obtained from the deep relative of yDNA D-M64 Japan Jomon, to ancestors of Indo-Europeans (yDNA C2-M217 being found in Bronze Age Kazakhstan not far from Indo-European-related Steppe-related populations), and some Indo-Europeans interacted with the Dravidians, finalizing the formation of Chilean Qawesqar-Mongol-Tungus-Indo-European-Dravidian cluster of Jager, 2017. However, the magnificent interaction of yDNA D-M64* and yDNA C2-M217 of ancestors of Mongol-Tungus is not capable of explaining the Nostratic classification of the Japanese language. Instead, Jager, 2017 can offer even more geographically suitable Native American languages for comprehending the existence of even more influences from less than 1% DNA from ancient yDNA D-M64-related population (as in “Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia”) onto even more Eurasian languages, the non-Native American lexicon of which is classified as Nostratic. All the mentioned abberant Native American languages are in the yDNA D-M174-related section in Jager, 2017.

The grandeur of accuracy of concepts from Center for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, College of Human and Social Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan, whose workers were augmented by workers from a few Japanese Boards of Education (whose patriotism has been praised elsewhere), becomes obvious. Similarly, the generousity of their Western Eurasian allies, helping the ancient y chromosome relatives of workers of the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources and Boards of Education to personally fulfil the task of distrubuting Japan Jomon-like influences without the need of dragging unrelated haplogroups from distant regions of their actual ancient habitation closer to the homeland of Japan Jomon, becomes obvious as well. It is a pity that no living yDNA D-M64* preserved in Iran or at least in the fartherst corner of Native American Chile today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ebizur: CTS5525 mutation in J1-FTA92262, CTS5525 mutation in O1a-CTS52; CTS3285 mutation in R1b-Y128188; CTS3285 in O1a-F81. Exactly. “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” pointed to the contact between ancient Austronesian-related populations and the Gonur_BA component. However, it is obvious that Austronesian-speaking populations did not become Nostratic speakers due to this contact. Consequently, O1a-CTS52 and O1a-F81 men, found in Japan, could not make Japanese a Nostratic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

According to “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4000 years”, mtDNA G2a’c was one of the lineages connecting ancestors of Han Chinese and ancestors of Tibetans, that is, connecting ancestors of Sino-Tibetans, speakers of a non-Nostratic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Makoto Inoue & Youichi Sato : “C1a1a1b was more common in Tokushima and Osaka than in the other regions.” It is unlikely that Osaka, where the infamous D-MF10280 [url]https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-MF10280/[/url] also lived, was the actual birthplace of the important Shinto-related family. It is unlikely that the origin of Shinto should be attributed to people, harbouring recent y chromosome mutations, related to Near Easterners.

Makoto Inoue & Youichi Sato : “O1, which flourished in the Yangtze River Basin in southern China.” During the PCR period, the same primers were used to test the P49 mutation of O-P49 and the mutation of the Q-M242 level by Michael Hammer, which points to genetic similarities of some DNA sequences of O-P49 and Q-M242 and an African haplogroup, sharing the same mutation with Q-M242 (for this African haplogroup, the same primers were used as well). It is extremely unlikely that Q-M242 ever flourished in the Yangtze River basin. The model of "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" found it possible to infer that the mentioned commonality may be attributed to the “From yDNA CT* to yDNA DE*” period’s population. However, their models did conclude that “yDNA CT* to yDNA DE* population” for Africa, “yDNA CT* to yDNA DE* population” for mainland China and “yDNA CT* to yDNA DE* population” for O-P49 were in fact three different populations, which means that O-P49 and Q-M242 might either have a genuine connection in the past, or there existed the same “yDNA CT* to yDNA DE* population” occupying the vast geographic territory, which interacted with both yDNA Q-M242 and O-P49, such as yDNA D-M174*, whose Tibetan part should be adjacent to Central Asia, where Q-M242 also had lived. yDNA DE was reported from the AR10-13K of the Sungari river basin in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, but this particular DE was also alternatively determined as yDNA C, so this particular DE was not necessarily connected to yDNA D-M174*.

---

Genomic portrait and relatedness patterns of the Iron Age Log Coffin culture in northwestern Thailand Selina Carlhoff, Wibhu Kutanan, Adam B. Rohrlach, Cosimo Posth, Mark Stoneking, Kathrin Nägele, Rasmi Shoocongdej & Johannes Krause The component, which they call “Yangtze River farmer” is actually “Southern East Asian” of Chinese works, which formed to the south of the Yangtze river in the eastern part of the Yangtze’s southern tributaries, and this territory was not associated with the origin of any rice farming. Indeed. Dushan is a representative of this component, being modeled as (49%-4,1%) Liangdao2 + (51%+4,1%)Longlin (betraying what this “Southern East Asian” component is, when yDNA O becomes similar to Longlin and mtDNA B4 becomes similar to Longlin: (49%-4,1%) + (51%+4,1%) component appeared, when yDNA O interacted with mtDNA M9a, after the “Southern East Asian” component started to expand to Guangxi, and Boshan has (49%-4,1%) part in "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" (though he is not “Southern East Asian”, and his component is used to model yDNA O-Y20 sample, but not O-M7 sample), which means that Boshan’s ancestors interacted with an yDNA O population, whose ancestors interacted with mtDNA M9a; because M9a did not come to Early Neolithic Shandong, it means that ancestors of Boshan had to live to the north of yDNA O+M9a population, that is, closer to the northern bank of the Yangtze). Moreover, agricultural implements and pottery fragments were not reported from Dushan. Baojianshan is another representative, but in her case a small Yellow River-like component already appeared in the admixture model of “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, and pottery already appeared at the site of Baojianshan. Thus, the appearance of Yellow River-like component, which likely came from the northern bank of the Yangtze, is associated with cultural growth in the inhabitants of Southern China. Le Tao et al, 2023 reported only the Yellow River-like component from the ancient DNA of the Yunnan Province, which is also partially located in the Yangtze river basin, and those Yellow River-like populations were also engaged in rice farming.

---

Mae Hong Son petrous 4 813 579 37,83 19,0 41,0 1 20 389 261 633 197 0,4 0,5 XY 0 2 D5a2a1+@16172 C2b1 The haplogroups mutations such as 16172 or 16274 form a cline with the yDNA DE sample (AR10-13K) in “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, which is not exactly D-M174. The origin of D5a2a1 ancestral to D5a2a1+@16172 should be closer to the Neolithic Wadian settlement in the Middle Yellow River, where it was accompanied by yDNA O-M122, but not in the Upper Yellow River. From the vicinity of the Neolithic Wadian settlement, D5a2a1 it could distribute to Hubei, Chongqing, Sichuan and Thailand, but also to Jiangsu, Shandong. However, the age of D5a2a1+@16172 is too young, so it is not related to any major splits within yDNA N or yDNA O. The mutation 16172 for modern Japanese was mediated by the mentioned DE sample in accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, but, interestingly, data of those articles make a clear hint, that the formation of the so-called alledged “bear cult”, alledgedly present in the Shang Dynasty, was influenced by no one else, but this particular DE sample of AR10-13K, also a relative of 16172 mutation, so the “bear cult” was the invention of the mind of this particular DE or his relatives (we know that Neanderthals alledgedly worshipped bears).

---

YPN014 YN2#RT-06 Yappa Nhae 2 Mae Hong Son petrous 4 665 553 0,65 13,2 44,0 1 22 215 941 150 455 0,4 0,5 XY 0 0 M7b1a1 O2a2b1a1a1 F42 − F42 • M1526 D-Y226081* − F42 • M1526 E-Y64337 − F42 • M1526 O-M1706 It is unlikely that E came to Tibet, influenced yDNA D ancestors of Pumi, (those speaking with Japanese-like pitch accent), they proceded via the Upper Yellow River to form “Near Eastern-related” Yangshao culture, whose population influenced the formation the M7b1a1-related Ryukyuans, in order to allow some Ryukyuans to consider themselves a “Near Eastern-related population”.

In accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, “Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago”, “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, it is more likely, that since yDNA N of Zongri5.1K can be modeled as 1,5% Fujian_EN +2,5% Atayal, it means that yDNA O-M122 (ancestor of O-M17o6) was gradually influencing for millennia the yDNA N-F2930 population, residing in the worst part of the Yangtze river basin, while yDNA N-F2930 population was gradually influencing for millennia the yDNA D-M174 population, ancestral to D-Y226081 and to the Pumi people, and at some point in the Neolithic, yDNA D-M174 influenced the Near East, possibly leaving the D0 lineage there, and some of descendants of the Near Eastern inhabitants later migrated to Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since both languages of yDNA C2-rich populations and yDNA C1b-rich populations cluster with absolutely usual Papuans, Australians, linguistically unrelated to Afroasiatics and Western Eurasians, in Jager, 2017, then it is correct to think that languages of yDNA C1a persons should also have clustered with Papuan and Australian languages in Jager, 2017. Moreover, western researchers have reported relevant linguistic features, related to usual Papuans, from a relevant Japanese dialect. Japanese males cannot choose, to which haplogroups they would want to belong, since the data on the ancient DNA of archaeological sites, ancestral to their continental component, are gathered and stored in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

In Jager, 2017, Afroasiatic languages clustered with Eurasians (for example, with the Nihali, an outgroup for all “Eurasiatic” languages in Jager, 2017), because Eurasian languages contributed to them. If Oase1-related populations did not contribute to Afroasiatics, then languages of yDNA E-M96, being admixed with the African yDNA CT*-related population, should have clustered with the Khoisan, the root of languages in Africa in Jager, 2017. What Afroasiatics have today, they owe to Oase1-related populations from Eurasia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Quote=Ebizur “In contrast, the kanji Qi 気, denoting "qi (Chinese concept of an ethereal vital force), air, vapor, spirit, aura," has no native Japanese equivalent […] it only has an on'yomi, ki (or ke), with no native kun'yomi. Most kokuji, Japanese-created Chinese characters, […] such as 腺 sen "gland" (formed from 泉 "a spring (of water), fōns" plus the 肉 "meat, flesh" radical, with the reading sen taken from the on'yomi of 泉), that have only an on'yomi.”

When the “all-inclusiveness” of the Chinese academic concept was mentioned, you seemed to be ironizing, turning attention to the “all-inclusive” ancient Chinese concept of qi, coupled with the fact that the Japanese people had to create a Chinese character for a much more mundane biological concept of “gland”.

Nonetheless, let us have a look, what the Japanese scienists proposed prior to the “all-inclusiveness” of the Chinese academic concept: A quote from Tanaka et al, 2004, “Mitochondrial Genome Variation in Eastern Asia and the Peopling of Japan”: “Haplogroup M10 This haplogroup has been defined by substitutions 10646 and 16311 (Yao et al. 2002a). In addition, Kong et al. (2003) have found several new mutations in its basal branch that we confirm here (Fig. 1A). Minor modifications are that a new Japanese lineage shares with M10 only the 8793 mutation, and that a new mutation, 13152, seems to be basal for our M10 Japanese lineages. Although its highest frequency is in Tibetans (8%), the largest diversities are found in China. It is present in Koreans and mainland Japanese but has not been detected in either Ainu or Ryukyuans (Table 2).”

As mtDNA M10 is not in Japonic Ryukyuans in Tanaka et al, 2004, it may not be considered a part of “Proto-Japonic” speakers. Nontheless, mtDNA M10+mtDNA M7b were reported from ancient DNA of one case of Japan Jomon. The mtDNA M10’s T8793C mutation is notable, as it is also found in some mtDNA M7b lineages as well as in mtDNA M42a, a lineage related to Papuans. The presence of M42 in Saudi Arabia was reported in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268671/ The connection between M10 and M42 was mentioned in “Reconstructing Indian-Australian phylogenetic link” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720955/ It is stated that the Japanese M10 shares with other cases of M10 only 8793 mutation, while mtDNA M10’s “highest frequency is in Tibetans (8%), the largest diversities are found in China”. Therefore, basing on these data, it is easy to describe the situation, when the most basal mtDNA M10 is in one of Jomon-related populations, sharing a mutation with M42 Papuans, while M42 reaches at least as far as Afroasiatic-speaking Saudi Arabia, while the rest of M10 had distributed in the population of Tibetans, speaking Sino-Tibetan languages, and the largest diversities of M10 are found in China, for whose populations some Afro-Asiatic connections were suggested, including the year of 2004 (for example, “Phylogenetic reconstruction places the Chinese genotypes in the Afro-Asiatic supercluster” in “Chinese Strains (Type 7) of JC Virus Are Afro-Asiatic in Origin But Are Phylogenetically Distinct from the Mongolian and Indian Strains (Type 2D) and the Korean and Japanese Strains (Type 2A)” Published: May 2004). As for “a new mutation, 13152, seems to be basal for our M10 Japanese lineages”, today mutation A13152G is considered basal for all mtDNA M10 sequences. Nonetheless, this mutation is present in an mtDNA M1 relative, observed in Levant, Europe, but also in some Altaic-speaking populations within the Neolithic period. If the relatives of the Japanese people could contribute to Altaic-speaking populations, the Japanese people might have thought, that some deeply diverged Altaic speakers might have contributed to Levantine and European-related populations during the ancient period. So it would be the Japanese decision for certain imposed purported lingistic similarities.

However, the advent of Jager, 2015, 2016, 2017 has attacked the Japanese version of events.

In the Chinese version, the old M10 and M7b, which were contributed to Japan Jomon, were entrusted to yDNA O1b/O1b2-related Qihe3 (who contributed to Jomon), while more modern derivatives of M10 and M7b (derivatives of the ones, which were contributed to Jomon) were entrusted to Boshan-related populations, whereas northern Boshan-related populations contributed to some ancestors of Altaic speakers, southern Boshan-like populations contributed to nationalities in China, while Boshan’s N-CTS582* is virtually not observed in Japan. As for mtDNA M42, the mutation A15562G is observed in M42b2, which is likely related to the M42, reaching Saudi Arabia, and in mtDNA R12, which is related to Shompen, yDNA O1b/O1b2-related Qihe3 is thought to contribute to the formation of Shompen in China; therefore, entrusting (44%Tianyuan+(51+5)%Papuan) component to mtDNA D1-only population in “40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia” (while mtDNA D should be most distributed in yDNA O1b2 population) is the Chinese way to maintain the mtDNA M42 Saudi Arabia-related connection in yDNA O1b2 population, and this mtDNA M42 Saudi Arabia-related connection should reach Boshan-related populations only via yDNA O1b/O1b2-related Qihe3. Therefore, some linguistic peculiarities, obtained from yDNA O1b2 languages, should not be alien at least to those Boshan-related populations, which interacted with Qihe3.

Thus, the finding on Fig 2A of the article “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” by Yosuke Kawai (https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010625#pgen-1010625-g002) that even the Jomon-admixed largest part of the Japanese populations forms the continuation of the cline related to origin of mainland China’s populations, probably means that the population in Japan, which was determined to separate from Africans 331000 years ago in "Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition", did so, because ancient Japan got inhabited by ancient Homo Sapiens population (but not by Neanderthals, Denisovans or Homo Erectus, as the Korean Christopher J. Bae suggested), when it was possible to cross to Japan ca. 300000 years ago. The rest of this population, remaining in China, “separated” from ancestors of Africans ca. 170000 years ago (which is closer to the period of the distribution of mtDNA L0 in Africa) according to "Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition". Thus, it would be wise to consider that mtDNA M10 and M7b originated in this 170000-year-old Homo Sapiens population, ancestral to modern peoples of China, but not in 331000-year-old Homo Sapiens population, contributing to Japan Jomon, unless it were possible, that the incursion of Denisovans to North China, mentioned by the Chinese archaeologist Wang Youping, pushed the Homo Sapiens population closer to the sea coast, though the mentioned arrival of Denisovans to North China ca. 400000 years ago would make such a “coastal origin” rather extraordianary. Thus, in order to fit the Fig 2B of the article “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis”, where the genetic diversity of China is “partially” preserved in Japan, being modified by the Jomon-related admixture, the origin in China for lineages, untypical for Jomon, should be searched for.

Jager 2017 has a linguistic supercluster of Afroasiatic in the widest sense and Eurasiatic the widest sense, distinct from most East Asian, Papuan, Onge and Native American languages. Afroasiatic in the widest sense has an offshoot sharing vocabulary with numerous non-Afroasiatic languages of Africa, but also with few selected Papuan and a couple of Native American languages, while a purer core Afroasiatic shares the vocabulary with the Papuan Kosarek language, but not with Native Americans, in Jager, 2017. The Eurasiatic cluster has the basal Nihali branch, unrelated to Papuans and Native Americans, but most Eurasiatic members share connections with few Papuan and Native American languages, while languages of core K2b yDNA M-rich and yDNA S-rich Papuan populations are placed in a different supercluster than Afroasiatic-Eurasiatic in Jager, 2017. It is absolutely impossible to resolve this situation, using yDNA O1b2 haplogroup. Therefore, the Chinese version envisages the use of “autosomally yDNA DE* population-related” Ust-Ishim and Oase1, otherwise sharing two mutations of yDNA K2a-M2308,CTS11667, but also once determined to belong to yDNA F and yDNA P in other articles (therefore, Ust-Ishim and Oase1 should have at least some calls, characteristic of yDNA P: [1] related to P-M1254*, HistAndaman (related to Australasians and Native Americans), for Ust-Ishim; [2] related to P-V1651*(xM1254), the Philippines, for Oase1 (Oase1 is unrelated to Native Americans, according to “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”), while yDNA N-M231 shares mutation Z4827 with yDNA P-V1651*). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Quote=Ebizur: “Taiwan Han total 5/352 = 1.42% O-M119(xP203, M50)” It is impossible that Han Chinese creation is a whim of the ancestor of O1b2-47z, whose descendants are trying to present sometimes that Han Chinese were alledgedly created out of O1a-M119, a brother of O1b, merely by the act of the separation of O1a and O1b more than 30000 years ago. As such thoughts of the Japanese people never cease to exists, it is the reason of the expulsion of the entire O1b2-P49 to Native Americans in Chinese articles, which is supported by the affinity of the entire O1b2 to Q-M242 in western articles.

Quote=Ebizur: “Taiwan Han total 1/352 = 0.28% D-M15” Nonetheless, in the recent “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” there is Fig S8 https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=supplementary&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010625.s008 It can be seen from this figure, that the long-term effective population size of the Han Chinese during the period of 3700-50000 years ago is almost identical to Hondo Japanese, but is even slightly smaller than the long-term effective population size of the Hondo Japanese 3700-50000 years ago. It is only possible in the case, when the identical population component, which they studied, is not in fact a component, ancestral to Han Chinese, but is a close continental relative of the Japanese component, which was assimilated by the Han Chinese. It is from such a component related to Himalayan D-M174 that the Ryukyuans separate 3700 years ago (The age of 3700 years ago is a split between Han Chinese of Himalayan yDNA D-M174 and an Osaka Japanese of Himalayan yDNA D-M174 in yfull https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-MF10280/), thus, it is only the Japonic population (including Ryukyuans) that actually separated 3700 years ago from this component, involving D-MF10280, while the part that remained in China was assimilated into the Han Chinese. Thus, this new article’s findings are actually against one more theory that the Japanese created the Han Chinese, using the Himalayan D-M174, which Ebizur occasionally supported, depending on the situation. After 3700 years ago, Ryukyuan villagers’ ancestors remained relatively isolated from the territory of Han Chinese, while Hondo Japanese continued to mix with Han Chinese in accordance with the historical data, which is supported by the Fig S8 model of the “globalistic” article of “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis”. As it is thought in the West that the oldest Xianrendong pottery 20000 years was a creation of the Homo Sapiens, related to the Near Easterners in some form, while their neighbours in China were not Homo Sapiens, the statement “The frequency of the derived alleles in ADH1B rs1229984 increased about 20,000 years ago” does not necessarily mean for western ideologists, that this derived allele in ADH1B, whose spread was related to the incipient process of the formation of agriculture, was in fact facilitated by local populations in East Asia, non-Homo Sapiens in their view.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.46.140 (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No one thinks that Shompen are related to O1a-M307 or C-M217. It is your personal desire, which is not counted. The known Shompen’s yDNA is 100% O1b.

Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis

Yosuke Kawai ,Yusuke Watanabe,Yosuke Omae,Reiko Miyahara,Seik-Soon Khor,Eisei Noiri,Koji Kitajima,Hideyuki Shimanuki,Hiroyuki Gatanaga,Kenichiro Hata,Kotaro Hattori,Aritoshi Iida,Hatsue Ishibashi-Ueda,Tadashi Kaname,Tatsuya Kanto,Ryo Matsumura,Kengo Miyo,Michio Noguchi,Kouichi Ozaki,Masaya Sugiyama,Ayako Takahashi,Haruhiko Tokuda,Tsutomu Tomita,Akihiro Umezawa,Hiroshi Watanabe,Sumiko Yoshida,Yu-ichi Goto,Yutaka Maruoka,Yoichi Matsubara,Shumpei Niida,Masashi Mizokami,Katsushi Tokunaga [ view less ]

The list of Japanese scientists is quite representative, and we often get messages that the Japanese people alledgedly originated from Israel.

A Quote from “Exploring the genetic diversity of the Japanese population: Insights from a large-scale whole genome sequencing analysis” : Hondo/CHB population and Ryukyu population diverged around 3,700 years ago, consistent with previous estimations of the divergence time using SNP arrays.

The age of 3700 years ago is a split between Han Chinese of Himalayan yDNA D-M174 and an Osaka Japanese of Himalayan yDNA D-M174 in yfull https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-MF10280/ The ancestor of this D-MF10280 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-F22360/) shares a CTS10329 mutation with https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1239/

Moreover, ITS PARENT D-F17412 shares a FGC41743 mutation with C-M38 Papuan, while D-F20424 shares a mutation Y32318 with R1b-YP6099 of the ancient Iceland’s DKS-A1 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y94575/, which is geographically not far from VDP-A5 ancient from Iceland, where a signal from D-Z1516>cts220 were observed, and not far from DAV-A8 ancient from Iceland where a signal from Papuan C-M38 C1b2a1c was observed. Since D-Z1516>cts220 is nowhere to be found outside the Japanese archipelago, one should suspect that D-M125 (e.g., a relative of the one from Jilin) would have to be an intermediary in those interactions.

However, the IVPP’s version is much more logical, and East Asian-related populations should have contributed to the relatives of https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1239/

hello

hello and welcome. I have a few requests:

• please use edit summaries, so people watching pages can judge what you are up to
• please cite your sources when adding claims to articles
• please do not mark edits as "minor" when they change an article's content. "minor" editors are formatting changes, spelling corrections or stylistic edits. this edit for example isn't "minor"
• try to use the preview button a little bit, so your changes will not be scattered over lots of little edits.

thank you, dab (ᛏ) 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

no, please, by all means do fix these articles; I was just asking you to do so in a way that makes it less tedious to figure out what you are doing. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sources

Hi, I noticed you have been adding info to Korean language-related articles. Could you cite your sources, please? Some of it is difficult to believe or fact-check. --Kjoonlee 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the information about Korean dialectal diversity? I'm just trying to correct a common misperception that the Korean language and people are somehow less diverse than those of the other countries of the region. The truth is that the Korean language is many, many times more diverse than other so-called "language families" in Asia, such as the Turkic languages or the Japonic languages. The internal diversity of Turkic and Japonic is all very recently derived (except for perhaps the Chuvash language among Turkic languages, although even Chuvash vocabulary is readily relatable to forms in other dialects of Turkic through the application of a few simple sound changes), like the diversity of, say, modern dialects of the French language. French is really just one branch of Vulgar Latin, and it should not be given the status of a "language family" just because it has mutated and diversified into a plethora of weird-sounding dialects over the course of the past millennium. The Korean "language," on the other hand, subsumes many dialects that possess vocabulary that cannot be easily derived from any etymon attested in the Standard Korean dialects of Seoul or Pyeongyang, and much of the rest of the basic vocabulary of these dialects, despite being apparently related to that of Standard Korean, reflects a phonological form that must be extremely ancient, perhaps having diverged from the ancestral form of the word found in Standard Korean as many as 2000 years ago. This means that the Korean language is at least as diverse as the entire Romance language family, and probably more so. Ebizur 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you're not trying hard enough, I think. ;) The examples of Mongolian loanwords that you had added earlier were entirely unfamiliar to normal speakers of Korean Standard South Korean (unlike 송골매 or 보라매), which got me suspicious. Now you've added another bit about Korean that's unsourced, and it's made me more suspicious. Please add your sources, or I'll have to delete the bit. --Kjoonlee 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) --Kjoonlee 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that 오늬 onŭy and 난추니 nānchuni are not loanwords from Mongolian? As far as I know, onŭy is the only word in common use in Korea to indicate specifically the notch of an arrow. Those words are very good examples of loanwords from Mongolian because they are traceable back to the time of the earliest Hangeul documents (in which nānchuni appeared as 나친 nachin, which is even closer to the standard Khalkha form) and their Mongolian origin seems to be certain. 송골매, on the other hand, is probably not even a direct loan from Mongolian; from what I have seen, it appears to have been borrowed into Korean through Chinese. Ebizur 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm claiming that they're not good examples unless you cite sources. --Kjoonlee 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing more than what one could find in any dictionary of the Korean language, such as the Yahoo! online dictionary. There has to be a limit to what we require citation of sources for, or else we will have people adding links to dictionary entries. Such citations are really unnecessary; anyone could go and look up the word in a dictionary for themselves if they wanted to confirm the definition of the word, its etymology, and its history of attestation. Ebizur 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You must have read it somewhere, no? You didn't find it out in a dictionary.. --Kjoonlee 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's been deleted. In many other cases, the basic vocabulary of various dialects appears to be cognate to words found also in Standard Korean, but with highly divergent phonological form this still remains, and this needs to be cited. --Kjoonlee 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are really ridiculous. I've got to go see what you've put in its place. Ebizur 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources is part of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline. There's also the Wikipedia:No original research policy for excluding previously unpublished material from Wikipedia. If your edits can't be justified to stay, they will be challenged and/or deleted. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I don't have to remind you about Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you just reverted it and left the single sentence, "Words have also occasionally been borrowed from Mongolian, Sanskrit, and other languages." That's really informative.

As for adding citations for 돌, 독, 珍惡, etc., I would have to go back and find the original text in various books that I have read on the subject (e.g. The History of the Korean Language by 李基文 선생님) in the past, but I have just memorized the information itself and I don't have the necessary citation data on hand. You could either wait a while until I have found the book again, or you could revert the page back to its earlier, "lighter" form. I don't really care either way. Ebizur 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Transcription

I noticed you wrote “… Standard Korean /to:r/ ‘stone’ …” in Korean language. Single slashes are used for phonemic transcription, which I guess would use /l/ instead of /r/ for the final consonant in 돌.

Morphophonemic transcription, by contrast, is usually done in either of the following ways:

• |rad|
• //rad//

Wikipeditor 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, /r/ is widely accepted as the phonemic transcription of the Korean phoneme that is written in Hangeul as ㄹ (rieul). Some linguists have insisted that this phoneme is "underlyingly" an alveolar tap and should therefore be written as /ɾ/ in phonemic transcription; however, even people who agree with the identification of the alveolar tap as the underlying phoneme in this case generally see no reason to go to the trouble of transcribing it with an /ɾ/ all the time, because there is no other phoneme in the Korean language that reasonably should be transcribed with /r/, which is a much more easily typed and widely recognized glyph.

I have never seen anyone, and I mean anyone, postulate */l/ as the underlying form of the phoneme represented by ㄹ in Korean. Transcribing that jamo as "l" when it occurs in the coda of a syllable is merely a convention of romanization that reflects the allophonic variation expressed in Korean pronunciation. Ebizur 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, and thank you for your edit to Japanese people. It makes the article a little better. However, this type of edit is generally frowned upon. Please see WP:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken for details. Thanks. Dekimasu 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Europe

hi, i inserted a citation for your addition of material on albanian in southern italy to the Europe article. in future it would be fantastic if you could add material with verifiable sources and proper citations. it goes a long way to improving wikipedia's accuracy and reputation! -- frymaster 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning/ your personal attack on User:207.202.227.125

This edit summary of yours [1] contains a personal attack. Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. See WP:NPA. HalfOfElement29 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional personal attacks and incivility

Your statement on my talk page: "I don't know who you think you are, but you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page on Wikipedia." is uncivil, threatening, and a personal attack. I and others have already warned you to cease such behavior. If you continue such behavior, you may be blocked from editting wikipedia. HalfOfElement29 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be more constructive for you to respond to my valid criticisms of your edits to the wiki:haplogroup page rather than complaining about my disgust for your pretention to be a Wikipedia administrator. Please quit evading the point. Ebizur 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, your statement "your pretention to be a Wikipedia administrator. Please quit evading the point." is a lie and a personal attack. I have addressed your criticisms. Anyway, it is apparant by your persistent incivility and personal attacks that you have no regard for wikipedia policy. HalfOfElement29 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Playing by the rules (and thanks for your contributions)

Ebizur - it's clear from your edits that you are a very knowledgable person in a very technical area, and, as such, an extremely valuable contributor to the encylopedia. Having said that, may I ask you to "play a bit nicer" with the other editors, even the anonymous ones? For example, instead of saying "You must be stupid", perhaps just "That's wrong." Similarly, instead of "you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page", perhaps "I question if you have the knowledge necessary ... "

Another suggestion: per Wikipedia:Talk page, discussions about the content of the article should be on the article's talk page, not on a user page. That's because discussions of content that appear on a user page, such as most of what you posted at User talk:HalfOfElement29, are essentially unavailable to future editors or readers of the Haplogroup article, since such editors and readers will have no idea which user talk pages (if any) are relevant to the article. (In short, user talk pages should be about behavior, article talk pages about content, and it's ideal of these boundaries aren't crossed in either direction.)

I'm going to let HalfofElement29 know that he/she should be a bit more thick-skinned; every minor transgression of Wikipedia rules (and there are a lot of rules) does not merit something resembling a warning on a user talk page. And I really hope the two of you can cooperate - despite your doubts over his expertise, I think he brings something valuable to the article (you certainly do), and I it would be great if both of you continued to contribute there and elsewhere.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please let me know. Thanks. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Haplogroup O3

Some Chinese people have been using the following passage in the Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) article as a basis to claim that O3 carriers in Korea and Japan have "Han Chinese origins".

"Although Haplogroup O3 appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, it also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region, perhaps reflecting prehistoric or historic Chinese influences on the various neighboring nations. Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity), about 40% of modern sub-Siberian Northeast Asian (i.e., Manchurian and Korean) males, and about 20% of modern Japanese males. Haplogroup O3 is also found with high frequency and diversity values among the males of modern Southeast Asian populations, and its distribution stretches far into Central Asia and Oceania, albeit with reduced frequencies of most subclades."

The above passage was initially added by User:24.21.58.15 as follows:

"This clade of the broader macro-haplogroup O appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, but Haplogroup O3 also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region, perhaps reflecting prehistoric or historic Chinese influences on the various neighboring nations. Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity), about 40% of modern sub-Siberian Northeast Asian (i.e., Manchurian and Korean) males, and about 20% of modern Japanese males. Haplogroup O3 is also found with high frequency and diversity values among the males of modern Southeast Asian populations, and its distribution stretches far into Central Asia and Oceania, albeit with reduced frequencies of most subclades."

I believe you have expressed an opposing view: "Finally, there is Haplogroup O3-M122, which is the most widespread and frequently occurring subclade of Haplogroup O. Haplogroup O3 is without a doubt the "Chinese haplogroup," as it occurs in over half of all Chinese men, and Haplogroup O3 is the modal haplogroup among all Sino-Tibetan-speaking populations excepting the Tibetans proper. (The Tibetans proper contain a very high frequency of Haplogroup D1 Y-chromosomes, thus positioning them as distant patrilineal relatives of the Jomon/Ainu/Japanese/Ryukyuans, Andaman Islanders, and Semites/Berbers/Bantu.) Haplogroup O3 also occurs at moderate frequencies among most other East Asian, Southeast Asian, and Austronesian populations, but the clades of Haplogroup O3 that are found among non-Sino-Tibetan populations generally do not appear to reflect recent admixture. The maximum degree of Chinese admixture present among any non-Sino-Tibetan population appears to be no more than 10%."

To my knowledge, ratio of O3* is higher among non-Sino-Tibetan populations, which casts heavy doubts whether or not O3 carriers in those populations are "Han Chinese" in origin. I believe that particular passage in the Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) is very misleading, and it has in reality been abused to espouse such claims as "O3 is the result of Han Chinese imperial expansion". Perhaps O3a5 is such a result of Han Chinese immigration, but I think it is highly unlikely and dubious that O3 in general is "Han Chinese". I believe that passage should either be deleted or corrected, so what's your thought on this? Cydevil 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of quoting your rebuttal in the Han Chinese article to argue against the same claim made in Koreans. Cydevil 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right on the mark. I originally wrote that paragraph to reflect several genetics papers that had recently been published on the subject, several of which (mostly written by Chinese authors, as I recall) claimed that the appearance of various closely related haplotypes within the O3-M122 clade indicated a recent Neolithic expansion from the Central Plain of China. It was in vogue among population geneticists a few years back to assume very recent "Neolithic" origins for many of these widely dispersed haplogroups, and Haplogroup O3-M122 was one of those that they just loved to claim proved a recent Chinese origin of most East Asian ethnicities. The material I have read more recently has debunked most of those claims, however, and it now seems more likely that Haplogroup O3-M122 has an ancient Paleolithic origin somewhere in East Eurasia, while only O3a5 might be closely connected with recent Chinese expansions. Haplogroup O3* is, for example, one of the haplogroups that has frequently been associated with the Austronesian expansion into Polynesia, and I don't think many people would claim that the Austronesian expansion was effected by "Han Chinese." I had been wavering on whether to rewrite that paragraph in order to reflect these recent discoveries and changes in interpretation of the spread of the less-derived, "backbone" haplogroups (i.e., they are now generally believed to be very ancient genetic markers of Paleolithic origin, affected by genetic drift and subsequent diversification among descendant populations), but I think I will go ahead and change that paragraph now in order to quash the growth of any overly ambitious theories on the behalf of our Chinese colleagues. Ebizur 05:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have read your comments more carefully before responding. I mistakenly thought that you were exhorting me to change the Haplogroup O3 wiki because you thought I had contributed to the misconception that this was the "Chinese haplogroup." It is true that Haplogroup O3 is the most frequently occurring haplogroup among modern Han Chinese populations (as well as among Hmong-Mien and most Sino-Tibetan minority groups), but, as you mentioned, it now seems clear that not all (or even most) of Haplogroup O3 can be attributed to recent Chinese influence. I do agree that we should edit the Haplogroup O3 wiki page to reflect this. Ebizur 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find it sort of amusing that National Geographic's website for the Genographic Project is still espousing the view that Haplogroup O3 is a very recent haplogroup that spread throughout East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific as a result of Neolithic expansions originating in the region of China and associated with the dispersal of rice agriculture. They make no mention of millet agriculture, for example; they choose to popularize the view that Haplogroup O3-M122 is exclusively "Chinese" (Han or otherwise) in origin and intimately associated with the spread of rice agriculture. So, let us keep in mind that even such heavy hitters as National Geographic and the Genographic Project can be fallible, and everyone has his own biases and motives. Ebizur 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. Genetic anthropology is a nascent field of studies where new progress and changes are made every year. It's amazing how theories in genetic anthrpology can be so radically upturned by contrary evidence from new samples and studies. And unfortunately, various sources cannot remain up-to-date. I think National Geographics is a good example. I don't think its fallibility is intentional. They're just not updating the site. I think it's important that at least adaptive sources like Wikipedia should reflect such radical changes in genetic anthropology, as to provide people with a more accurate perspective. Again, thank you for your efforts. Cydevil 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the problem with the Genographic Project's website is just that it has not been updated for a while and is thus rather outdated; I strongly doubt that the scientists working on the project have intentionally left the description of Haplogroup O3-M122 as it is.

Whatever they may discover about Haplogroup O3 in the coming months or years, it is interesting to note that it has not been found among European populations, even among those that display Haplogroup N3, Haplogroup C3, or Haplogroup Q Y-chromosomes, which have generally been ascribed to recent prehistorical (Holocene) influence of Uralic peoples and historical influence of Turkic and Mongolic peoples. It is now widely believed that a small part of the Haplogroup R1a1 Y-chromosome diversity of Central and Eastern Europe is also due to historical Hungarian and Altaic influences. I'm starting to doubt the explanation of Haplogroup C3 in Europe as a result of Mongol influence, though, because I have heard that Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes have even been found among some individuals with documented paternal ancestry dating back to the middle ages in Scotland or Sardinia, and it seems that some of the European C3 Y-chromosomes are positive for the M93 mutation that defines the subclade C3a, which was originally defined on the basis of some samples from Japan. The rest of the European examples of C3 appear to be all C3*, and I have not heard of any instances in Europe of the typically Mongol-Tungus Haplogroup C3c-M48. It is beginning to appear to me that Haplogroup C3 in Europe might be a very small trace of ancient Central Asian patrilineal ancestry that is more clearly reflected in the high frequency of Haplogroup R1b1c and Haplogroup R1a1 among modern European populations. After all, Native Americans also share at least two Haplogroup P-M45-derived clades (Q* and Q3) in addition to trace amounts of Haplogroup C3 (except the Na-Dene populations, where C3b accounts for nearly a quarter of the Y-chromosome diversity). The Haplogroup Q* Y-chromosomes found among modern Europeans also appear to be extremely diverse, which might be an argument against ascribing their presence in Europe entirely to recent Asian influence. So, anyway, it might be good for the Korean side of things if it turned out that the Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes found in small quantity in Europe were not due to historical Mongolian influence, because Haplogroup O3 is apparently not found in Europe at all, which would mean that the Haplogroup O3 Y-chromosomes found among the modern Mongolian population might be due in large part or in total to recent Chinese (or Tibetan, Korean, etc.) influence.

On a side note, I think it is interesting that the Haplogroup C3* Y-chromosomes found among Koreans appear to belong to a different cluster from those that are found at extremely high frequencies among Mongols, Kazakhs, and Tungus. I'm eagerly anticipating a study that might shed some light on the origin(s) of the Haplogroup C3* element among Koreans; personally, I have a hunch that the Korean C3* element might be related in large part to the modal haplotype of the Nivkhs, because I think that the ancient proto-Koreans absorbed some sort of Nivkh-like population (a lot of Korean people just look like Nivkhs, and there are many interesting Korean-Nivkh linguistic parallels as well, all of which seem to suggest some sort of Nivkh-related substratum in the Korean language). Another reason for assuming either a recent expansion of C3* among the Koreans or an introduction of C3* into the Korean population from a foreign source (either substratal, e.g. from the proto-Nivkhs, or, less likely, adstratal, e.g. from Mongols or Manchus) is that C3 as a whole is very infrequent among the Japanese and, as far as I know, has not been found at all among samples of Ryukyuans, which suggests that the occurrence of Haplogroup C3 among modern Japanese is probably due mostly to assimilation of either Asian immigrants or Ainus, although the presence of C3a in Japan at a very low frequency suggests that C3 might actually have a long history as a minor haplogroup in Japan. In any case, if there is any truth to the posited proto-historic relationship between (at least a certain segment of) the Japanese and the Koreans, then Haplogroup C3* could not have been a major element among the proto-Korean population of that time, because it is not found among the Ryukyuans and it is only a very minor element in the Japanese population as a whole, whereas it accounts for some one-sixth of the entire Korean population. (Of course, the ratio of C3 in modern Koreans compared to modern Japanese would also make sense if the Japanese were only about 1/6 to 1/5 Korean, and the Ryukyuans basically not Korean at all, as that would be sufficient to produce the frequency of C3 that is found among the modern Japanese. In this case, I would guess that Haplogroup N1, which is found among the populations of some cities in Japan, and probably also some O2b1* and O3* in addition to C3* would be attributable to Korean influence. I think the frequencies of those haplogroups among the Japanese would ultimately add up to approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of the Japanese Y-chromosome distribution, so this actually might be a good working hypothesis for explaining the presence of C3* among the Japanese but apparent absence from the Ryukyuan population.) Ebizur 07:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this could be of any help, but Kim Wook et al recently(Sept. 2006) published a paper focusing on haplogroup C in Korean populations: Jin, H. J., Kwak, K. D., Hong, S. B., Kim, W., 2006. Y-chromosome Haplogroup C Lineages and Implications for Population History of Korea. Korean J. Genetics 28(3): 253-259. I do have access to that particular study and I would like to make it available, but I'm not sure about the copyright rules. Cydevil 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. The study is available here[2]. Cydevil 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Nivkhs, I do recall some Korean linguists claiming that the Korean language consists of an Altaic superstratum and Paleoasian substratum based on comparisons between the Korean language and the Nivkh language. In fact, I made a thread on thisCydevil 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, some of the Korean C3* Y-chromosomes appear to be very closely related to some C3* Y-chromosomes that have been found among the Burusho in northern Pakistan. I don't know what a good explanation for this might be. Hazaras? But they're supposed to be related to the Mongols, not Koreans. Hmm... Ebizur 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Pakistan? Well, there is the legend of a princess supposedly from the Indian subcontinent(conjectured by archaeological remains). I guess that's as close as it can get to anyone from that region, as far as I know. Cydevil 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I came across one of your posts on a Korean forum(a news article to be more exact) regarding southern origins theory of Koreans. I must say, your proficiency in Korean is very impressive. Cydevil 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My Korean is terrible, really; I always forget Sino-Korean words that are not cognate with the semantically equivalent Mandarin Chinese or Japanese words. For example, I always fail to recall that Korean people call Australia hoju rather than àozhōu or oosutoraria. I think that I can successfully communicate my intent, though, if I give it enough effort. In any case, thank you for your compliment!

Don't be so modest! Your Korean is very good, and I know how hard Korean can be for none-native speakers. Cydevil 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did read that recent report by the Korean geneticists at http://kgenetics.or.kr. Thank you for the link. Their report seemed to confirm what I had heard previously; namely, that the diversity of Haplogroup C3* is actually greatest in the populations located around the Sea of Japan, particularly on the continental side, in Korea and Outer Manchuria. I think that this region might have been populated by peoples carrying Haplogroup Q* and Haplogroup C3* in Paleolithic times; this meta-population was probably descended from the Asian relatives of the people who had crossed over into the Americas over 10,000 years ago to become the ancestors of the Amerindians. I am currently hypothesizing that the Haplogroup Q component eventually dominated in the American descendants of this prehistoric "race," while the Haplogroup C3 component ended up dominating in the East Siberian descendants. I think that the Na-Dene peoples, the Eskimo-Aleuts, and the Yeniseian peoples (Kets, etc.) are all the result of later migrations of the Asian descendants of this "Americanoid Asian" population, with the Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleuts following their Amerindian predecessors into the American continent, and the Yeniseians accompanying the Altaics (and perhaps some Uralics, such as the Samoyeds) westward into central-western Siberia. I also believe that the Japanese are essentially a remnant branch of these ancient proto-Americanoids; they generally look much more similar to Amerinds than to mainland Asians in my eyes. The idea that the Koreans have a "southern" (e.g. Chinese) origin rather than a "northern" or "western" (e.g. Siberian) one, though, seems probably correct to me. I know the archaeologists would contest this, but frankly, I believe that archaeology can only provide evidence of cultural similarities and differences; it cannot be used to determine whether the similarities or differences were due to genetic origins or to cultural interactions, and I would claim that it also cannot confidently be used to determine the directionality of influence. It seems just as likely to me that the similarities in archaeological finds between certain parts of Siberia and ancient Manchuria/Liaoning/North Korea could be due to a migration from Manchuria/Korea to Siberia rather than the other way around. Population density should be taken seriously in these considerations; I believe that it is more likely for genes from high-density populations (such as those of Korea or China) to flow into low-density populations (such as those of Siberia) rather than the reverse. In any case, the fact remains that two of the major Y-chromosome haplogroups found among the modern Korean population, O2b1* and C3*, have their greatest diversity precisely in the Korean population and not elsewhere; although O3* and O2b* might have entered Korea from somewhere in China in prehistoric times, interacting with the Paleolithic C3* and Q* carriers, the presence of C3* in other populations of northeastern Asia and Central Asia seems more likely to reflect ancient migrations originating from the region of Manchuria/North Korea, perhaps resulting in the dispersal of the "Altaic" languages (which I think might be more accurately termed "Manchurian" or "North Korean" languages). Haplogroup O2b1* probably developed in isolation in the southern parts of the Korean Peninsula for a very long time, or perhaps the population that carried it was even in contact with Jomon-era populations of Kyushu. Ebizur 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think that would depend on what you really mean by "southern" and "China", considering that China's a pretty huge place. If you mean the Yellow Sea region, especially western Manchuria/Hebei, then your claim may not necessarily conflict with archaeological findings. However, further below you go, much less likely. Anyways, the mainstream theory of Korean origin among Korean scholars, as written on a Korean college level history textbook, is that new migrants exterminated indigenous populations of the Korean peninsula and became the ancestors of modern Koreans. This is due to major changes in subsistence patterns(aquatic resources -> agriculture). However, according to the book, a new theory contrary to the mainstream one has been gaining acceptance recently. The new theory is that changes in subsistence patterns may not necessarily mean changes in its consituents, so the people of Jeulmun pottery period, who are perhaps related to those of Hongshan culture, may have culturally evolved to Mumun pottery period. Unfortunately, with China claiming that Hongshan culture is a "Chinese" civilization[3], I believe this will only lead to further controversy. Cydevil 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that the Hongshan culture was more likely to be a sort of proto-Korean or proto-Japanese (or perhaps proto-Korean-Japanese) culture. Their pig dragons just seem so Korean-Japanesey to me. The Middle Korean word for "pig" (/totʰ/) even seems like it could be cognate with the Japanese word for "dragon" (/tatu/ > "tatsu"), although some might consider the Proto-Turkic word */doŋurʲ/ (swine) to be a better fit to the Korean word. There are several Chinese words related to swine that seem sort of similar as well (e.g. 豚 돼지 돈), but I don't know whether there are any proposed Tibeto-Burman cognates of those Chinese words. Considering how nasty and dangerous the Japanese "inoshishi" (wild boars) are, I can imagine that ancient people might have dreaded the wild boar to the point of deifying it as a magical monster. Japanese people have told me stories about wild boar charging out of the shadows and splitting a person's shin in two, or even killing a person.

Hmm... I've never heard of any pig-worshipping in Korea. Though there's a very old tradition of building poles with bird scultures on top. Most of them are ducks, but there are also ravens, sea gulls, etc. Cydevil 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the Korean duck totems. Isn't there some ethnic group in Southeast Asia that makes a big deal about their ancestor who was a bird? As for the Hongshan culture and its pig dragons, it might just be that the association of boars/swine with dangerous magical power died out or was transferred to the reptilian concept of "dragon" after contact with the incipient Chinese ethnic group and their culture. Ebizur 11:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, aren't the Tuvans also known as Uryankhai? And I have heard that the Sakha were also called Uranghai at some time in the past. These ethnonyms are obviously cognate with Korean 오랑캐 orangkhae, and they all vaguely resemble the Korean word for "duck" (Middle Korean 올히 olhi, Modern Korean 오리 ōri). What do you think about this? Is it just a coincidence? I would like to hear any theories about the etymology of the Uryankhai/Uranghai/Orangkhae ethnonym. Ebizur 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If Chinese archaeologists believe Hongshan was a proto-Chinese culture, then which proto-ethnic group do they identify with the Yangshao culture? Personally, I think Hongshan is probably proto-Dongyi, and perhaps related to the early ancestors of the Shang Dynasty.

Well, a lot of Koreans would agree, but unfortunately, some people go the extra step to claim Dongyi as something "Korean" and claim that Shang Dynasty was "Korean". Cydevil 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Haplogroup C3

By the way, I have been doing some calculations based on the reported frequencies of certain haplogroups found among East Asian populations and the total population of those ethnic groups (as reported in the Wikipedia article about each ethnic group), and I have come up with some interesting figures. The total extant Manchu-Tungus population appears to be about 10,987,200, with 10,680,000 or so being Manchu, approximately 188,000 being Sibe, and the remaining 119,200 persons comprising a great number of distinct tribes and accounting for nearly the whole of the diversity of the Tungusic phylum. Actually, more than half of the remaining 119,200 Tungusic tribal people are Evenks, so a great deal of linguistic and cultural diversity is actually preserved by the approximately 50,000 Tungusic people that are not Manchu, nor Sibe, nor Evenk. It is also notable that the large Tungusic populations, namely the Manchu and the Sibe, presently consist almost entirely of individuals who possess very little or no knowledge of their ancestral Tungusic language, which might suggest that cultural barriers against intermixture have already broken down to a significant degree. If one assumes that 50% of the Tungusic population is male and that, on average, 60% of Tungusic males belong to Haplogroup C3, then one finds that there should presently be approximately 3,296,151 Tungusic males that belong to Haplogroup C3. This figure is probably a bit on the high side, because studies seem to have shown that the Manchu have a somewhat lower percentage of C3 males compared to the other Tungusic groups, and the Manchu account for the overwhelming majority of extant Tungusic males.

Performing a similar calculation on the data for the Mongolic peoples, assuming a total Mongolic population of 10,000,000, with 50% being males and 60% of those males belonging to Haplogroup C3, one arrives at the conclusion that there should be approximately 3,000,000 Mongolic males that belong to Haplogroup C3.

For the Koreans, I took the total population to be 79,000,000, with 50% being male and 16% of those males belonging to Haplogroup C3, which produced a figure of 6,320,000 Korean males that belong to Haplogroup C3.

For the Japanese, I took the total population to be 130,000,000, with a C3 frequency of 3.1%, which produced a figure of 2,015,000 Japanese males that belong to Haplogroup C3.

For the Han Chinese, I took the total population to be 1,300,000,000, with a C3 frequency of 0.5%, which produced a figure of 3,250,000 Han Chinese males that belong to Haplogroup C3. The C3 frequency of 0.5% for the Han Chinese is speculative; some studies of Han Chinese males have failed to find even a single individual that belongs to Haplogroup C3, while other studies have reported samples of Han Chinese males in which as many as 8% belong to Haplogroup C3. Because of the enormous population size of the Han Chinese, even a difference of 1% in the frequency of C3 among Han Chinese males would cause the figure for the estimated number of Han Chinese males that belong to Haplogroup C3 to fluctuate greatly.

In order, the estimated number of males that belong to Haplogroup C3 would be:

Koreans: 6,320,000

Manchu-Tungus: 3,296,151

Han Chinese: 3,250,000

Mongolics: 3,000,000

Japanese: 2,015,000

As you can see, the Koreans probably have at least twice the number of C3 males of any other East Asian population, especially when one considers that the estimate of 3,296,151 for Manchu-Tungus is probably too high, as the percentage of modern Manchus that belong to Haplogroup C3 is probably somewhat less than the 60% that I assumed in my calculations. Thus, it does not surprise me at all that researchers have found that the Korean population harbors the greatest diversity of Haplogroup C3-M217 Y-chromosomes. The fact that the runners-up in Haplogroup C3 diversity include the Nivkhs, Koryaks, and Buryats, who have very small raw numbers of Haplogroup C3 males, suggests strongly to me that Haplogroup C3 is probably a Paleo-Siberian (Nivkh, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Na-Dené, and perhaps also Yeniseian) haplogroup in origin, and it has probably been present in the coastal regions of the Russian Far East and the Korean Peninsula since Paleolithic times. I suspect that the ancestral Paleolithic population in which Haplogroup C3 originated was probably in close contact and interacting with the Paleolithic population in which Haplogroup Q originated, so Haplogroup C3 is probably related somehow to the genesis of the ancestral proto-Americanoid population. Ebizur 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I really overused the word "probably" in that last paragraph, didn't I? I need to learn to write with more confidence. Anyway, I just wanted to flesh out the current picture of Haplogroup C3 distribution and diversity. At present, it seems that there are six major clusters of Haplogroup C3:

1) Turco-Mongol C3-M217* (includes the "star cluster" that is presumed to be connected to the patrilineal relatives of Genghis Khan)

2) Manchu-Tungus C3c-M86 (includes the cluster of STR haplotypes that is presumed to be connected to the patrilineal relatives of Nurhaci, the founder of the Qing Dynasty)

3) Southeast Asian C3-M217* (a very diverse group that includes most of the Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes found among Han Chinese, Vietnamese, Malay, and Filipino populations)

4) Korean C3-M217* (another very diverse group that is closely related neither to the Turco-Mongol C3* nor to the Manchu-Tungus C3c)

5) "Japanese" C3-M217* and C3a-M93 (a relatively undiverse group that surprisingly appears to be most closely related to some Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes that are found at very low frequency among Europeans rather than to any of the East Asian C3 clusters)

6) Na-Dené C3b-P39 (a relatively distinct and isolated branch that includes almost all the Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes found among indigenous peoples of the Americas)

So, according to the state of our knowledge of Haplogroup C3 at present, Haplogroup C3 cannot be used to demonstrate a close ethnic relationship between Koreans and any other population. If anything, the high diversity and unique clustering of Korean C3* Y-chromosomes is yet another piece of evidence (in addition to the high frequency of uniquely Korean O2b1* Y-chromosomes) that suggests that the Koreans have a very long history as a separate "race" (or "ethnic group" or whatever you want to call it). Ebizur 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, another study that I have just reviewed has found Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes in only 17 out of a sample of 101 Manchu males. If this is not a fluke due to regional variation within the Manchu population, then it means that only about 16.8% of Manchu males belong to Haplogroup C3, including approximately 8.9% in C3-M217* and approximately 7.9% in C3c-M48. Haplogroup C3c-M48 appears to be a very recently-expanded "Altaic" haplogroup that is found mainly in Mongolians and Kazakhs. Haplogroup C3c-M48 has not been found in any sample of Koreans as far as I know, and it is also not found among Han Chinese. However, Hammer et al.'s "Dual origins of the Japanese" article reported three Japanese individuals (among their sample of 259) who displayed the M86 mutation, which is believed to be a subclade of C3c that has expanded during historical times, mainly among Siberian Tungusic tribes. I would not be surprised if the sporadic instances of Haplogroup C3c-M86 and Haplogroup N3a-M178 among Japanese (and perhaps also some of the Japanese individuals who belong to the Haplogroup Q-P36, Haplogroup I-P19, and Haplogroup R-M207 clades) were due to the historically recorded invasions of the 肅愼 (Sushen, Suksin) to the Hokuriku and Ezo regions of Japan. In fact, I have read on a Japanese website that Haplogroup N is especially frequent in Japan in the area around the Noto Peninsula on the Japan Sea coast, which is part of the Hokuriku region that was invaded by the so-called "Sushen" (or Mishipase/Ashipase). In any case, Haplogroup C3c Y-chromosomes have not been found even sporadically among Koreans or Han Chinese, which basically precludes any possibility of a major ethnic mixing between Mongolians and either Koreans or Han Chinese during the historical and proto-historical periods. Haplogroup C3* is found at moderate frequency among both Manchus (approx. 8.9%) and Koreans (approx. 16.5% among South Koreans and approx. 12.7% among Korean Chinese) as well as among northern Han Chinese (as much as 9.5% in a sample of 42 Northern Hans), so the possibility of recent intermixture between Northern Hans, proto-Manchus, and proto-Koreans seems much more likely. The proto-Turco-Mongolians were probably isolated (perhaps by the Gobi Desert) from the East Asian groups and more involved with the Indo-European Scythians and Uralic Samoyeds that dwelt to their west. Ebizur 04:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Caps

Hello, please do not type in caps in edit summaries: Han Chinese. It can be viewed as shouting. Your edit summaries don't need to be long sentences, a simple "no evidence of genetic relationship" would be fine. I agree with your edit, by the way. Thanks. Sirrägh 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

mTDNA of Japanese

Any thoughts on this? Cydevil 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More than anything else, I think this reflects the fact that the population of Japan has not gone through any bottleneck for a very long time. I have read studies that have found 0% of the mtDNA sequences to match in a comparison between samples of Han Chinese and Japanese. Dr. Horai's finding that approximately 25% of Japanese mtDNA sequences were of the "common Han Chinese type" (I believe this is mtDNA Haplogroup D5) does not mean that these female ancestors were historical Chinese immigrants; I think this 25% of mtDNA in Japan that is similar to the common Han Chinese mtDNA type(s) is more likely to reflect the continuation in Japan of a female line that happened to become extremely frequent among the Han Chinese. It seems rather parallel to the approximately 20% of Haplogroup O3-M122 Y-DNA that is found among modern Japanese. I would predict that the approximately 25% of "Han Chinese type" mtDNA to which Dr. Horai refers in that blurb is only related to actual Han Chinese samples at the same level as the approximately 20% of "Han Chinese type" Y-DNA that is found in Japan is related to actual Han Chinese O3-M122 Y-chromosomes. One should keep in mind that a similar or even greater percentage of the Y-DNA of even Polynesian populations is also of that "Han Chinese type." Ebizur 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fundamentally wrong to try to relate a certain haplogroup to a specific historical or present-day ethnicity. For example, the mtDNA haplogroup that is most common among Han Chinese (D5, I believe) is also the most common mtDNA haplogroup among most Siberian "Altaic" populations. Does that mean that Siberians are also Han Chinese? No, of course not. It just means that most present-day Siberians and Han Chinese are directly descended in the maternal line from a female ancestor who lived more recently than the common matrilineal ancestor of most Siberians or Han Chinese and, say, Iraqis. There is also a great deal of evidence to suggest that mitochondrial DNA is directly subject to evolutionary selection, which makes me strongly favor Y-DNA over mtDNA in comparisons among human populations. Ebizur 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines

Re: Closely related to Malays and Indonesians?...

I'm changing the text to the following: "The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples closely related to the people of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia" I have good sources, as listed in the notes. Found no sources for Indonesia/Malaysia. Thanks for pointing this out!!!! --Ling.Nut 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

Someone broached the subject on genetic anthropology. I don't know if I provided a good answer for it. I think an opinion from someone well-versed in this field might be useful. Please check it out if you're interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goguryeo Cydevil38 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:China ethnolinguistic 83 edit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:China ethnolinguistic 83 edit.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

Your edit regarding retention of ancestral characteristics was injected between a citation's content and the citation's source, the Encyclopedia Britannica. Does the content of your edit come from the Encyclopedia Britannica or is it original research? If it is original research, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.----^DarkTea© 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese language

Hi, I noticed you removed a section of text because the reference was not in English, saying References must be in the English language in your edit summary. I believe this is incorrect. WP:CITE says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Would you consider restoring the text? Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The critical parts here are "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate" and "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." The assertion that was being made (i.e., that there is a "systematic correspondence" among the Mongolian, Manchu, and Japanese languages) is not the sort of assertion for which one might appropriately cite a German-language text as a reference in the English-language Wikipedia. In addition, the editor did not provide an English translation of the relevant section of the cited German text as required per the rules you quoted above.

I would be against restoring the text even if an English-language source (or a translation of the previously cited German-language source) were provided, however, because the hypothesis of a common origin of the Mongolian, Manchu, and Japanese languages is extremely controversial. This hypothesis has not been proven to a degree that a majority of Japanese language specialists would accept the deleted claim of a "systematic correspondence" among these three languages. Basically, a claim of that sort does not belong on the Japanese language wiki-page (except in the subsection about classification of the Japanese language); you might post it on the Altaic languages page instead if you desperately want to resurrect the deleted text and citation. Ebizur (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) nominated for deletion

Category:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. Sasha l (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ainu people

Thank you for the alert on the lapse. I corrected Ainu for Jomon now, thanks Jenny^Len☤ 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Y-chromosomal Aaron

Hi. I'm involved in a content disagreement with User:Chriscohen at Y-chromosomal Aaron. Basically, he won't accept that Cohens in J1 and Cohens in J2 can't have had a common ancestor since before Haplogroup J split -- long before Biblical times. And that the evidence of longer STR signatures fully reflects this, despite what may have been asserted back in 1998.

As I see you've actively edited several Y-DNA articles, including Haplogroup J (Y-DNA), can I ask for your mediation? I'd like to try to stop this turning into an edit war. Jheald (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ainu in Honshu

Hi,

Wondering why you want a ref for Ainu in language isolate, but no other language, and then only for certain parts of its range. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is because I have studied the Ainu language myself, and I have never encountered any record of the language being spoken in Honshuu. Ebizur (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any history of Japan should have it. Wars with the Ainu as the Japanese moved into Kantō, Ainu place names south nearly to Nagoya, etc. Last time I was in Kinukuniya, I saw a book on one of the display tables claiming the samurai were predominantly of Ainu descent. I don't know if there's anything to that, but it shows that the idea of eastern Honshū being originally Ainu is common knowledge in Japan. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that there was ever any significant number of speakers of the Ainu language in Honshuu is one of those persistent pseudoscientific rumors that belongs in the company of Sasquatch and Aryan supermen. It is not substantiated by historical or ethnographical evidence. Ebizur (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? — kwami (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan (Weiner 2004)? Or any of the dozens of books you can find on Google by searching Ainu+Honshu? — kwami (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bestowed title of the King of Wa

Hi Ebizur, thanks for your editing the article, Kofun period. I noticed the inaccurate reference misled our misinterpretation about the bestowed title of the King of Wa. Would you comment my note in the talk page of the article? Thanks.--Amagase (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Korean language, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Appletrees (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ottosei

Hi,

What's your evidence that ottosei is a Chinese borrowing?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the Ainu language talk page: [4]. Ebizur (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

J* Pakistan & J1 Negev 82%?

Hi Ebizur I came to you because I know you are the Y-wizard so maybe you can help me out with 2 questions :)

• Pakistan J* 3%. After I combined all Pakistan samples it was near 1%. Am I missing a study that found big % of J*?
• Negev 82% I seen it alot on the web. I used to think it was Nebel? (he had the 21/32 62% do you have any information on the accuracy/source of 82% Negev)

Thanks in advance for your help :) Cadenas2008 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sudanese DNA

Hi Ebizur,

Hassan had a map with populations showing:

South (Dinka, Shilluk , Nuer, Borgu, Nuba) all had 0% M267, but you are right though I should reword it without changing it to Northern Sudanese. Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I should have explained my reason for that reversion more clearly, but I ran out of space in the "edit summary" field.

I don't have any problem with pointing out the fact that most of the haplogroup J(xJ2) Y-DNA in the Sudanese samples of Hassan et al. (2008) has been found in the samples of "Northern Sudanese" (Arabs, Nubians, etc.), but it is crucial that you not make any edits to the text that would cause it to be factually incorrect. If you want to change "Sudanese" to "Northern Sudanese," then you must also change the haplogroup J(xJ2) percentage accordingly. Changing "21% J(xJ2) in the Sudanese" to "21% J(xJ2) in the Northern Sudanese" is simply inaccurate.

For example, if you would group the Nubians, Beja, Copts, and the three Arab populations (Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien) together as "Northern Sudanese," then the frequency of haplogroup J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in this pool of samples should be 90/216 = 41.7%, and not 94/445 = 21.1%. Ebizur (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

BT vs A

Which one is it!? The BT article claims BT split from A, then recent edits on the A article split A from Adam. For now I just added BT as a descendant of A, I have my reservations on where A starts, but aslong as BT article says BT came directly from the new "I guess" Y-Chromosmal Adam, then the article should state that A shares a common origin with BT, since some edits & recent papers show that don't want to recognize A as Adam anymore! Cadenas2008 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

G list

I addded the Cypriots I was just adding regions on top of my head forgot about Crete. I think I left out a couple more regions with 10% or so, feel free to add them or if you want shrink the list back to Ossetians, Georgians & Balkarians. (all comfortably over 20%) Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Kalash

Kalash populations are not just in Pakistan as they had migrated from various places, in different times, in South Asia. Bulk of the majority have now settled in Pakistan. I don't see any reasonable reason to not include a side note with "Pakistan" unless a standard is formed and implemented for everything on that page, or wikipedia in general. Cosmos416 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Data if you are interested

Noticed you are a bit of a haplogroup statistics collector. I have worked on a Wiki which has an E-M35 bias. Some are collections of data: http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Data--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup C3 (Y-DNA)

I noticed that you have made a number of edits to this page. The frequency data is a bit much for the infobox, it would be better placed in a stand alone table or a graph.PB666 ^yap 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a article

Hi. Saw your recent edit to R1a. As a recent editor on the article your perspective on the talk page discussions right now would be appreciated. Things are slightly messy, but a few outside views might work wonders. I am writing to all recent editors of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it looks hard to get into but that is just because of the failed discussions on the talkpage. I have tried to make it easy with a diff, so that you can compare two proposed versions of the R1a article. Most differences of opinion have been to do with wording, and the question of what is encyclopedic. For example, is the word haplogroup jargon that should be removed from this article about a haplogroup? See [5].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

R1b

I am looking at a number of edits on the R1b page, the problem is that recent edits have been adding more and more frequency information in sentences that clutter up the page and make it less encyclopedic. There are two possible solutions that would improve the page. 1. to create a list page as was done for R1a. 2 to create tables in the page for the most important frequency information.PB666 ^yap 16:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the future

[6] these kinds of edit summaries border on ownership, please refrain from making them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Koshijin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Koshijin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koshijin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) and Georgian Issue

Hallo Ebizur, I am happy to see you being so interested in genetic origins of so many peoples, including Georgians. On Pages Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) and Georgians you claim Georgians to have 72% of J2 Haplogroup that is simply impossible. You also provided Sources that I assume you have not read enough. First of all, you used my Ref. on page Georgians claiming high frequency of G Haplogroup in Georgians to substantiate high frequency of J2 Haplogroup that is utter nonsense.

To be short, the sources you provided -- Ornella Semino et al., "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective," Science Vol 290 10 November 2000 -- I checked http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.2145&rep=rep1&type=pdf and it contains no constantation that Georgians have 72% of J2 Haplogroup. On the contrary i provided credible and respectable source (That u later falsely attached to your dgujments) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/fig_tab/5201934f2.html#figure-title that clearly demonstrates Georgians Having extremely high % of G Haplogroup (NOT J2) and moderately low J2 Haplogroup!!!! PLEASE, double-check your sources and provide cognitive, credible edition of the articles if you still think my position is not persuasive and based enough. BEFORE THAT, I HAVE TO change both articles (Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) and Georgians) containing incorrect info. Thnx for understanding and your contributions. Best regards, Niko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickniko (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ebizur, first of all i would persistently suggest you to WATCH YOUR MOUTH and have some common courtesy when posting on Wikipedia, otherwise you will be playing dumb all your life. Secondly, take a good look at my previous comment above before touching the keyboard. Now, back to business!!! Your Links: Semino ( http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf ) defines 33.3 units of Hlotype EU 9 in Georgians. If u takes a good look below that table, EU 9 consists of M89-T, M172-G! M89 is haplogroup G!!!! Wells ( http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244.full.pdf ) on page 2 shows Svan Georgians with 92% M89 and Kazbegi Georgians with 72% M172. If you scroll to page 3 map you see Kazbegi Georgians with mostly M89!!!! So the source is bias and contradictious! ALSO, VERY, VERY, VERY important to note that population of kazbegi ( Stepantsminda ) is 1820 people, pretty mixed with historical tribes artificially exiled into Georgia for protecting northern gates, SO making assumption about 5 million Georgians based on 1820 Kazbegians is utter ignorance. On the other hand, I provided perfect source http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/fig_tab/5201934f2.html#figure-title clearly stating in Georgians haplogroup G to be dominant and J around 10% only! I would recommend you thinking twice and providing cognitive answer before changing the articles! Thnx. Niko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickniko (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)

Please review and comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ainu Mtdna M7a and N9b

You posted this "only 1/51 modern Ainus has been assigned to N9b, and M7a is no more frequent among them than among other pops of Japan"

I'm sure you're well aware Ainu are direct descendants of Jomon but were genetically influenced by Nivkhs, this explains why haplogroup C3 in Ainu people and why mtDNA Y is so frequent. Ainu also intermarried with the Japanese population as-well, which explains there frequency of D which furthered diluted their pre-jomon mtDNA. Pure ainu are only around 100, while almost all the Ainu are mixed. YOU KNOW THAT DON'T YOU? so why do you insist on removing those pre-jomon mtDNA haplogroups.

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Tanaka_2004.pdf http://so.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/ViewHTML/PeriodicalPaper_JJ025506212.aspx

" Haplogroups D1a, M7a, and N9b were observed in these individuals, and N9b was by far the most predominant. The fact that haplogroups N9b and M7a were observed in Hokkaido Jomons bore out the hypothesis that these haplogroups are the (pre-) Jomon contribution to the modern Japanese mtDNA "

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 8:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Ainu terms

Hello, I see you've edited extensively at List of Ainu terms. I raised an issue at Talk:List of Ainu terms over a month ago. If you have time, I'd appreciate your engagement there. Thanks. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Come join the Ainu Task Force!

Greetings, saw your edits at Ainu people and thought you might like to know that we just founded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Ainu task force. Hope to see you on the Members list! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup O-M122 (Y-DNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dieng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup O-M176 (Y-DNA)

Any chance you could have a look in at Talk:Haplogroup O-M176 (Y-DNA) ?

A new user, Chriting (talk · contribs) has been unhappy about the claim that this haplogroup is significant amongst the Manchu, and had been trying to remove the paper this was sourced to from the article, accusing the Japanese authors of having faked their data, and of it being incompatible with everything else that has been reported. (see eg this diff).

Because he's a new editor, the article was temporarily locked (rather than blocking him), to encourage him to use the talk page to work through his issues with the article.

However, it would be useful if somebody who really knows about Haplogroup O could engage with him. RebekahThorn (talk · contribs) suggested you, as it's not really her area, though she is the one who had been holding the line.

I appreciate it might not have been something you had wanted to get involved in, but I think it would be good if this could be worked through a little bit further on the talk page, before the page protection expires. (I think it has about a week to run).

Cheers, Jheald (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup O-M122 (Y-DNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weicheng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Haplogroup O-MSY2.2 (Y-DNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Daur and Xibe

Haplogroup O-M122 (Y-DNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vietnamese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Haplogroup O-MSY2.2 (Y-DNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Manus and New Ireland

Haplogroup O-M176 (Y-DNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South China

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup O-M95, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batak Toba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup B (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khakassians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup A (mtDNA), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chukchi and Khakas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup A (mtDNA), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Persians, Oroqen and Daur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup A (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nganasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup G (mtDNA), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese and Persians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup G (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kyrgyz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Haplogroup F (mtDNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wenshan, Dali, Fangcheng, Luxi, Yunnan and Shangsi

Haplogroup A (mtDNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wenshan, Alor, Fangcheng and Shangsi

Haplogroup G (mtDNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wenshan, Fangcheng and Shangsi

Haplogroup D (mtDNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wenshan and Alor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup B (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Haplogroup B (mtDNA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wenshan, Panfilov District, Fangcheng and Shangsi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup B (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tianzhu County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A question

Hi,

Recently I read the talk page of the entry on "Wa (Japan)" of your interesting debate back in 2007 with another user who appears to be editing that page on a regular basis. It seems to me the current version of the entry is somewhat unbalanced in its POV and also contains some possible misinformation about the term Wa (e.g. I am also not sure if Wa means "short person" in the ancient times). I did notice that you did not really change much of the entry after your discussion and I wonder did you change your view on this or is it just too much of a hassle to engage in edit wars? Just curious since I am also very interested in this topic.

P.S. If you know any updated scholarship on this matter, please let me know, as I would like to learn more. It seems the analysis in the entry on the word "Wa" is dominated by one article from Michael Carr, which I think is not contributing to the quality of the entry in the best possible way. More sources are needed.

Regards,

CCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCH1234 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shin-Kamigotō, Nagasaki may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• northeastern half of the [[Gotō Islands]] archipelago, which is the origin of the name Kamigotō (literally, "Upper Five Islands," in which "Five Islands" (''Gotō'') is the name of the entire

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add ref

see [7] [8] thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 05:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your help requested

Haplogroup E-V38, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ainu

I've reverted you. Sources need to discuss explicitly the Ainu and we should reflect what they say about the Ainu. If they do not, even if they are relevant, that would be original research - fine for an essay and the sort of thing we would find in a peer reviewed journal, but not here. Please don't just put this back in the article, if you think they do discuss the Ainu then use the talk page and show where they discuss the Ainu. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup K2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batak Toba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup O-M176, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oroqen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup O-M176, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batak Toba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ebizur. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ebizur. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroups K2a, K2a1, NO, NO1 etc

Hi Ebizur;

I welcome your participation on this complicated situation.

When I created the separate K2a1 and NO pages (in addition to K2a), I did consider a combined page, but I thought it might be more confusing.

The best sources are the trees in YFull 2017, ISOGG 2017 and the Supplementary Information provided by Poznik et al. 2016 (see fig. 15 on p. 21).

To cut a long story short, it's difficult to reconcile these sources, but I think the following is correct:

K2a (K-M2308) [M2308/Z4842 rs72618719] (Poznik) e.g. Ust’-Ishim

• K2a1 (K-M2313) [M2313/Z4858 S11799 rs72618746] (Poznik; not in ISOGG/YFull) e.g. Oase1
  • NO (K-M214) [M214 Page39 PAGES00039 rs2032674] (ISOGG calls this "NO1")
  • NO1~ (K-CTS707/M2306) [rs72617697] (ISOGG; not in Poznik/YFull)
  • K-Y28299 [no rs marker ID] (YFull; not in ISOGG/Poznik) e.g. one living individual from India (e.g. id:ERR445319)
    • K-Y28301 [no rs marker ID] (YFull; not in ISOGG/Poznik) e.g. two living individuals from India (id:ERR445238IND id:HG03742)

In other words, the above sources have identified ≥1 instances of M2308 (Poznik's K2a) occurring without M2313 (Poznik's K2a1) in some individuals, and ≥1 instances of M2335 individuals who possess M214 (ISOGG NO1) without CTS707(ISOGG NO1~), and YFull alone has the Y28299 and its subclade of Y28301. (In the event that any of these are refuted by a refereed, scientific publication, I am yet to hear of it.)

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the above. Regards,

Grant | Talk 13:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Grant.

Please refer to Poznik et al. 2016:

"4.4.11 Paragroup K2a1*: An Isolate Lineage Reveals Novel Substructure That Informs Reanalysis of Ust’-Ishim and Oase1

Within haplogroup K2, we observed one Y chromosome that did not fit into the known phylogeny. The lineage, carried by Telugu sample HG03742, is derived for the SNPs that define megahaplogroup K and for M526, which defines K(xLT), recently renamed K25. Though the lineage was ancestral for M214, which defines hgK2a/NO, it shared five derived alleles with the NO branch: M2308 (7,690,182 AT), M2313 (8,674,808 CT), M2335 (19,513,070 CT), M2339 (21,797,754 TC), and M2346 (23,617,006 GA). Thus, we initially classified it as a novel NO* lineage requiring redefinition of hgNO (Supplementary Figure 14d). No such lineage occurs in any of the seven prior Y-chromosome sequencing studies, however Karmin et al.74 identified the presence of such a lineage, carried by the Malay sample SSM016, within the sequences of Wong et al.

Ust’-Ishim, “a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia”

The Telugu lineage became particularly informative with the publication of the “Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia”13. We checked the “Ust’-Ishim” K2 lineage reported therein at each of the five sites listed above. The ancient human carried the derived T, with 22 reads of support, at M2308 and the ancestral allele at the other four sites. Thus, upon redefining K2a with M2308, we classify Ust’-Ishim as K2a*. We then define the parent branch of NO to be K2a1-M2313 and classify the isolate Telugu lineage, HG03742, as K2a1* (Supplementary Figure 15).

We checked the allele status in both HG03742 and Ust’-Ishim for the five known sites on lineages K2c-P261, K2c-P263, K2d-P402, and K2d-P403, and we checked the single-base insertion K2e-M147 that has been observed exclusively in two Indian samples. We observed the reference (ancestral) allele at all sites in both individuals.

Oase1, “an early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor”

The new branches that we defined above as ancestral to NO—K2a-M2308 and K2a1-M2313, which are united as branch #269 in Supplementary Figure 14d—inform our understanding of the Y-chromosome lineage of Oase1, “An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor”78. Based on ISOGG SNPs alone, the authors could not ascribe the lineage to any specific haplogroup of megagroup F, but we have increased granularity by reanalyzing these data.

Three Oase1 genotypes overlap with the IJK branch, and all were derived: 7,702,973 (TA), 7,792,789 (GA), and 21,571,895 (GA). Further, one genotype overlaps with the K branch, and Oase1 also carried the derived allele for this SNP: 15,842,844 (GA). Next, Oase1 carried the derived T at the M2308 transversion shared by Ust’-Ishim. Finally, data were available for just one of the four K2a1 SNPs, M2346, and Oase1 possessed an ancestral G. Therefore, the Oase1 lineage branches from our phylogeny before the Telugu lineage split with NO, but no earlier than the emergence of the Ust’-Ishim lineage."

I am not aware of any evidence to support a phylogenetic distinction between the Y-DNA lineage of the Ust'-Ishim specimen and the Y-DNA lineage of the Oase 1 specimen. The coverage for the Oase 1 specimen at relevant loci is worse than that for the Ust'-Ishim specimen, but phylogenetic analysis of the Y-DNA that has been sequenced allows one to assign both specimens to the same K2a-M2308(xK2a1-M2346) category. The extant Indian and Singapore Malay members of K2a(xNO-M214) are, in contrast, derived for the M2346 SNP but negative for the M214 SNP, and therefore may be labeled as K2a1-M2346(xNO-M214). Ebizur (talk)

OK. Perhaps the following may further clarify two of my main points in regard to these hgs.

I took Poznik's division of K-M2308 and K-M2313 and this statement – "the Oase1 lineage branches from our phylogeny before the ... split with NO, but no earlier than the emergence of ... Ust’-Ishim [K2a (K-M2308) according to Poznik]..." to mean that Oase1 is K2a1 (K-M2313). Perhaps I'm wrong.

My second main point is that each of the three trees cited above has unique features.

Poznik: the division of K2a and K2a1 not found in other phylogenies.

ISOGG: while it is more conservative, is the only one of these to posit a parallel sibling branch of NO1-M214 not mentioned elsewhere, i.e. "NO1~" (CTS707/M2306).

YFull: is the only tree with K-Y28299 as an official primary subclade of K2a(xNO), which as yet has no phylogenic name but has three living members, two in a sub-subclade (K-Y28301) – not, in other words, a "singleton".

Should we not reflect these in the relevant articles?

(As an aside, I see some interesting implications from these basal K2a subclades – relatively close to the paternal ancestors of N and O – being located in a band from India through Western Siberia to the Balkans, while K2b, K2c and K2d were/are further east.)

Grant | Talk 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

happy new year and "bump"

Hi Ebizur; in case you have missed it, can I draw your attention to my last comment in the section above. Thanks, Grant | Talk 10:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M117, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oroqen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup C-M217, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pashtun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup N-M231, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nenets and Khakas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Haplogroup L3

Hello, I tidied up some of the samples on Haplogroup L3, which were presented incorrectly. Please examine the text and urls for any other bits that I might have overlooked. 188.116.37.186 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Haplogroup N-M231 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oroqen

Haplogroup O-K18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pingtung

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup N-M231, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-K18, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M119, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atayal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup C-M217, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Uzbek, Pashtun and Hazara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup Y (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minnan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup M (mtDNA), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bama and Luocheng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ebizur. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup N (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minnan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup C-M217, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bolívar Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing references in Haplogroup articles

The sources in the Table of Frequencies in these articles are formatted with the {{harvnb}} template, as in {{harvnb|Vilar|2013}}. This template is used to generate a link from the text to a full reference in the references section at the end of an article, as in the examples at Template:Harvard citation no brackets/doc#Applications. The mtDNA Haploid group articles such as Haplogroup A (mtDNA) have no corresponding references at the bottom of the page. Without the list of full references there is no way to tell what papers the sources in the Table of Frequencies refer to. I know it is a lot of work maintaining this amount of information. It would be very helpful if you could add the full references to these articles. Thank you. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

More reference errors in articles

Hi Ebizur. You have added a reference to Haplogroup C-M217 with this edit, but the reference is producing an error. You added [[Ulch people|Ulchi]] 69%,<ref name="Balanovska2018" />. At the bottom of the page this produces the error Cite error: The named reference Balanovska2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Please add the complete reference when you edit articles. The complete reference is in Ulch people and is <ref name="Balanovska2018">E. V. Balanovska, Y. V. Bogunov, E. N. Kamenshikova, ''et al.'' (2018), "Demographic and Genetic Portraits of the Ulchi Population." ''Russian Journal of Genetics'', 2018, Vol. 54, No. 10, pp. 1245–1253. ISSN 1022-7954.</ref>, producing the result E. V. Balanovska, Y. V. Bogunov, E. N. Kamenshikova, et al. (2018), "Demographic and Genetic Portraits of the Ulchi Population." Russian Journal of Genetics, 2018, Vol. 54, No. 10, pp. 1245–1253. ISSN 1022-7954..

Many of your additions to haplogroup articles are producing errors like this. Please take the time to use complete references. Let me know if you need more help with references. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup C-M8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

POV by Hunan201p

Hey Ebizur, as you are very well informed with haplogroups and genetics, could you please take a look on the recent edits by Hunan201p . It appears that he makes POV changes on the haplogroup W and Tirkmen articles as well as on Hazara and other related topics. He was already reverted several times on Xiongnu from other users. (See the talk page of Xiongnu).2001:4BC9:811:7980:E9C5:258:28CA:8987 (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shikotan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reflexive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkistan (city), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolic peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M175, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherpa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ebizur reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ). Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup D-Z27276, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shannan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference "Jin2010"

Hello! I have been repairing broken reference names, and the article Tungusic peoples has one called "Jin2010" which I haven't been able to find anywhere. It looks like you added the reference with this edit, so I was wondering if you might be able to help track down the full text of that reference. Thank you! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

cf. Han-Jun Jin, Ki-Cheol Kim, and Wook Kim, "Genetic Diversity of Two Haploid Markers in the Udegey Population From Southeastern Siberia." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142 : 303–313 (2010). Ebizur (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Shanxi haplogroup C

Hi, hope I am writing this in the correct place but I see that you edited the wikipedia page for haplogroup C-F3393 and that a subclade of it, C1b1a1 (M356) is found in samples from Shanxi, China (I am assuming Han?). I unfortunately can not find the source/paper where this haplogroup's presence is discussed in Shanxi, would you happen to have a link handy or know where I can find more information about it? Thanks in advance TigerdocM (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to Hua Zhong, Hong Shi, Xue-Bin Qi, et al., "Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia." Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 55, 428–435; doi:10.1038/jhg.2010.40. According to Figure 1, haplogroup C5-M356 Y-DNA has been found in 3.28% of a sample of Xibe from Xinjiang (n=61), 2.30% of a sample of Indians (n=1053), 1.79% of a sample of Han from Shanxi (n=56), 1.10% of a sample from South Pakistan (n=91), and 0.53% of a sample of Uygur from Xinjiang (n=187). Ebizur (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and study/info linked, I will look it up! TigerdocM (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Haplogroup N (mtDNA)

added links pointing to Bangka, Ivatan, Surigaonon, Kankanaey and Mandar

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Genetic history of East Asians

added a link pointing to Kyrgyz

Haplogroup C-M217

added a link pointing to Bulgan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup M (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kampong Thom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

edits at Haplogroup A (mtDNA)

Hi Ebizur : I notice that one of your edits from October this year has a named reference Simao2018 about Paraguayan component, that was invoked but never defined. Do you have the full reference that can be inserted ? There are similar articles at a number of other related Haplogroup articles that also need some attention - which show in red bold text in their references section, so calling out to you as a significant editor on these pages to see where you can help. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup C-M217, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buryats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolic peoples.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup M (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abkhaz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M122, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alor and Kankanaey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-K18, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oroqen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup C-M217, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buryat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

About editing

Your mother tongue is not Japanese, and in the Japanese version of Wikipedia, you know that Japanese sources come first, but you insisted on English sources that Japanese people find difficult to understand, causing editorial disputes. The contents of the Haplogroup document were also not written on the talk page and no one agreed. Rlaladudtnr wrote in an editorial summary as if he had written on a talk page, but there was nothing written on the talk page. Rlaladudtnr deceived people with a false editorial summary and wrote in a document that was not agreed to by anyone. In addition, if you look at the editing history of Rlaladudtnr, the editing is one-time and only one document is written. Usually, people with editing behavior like Rlaladudtnr are those who use multiple accounts or are blocked. [9] In addition, 211.106.94.42, an IP from Korea, deceived people by writing false information in the editorial summary. [10] In other words, looking at the editorial summary, it can be seen that Rlarladudtnr and IP 222.100.85.103 from Korea are the same person, and they used multiple accounts called IP and ID in the same document, so they acted contrary to the editing guidelines. Looking at your global editing history, you edited it using Korean in the Korean version of Wikipedia I think I can understand your editorial intentions a little from your editing behavior in the Japanese version of Wikipedia.I don't think this is a place to erase all the unsatisfactory content in China.And it is not just a place to select sources to praise China. Identify whether you have multiple accounts with Rllaladudtnr.I want you to clarify that you are not a multiple account with Rlarladudtnr. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I want you to tell me if you are related to 2a00:23c7:dc8f:3901:7443:cd88:9e44:85c3 (IP from the UK), which was blocked in the Japanese version of Wikipedia.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have only one account on Wikipedia. I request that you quit making groundless accusations and arbitrarily deleting properly sourced material. Please try to clear your mind of unjust suspicions, and reconsider my editing and my comments to you without bias. Ebizur (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Banabakabiroshitha's edits on Haplogroup C-M217. He is clearly violating synthesis and mixing the results of multiple citations that refer to completely different subclades.Atsbi (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC).

August 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is I want to report a user who calls me obstinate dolt.. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This chinese idiot

Why this stupid chinese keeps making problems.You are an obstinate chinese dolt and you have chinchen mental problems. You must be punished like your chinese mother was punished by japanese soldiers. when japanese soldiers colonized Taiwan and Hong Kong, my grandfather punished your chinese mothers in taiwan and hongkong. お前の祖母とお前がどういう存在だったのか自覚しろ。150.249.156.59 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Funny thing is that in every country the words Chinese and Taiwanese and Hongkong Chinese are used as insults. Taiwanese = Chinese living on the island150.249.156.59 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Dude, I am not Chinese, and we all know that you are Korean. You can relax now, OK? Ebizur (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Haplogroup O-K18

Hello, Ebizur. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Haplogroup O-K18, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Haplogroup O-M176

Hello, Ebizur. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Haplogroup O-M176, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Haplogroup O-K18

Hello, Ebizur. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Haplogroup O-K18".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)