Southernaussie

E1b1b

Welcome to Wikipedia Concerning this edit, please note a few things... 1. If you need to explain something, use the talk page, do not just revert. Your edit needs explanation because... 2. It is not a reference that can be looked up. Please give details of the publication, and... 3. Furthermore it appears to be an article about emigrants from the area and does not sound like a source which could possibly trump the ones currently being used, which are the ones the whole field cites. Can you please explain at Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)? Regards --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take it the wrong way but I've re-set the wording and sourcing to how it was until AFTER any discussion is finished. You may not realize it, but this particular point has been the subject of a lot of careful argument and discussion about hot to source it correctly. (You can check in the archives of the article talk page.) Genetics is hard to source well on Wikipedia because it relies a lot, some would say far too much, on primary sources. So we need to at least be careful about how we use primary sources. To keep all discussion please keep discussion about the sourcing and article on the talk page of the article if you can. I am using your personal page now for the updating of you personally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you are still trying to find a way to say that E1b1b is thought to originate in the Middle East. Why? This is really not what any major source says. Concerning your new source, ISOGG, I know it very well as a member and a correspondent and colleague of the person who maintains it. (We are both admins of the E-M35 phylogeny project.) The ISOGG webpages are basically made to show the phylogeny of Y DNA haplogroups, and not to report the latest new. The snippets of information on the bottom of each page are not updated or sourced or intended to be authoritative. For the record I've talked to various people who've maintained the E page over the years and no one remembers putting that comment in or where it comes from. As I mentioned in my edit summary when I first removed this citation of yours, there has been extensive discussion on the article talk page. Have a look for example at: [1], [2].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you please use the article TALK page and not the article itself (edit summaries and inline comments) for inserting your comments? I am open to discussion of course, but this way is not working.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)